BPB GlasRoc

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 51 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 09:40 am:    Anyone have an analysis of GlasRoc compared to DensGlass Gold? David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 172 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 02:01 pm:    Don't have an analysis, but according to my USG rep, the two are essentially equal. I think he may have even said that BPB originated the technology, then sold it to G-P. Haven't had a chance to verify this yet, though. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 06:31 pm:    You need to read technical/physical data. They are not the "same", even though both comply with ASTM C1177. First of all, they can't be the "same" as G-P has patents on glass-mat facing. In fact, I thought that G-P had a lawsuit against BP for infringement. Second, what type of credibility does any USG rep have when USG does not have a "competing" product? In my opinion, an acrylic coating over the fiberglass COULD make a big difference in performance (or lack thereof). Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 480 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 07:41 am:    There was a suit-- see www.gp.com/center/news/news.asp?NewsID=2571 I seem to recall that it was settled with GP being successful. Gary Yancy (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 10:04 am:    BPB America and G-P Gypsum Announce Settlement of Pending Patent Infringement Litigation TAMPA, FL (April 18, 2005) – BPB America Inc. and G-P Gypsum Corp. announced an agreement to settle all pending claims and counterclaims in litigation now being asserted by the two companies relative to a patent infringement case filed by G-P Gypsum Corp. The lawsuit, which was filed in September 2003 and originally scheduled for trial in June, alleged that BPB's new GlasRoc® high performance exterior sheathing infringed upon five G-P Gypsum Corp. patents. The agreement was signed April 9, 2005. The parties will file a request for dismissal with the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware where the suit is pending. Under the terms of the agreement, both parties will dismiss their claims against each other. Both parties will continue to manufacture and market their respective patented high performance glass reinforced gypsum products in the marketplace. The remaining terms of the agreement were not disclosed. In the 90's, USG released WeatheRock (coated fiberglass mat) that was superior to the G-P Dens-Glass. After about 2 years of sales G-P filed a suit against USG and Won. Under the terms of the settlement, USG had to stop the manufacturing and sales of WeatheRock, plus pay G-P for the profits loss. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 173 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 11:06 am:    Anon: Mr. Yancy is the Dallas area USG rep, and I have never found him to be anything less than credible. He had a successful term as past president of the Fort Worth Chapter CSI, and is currently a vice president for the Dallas Chapter. Like any good manufacturer's product rep, he knows his business and knows his competition. I personally find that the fact that his company no longer makes this particular product - at least in this instance - to be quite irrelevant. Indeed, the products are not "identical" per se, (and the fact that GlasRock also has a patent would certainly confirm this); but looking at the performance data comparison chart on BPB's website, where they compare the two side-by-side, I do not think the differences are all that significant. In many instances, the GlasRock product's performance numbers are better. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 195 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 11:48 am:    How could Gary not be anything but honorable and credible with Yancy (without the 'e') for the last name. Us Yanceys with the 'e' were the nefarious side of the clan. Gary's relatives had to change the spelling to protect the innocent. Gary, Go Cowboys. Wayne YancEy Anonymous   Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 05:20 pm:    Chris- I have recent experience specifying GlasRoc and DensGlas Gold under C1177 for use in an exterior wall assembly with a fluid applied permeable air barrier, where there were some issues in the field regarding adhesion of the air barrier. I understand BPB is in the process of investigating the problems we experienced, and their product rep was great in responding to our concerns. Other than that one issue, I think the products are essentially equivalent. I'm posting anon because this is an ongoing project, but will follow up with email to explain in a bit more detail. Anonymous   Posted on Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 06:38 pm:    Mr. Combs, When you simplistically "quote" someone else as saying the two products are "essentially equal", when it's obvious to anyone who reads the tech data that they are not, that in itself is a less-than-credible statement...unless USG/Mr. Yancey had conducted comparison testing. I'm surprised that someone of Mr. Yancey's "status" would make such a simplistic statement without any factual experience or other information to support his statement. And yes, it is relevent that USG does not have a competing product...as there is no "related interest". David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 174 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 09:11 am:    Anon. I have reviewed the comparitive performance data of the two products and, frankly, I take no issue whatsoever with the term "essentially equal." I don't think anyone ever meant to imply they were "identical." In fact, I will concede outright that they are not. But the differences are so minimal and insignificant, in my opinion, as to render them inconsequential in the overall grand scheme of things. And I don't think it necessary for someone to have personally conducted the testing, for them to opine on their interpretation of the test results performed by others more qualified. As far as I'm concerned, the manufacturer's own published product data is all the information Mr. Yancy - or anyone else, for that matter - needs to support his statement. Rather simplistic indeed. So what? Anonymous   Posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 12:55 pm:    Mr. Combs, It is certainly your perogative and entitlement to your opinion...and judgment, but as typically used in an exterior enclosure assembly, in my opinion, caution should be exercised, as to the possible risks that would be undertaken should the product not perform as expected; that is where objective testing and, even more so, objective documentation of performance in actual usage, could afford more verifiable experience. I think that is what would be most helpful to Mr. Grimm. Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 92 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 01:05 pm:    Anon: I hate anonymous postings......Why not identify yourself? Do you have something to hide? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 177 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 08:53 pm:    Mitch - I agree. The only time someone should use anonymous is when they don't want to jeopordize their job! Basically, if you don't want your boss to see it - don't post it! RH (Hank) Sweers II RA CSI CCS Junior Member Username: rhsweers2 Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 11:56 pm:    I performed my own, very simplistic, water-penetration test with GP's DensGlass Gold and BPB's GlasRoc: with small cups of water sealed to the "exterior" side - flipped over to see how long it took for the water to completely pass through. DensGlass took 1 month - GlasRoc took 1 week. That's not an "equivalent product" in my book - no matter what the tech data and ASTM references say. But, I'm still looking for one - prefer not to specify a single manufacturer for anything! David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 178 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 03:09 pm:    Interesting results, and certainly worthy of consideration. However, it should be noted that, in all fairness, neither product is designed, manufactured, nor intended to resist hydrostatic head. I would also submit that this particular test is not necessarily representative of the conditions to which the sheathing will be exposed when in an exterior wall assembly. Aside from the exterior wall finish, there is also the moisture-resistant air / weather barrier that any prudent designer should require. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 354 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 10:39 am:    Something to keep in mind when selecting products is understanding the needs of the project. Even if GlasRoc doesn't perform to the level of DensGlass, it may be sufficient for the project at hand. There's no use using a sledge hammer on a 4 penny nail.