Triple-glazing. Popular misconceptions

Monty Gerhardy

Quote:
"up to 100% extra cost over double glazing for marginally better results. In fact double glazing with all the bells and whistles can even perform better than bog standard triple glazing.
Also triple glazing reduces your solar gain"

Soft coat 2G, 4-16Ar-4, u-value 1.2
Soft coat 3G, 4-16Ar-4-16Ar-4, u-value 0.7
A 40% improvement is marginal !

If anybody is charging 100% extra for 3G then the phrase ‘rip-off Ireland’ springs to mind. The reduction in solar gain would be offset against increased internal comfort and lower fuel bills. Solar gain is a double-edged sword. When you get it wrong – as generally happens here – it makes for an unpleasant environment. IMHO this is the achilles heel of BFRC energy rated windows. Nobodys making a fuss about this because; 1) 'A' ratings are being awarded to all and sundry, 2) Its rather difficult to understand but the labels look good so why worry

Monty

ardara1

you don't get the same a mount of light thru' triple glazing - so lights are assumed to be used more often.

Came across a very 'Eco' spec for big architectural Practice in Dublin (Ended up scrapping spec) - they'd specified triple glazing on the site - but WEIGHT of units lead to health and safety concerns for installers - weren't used.

Slig

Monty Gerhardy wrote: »

Quote:
"up to 100% extra cost over double glazing for marginally better results. In fact double glazing with all the bells and whistles can even perform better than bog standard triple glazing.
Also triple glazing reduces your solar gain"

Soft coat 2G, 4-16Ar-4, u-value 1.2
Soft coat 3G, 4-16Ar-4-16Ar-4, u-value 0.7
A 40% improvement is marginal !

If anybody is charging 100% extra for 3G then the phrase ‘rip-off Ireland’ springs to mind. The reduction in solar gain would be offset against increased internal comfort and lower fuel bills. Solar gain is a double-edged sword. When you get it wrong – as generally happens here – it makes for an unpleasant environment. IMHO this is the achilles heel of BFRC energy rated windows. Nobodys making a fuss about this because; 1) 'A' ratings are being awarded to all and sundry, 2) Its rather difficult to understand but the labels look good so why worry

Monty

if you are comparing high spec against high spec then obviously triple glazing is going to come out on top. 40% increase in the windows will also need to be reflected in the frame and as we all know anything out of the ordinary in this country is a license for the supplier to pick a number

sinnerboy

+30~40% extra cost for TG vs DG - in my experience

Mellor

Monty Gerhardy wrote: »

Soft coat 2G, 4-16Ar-4, u-value 1.2
Soft coat 3G, 4-16Ar-4-16Ar-4, u-value 0.7
A 40% improvement is marginal !

A 40% improvment isn't marginal by any means,
but its not a very honest value is it.
Its not 40% when the frame is included, and the frame loses more heat than the glass spec'd above.

Anybody care to post real values, high spec double verses triple, for a normal sized ope.


And as mentioned reduced solar transmittance will increase lighting load and heating load.
The energy saved is greater, and 3xglazed still save energy, but not at the same rate as the "real" u-value suggests

Monty Gerhardy

Mellor wrote: »

but its not a very honest value is it.

The data I have quoted is taken from Pilkington and in accordance with EN673 calculations for center of glass u-values. Frame material, edge effect and spacer systems are explicitly excluded. If you have issues with the data you might take it up with Pilkington, or if you have the testicular fortitude, perhaps you might entertain the forum by airing your theories here.

The title of the thread is quiet specific and the content of my post pertinent. If you want to start yet another discourse about whole-window u-values then work away.

Monty

muffler

Monty Gerhardy wrote: »

The data I have quoted is taken from Pilkington and in accordance with EN673 calculations for center of glass u-values. Frame material, edge effect and spacer systems are explicitly excluded. If you have issues with the data you might take it up with Pilkington, or if you have the testicular fortitude, perhaps you might entertain the forum by airing your theories here.

The title of the thread is quiet specific and the content of my post pertinent. If you want to start yet another discourse about whole-window u-values then work away.

Monty

Just be a bit more careful with your choice of words. This matter can and will be debated in an adult fashion. End of lesson.

Poor Uncle Tom

sinnerboy wrote: »

+30~40% extra cost for TG vs DG - in my experience

Exactly what I found when I priced windows for storey and a half 2 weeks ago.

