4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

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

4specs Discussion Forum » Archive - Product Discussions #3 » BPB GlasRoc « Previous Next »

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

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.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration