Comparing 'old timber' to 'modern day timber'?

[Mr. Clueless]

This is purely just to satisfy my curiosity, nothing more.

You hear it all the time - they don't make it like they used to. Modern things are just thrown together - rush-rush-rush. No care for the quality & only consideration for timeframes.

This week we've had our timber floor renewed. I wondered about the difference in the quality of wood between the original joists & what would be used these days.

Looking at the joists end on, the grain looks to be much tighter on the old original (1930s) timber whereas it's more spaced out on the new stuff (stamped up C16 i think it was (& i forget the difference between C16 & C24, i think it's something to do with the knots?)).

The new timber is obviously tannalised (or supposed to be), whereas the old timber would've been god knows what & the ends have been wrapped in DPC on the new stuff whereas the original joists weren't.

Dimension wise the new stuff will be 150-x-50 or rather 147-x-47 i'd say, whereas the old stuff was proper 7"-x-2". But that's irrelevant anyway i guess. I'm just curious as to the quality difference, if any.





Side note: The old stuff had to come out because of dampness & the joist ends had started rotting.

 

[bernardgreen]

Most of the olden days timber came from old trees that had grown slowly hence the close ( dense ) grain pattern. A lot of today's timber comes from young trees that have grown rapidly leading to large gaps in the growth rings and hence a less dense grain pattern.

Also in olden days timber was allowed time to dry naturally and not force dried in kilns.

 

[Burnerman]

We used to buy a lot of softwood timber from Tallin, Estonia......it was marked K(crown)B for first class stuff, or K(star)B for a slightly inferior grade. The fast grown, fast dried crap that we get these days doesn't even come close to the K*B.
John

 

[Mr. Clueless]

Just in case any of you may know whether it'd be up to the job or not i'll ask anyway - but would you expect this new tannalised C16 timber with the ends wrapped up in DPC to be up to the job of being the floor joists?


And does anyone work with old type wood these days or is it just very very rare?

 

[AronSearle]

Faster grown softwood is weaker than slow grown softwood (hardwoods are different, in that hardwoods are actually stronger when fast grown).

But C16 is C16 (or C24 is C24), so as longs as it is strong enough for the job it does not really matter (other than to cause people to grumble about 'the good ole days'). Durability may be different, but as demonstrated here old timber will still rot if wet, so preservative exists for a reason.

Of course if the timber is on display it matters, but then you can specially order decent slow grown timber that will look no different than the old stuff.

Also in olden days timber was allowed time to dry naturally and not force dried in kilns.

Makes no difference.

Kilns are properly controlled to dry the timber using steam/temperature/humidy to properly dry it.

Newer timber may be more prone to splitting, because the trees are smaller and so square sections are more likely to contain pith (the center of the tree), timber with pith always splits.

But again, structurally this makes no difference.

I suspect that the common myth of kiln dried timber being inferior is due to some sources often drying it poorly.