Mellor

Monty Gerhardy wrote: »

The data I have quoted is taken from Pilkington and in accordance with EN673 calculations for center of glass u-values. Frame material, edge effect and spacer systems are explicitly excluded. If you have issues with the data you might take it up with Pilkington, or if you have the testicular fortitude, perhaps you might entertain the forum by airing your theories here.

Pilkington measure that way because it the how you measure glass.
I have no issue with the data, I am certain its is accurate and above board.

It was the 40% I had a problem, as far as I am aware, comparing triple glazed units to double glazed units, and claiming a 40% impovement is not in accordance with any BS or similar standard, and is certianly not done by Pilkington or any other reputable manufacturer.

The U-value of glass alone is an import bit of info, but one must know who to understand it. The average lay person wint, so those of us that do should try our best not to post info that might potentially mislead.

The title of the thread is quiet specific and the content of my post pertinent. If you want to start yet another discourse about whole-window u-values then work away.

The title does refer to only "triple glazing" and not windows. And you post is pertinent, I can't disagree there, however discussion of glass alone is not really relevent to the forum or its users, as it is mostly focused on domestic units. It would be a little pointless of me to lock this thread and then start a new one on "window units". The most logically thing is to expand the topic here.
If you feel that it doesn't fit in with the specific title, then let me know and i'll change the title.


Finally, Ditch the attitude. We should all be civil here.
I see no reason why I should entertain any user speaking to any other user like that. Superiority Complexs to be left at the door.

Regards

Monty Gerhardy

Mellor wrote: »

Pilkington measure that way because it the how you measure glass.
I have no issue with the data, I am certain its is accurate and above board.

It was the 40% I had a problem, as far as I am aware, comparing triple glazed units to double glazed units, and claiming a 40% impovement is not in accordance with any BS or similar standard, and is certianly not done by Pilkington or any other reputable manufacturer.

The U-value of glass alone is an import bit of info, but one must know who to understand it. The average lay person wint, so those of us that do should try our best not to post info that might potentially mislead.


The title does refer to only "triple glazing" and not windows. And you post is pertinent, I can't disagree there, however discussion of glass alone is not really relevent to the forum or its users, as it is mostly focused on domestic units. It would be a little pointless of me to lock this thread and then start a new one on "window units". The most logically thing is to expand the topic here.
If you feel that it doesn't fit in with the specific title, then let me know and i'll change the title.


Finally, Ditch the attitude. We should all be civil here.
I see no reason why I should entertain any user speaking to any other user like that. Superiority Complexs to be left at the door.

Regards

Double standards should also be left at the door. Patronising commentary above, and elsewhere, is rather rich considering you initial remarked of my post - “but its not a very honest value is it”.

Any British and EN Standards regarding glass or windows that I am familiar with prescribe methodology for testing and classification. They are not designed for comparisons. That is nothing more complicated then junior cert math – the percentage difference between one BS derived value and another. A perfectly valid procedure.

You're right about the 40% improvement...it appears to be an underestimate!
http://www.careyglasssolar.com/CareysEliteSe.pdf

I personally would categorise Carey Glass as a reputable manufacturer and the particular brochure would appear to be aimed at ‘the average lay person’. If there is anything in the brochure that you think ‘might potentially mislead’, then perhaps you ought to take it up with Careys or the Advertising Standards Authority.

I started the thread because I think it’s important that there is a wider understanding of the benefits of triple glazing (3G). You’ll have noticed I haven’t claimed that the windows are going to be 40% better or you’re going to save 40% of your fuel bills just by using 3G. Some throwaway comment about a 100% extra cost for marginally better results is demonstrably misleading. With modern windows expected to last well in excess of 30 years – including glazing units – and with energy costs expected to rise in real terms at circa 6% annually (UK figure) anybody considering replacing windows or building a house – the domestic market - should be looking at the initial cost and offsetting energy savings based on those numbers.

Industry professionals should be ahead of the curve on this but in general this doesn’t appear to be the case. As we move towards Passive House standards of energy consumption then 3G will become far more prevalent and I would expect prices will fall to somewhere around 25% over current high performance 2G. The specification for Phase 4 of Ballymun (circa 500 dwellings in total) has a window u-value of 0.8. This can currently best be achieved with windows utilising triple-glazing and frames of comparable performance.

If I’m not welcome here I’ll leave you to it but reading some of the ‘advice’ I have read here my advice would be caveat emptor.

Monty

Mellor

Monty Gerhardy wrote: »

Any British and EN Standards regarding glass or windows that I am familiar with prescribe methodology for testing and classification. They are not designed for comparisons. That is nothing more complicated then junior cert math – the percentage difference between one BS derived value and another. A perfectly valid procedure.

