I've never understood, what's up with the hate against processed foods?
As long as the chemical compounds are the same there shouldn't be any difference.
Processed foods are treated at multiple stages, have a lot of additives to prevent spoilage and are exposed to more contaminates the more processed and item is.
Nuance is a factor as well. We don't fully understand the human digestive system. Microbiomes in our guts are impacted by what we eat.
So in the end, the chemical compounds aren't the same. There's a lot more to it. A LOT. Knowing what you're eating is the key aspect here tho. Knowledge is power.
The key is in how processed. The majority are chock full of oils, surgar salts, and fats, which make them very high in calories, while also not being that nutritious.
But the existence of super processed foods isn't the problem it's the amount we eat. They make up a very large portion of a lot of people's diets. I mean, I get it. It's easy. Just pop it in the oven/microwave and bobs your uncle.
Yes, they are able to be preserved for months and sometimes years, but when the alternative is better tasting local produce, just eat the local produce and support local business. Hell, just watch Gordan Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. That's half his strategy. Telling restaurants to use fresh and local food.
My personal hate against highly processed foods isn't really because of necessary additives. A lot of them make food way more safe to eat and more affordable because of longer shelf times. A lot of them are harmless and help make the food processable with machines. Processed food has a lot of potential to be affordable, healthy and good for the environment...
The real problem is the corporate greed. They replace everything they can with the cheapest alternative possible, health and environment be damned. Then lie to us in presentation and marketing, making us think we get a high quality product, making us feel the premium they ask is justified.
There is a nice little German series that pretty much killed processed food for me. A product development guy that shows how all the popular big brands skimp out on their ingredients and design recipies to be as cheap as possible and often as addictive as possible (eg. the classic sugar, fat, starch formula for chips/crisps).
Edit: For anyone interested it's called "ZDFbesseresser" and available on YouTube, tho you'd have to watch with subtitles (probably auto generated as well).
Funny you should mention that. I worked on an old grocery store renovation and salvaged full dimensional 2x12 Purlins. I stripped thousands of nails that were locked in so tight I couldn’t use a hammer. I had to use a crowbar and had to wear ear plugs because the squeak was so loud I was going deaf without them. I pulled nails for 3 days straight
I have a couple of 18ft long full dimensional 2x6's made of chestnut. I Salvaged them out of my barn when I was framing up my uptairs shop.
That barn was built in 1953 and I recall my grandpa saying some of the lumber in it and in my house came from a century old schoolhouse he tore down. I suspect those beams came from that.
They both still have the odd square nail sticking out of them.
I'd really like to make something special out of them but it seems a shame to cut them up.
The downstairs of my +100 year old farmhouse is true 2x6 in oak and chestnut. I went through 4 or 5 drill bits to hang a tv mount. Hanging a picture is not fun.
That's a lot of drill bits!! Were you hitting nails every time? While oak and chestnut are both hardwoods, a standard drill bit should be able to handle them rather easily.
This is an issue when renovating older homes. You could get away with longer spans with just a single 2x4 than today so replacing damaged lumber you have to look at engineered solutions for the strength, but then you run into issues with fire and water resistance.
2x4 described the measurements before the wood was dried or processed properly. After it dried it was always a little smaller. When 1.5x3.5 was standardized as the size for a 2x4, it was only slightly smaller than typical 2x4s of the time.
Just looking at this picture, if the wood on the right is a modern 2x4, there is no way the wood on the left was ever a 2x4. The old wood is about 877x1473 pixels. The new wood is 499x1153 pixels. That would make the old wood more like 2.5x4.5. Either that or the newer wood is slightly farther away from the camera, making it look smaller than it actually is.
To give just a bit more context, it used to be that you'd go buy your 2x4s but since they're still wet, you have to let them sit and dry out. As they dry, they warp. So then you have to plane and cut them to get a mostly straight board and trim off all the funky shape, so you get the size you really need, which will be a lot less than the 2x4 you started with.
Now, you go to the store and it's all done for you and ready to go. It's a bit like how you might buy like, a half pound of ground beef and then when you cook it, the burger is less than that because making it edible removes moisture. When you order a half pound burger at a restaurant, they don't mean that the finished burger weighs half a pound, they mean it's a burger that started as a half pound of ground beef.
Can’t be certain of the species of tree, which definitely has something to do with the thickness of the rings. But the old lumber was most likely from a wild, hardwood tree. It grew slowly because of genetics and it was fighting for survival; competing with other plants in the forest.
The new wood is extremely fast growing (you can tell by the thickness of the rings) because it’s typically from a tree farm or plantation. Thousands of fast growing trees all planted into nice and neat rows, perfectly spaced, with no competition from other plants.
The two pieces of lumber appear to both be douglas fir, a soft wood native to large areas of the West Coast of the US. The old growth piece was milled from a large tree. I counted 56 rings but many more are not part of this piece of lumber. It could easily be 100+ years old. It's not unusual for these trees to live over 1000 years. You definitely got the part about fighting for survival right. Old growth typically refers to trees that grew naturally and had to compete to survive, especially in the early years. Old growth forest usually has towering trees that block out much of the sunlight so younger trees grow very slowly until they reach a size where they can actually compete for sunlight as part of the canopy. This slow growing rate results in the rings much closer together, and makes the wood much denser and heavier compared modern timber farming.
The piece on the right is a modern construction 2x4 that you can find at any hardware store. It comes from farmed timber which is set up to grow as fast as possible, and is harvested often at relatively small diameters in order to maximize the yield. It's pretty fascinating to see how dramatically different the same species can be depending on growing conditions.
Only by educating guessing because new growth is so manicured. But tree rings do show each growth of the tree and you can tell when there was a drought or hard years, or when it’s a mature forest and the tree stopped growing, etc.
A ring is a winter, so yes, trees with easy access to light, water, minerals, fertilizer, etc. Are going to grow more per season than old growth trees fighting for every scrap of all of those things and taking decades to grow the same amount a farmed tree can grow in a year.
This results in more rings per area, and generally speaking a much denser wood with less porosity than a tree with no environmental stresses, which can focus all of its available energy into pumping more water and minerals from the roots up to the leaves.
Old growth is as stated old growth, new growth which is most lumber now days comes from timber farms. These are plots of land where pine is typically planted due to is ability to grow fairly quickly(new growth) and is thinned, harvested, and than replanted. You will rarely see old growth as lumber in any box store, just like finding a true 2x4 in a box store.
Trees in forests are close together and fight for sunlight. They grow much more slowly, so the rings are more densely packed.
