Jump to content

Would you recommend filling the gaps in wooden floors?


on_the_hill

Recommended Posts

Hello, I'm after some advice if anyone has had any experience about this.


We're about to sand our floors, which have never been done and are tongue and grove. I've had mixed suggestions about whether to fill the gaps in between the boards. Some people reckon if you don't they become very dirty and difficult to clean, others have said it is all down to vacuuming periodically, plus there are some comments about how the house will be more difficult to heat as the heat won't rise to top floors as easily, but my thoughts are that they would also make the rooms keep the heat a bit better??


Any recommendations/experiences much appreciated.

Do you mind having gaps from an aesthetic view? Filling the gaps is not an exact science and everyone has an opinion on it. Personally I just live with them (non t&g flooring)


The two main reasons people fill them are for aesthetic reasons and to stop draughts. Better to lift the floor and suspend insulation underneath.


Floorboards move due to heat and humidity levels so the gap filling often cracks and falls out. I've yet to see it done perfectly (and would love to!). In fact that's why you have the gaps to begin with, to allow for movement, so the filling has to be flexible.


I've never heard the argument about the house being more difficult to heat, and the cost of filling the gaps would far, far outweigh any cost savings.

It depends why you are doing it and size of gaps. Our old house was done professionally and very well though if the boards flex a lot the filler comes out. New house has been neglected for years and getting th gaps clean virtually impossible. Also really cold in winter though my personal bug bear is the amount of toys that fall between them and are irretrievable...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...