For comparing the glass its self not the units.
i am confidant that you understand the difference. A layperson may not. Thats is why I feel that we should do our best to make it clear.

You're right about the 40% improvement...it appears to be an underestimate!
http://www.careyglasssolar.com/CareysEliteSe.pdf

Thats comparing plain glass with top top spec. 2.5 vrs 0.7
Hardly like with like, soncidering its the coating that offers the biggest improvment.

I personally would categorise Carey Glass as a reputable manufacturer and the particular brochure would appear to be aimed at ‘the average lay person’. If there is anything in the brochure that you think ‘might potentially mislead’, then perhaps you ought to take it up with Careys or the Advertising Standards Authority.

I have no problem with them, they offer their inof up in its best light. Discounting the frames, just like all the other insulation manufactures do with their products. It doesn't breach any standards, but it you understand that the frame makes a difference they I think you should include that in your post.

I started the thread because I think it’s important that there is a wider understanding of the benefits of triple glazing (3G). You’ll have noticed I haven’t claimed that the windows are going to be 40% better or you’re going to save 40% of your fuel bills just by using 3G. Some throwaway comment about a 100% extra cost for marginally better results is demonstrably misleading.

No you didn't make those claims. I never siad you did.
I was just makign it clear for anyone who might be mislead or confused. Not everyone understands these numbers. I don't see how you have a problem with this.
Also, the 100% cost value was also quoted as being wrong or misleading. Both sides were treated the same.

If I’m not welcome here I’ll leave you to it but reading some of the ‘advice’ I have read here my advice would be caveat emptor.

Of course you are welcome. In the hand ful of posts you have made you have been quite informative. I have acknowledged this elsewhere.
I also agree that some advice posted here, including those regarding 3G, has been way of the mark. If I had seen the original comment about 100% cost and marginal performance I also would of objected to it. I think this thread was needed. Thanks

But, I am more interested in performance values than lab values. In the past we all knew the glass was the worse part, so we knew all about improvements, 3G, low e, soft e etc.
But the frame sort of stagnated at timber and PVC. We all know that alu-windows need a thermal break. But not many know of improved timber frames (I have seen just one)
But what is the best frame out there? Is there one close to the 0.7 of windows. I know the best that I have seen. But I be very interested to hear the best that you or others have seen.

sinnerboy

DEAP calc on a detached house

Target B Rating 312 m2 floor area , Dublin . Conventional design , pitched roof "hole in wall" windows .

U values

Ground floor 0.13 ( 121m2)
Roof 0.13 ( 165m2)
Ext walls 0.18 (220m2)

Windows (48m2)

- Double glazed 1.2 - BER B1 91 kwh/m2/year
- Triple glazed 0.7 - BER B1 86 kwh/m2/year

5kwh/m2/year , X 312 = 1560 kwh/year
Fuel in this case is natural gas 90% efficient boiler
From SEI fuel cost comparison chart April 08 - cost is 5.69 cents / kwh
So saving is 1560 x €0.0569 = €88.77 . Annually

Extra over cost for TG is not known yet , but going on previous experience , expected to be circa €5k . (48*500 ) -(48-400) .

ircoha

Interesting post thus far.

The role that psychology plays in this process is also very important.
[Have just enrolled for a 2 semester course on same so come May 2009...:) ]

The psychology, from the clients perspective, of doing the right thing, for planet/country/etc is important and I dont think the hard, wallet based, math on paybacks etc will always prevail.

On SB's estimates above a simple payback of 50+ years, at current fuel prices, make the discussion pretty academic. However it 'neglects' the benefit of future proofing for ever-increasing standards.

Equally, from the builders perspective, his instinct, particularly in the current climate, will be to drive down the cost the client sees, and therfore may try deter the client from 'doing the right thing'.

I certainly belive that clients like to have a feel good factor about what they do.

The other point which is a constant bugbear of mine is that as we improve the performance of individual elements that there is not a corresponding increase in the other building elements as well as the requisite building standards and adherence thereto that ensure the whole structure works together most effectively.

The idea mentioned above about get a better performing frame is a case in point.