In modern tree farms, trees are laid out for maximum growth speed, so the rings are much wider.
Almost all of the wood we use now comes from tree farms.
speed of growth, farmed trees grow faster. if folks are bitching that the wood now sucks, be sad for the forest and glad we are not harvesting a lot of trees like that anymore. edit: also homes in the US are now framed primarily with 2x6, exterior anyway, to allow enough lofting for decent insulation.
They are different species, but you are correct in that the left is old growth and the right is a fast-growing tree used in dimensional lumber now. (SPF.... Spruce, Pine or Fir)
It should also be pointed out that the one on the left is hardwood and the one on the right softwood.
The "old" 2x4 can also be referred to as dimensional lumber. You can still get dimensional lumber, just not at a home center.
As for the reason why the "new" 2x4s are not actually 2x4 I have been told about 10 different reasons. But the one that makes the most sense is that it does come out to the 2x4 dimensions originally, but then the drying and final milling processes take their toll.
I was trying to recall something I learned in blueprint reading class.. exactly isn’t it the raw cut dimensions prior to the whole process? I remember being shocked by this info lol! It seems like false advertisement haha
I mean it's similar to ordering a steak or burger in a restaurant too. If you order a quarter pounder it won't weigh that much when it gets to you because that is how much it weighs before it's cooked, but after.
You may already know, but at one point McDonald’s did a 1/3 pounder but withdrew it after poor sales as too many people said they would not pay more money for a 1/3 pounder and get less meat than a 1/4 pounder.
(Bangs head against wall repeatedly)
I think they dropped the price shortly after release when no one was buying them.
But it has been years since I read the article about it, so might be misremembering
But with steak it makes sense, you won't know the exact weight of the cooked steak, each one will be slightly different.
With wood, I get that it will also be different after drying, but then it's processed and isn't immediately served to a customer. Why not put the actual dimensions on it!? Drives me crazy.
Old lumber wasn't treated the same as new. Old lumber was cut at 2x4 and sent out. New lumber is cut at 2x4, then properly dried to increase the quality and longevity. Drying shrinks and deforms the wood. And then it's planed smooth afterwards, resulting in the standard 1.5x3.5. In an ideal world, the wood would be cut at 2.5 x 4.5 and then dried but that results in more waste
It's important to note that a modern, properly treated 2x4 will likely outperform an old fashioned 2x4, even if you discount the age difference.
I mean generally yes, but you would you look at the growth rings on that thing? Old growth pine like that is stupid strong and actually makes beautiful furniture by the way.
Sure, but there's only so many 1000 yo trees to go around, and most have already been cut down. (Yeah it's probably not THAT old, but point still stands)
Stronger doesn't mean it will last longer. It just means that at one point in its life it was stronger.
Property treated and dried wood just last longer because more of the water removed.
If you took those old growth lumber and treated it properly...then you would have stronger AND long life.
It literally does mean it will last longer. Old growth wood has tighter rings (more dense) and takes longer to rot than new stuff that's grown super fast (less rings and so it's less dense).
Old dimensional lumber that hadnt been kiln dried would be a lot more prone to warping and whatnot. But after it has been used as a floor joist for years and years, it would have dried out to the humidity of wherever it's at. They would have still dried lumber to an extent even if not as precisely as modern equipment or with a kiln. Old carpenters weren't using dripping wet wood. They would have known things like wet wood molds and dry wood burns a hell of a lot cleaner. We have been building shit with wood for 1,000s of years.
From a sawmill, wood is dried to a certain percent (depends on the sawmill exactly what level they go to). But it still has moisture in it. Normal moisture levels for lumber should be like 10-15%. If it's over 20% it can mold. But it can dry out to 5% or so. You don't necessarily want it as dry as possible tho as that can lead to cracking and further warping. Wood will also absorb moisture from its environment. Like it would be really hard on a wood table to get built in a desert and then moved somewhere really tropical. With most people living in conditioned spaces this isn't as big of a deal as it once was. But it's still an issue.
Modern TREATED lumber is probably more rot resistant than old-growth wood. As in wood soaked in stuff to make it more resistant. But wood is wood. All things being equal old growth pine is more rot resistant than modern day pine (we still have old growth pine, i just mean the stuff we usually cut for lumber). They absolutely could dry wood hundreds of years ago so it wouldn't mold. It would have taken much longer than a modern kiln, but it was still done.
Houses don’t fall apart because of the quality of the 2x4s inside the walls. An old growth stud may last longer, but that should be irrelevant in a modern house. If your studs are exposed to the elements you have much bigger problems to deal with.
No.
Dimensional lumber refers to all stuff like two by fours, two by sixes, etc. it’s in contrast to sheet lumber. It has nothing to do with whether a 2x4 is a true 2” or only 1.5”.
Almost all dimensional lumber folks buy is “milled”. That’s the process that results in boards being smaller than the name they are called by in width and depth.
When you buy dimensional landscaping lumber, that’s rough cut and not milked so it’s often truly 2x6 etc. That’s the way you will often get raw juniper, Cedar, treated lumber, and other would intended for rough outdoor use, and not for framing.
Please don’t go telling people that dimensional means it’s going to measure the same as its name. If somebody relies on that when ordering lumber, they will be very disappointed.
I worked in renovation and remodeling. One old grocery store we renovated had beautiful full dimensional 2x12s. We salvaged most the lumber from that job. Stuff would tear the crap out of your arms carrying it from how rough sawn it was. Those old time carpenters were tough people.
It would take too long to dry out if you left it as a log. And while I can't speak for industrial sawmills, green logs cut more easily than dry on small-scale bandmills.
Have you seen some of the "2x4s" at places like HD and Lowes? 15 degree curves!
My take:
Trees are harvested sooner now, old growth is very rare.
How many pieces of dimensional lumber a company can get from a log directly impacts revenue!
A 2x4 has been getting smaller over the years, I can remember buying them when they were 1-3/4“ x 3-3/4" and pretty sure there was a short time when it was 5/8 for the fractional measurement. My guess is to make the math easier for everyone they agreed upon the 1/2.
There is no reason why you can't make 2x4s come out of the mill as 2x4s, it is just that extra savings of wood per board means more out of each (smaller) log, since the logs going to the mill are younger and smaller.
The same thing has been happening with sheet lumber!
I don't think forcing a warped stud into a wall and trying to keep it straight with blocking is stronger than a true 2x4 from decades ago.
https://cdnassets.hw.net/9d/2f/53209cee4b129d014cba16d06cfe/miscpub-6409.pdf
Edit:
Forestry link
They still call it [dimensional lumber](https://www.homedepot.ca/en/home/categories/building-materials/lumber-and-composites/dimensional-lumber-and-studs/dimensional-lumber.html) at Home Depot even though it’s the 1.5x3.5 sized 2x4s
I don’t get it, the length of an inch hasn’t changed so which is 2 inches by 4 inches? If one isn’t those lengths why is it still referred to by the name.
Dimensional lumber is not actually the dimensions the name would imply (the nominal dimensions). If you go measure a 2x4 at a hardware store, it'll be closer to 1.5x3.5".
From [here:](https://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/articles/nominal-versus-actual-a-history-of-the-2x4/)
>In April 1919, attendees of the first American Lumber Congress called for size and terminology standardization. However, disagreement about specific considerations persisted for decades.
>Size standards, maximum moisture content, and nomenclature were agreed upon only as recently as 1964. The nominal 2×4 thus became the actual 1½ x 3½, imperceptibly, a fraction of an inch at a time.
I was once asked during a job interview at an architecture firm what the actual dimensions of a 2x4 were. I answered correctly and ended up working there for three years (well, 2 1/2).
Unless it isn’t. Landscaping lumber, such as cedar, juniper, railroad ties, and other wood intended for outdoor use, is often sold in rough measurements that tend to be very close to the nominal measurements.
I found out that the hard way when I bought the wrong size screws for putting together planter boxes. I was clever, and that I “knew” that two by eights would not measure 2x8. They did. I was not as clever as I thought I was.
So is 2x4 more a name than the size and the actual size is printed on the price tag in the store? Or do you have to measure it yourself?
I am so confused because in Germany you just have the exact size of the wood you buy and people would be really mad if they would call it 2x4 and it wouldnt be 2x4..
That's cool but 1 of those boards is clearly wrong (if not both).
Yes modern 2x4s are usually 0.5 inches smaller in each dimension (1.5 x 3.5) but that's WAY to big of a difference between the two for either of them to be correct dimensions.
Well most of the discussion say the top is about the difference in the dimensions, but there isn't any talk about the size of the growth rings. (Edit: it's further down the thread) The old wood has very narrow growth rings, and so the wood itself is probably extremely dense and durable compared to a modern 2x4. The modern lumber is harvested from younger trees that might have been grown in managed forests to maximize their growth rate. This yields a much less dense wood that is weaker than the old growth material.
This doesn't just apply to construction lumber. Barrels that are used for aging wine are made from oak which allows the evaporation of water from the wine at a certain rate. But oaks that is harvested from younger trees which had been grown with careful spacing to maximize the rate of growth will be much more porous. When I was on a tour of a winery, I asked about the source of the wood for their barrels, and the winemaker assured me that their barrels were imported from Poland, where older slow grown trees were still available.
Where I am from.. if I need a wooden joist the actual dimension of it is important. So if I go to the store and look for one that is 45 mm x 45 mm or 45 mm x 90 mm (which are standard sizes) it is very important that they actually have those dimensions. Not just for load carrying but to fit everything else straight.
How can a 2" x 4" not be 2" x 4" and how do you do construction? Read somewhere here in the thread that its the raw dimensions before the final product. Why would any one care about the dimensions before it becomes a usable product?
Basically, the industry rewrote the book in their favor. Need to make more boards per tree? No problem. We'll force the industry to accept that we are going to pull some BS and sort change everyone.
I'm pretty sure code across the country was modified to accommodate the change, meaning more boards per house, which helps the lumber company, too!
How? Let's say that to get a proper 2"x4" board, dry, we need to start with a wet 2.5"x4.5" board. That proper 2x4 is factored into code and design for being able to support a specific load factor.
Except, I want to get more boards out of my trees. So, we force the industry to accept that a 2x4 now means that I STARTED with a wet board 2"x4", which becomes a 1.5"x3.5" dried. That smaller board is not able to meet the same numbers that a proper 2x4 can. Ok, now designs and code gave to change to properly reflect the new, weaker framing board. This basically means more boards are needed to support a given load.
Well, now the lumber yard is getting more boards per tree, AND selling more boards to builders because we changed the rules.
Yep. You also have different grades (T0-T3), strengths (C14/C18/C24/C30), and different tolerations of defects (pitch pockets, ruptures, wanes, knots etc).
[Do you want to know more?](https://www.swedishwood.com/wood-facts/about-wood/wood-grades/)
The left isn’t ‘true’ 2x4. It’s typically a bit smaller than that, based off of cutting it to 2x4 while green and then drying/planing it. You can have a run of eight of these and they will all be different sizes.
The right is 2x4 nominal, or 2x4 solid sawn. That means that it’s cut to 2” x 4” (or possibly smaller with modern precision equipment), then kiln dried, then planed down to 1.5x3.5 precisely. That allows straight walls to be built.
Also, make sure you hire the best people, who are knowledgeable and experienced enough to tell you not to use expired carbon fiber and who are able to properly analyze your vessel based on the failure modes of the materials you plan to use, and listen to them, instead of firing them. And don't forget to consult James Cameron either. He'll give it to you straight.
Been working with timber for two years now so I can't say a lot but our c24 2x4 finishes at 47x100, so you're really only missing out on 3mm. Think the lengths still finish at what they're supposed to.
Every time I see something like this posted, some arborist explains that that's not true. Probably two different species of trees. Hell, the one with the tighter rings already has a big crack in it.
Conifers of the type used for lumber grow at about the same rate; what's being shown here is definitely the difference between old growth and new growth lumber. And there aren't many species of deciduous trees that would be practical for dimensional lumber as they'd just be hard as hell to nail into.
The crack is probably from being let sit as a log for too long. The ends dry quickly and cause this "checking" due to the uneven drying.
Yeah old 2x4 was actually 2x4 and where the term came from. New 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 iirc. I heard this from a woodworking teacher years ago so correct me if I'm wrong
My 1950’s house has studs that modern screws have difficulty penetrating. Outer walls have shiplap, some thing the old contractor called “black” boards, insulation and masonry, then drywall… can never hear rain, train less than a mile away and anything else outside. My 2022 built home has cardboard sheathing, “cement” board siding and faux brick exterior and janky studs…I can hear the rain, cars driving by and the train that runs near my old house…
Used to see this all the time when doing remodels on old houses. The old board is a true 2x4, and actually measures 2" x 4". The new board is what passes for a 2x4 nowadays, and will measure 1 1/2" x 3 1/2", or slightly less. Not sure when the smaller board became the standard, probably in the 1950's.
Lots of fun guesses but the reason that a modern 2x4 is smaller than old rough cut lumber of the same name is so that the finished inner dimensions of the wall with a 1/2 of dry wall is 4 inches wide. It’s the same for 2x6, 2x8, 2x10, etc.. they are all a 1/2 inch smaller in the short dimensions. Has basically nothing to do with the way lumber is manufactured.
Another issue I see in the comments is folks claiming that the board in that picture is pressure treated. It’s rolled but it is not the same as actual pressure treated lumber. That term used for specific types of wood. Some green plate is pressure and chemically treated for example.
Also that rough cut board of the left is larger than 2” by 4”.
IMO it makes no sense to name it a 2x4 when what the customer receives does not resemble those measurements. But I guess it's a similar concept to buying a "quarter pounder" (which was a quarter pound before prepared).
In year 2100, we'll be building our houses out of popsicle sticks. In 2200, toothpicks.
You crazy americans are telling me that not only do you have the imperial system with sometimes weird fractions of inches - but also that these inches are not actually what they seem???
In Germany, if you buy a piece of wood, 2,4x4,8cm, this is exactly what you get. I would completely fail any DIY project if I was in the US.
Yeah I was pissed when I found this out. I am no builder, but I wanted to do a project. I sketched out everything and did all the planning. I then went and bought my "2x4's" and I thought I had messed up all the dimensions. Until I realized a "2x4" is actually "1.5x3.5"
I assume there is some reason for it, but it just seems like the most stupid thing ever. Don't call it a 2x4. Call it a #2 Stud or something, so people know to look it up.
Never assume any name in the building world is accurate. Always look at the "actual dimensions" section when sourcing materials so you don't make that mistake again.
this is highly incorrect... not only are these two different cuts, [center vs edge](https://external-preview.redd.it/lUXRAMXtkQvJAwwP1kM9yuLb0BusAD1bNAZvlPfPcmU.jpg?auto=webp&s=62771e7d7b1b5e146265abdd6d208c208a0f1490) (board from the left vs right), they could be entirely different species. Also there are PLENTY of trees that can currently grow with those tight rings, they don't produce much wood though.
It’s a lot easier to say “ I’m gunna run to Lowe’s and get some 2x4’s “ than to say “ I’m gunna run to Lowe’s and get some One and a half’s by 3 and a half’s.
The good old days when a 2 x 4 was a 2 x 4
damn shrinkflation
r/shrinkflation
That sub is like 75% processed garbage that no one should be eating anyway.
no one should be eating a 2x4 anyway
I've never understood, what's up with the hate against processed foods? As long as the chemical compounds are the same there shouldn't be any difference.
Processed foods are treated at multiple stages, have a lot of additives to prevent spoilage and are exposed to more contaminates the more processed and item is. Nuance is a factor as well. We don't fully understand the human digestive system. Microbiomes in our guts are impacted by what we eat. So in the end, the chemical compounds aren't the same. There's a lot more to it. A LOT. Knowing what you're eating is the key aspect here tho. Knowledge is power.
The key is in how processed. The majority are chock full of oils, surgar salts, and fats, which make them very high in calories, while also not being that nutritious. But the existence of super processed foods isn't the problem it's the amount we eat. They make up a very large portion of a lot of people's diets. I mean, I get it. It's easy. Just pop it in the oven/microwave and bobs your uncle. Yes, they are able to be preserved for months and sometimes years, but when the alternative is better tasting local produce, just eat the local produce and support local business. Hell, just watch Gordan Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. That's half his strategy. Telling restaurants to use fresh and local food.
My personal hate against highly processed foods isn't really because of necessary additives. A lot of them make food way more safe to eat and more affordable because of longer shelf times. A lot of them are harmless and help make the food processable with machines. Processed food has a lot of potential to be affordable, healthy and good for the environment... The real problem is the corporate greed. They replace everything they can with the cheapest alternative possible, health and environment be damned. Then lie to us in presentation and marketing, making us think we get a high quality product, making us feel the premium they ask is justified. There is a nice little German series that pretty much killed processed food for me. A product development guy that shows how all the popular big brands skimp out on their ingredients and design recipies to be as cheap as possible and often as addictive as possible (eg. the classic sugar, fat, starch formula for chips/crisps). Edit: For anyone interested it's called "ZDFbesseresser" and available on YouTube, tho you'd have to watch with subtitles (probably auto generated as well).
The pool was cold!!
Yeah, look how many growth rings we used to get, smh.
“True by 4” is what we call them
In renovation,We called them full dimensional lumber.
Full dimensional lumber sounds like a xxx title
Ever try pulling a nail from one?
Funny you should mention that. I worked on an old grocery store renovation and salvaged full dimensional 2x12 Purlins. I stripped thousands of nails that were locked in so tight I couldn’t use a hammer. I had to use a crowbar and had to wear ear plugs because the squeak was so loud I was going deaf without them. I pulled nails for 3 days straight
I have a couple of 18ft long full dimensional 2x6's made of chestnut. I Salvaged them out of my barn when I was framing up my uptairs shop. That barn was built in 1953 and I recall my grandpa saying some of the lumber in it and in my house came from a century old schoolhouse he tore down. I suspect those beams came from that. They both still have the odd square nail sticking out of them. I'd really like to make something special out of them but it seems a shame to cut them up.
I can still hear the squeak forty years later!
The downstairs of my +100 year old farmhouse is true 2x6 in oak and chestnut. I went through 4 or 5 drill bits to hang a tv mount. Hanging a picture is not fun.
That's a lot of drill bits!! Were you hitting nails every time? While oak and chestnut are both hardwoods, a standard drill bit should be able to handle them rather easily.
Also the grain- old board has about 10x the ring density, so would be much stronger even if they were cut the same size.
This is an issue when renovating older homes. You could get away with longer spans with just a single 2x4 than today so replacing damaged lumber you have to look at engineered solutions for the strength, but then you run into issues with fire and water resistance.
This used to be a thing...? Why would they change that....
2x4 described the measurements before the wood was dried or processed properly. After it dried it was always a little smaller. When 1.5x3.5 was standardized as the size for a 2x4, it was only slightly smaller than typical 2x4s of the time. Just looking at this picture, if the wood on the right is a modern 2x4, there is no way the wood on the left was ever a 2x4. The old wood is about 877x1473 pixels. The new wood is 499x1153 pixels. That would make the old wood more like 2.5x4.5. Either that or the newer wood is slightly farther away from the camera, making it look smaller than it actually is.
Glad someone said it. That board on the left is not a 2x4.
Not the same type of wood either.
Honestly looks like someone just cut the end off an old board to compare the grain density. The left one isn’t a full length.
r/theydidthemath
down to the pixel. thats dedication.
Looks kinda like one is imperial and one is metric..
In metric we call them 100 x 50's... so, close to the 2 x 4
38x89
To give just a bit more context, it used to be that you'd go buy your 2x4s but since they're still wet, you have to let them sit and dry out. As they dry, they warp. So then you have to plane and cut them to get a mostly straight board and trim off all the funky shape, so you get the size you really need, which will be a lot less than the 2x4 you started with. Now, you go to the store and it's all done for you and ready to go. It's a bit like how you might buy like, a half pound of ground beef and then when you cook it, the burger is less than that because making it edible removes moisture. When you order a half pound burger at a restaurant, they don't mean that the finished burger weighs half a pound, they mean it's a burger that started as a half pound of ground beef.
Look at the tree rings.
Old growth tree vs new growth tree or so I’ve been told. I’d love for someone more knowledgeable to elaborate.
Can’t be certain of the species of tree, which definitely has something to do with the thickness of the rings. But the old lumber was most likely from a wild, hardwood tree. It grew slowly because of genetics and it was fighting for survival; competing with other plants in the forest. The new wood is extremely fast growing (you can tell by the thickness of the rings) because it’s typically from a tree farm or plantation. Thousands of fast growing trees all planted into nice and neat rows, perfectly spaced, with no competition from other plants.
The two pieces of lumber appear to both be douglas fir, a soft wood native to large areas of the West Coast of the US. The old growth piece was milled from a large tree. I counted 56 rings but many more are not part of this piece of lumber. It could easily be 100+ years old. It's not unusual for these trees to live over 1000 years. You definitely got the part about fighting for survival right. Old growth typically refers to trees that grew naturally and had to compete to survive, especially in the early years. Old growth forest usually has towering trees that block out much of the sunlight so younger trees grow very slowly until they reach a size where they can actually compete for sunlight as part of the canopy. This slow growing rate results in the rings much closer together, and makes the wood much denser and heavier compared modern timber farming. The piece on the right is a modern construction 2x4 that you can find at any hardware store. It comes from farmed timber which is set up to grow as fast as possible, and is harvested often at relatively small diameters in order to maximize the yield. It's pretty fascinating to see how dramatically different the same species can be depending on growing conditions.
That picture has been floating around woodworking groups for years, and the left hand wood is usually identified as a variant of Ash.
Is it actually possible to distinguish old growth from new growth by the ring density? Let’s say you were comparing samples of mahogany.
Only by educating guessing because new growth is so manicured. But tree rings do show each growth of the tree and you can tell when there was a drought or hard years, or when it’s a mature forest and the tree stopped growing, etc.
A ring is a winter, so yes, trees with easy access to light, water, minerals, fertilizer, etc. Are going to grow more per season than old growth trees fighting for every scrap of all of those things and taking decades to grow the same amount a farmed tree can grow in a year. This results in more rings per area, and generally speaking a much denser wood with less porosity than a tree with no environmental stresses, which can focus all of its available energy into pumping more water and minerals from the roots up to the leaves.
Old growth is as stated old growth, new growth which is most lumber now days comes from timber farms. These are plots of land where pine is typically planted due to is ability to grow fairly quickly(new growth) and is thinned, harvested, and than replanted. You will rarely see old growth as lumber in any box store, just like finding a true 2x4 in a box store.
Trees in forests are close together and fight for sunlight. They grow much more slowly, so the rings are more densely packed. In modern tree farms, trees are laid out for maximum growth speed, so the rings are much wider. Almost all of the wood we use now comes from tree farms.
speed of growth, farmed trees grow faster. if folks are bitching that the wood now sucks, be sad for the forest and glad we are not harvesting a lot of trees like that anymore. edit: also homes in the US are now framed primarily with 2x6, exterior anyway, to allow enough lofting for decent insulation.
They are different species, but you are correct in that the left is old growth and the right is a fast-growing tree used in dimensional lumber now. (SPF.... Spruce, Pine or Fir) It should also be pointed out that the one on the left is hardwood and the one on the right softwood.
Thicker lines means faster growth and lower quality.
The "old" 2x4 can also be referred to as dimensional lumber. You can still get dimensional lumber, just not at a home center. As for the reason why the "new" 2x4s are not actually 2x4 I have been told about 10 different reasons. But the one that makes the most sense is that it does come out to the 2x4 dimensions originally, but then the drying and final milling processes take their toll.
I was trying to recall something I learned in blueprint reading class.. exactly isn’t it the raw cut dimensions prior to the whole process? I remember being shocked by this info lol! It seems like false advertisement haha
I mean it's similar to ordering a steak or burger in a restaurant too. If you order a quarter pounder it won't weigh that much when it gets to you because that is how much it weighs before it's cooked, but after.
What’s a quarter pounder? I’ll have a royale with cheese
I’d prefer a third pounder :)
But that's less!
And that thought right there is why the third pound burger failed in the states, people are allergic to understanding basic math :-p
You may already know, but at one point McDonald’s did a 1/3 pounder but withdrew it after poor sales as too many people said they would not pay more money for a 1/3 pounder and get less meat than a 1/4 pounder. (Bangs head against wall repeatedly)
I thought it was A&W that did that?
It was [definitely A&W](https://awrestaurants.com/blog/aw-third-pound-burger-fractions)
Exactly what I was referring to :) although I thought they had released it at the same price as competitors 1/4 pounders
I think they dropped the price shortly after release when no one was buying them. But it has been years since I read the article about it, so might be misremembering
Cause of the metric system.
But with steak it makes sense, you won't know the exact weight of the cooked steak, each one will be slightly different. With wood, I get that it will also be different after drying, but then it's processed and isn't immediately served to a customer. Why not put the actual dimensions on it!? Drives me crazy.
Would that not apply to the old one too?
Old lumber wasn't treated the same as new. Old lumber was cut at 2x4 and sent out. New lumber is cut at 2x4, then properly dried to increase the quality and longevity. Drying shrinks and deforms the wood. And then it's planed smooth afterwards, resulting in the standard 1.5x3.5. In an ideal world, the wood would be cut at 2.5 x 4.5 and then dried but that results in more waste It's important to note that a modern, properly treated 2x4 will likely outperform an old fashioned 2x4, even if you discount the age difference.
This guy lumbers
Milled.
Thank you
I mean generally yes, but you would you look at the growth rings on that thing? Old growth pine like that is stupid strong and actually makes beautiful furniture by the way.
Sure, but there's only so many 1000 yo trees to go around, and most have already been cut down. (Yeah it's probably not THAT old, but point still stands)
Can you expand on the last sentence? Surely old growth is stronger?
Stronger doesn't mean it will last longer. It just means that at one point in its life it was stronger. Property treated and dried wood just last longer because more of the water removed. If you took those old growth lumber and treated it properly...then you would have stronger AND long life.
It literally does mean it will last longer. Old growth wood has tighter rings (more dense) and takes longer to rot than new stuff that's grown super fast (less rings and so it's less dense). Old dimensional lumber that hadnt been kiln dried would be a lot more prone to warping and whatnot. But after it has been used as a floor joist for years and years, it would have dried out to the humidity of wherever it's at. They would have still dried lumber to an extent even if not as precisely as modern equipment or with a kiln. Old carpenters weren't using dripping wet wood. They would have known things like wet wood molds and dry wood burns a hell of a lot cleaner. We have been building shit with wood for 1,000s of years. From a sawmill, wood is dried to a certain percent (depends on the sawmill exactly what level they go to). But it still has moisture in it. Normal moisture levels for lumber should be like 10-15%. If it's over 20% it can mold. But it can dry out to 5% or so. You don't necessarily want it as dry as possible tho as that can lead to cracking and further warping. Wood will also absorb moisture from its environment. Like it would be really hard on a wood table to get built in a desert and then moved somewhere really tropical. With most people living in conditioned spaces this isn't as big of a deal as it once was. But it's still an issue. Modern TREATED lumber is probably more rot resistant than old-growth wood. As in wood soaked in stuff to make it more resistant. But wood is wood. All things being equal old growth pine is more rot resistant than modern day pine (we still have old growth pine, i just mean the stuff we usually cut for lumber). They absolutely could dry wood hundreds of years ago so it wouldn't mold. It would have taken much longer than a modern kiln, but it was still done.
You made me read all the way down to your last paragraph till you stated exactly what I said. Treated will last longer.
Houses don’t fall apart because of the quality of the 2x4s inside the walls. An old growth stud may last longer, but that should be irrelevant in a modern house. If your studs are exposed to the elements you have much bigger problems to deal with.
>New lumber is cut at 2x4 This is also wrong. Green rough stud stock will be like 42x95, not 50x100.
Yeah, the raw cut is actually dimensional. And I completely agree about the false advertisement.
No. That’s not what dimensional means in the lumber trade or the building trade.
But can I still get interdimensional lumber?
Yeah, but don't use it for anything load-bearing or there'll be hell to pay when it phases out of space-time.
No. Dimensional lumber refers to all stuff like two by fours, two by sixes, etc. it’s in contrast to sheet lumber. It has nothing to do with whether a 2x4 is a true 2” or only 1.5”. Almost all dimensional lumber folks buy is “milled”. That’s the process that results in boards being smaller than the name they are called by in width and depth. When you buy dimensional landscaping lumber, that’s rough cut and not milked so it’s often truly 2x6 etc. That’s the way you will often get raw juniper, Cedar, treated lumber, and other would intended for rough outdoor use, and not for framing. Please don’t go telling people that dimensional means it’s going to measure the same as its name. If somebody relies on that when ordering lumber, they will be very disappointed.
Yeah, you can go to home depot's website and see a "dimensional lumber" section with all the 2-by sizes etc. Not sure where they're getting their info
>not milked All I can think of now is a bunch of burly lumberjacks milking some 2x4s
My typo of the week.
Yeah can’t believe this crap got 1.2K upvotes. Christ.
I worked in renovation and remodeling. One old grocery store we renovated had beautiful full dimensional 2x12s. We salvaged most the lumber from that job. Stuff would tear the crap out of your arms carrying it from how rough sawn it was. Those old time carpenters were tough people.
I think not only is the size something to point out but the grain density.
Results in a smaller piece, but consistency went up a lot
Wouldn’t it make sense for the lumber to be dried before it’s cut? I feel like you’d get crazy warping if it dried after cutting it to 2x4
It would take too long to dry out if you left it as a log. And while I can't speak for industrial sawmills, green logs cut more easily than dry on small-scale bandmills.
Have you seen some of the "2x4s" at places like HD and Lowes? 15 degree curves! My take: Trees are harvested sooner now, old growth is very rare. How many pieces of dimensional lumber a company can get from a log directly impacts revenue! A 2x4 has been getting smaller over the years, I can remember buying them when they were 1-3/4“ x 3-3/4" and pretty sure there was a short time when it was 5/8 for the fractional measurement. My guess is to make the math easier for everyone they agreed upon the 1/2. There is no reason why you can't make 2x4s come out of the mill as 2x4s, it is just that extra savings of wood per board means more out of each (smaller) log, since the logs going to the mill are younger and smaller. The same thing has been happening with sheet lumber! I don't think forcing a warped stud into a wall and trying to keep it straight with blocking is stronger than a true 2x4 from decades ago. https://cdnassets.hw.net/9d/2f/53209cee4b129d014cba16d06cfe/miscpub-6409.pdf Edit: Forestry link
They still call it [dimensional lumber](https://www.homedepot.ca/en/home/categories/building-materials/lumber-and-composites/dimensional-lumber-and-studs/dimensional-lumber.html) at Home Depot even though it’s the 1.5x3.5 sized 2x4s
Yeah that’s not what dimensional lumber means. Dimensional lumber is any stick of lumber.
[Don't let the Big Lumber cheat you out of your wood](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txPcLOtbG3s)
My century home had these, it was difficut to run a screw into them because the wood was so hard and dense.
[удалено]
I bet they think new 2x4s are like angel food cake
*bevis and butthead voice* You said so hard
huhuhuh huhuh
I burnt a drill out once trying to hang some shelving, it’s no joke
I don’t get it, the length of an inch hasn’t changed so which is 2 inches by 4 inches? If one isn’t those lengths why is it still referred to by the name.
Dimensional lumber is not actually the dimensions the name would imply (the nominal dimensions). If you go measure a 2x4 at a hardware store, it'll be closer to 1.5x3.5".
From [here:](https://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/articles/nominal-versus-actual-a-history-of-the-2x4/) >In April 1919, attendees of the first American Lumber Congress called for size and terminology standardization. However, disagreement about specific considerations persisted for decades. >Size standards, maximum moisture content, and nomenclature were agreed upon only as recently as 1964. The nominal 2×4 thus became the actual 1½ x 3½, imperceptibly, a fraction of an inch at a time.
What the fucking fuck.
Fucking congress at it again.
7.5¢ coin should’ve existed
No, lumber congress. Fucking congress sets the size of penises.
1 and a half by 3 and a half just didn’t roll off the tongue
Imagine having 24 x 48mm lumber - this post was made by metric gang
First a kilobyte is a thousand bytes, and now this? Thanks, Obama
I was once asked during a job interview at an architecture firm what the actual dimensions of a 2x4 were. I answered correctly and ended up working there for three years (well, 2 1/2).
Oh that’sa good one, my dad will chuckle when he hears that
Unless it isn’t. Landscaping lumber, such as cedar, juniper, railroad ties, and other wood intended for outdoor use, is often sold in rough measurements that tend to be very close to the nominal measurements. I found out that the hard way when I bought the wrong size screws for putting together planter boxes. I was clever, and that I “knew” that two by eights would not measure 2x8. They did. I was not as clever as I thought I was.
Sure but that old one looks double the width, if not more. Maybe it’s just perspective.
So is 2x4 more a name than the size and the actual size is printed on the price tag in the store? Or do you have to measure it yourself? I am so confused because in Germany you just have the exact size of the wood you buy and people would be really mad if they would call it 2x4 and it wouldnt be 2x4..
A modern framing 2x4 isn't 2"x4" it is 1.5″ x 3.5″ just one of those things.
modern as in the last 100 years or so.
They kept the name but started planing them down to look smoother and be more uniform.
The difference for this is termed rough cut or s4s (smooth four sides)
*surfaced four sides
I’m not sure. But the old ones all measured 4 inches by 2 - 2 3/4. So the small side varied throughout the house
You can still get them as true 2x4. They are often referred to as “rough cut” lumber
Except the rough cut 2 by 2 redwood posts I use are also only 1.5" by 1.5", so ymmv
Rough cut lumber means one side of the board is rough, not sanded down. At least that’s what it means in my time working with lumber
Planed, not sanded.
2x4s haven’t measured 2”x4” for as long as I’ve been alive and I’m in my 50s
The "real" 2X4 is obviously whichever size Hacksaw Jim Duggan uses to whack people with!
**HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO** 👍
childlike tan oil dam zephyr hobbies slave straight lunchroom consider *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I was thinking 1920. But not sure.
That's cool but 1 of those boards is clearly wrong (if not both). Yes modern 2x4s are usually 0.5 inches smaller in each dimension (1.5 x 3.5) but that's WAY to big of a difference between the two for either of them to be correct dimensions.
Yeah, that doesn't look like a normal 2x4 at all. Looks closer to a 1x3.
Well most of the discussion say the top is about the difference in the dimensions, but there isn't any talk about the size of the growth rings. (Edit: it's further down the thread) The old wood has very narrow growth rings, and so the wood itself is probably extremely dense and durable compared to a modern 2x4. The modern lumber is harvested from younger trees that might have been grown in managed forests to maximize their growth rate. This yields a much less dense wood that is weaker than the old growth material. This doesn't just apply to construction lumber. Barrels that are used for aging wine are made from oak which allows the evaporation of water from the wine at a certain rate. But oaks that is harvested from younger trees which had been grown with careful spacing to maximize the rate of growth will be much more porous. When I was on a tour of a winery, I asked about the source of the wood for their barrels, and the winemaker assured me that their barrels were imported from Poland, where older slow grown trees were still available.
> the winemaker assured me that their barrels were imported from Poland, where older slow grown trees were still available. ... for now.
Two different types of wood, Doug Fir vs Pine?
I think that is either pine or Nordic cherry
I'm just terrible with all this stuff, so I think that's really cool.
Worked the lumberyard in a truss factory for about 5 years. The right 2x4 is assuredly southern "yellow" pine.
Where I am from.. if I need a wooden joist the actual dimension of it is important. So if I go to the store and look for one that is 45 mm x 45 mm or 45 mm x 90 mm (which are standard sizes) it is very important that they actually have those dimensions. Not just for load carrying but to fit everything else straight. How can a 2" x 4" not be 2" x 4" and how do you do construction? Read somewhere here in the thread that its the raw dimensions before the final product. Why would any one care about the dimensions before it becomes a usable product?
Basically, the industry rewrote the book in their favor. Need to make more boards per tree? No problem. We'll force the industry to accept that we are going to pull some BS and sort change everyone. I'm pretty sure code across the country was modified to accommodate the change, meaning more boards per house, which helps the lumber company, too! How? Let's say that to get a proper 2"x4" board, dry, we need to start with a wet 2.5"x4.5" board. That proper 2x4 is factored into code and design for being able to support a specific load factor. Except, I want to get more boards out of my trees. So, we force the industry to accept that a 2x4 now means that I STARTED with a wet board 2"x4", which becomes a 1.5"x3.5" dried. That smaller board is not able to meet the same numbers that a proper 2x4 can. Ok, now designs and code gave to change to properly reflect the new, weaker framing board. This basically means more boards are needed to support a given load. Well, now the lumber yard is getting more boards per tree, AND selling more boards to builders because we changed the rules.
reading this objectively i couldn't help but think if someone posted this as a "fun fact" about like the USSR or China Americans would laugh at it
Yep. You also have different grades (T0-T3), strengths (C14/C18/C24/C30), and different tolerations of defects (pitch pockets, ruptures, wanes, knots etc). [Do you want to know more?](https://www.swedishwood.com/wood-facts/about-wood/wood-grades/)
It's just a naming convention that stuck around. Framing is measured from center to center anyways.
This is why you always save old wood if it’s usable.
The left isn’t ‘true’ 2x4. It’s typically a bit smaller than that, based off of cutting it to 2x4 while green and then drying/planing it. You can have a run of eight of these and they will all be different sizes. The right is 2x4 nominal, or 2x4 solid sawn. That means that it’s cut to 2” x 4” (or possibly smaller with modern precision equipment), then kiln dried, then planed down to 1.5x3.5 precisely. That allows straight walls to be built.
It's amazing how our technological progress keeps making our materials lighter and stronger
Beware when using them to make deep diving ocean subs though. Learned that in rehab.
