Jim Walker's seminar at Surfaces 2010

rusty baker · February 6, 2010, 10:12 PM

I don't think the new rules will have any more affect than the old. Again, they will be written by organizations that a lot of people don't agree with. And most retailers don't care. They don't know the proper way to install and as long as they don't have complaints and get paid, they won't care how it is installed. I never had one retailer in all my years ask if I was following standards. In fact, I didn't know there was standards until I got a computer in 2003. 10 years from now, there will still be retailers and installers who don't know of the standards and don't care if they do know.

kwfloors · February 6, 2010, 10:15 PM

Yes, but when they have an inspection of something that was done through that store, they will know then.

rusty baker · February 6, 2010, 10:18 PM

I know of one store, having one inspection in my 37 years in this business. I have seen a few lousy installations where a mill rep gave the HO some money just to keep the store happy.

Dobby Tappet · February 7, 2010, 08:47 AM

Installation standards have absolutely nothing, and I do mean NOTHING to do with installation. They are not now, nor have they ever been intended for use as installation instructions. The sole purpose, function and benefit of installation standards is to determine liability in the event of a disputed failure.

Rusty is correct about the huge proportion of people in the trade who have no idea about the CRI standards. Even fewer people actually know what the CFI is 'really' about or the difference between the CRI & CFI. worst thing is, all of this information is free!

When the ANSI standards are released, they will sell for several hundred dollars per document. The people who never shared an interest or saw value in standards when they were free, are certainly not going to avail themselves of similar informative information for a fee. This is especially true for installers and even more so for those installers that already know everything. {{and that's most all of 'em!!}}

The ANSI standards will be used by manufactures, inspectors and their lawyers as the only conclusive, nationally and internationally, recognized standard of measure for installation related claims and failures. Either an installation will comply with the standard or it will not. Gone will be the subjective interpretations and allowances for regional trade practices typified in some the disagreements we see here on this site. Case in point, the use, benefit, application and detection of seam sealer.

Because what the ANSI standards will have, that the CRI and CFI have never been able to achieve, is, standards drafted, realized and accepted via an impartial consensus body drawn from a cross section of the flooring industry. Furthermore, anyone who says the ANSI standards are being written by the carpet cleaners has been misinformed and/or is otherwise flat out wrong. The ANSI standards are coming and they will change how claims are resolved and the uninformed installer & retailer are the one's standing the most to lose.

Then again, wouldn't the best thing that could occur within the installation trade be the elimination and/or demise of the uninformed installer & retailer through attrition or vacation?

Agree? Disagree?

Respectfully,

Dobby

rusty baker · February 7, 2010, 09:38 AM

I would expect the new standards to affect 5% or less of the installers. Probably about what it is now. The retailers that I have worked for, solved all installation problems themselves. I have replaced or repaired several jobs that others have installed. On the average residential job in my area, you are talking 100 yards or less of material. By the time an inspector is involved, it is cheaper for the store to just repair or replace the material. I guess I am in the minority. I think the majority of installers do a decent job.

Bill Watson · February 7, 2010, 09:43 AM

I am VERY familiar with CRI Standards, and CFI.
Does yet anyone know if, or how different, the new ANSI Standards for carpet will be?

Peter Kodner · February 7, 2010, 09:51 AM

Dobby, as we expect from you, a post that is well thought out, well written and has some controversy. Good job!!!

I agree with some and disagree with some of your pearls.

I agree standards are not intended to teach installation but feel they have more purpose than solely being used for litigation. Most people (maybe I'm too optimistic here) understand legal redress is a last course of action and they will rarely recieve a judgment for all they sue for.

I agree most who should be are not aware of their existence. Disagree that being available free is a detriment. It actually does not affect me if the general populace (or the industry) does not know the difference between CFI and CRI.

I will buy the standard when it is published as should be dictated by anyone who earns a livelihood applying them. I am hopeful they will not be one of the standards that are quite so expensive. I emphatically agree those who do not avail themselves of standards that are free to obtain will not buy them. Also those with an attitude of knowing it all or of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality will be non-participatory. "Hell, if it worked good for 20 years we don't have to grow with the changes" ... 'nuff said here.

I am not so pessimistic their only use will be mills, inspectors and lawyers as I have met many, many people within the industry who do actually care about the quality of the product or service they provide. Pros will still exist regardless of the standards being applied. I also have an understanding of the legal profession and their ability to create doubt between written word and physical evidence, I believe they call it raising reasonable doubt. There are some very sharp attorneys who can actually get folks to believe black is white, or vice versa, depending on which side they represent

Agree CFI has not issued anything that is considered a standard but disagree in that CRI has. No discussion of the good, bad or ugly in the documents, but I have found them to be accepted unquestioned by most within the industry. (Please refer back to the comment about the work attorneys do.) Will an ANSI letterhead versus a CRI letterhead provide much more "authority" to a standard that it will not be challenged whenever and wherever possible? I sincerely doubt it will.

Agree IICRC does not have any additional or undue influence over the content. IICRC, like other groups, merely have a seat at the table to collaborate on the writing of it. The additional responsibility to format and prepare it for publication is not related to and will have no bearing on the content. My hope is they were selected from a large pool of organizations who competed to perform that function.

I frankly do not see a dramatic change in how claims will be resolved by use of a new ANSI versus CRI standard as the theory behind the use of a standard is to have an objective written record of acceptable minimums to be applied to a physical location/job. Content unknown, it is only speculation at this point as to what will be clearer and what will be grayer as a result of the publication. I, for one, hope it will only clarify but practical experience tells me it will open whole new cans of worms in areas that are pretty straight forward now.

Do we need a new standard? I think it can prove very positive but change just for the sake of change can backfire too. Will it thin the herd (rid us of the sick and weak)? Again, one would hope so...

Dobby, thanks again for the thought provoking post.

With equal respect,

Peter

rusty baker · February 7, 2010, 09:53 AM

However the standards are written, if they don't comply exactly with what the mills want, they won't work. The mills will still have the final say on how their products are installed.

Peter Kodner · February 7, 2010, 10:05 AM

Rusty, as most if not all mills have a seat at the table writing the standards, and unless there is a unique difference in the construction of a specific product that would grant the mill a waiver, how would they construct a legal defense for this? Awfully difficult for a judge to accept they helped write the standard but will not allow it to be applied to their products...

Remember the sharp attorney rule... create doubt where none existed before...

Ed · February 7, 2010, 10:07 AM

Rg, I am am not an inspector,but as an installer, it seems you may have overlooked one more tool, the telephone. If an inspector called me and asked if I sealed I would tell them if I did not, they will find out anyway if they are going to look. Same with stretching, if you ask and they go into the spill about how they can get it tight with a kicker your question is answered. I dont know if it is common to contact the installer on an inspection or not, but it seems reasonable to me.

rusty baker · February 7, 2010, 10:29 AM

I would think an inspector would want to come in blind, with no idea what the installer says. With nothing to influence their decision except what they find.

Ed · February 7, 2010, 10:41 AM

I see your point Rusty but why would an installer say he did not stretch or seal if he did? Now if I say I did do those things the inspector would still have to verify. Why go thru all the effort if an installer or consumer has info such as,"the painter spilt a gallon of thinner there" or "the exterminator set off bug bombs"?