As a footnote, I would have thought, for the casual reader, that 2G and 3G were best left to the telecomms world

Monty Gerhardy

Mellor wrote: »

But, I am more interested in performance values than lab values. In the past we all knew the glass was the worse part, so we knew all about improvements, 3G, low e, soft e etc.
But the frame sort of stagnated at timber and PVC. We all know that alu-windows need a thermal break. But not many know of improved timber frames (I have seen just one)
But what is the best frame out there? Is there one close to the 0.7 of windows. I know the best that I have seen. But I be very interested to hear the best that you or others have seen.

There are various type of framing systems that can achieve u-values around the 0.7 mark. Timber with either cork or synthetic thermal breaks, PVCu, Fiberglass, Timber-fiberglass composites. The 0.8 Passiv Haus requirement is the target u-value that the industry is focusing on and development of framing materials is based on this. U-values can be lowered further (guess which indigenous manufacturer has a 0.6 whole window?) but the frame sections would become larger which has its downsides. My own feeling is that fibreglass is the material with the greatest potential over the long term.

Monty

Monty Gerhardy

sinnerboy wrote: »

DEAP calc on a detached house

From SEI fuel cost comparison chart April 08 - cost is 5.69 cents / kwh
So saving is 1560 x €0.0569 = €88.77 . Annually

Extra over cost for TG is not known yet , but going on previous experience , expected to be circa €5k . (48*500 ) -(48-400) .

I’ll be back to you on this shortly but as an appetiser take your annual savings, allow for real energy price inflation of say 6% (Pilkington assume a generous 10% by comparison) and calculate savings over a 45 year period. You might also take your starting point as 1.8 which would be representative of an average Irish window. I’ll come back to the timeframe as thats the interesting bit.

Monty

Monty Gerhardy

ircoha wrote: »

Interesting post thus far.

The role that psychology plays in this process is also very important.
[Have just enrolled for a 2 semester course on same so come May 2009...:) ]

The psychology, from the clients perspective, of doing the right thing, for planet/country/etc is important and I dont think the hard, wallet based, math on paybacks etc will always prevail.

On SB's estimates above a simple payback of 50+ years, at current fuel prices, make the discussion pretty academic. However it 'neglects' the benefit of future proofing for ever-increasing standards.

Pop psychology has never been my forte. I have usually based my arguments on economic grounds - If you have them by the wallet the heart and minds will generally follow.

Monty

sinnerboy

Monty Gerhardy wrote: »

I’ll be back to you on this shortly but as an appetiser take your annual savings, allow for real energy price inflation of say 6% (Pilkington assume a generous 10% by comparison) and calculate savings over a 45 year period. You might also take your starting point as 1.8 which would be representative of an average Irish window. I’ll come back to the timeframe as thats the interesting bit.

Monty

When i get a mo I will re compare window u values 1.8 vs 0.7

I would not expect any window to last 45 years however . If the windows don't payback in 20 years ...... I would not consider them a smart investment

However increasing building regs requirements may overtake such considerations

Simple Excell 25 year calc

At 6% fuel inflation

1 €89.00
2 €94.34
3 €100.00
4 €106.00
5 €112.36
6 €119.10
7 €126.25
8 €133.82
9 €141.85
10 €150.36
11 €159.39
12 €168.95
13 €179.09
14 €189.83
15 €201.22
16 €213.29
17 €226.09
18 €239.66
19 €254.04
20 €269.28
21 €285.44
22 €302.56
23 €320.71
24 €339.96
25 €360.36
€4,882.94

At 10% fuel inflation

1 €89.00
2 €94.34
3 €100.00
4 €110.00
5 €121.00
6 €133.10
7 €146.41
8 €161.05
9 €177.16
10 €194.87
11 €214.36
12 €235.80
13 €259.38
14 €285.31
15 €313.84
16 €345.23
17 €379.75
18 €417.73
19 €459.50
20 €505.45
21 €555.99 -- €5,299.27 at this point
22 €611.59
23 €672.75
24 €740.03
25 €814.03
€8,137.67

.