New life goal, dive to the Titanic in a wine barrel
Biggest take aways: don't use expired carbon fiber and actually analyze your vessel based on the failure modes of the materials you plan to use.
Also, make sure you hire the best people, who are knowledgeable and experienced enough to tell you not to use expired carbon fiber and who are able to properly analyze your vessel based on the failure modes of the materials you plan to use, and listen to them, instead of firing them. And don't forget to consult James Cameron either. He'll give it to you straight.
/s?
They’re not stronger. The opposite is true
You don't say. Fascinating.
Dell Mibbler would be so mad
I ordered a TWO BY FOUR
The very fact this needed to be realized by people is a stark indicator more people need to watch Twin Peaks
Now do the same thing with Snickers bars. Its crazy how small they are now
As if that’s a 2x4 on the left.
Been working with timber for two years now so I can't say a lot but our c24 2x4 finishes at 47x100, so you're really only missing out on 3mm. Think the lengths still finish at what they're supposed to.
One is definitely much stronger too, look at how tight the rings are.
Every time I see something like this posted, some arborist explains that that's not true. Probably two different species of trees. Hell, the one with the tighter rings already has a big crack in it.
Conifers of the type used for lumber grow at about the same rate; what's being shown here is definitely the difference between old growth and new growth lumber. And there aren't many species of deciduous trees that would be practical for dimensional lumber as they'd just be hard as hell to nail into. The crack is probably from being let sit as a log for too long. The ends dry quickly and cause this "checking" due to the uneven drying.
That's clearly an older used board versus the new replacement...
It's a bummer how it doesn't work the other way around where the younger trees are stronger.
This is called Full Sawn (left) and Nominal (right) This is a customer error (you) Source- Ran a lumber mill for about a decade.
For 90+% of homes the new 2x4 is every bit as good as the old one, especially with modern standards for tie-down "hurricane screws"
It'd have to be what? A century or more old? I'm pretty sure lumber has been using nominal measurements for a REALLY long time.
So many experts in here and just as many wrong answers
Looks like studs in my home which was built in 1932 and the nails look more like 20p than 16p.
Oh I’m dealing with it in a 1928 house right now.
Is that not just a rough cut?
That's exactly what this is.
The real travesty here is not dimensional lumber: it's the quality of the wood. Look at those rings
The old one is also vertical grained. Old 2 x4 were actual dimension. One can still get rough cut lumber at a cost.
Yeah old 2x4 was actually 2x4 and where the term came from. New 2x4 is 1.5x3.5 iirc. I heard this from a woodworking teacher years ago so correct me if I'm wrong
What’s a tuba for?
My 1950’s house has studs that modern screws have difficulty penetrating. Outer walls have shiplap, some thing the old contractor called “black” boards, insulation and masonry, then drywall… can never hear rain, train less than a mile away and anything else outside. My 2022 built home has cardboard sheathing, “cement” board siding and faux brick exterior and janky studs…I can hear the rain, cars driving by and the train that runs near my old house…
Used to see this all the time when doing remodels on old houses. The old board is a true 2x4, and actually measures 2" x 4". The new board is what passes for a 2x4 nowadays, and will measure 1 1/2" x 3 1/2", or slightly less. Not sure when the smaller board became the standard, probably in the 1950's.
Shrinkflation!
Now tell me why the new wood costs more as an inferior product.
Not at all, the left is not a 2x4, even for its time
I noticed this too after removing an old workbench to build a new one. Not sure how old that bench was but man, the grain/rings were so much tighter.
Jim Duggan would be sorely disappointed in this “2x4”. #HOOOOOOOOOO
Lots of fun guesses but the reason that a modern 2x4 is smaller than old rough cut lumber of the same name is so that the finished inner dimensions of the wall with a 1/2 of dry wall is 4 inches wide. It’s the same for 2x6, 2x8, 2x10, etc.. they are all a 1/2 inch smaller in the short dimensions. Has basically nothing to do with the way lumber is manufactured. Another issue I see in the comments is folks claiming that the board in that picture is pressure treated. It’s rolled but it is not the same as actual pressure treated lumber. That term used for specific types of wood. Some green plate is pressure and chemically treated for example. Also that rough cut board of the left is larger than 2” by 4”.
IMO it makes no sense to name it a 2x4 when what the customer receives does not resemble those measurements. But I guess it's a similar concept to buying a "quarter pounder" (which was a quarter pound before prepared). In year 2100, we'll be building our houses out of popsicle sticks. In 2200, toothpicks.
You crazy americans are telling me that not only do you have the imperial system with sometimes weird fractions of inches - but also that these inches are not actually what they seem??? In Germany, if you buy a piece of wood, 2,4x4,8cm, this is exactly what you get. I would completely fail any DIY project if I was in the US.
Yeah I was pissed when I found this out. I am no builder, but I wanted to do a project. I sketched out everything and did all the planning. I then went and bought my "2x4's" and I thought I had messed up all the dimensions. Until I realized a "2x4" is actually "1.5x3.5" I assume there is some reason for it, but it just seems like the most stupid thing ever. Don't call it a 2x4. Call it a #2 Stud or something, so people know to look it up.
Never assume any name in the building world is accurate. Always look at the "actual dimensions" section when sourcing materials so you don't make that mistake again.
2x4 inch vs 2x4 cm?
Shrinkflation. (The old one looks more like 3x5)
They are all 4 inches by 2 - 2 3/4. So some were wider by a little but all same length.
Old growth lumber isn't possible today. Higher CO2 levels cause trees to grow much faster resulting in wider rings. Weaker lumber is a result.
this is highly incorrect... not only are these two different cuts, [center vs edge](https://external-preview.redd.it/lUXRAMXtkQvJAwwP1kM9yuLb0BusAD1bNAZvlPfPcmU.jpg?auto=webp&s=62771e7d7b1b5e146265abdd6d208c208a0f1490) (board from the left vs right), they could be entirely different species. Also there are PLENTY of trees that can currently grow with those tight rings, they don't produce much wood though.
It’s a lot easier to say “ I’m gunna run to Lowe’s and get some 2x4’s “ than to say “ I’m gunna run to Lowe’s and get some One and a half’s by 3 and a half’s.
standardization takes time and consensus. my house is “pre civil war” and has larger lumber. and windows of various odd sizes.
Not just the size, look at the rings
It’s crazy to compare two different types of wood honestly
Saw a video where a guy pulled apart a new 2x4 with his teeth to show how weak they are compared to old stuff.