heinbloed

Investing in a building means not only to have a better comfort and to save on the heating costs. It also means that the building's market value will be increased or at least not being lost over time.The EU parliament has demanded from the EU comission to introduce the PassiveHouse standard as being mandatory from 2011 for all member states. So any building that has new windows installed nowadays which are not up to PH standard (like double glazing with simple frames, the U-value higher then 0.9 etc.) has defacto the initial costs for the below-standard windows WASTED. Since the retail value of a building will be determined by the market. And if a NEW building comes with triple glazing, in lets say ten years time, then why would the old building be more competitive? One would have to put in triple glazing if wanting to be competitive, after 10 years of lifetime of the old windows ripping them out -with a lot of side costs like re-plastering and dumping charges. And then purchasing new ones at inflated prices (glas manufacturing is an energy intensive process, so they won't be cheaper in the future, just the oposite).Future proofing a house ( investing in it !) means more then installing the legally required minimum standard.What might look futuristic today is bog-standard in future.We had the same discussion a couple of years ago about installing old banger boilers outside the house (those well known to the handy men calling themself plumbers) or installing modern condensing boilers within the house.The latter one has payed already for itself. Because ALL future energy price predictions of the past where based on wishfull thinking.Reality is the master of prediction.Pilkington's estimation of a homeheating energy price inflation of 10% is a very optimistic one. For this year's heating season compared to last years it is very likely to be 20-30%, depending on fuel and the efficiency of the heat generated.De facto it is a long time ago that we saw an anual energy price inflation of 10%. Only if we take the very old data into account as well then we'll get down to such a low percentage.

metalscrubber

First of all my I thank everyone who has contributed so far - excelent thread.

First to you Heinbloed - I agree entirly with the sentiment of what you say but realities bite also. I am currently talking to builders about my new build and am trying to make it as efficient / insulated /airtight as possible while realising I will never be able to make PH standard.
If all new housing stock from 2011 is built to PH standard then all that housing will be a lot more expensive than any second hand house on the market - granted they will be cheaper to run but my well built / but not PH house will be equally attractive to buyers because it will be €100,000 cheaper.
And in the meantime I have had the benefit of living in a modern efficient house that has not crippled me with mortgage repayments.


Which brings me to the second point Sinnerboy - Your calculations dont take any account of the cost of the capital for the triple glazing:

You used 45m/sq of windows - approx price difference is €5,000

Adding that 5K to my mortgage using simple interest at 4%PA over 20 years

Capital sum repayment is €250PA and interest is €200 the first year, dropping €10 each year:

Using the 6% fuel inflation model:
year energy saving capital loss / profit on year

1 89 450 361
2 94.34 440 345.66
3 100.0004 430 329.9996
4 106.000424 420 313.999576
5 112.3604494 410 297.6395506
6 119.1020764 400 280.8979236
7 126.248201 390 263.751799
8 133.8230931 380 246.1769069
9 141.8524786 370 228.1475214
10 150.3636274 360 209.6363726
11 159.385445 350 190.614555
12 168.9485717 340 171.0514283
13 179.085486 330 150.914514
14 189.8306152 320 130.1693848
15 201.2204521 310 108.7795479
16 213.2936792 300 86.70632081
17 226.0912999 290 63.90870006
18 239.6567779 280 40.34322207
19 254.0361846 270 15.96381539
20 269.2783557 260 -9.278355686
21 285.435057 250 -35.43505703
22 302.5611604 0 -302.5611604
23 320.7148301 0 -320.7148301
24 339.9577199 0 -339.9577199
25 360.3551831 0 -360.3551831
26 381.9764941 0 -381.9764941
27 404.8950837 0 -404.8950837
28 429.1887887 0 -429.1887887
29 454.940116 0 -454.940116
30 482.236523 0 -482.236523
31 511.1707144 0 -511.1707144

Payback is 31 years.

I probably will use 3G on my north face - there is only 2.5sqM of window there and 2G on the rest of the house.

Cheers,

Metal

metalscrubber

Apoligies - it seems formatting isn't my strongest suite!

Metal

heinbloed

Well, metalscrubber, there seem to be some misconceptions in your calculation.
First: houses that have been build today had been build with a highly speculative factor, by incompetent staff sold on a seller's market, bought by people who couldn't/didn't understand the impact of a longterm decision like for example a 90% or 100% mortgage with a 30 year running time. These houses will soon drop in value. But they have been sold at a high price. In the USA and
Spain and GB we see now the impact of such misconcepts.
The PH costs around 5% more then the standard house. Since the houses build today will loose their value a.) because they were overpriced anyhow and b.) better ones will come onto the market these houses build in the past 5 years will defacto have been more expensive to buy then a PH build/bought in 2011. Incl. inflation, or even deflation of prices.
So any building build nowadays is build cheaper then it would have been build two years ago. And a modern building build in 3 years time (2011) will be cheaper as if it was build today.Due to decreased labour costs, decreased mortgage costs and decreased costs of building sites.

The other misconception is your 6% inflation of energy prices. Check the SEI homepage, they have a web page showing the "% Change in Yearly Averages" of our Irish energy prices. I have it here, there is no direct link to such unimportant matter as energy prices via the SEI home page.
ALL predictions made by the SEI in the past about future energy prices have been profen wrong, the evidence is shown on the SEI homepage itself, but maybe that is the reason why they don't want to link it directly.
So I quote the anual changes from this official page:

Light fuel oil- Household(per 1000l,inc.tax) 2003-2004 it was plus 10.721%. 2004-2005 it was plus 25.141% . 2005-2006 it was 11.849% . 2006-2007 it was 0.281% .
For natural gas - Household(per107kilokaloriesGCV,excl.tax) 2003-2004 it was plus 2.964% .2004-2005 it was plus 15.395% .2005-2006 it was 38.034% .2006-2007 it was 0.781% .
The numbers for 2007-2008 are not available yet, but expect another rocket.
So where do you get an anual fuel price inflation of 6% from?!
I would say there is a huge misconcept in your monetarian calculations covering energy wise building methods (smiley). Relying on wishfull thinking (SEI data?) can cost a fortune.

sinnerboy

Metal - you are right - I assumed payment without borrowings . So you could run a calc on how much you would lose by not leaving €5k in a high interest deposit account

HB - we are not really disagreeing here
But most people will ( especially today - credit crunch CC) will be forced to build a less than ideal house . They can't get all they want or should have . Min building regs are set to rise soon again so this discussion may become irrelevant soon

On another recent project ( which is on hold because of CC and so I never got to do a DEAP calculation ) I sent out for pricing to 9 different windows companies

Here is a snapshot of the response

Triple Glazing

€112K - U Value 1.0 w/m2K - ( highest cost )
€91K - U value 0.7 w/m2K - ( lowest U Value )
€61K - U value 1.2 w/m2K - ( lowest cost )

Double Glazing

€93K - U Value 1.3 w/m2K - ( highest cost )
€78K - U value 1.2 w/m2K - ( lowest U Value )
€51k - U Value 1.4 w/m2K - ( lowest cost )

( U values vary from window size to window size of course - in each case I selected a window from the schedule approx 1.4m x 1.2m )

Faced with this it is not un reasonable to try to estimate a cost / benefit - imperfect as that may be to attempt - I know . With rising fuel prices you are rolling a dice

From the figures above lets say compare Triple glazing lowest U Value with Double glazing lowest U Value

€91K - U value 0.7 w/m2K

- Vs -

€78K U value 1.2 w/m2K -

€13K would buy a lot of wall / floor / roof insulation - a bigger surface area - bigger benefit . Apologies as I say I am not about to run a DEAP calc any time soon for this one so I can't quantify this for now

metalscrubber

Thanks Sinnerboy.

Can I ask - the project you quote there - how much glass is involved ?

Cheers,

Metal

West 1

What a lot of reading there lol, our triple glazing is only 10% more on the same type of specification, who charges 40% more?

It can make some insulation benefit and certainly if lowering the u-value (along with other considerations) but not 40% on an average unit.

sinnerboy

forum rules forbid me from saying who i got costs from . they forbid touting too

West 1

Hi, yes I am just offering some info/advice and trying very hard not to mention names lol

frag4

For me to buy a 32mm 3g kyton filled unit with a u value of 0.7 is 160euro a m2.
A double glazed 32mm argon/soft coat is 28-31euro a m2 . u-value 1.1
all price plus vat.
The kyton gas is 5000% more expenive then the argon.

Also a well made unit in decent conditions will only last 25 years (and the bigger they are the faster they fail.)
which means the unit will have failed by the time 3g hits pay back time.
I have yet to meet anyone in the trade who belives in it and even their own reps after the sales pattter admit its not needed in the Irish market.
Its like the gillette razors, quattro glazing anyone?

muffler

West 1 wrote: »

Hi, yes I am just offering some info/advice and trying very hard not to mention names lol

All help and advice is most welcome but any hint of pimping your business or touting will be met with a fate worse than death. Just be careful what you post please. Any queries then PM me or any of the mods here.

Mellor

frag4 wrote: »

For me to buy a 32mm 3g kyton filled unit with a u value of 0.7 is 160euro a m2.
A double glazed 32mm argon/soft coat is 28-31euro a m2 . u-value 1.1
all price plus vat.
The kyton gas is 5000% more expenive then the argon.

Krypton is more expensive than argon, but not 50x surely.
Also, the cost of the gas is minor in the over all cost of the window. A few euro.
Krypton gves slightly under twice the proformance as argon (of the gas filled space alone, not the whole unit)