replacement casement window options?

[Windows on Washington]

Any of the major brands will work. OSI is probably the most preferred by installers, on average.

[HomeSealed]

I was curious what people on this board thought what the advantages and disadvantages would be between the the double and triple pane windows that are close to the same ratings.

Zero.

If the triple pane window isn't approaching 20% more efficient, there is no benefit to it over an appropriately specified Low-e range double pane window.

I won't put words into WoW's mouth, however I'd add a couple of qualifiers in the context of this conversation (WoW, please comment if you disagree):

1) Please note that he stated "appropriately specified". I mentioned an example in my most recent post of a situation where the double pane option would be inappropriately specified, and therefore a distinct disadvantage exists. In that case, a surface 4 coating in a very cold climate that reduces condensation resistance is indeed a disadvantage. At that point it would be up to the homeowner to make an informed decision as to whether the cost savings are worth that trade-off.

2) I'd suggest that the level of improvement needed in efficiency from double to triple will also depend on the region in which you live. For Kansas and Virginia you probably need to see a 20% difference in efficiency to justify the cost, whereas a very cold location such as Wisconsin or Minnesota might realize greater savings with a slightly slimmer margin. The cost difference will affect this as well, as some companies offer triple for the same price or run a lower markup on it.

With all of that said, I do believe that your choice is a nice option for your situation ringo. I just like to add the qualifiers as folks from all over the country read these posts and could apply good advice incorrectly based on location.

Lastly, I'd agree on the sealant options. Quad and Quad max are generally the gold standard, but solar seal, vulkem, and a few others are solid and each have some pros and cons.... You just want to make sure that you aren't getting the $2 tubes of window and door caulk off the box store shelf.

[Windows on Washington]

I was curious what people on this board thought what the advantages and disadvantages would be between the the double and triple pane windows that are close to the same ratings.

Zero.

If the triple pane window isn't approaching 20% more efficient, there is no benefit to it over an appropriately specified Low-e range double pane window.

I won't put words into WoW's mouth, however I'd add a couple of qualifiers in the context of this conversation (WoW, please comment if you disagree):

1) Please note that he stated "appropriately specified". I mentioned an example in my most recent post of a situation where the double pane option would be inappropriately specified, and therefore a distinct disadvantage exists. In that case, a surface 4 coating in a very cold climate that reduces condensation resistance is indeed a disadvantage. At that point it would be up to the homeowner to make an informed decision as to whether the cost savings are worth that trade-off.

2) I'd suggest that the level of improvement needed in efficiency from double to triple will also depend on the region in which you live. For Kansas and Virginia you probably need to see a 20% difference in efficiency to justify the cost, whereas a very cold location such as Wisconsin or Minnesota might realize greater savings with a slightly slimmer margin. The cost difference will affect this as well, as some companies offer triple for the same price or run a lower markup on it.

With all of that said, I do believe that your choice is a nice option for your situation ringo. I just like to add the qualifiers as folks from all over the country read these posts and could apply good advice incorrectly based on location.

Agree on all points. I used the 20% improvement as it pertains to a comparative to DP in this case. Just because that is what I am most used to when looking at the jump in the offerings that I usually work with.

You are correct that the "appropriate" is what I was going for. Surface 4 in a colder climate is a danger zone issue.

In this comparative, I was mostly thinking that the OP was comparing two windows, one in DP and one in TP, that had similar ratings in standard (i.e. no surface 4) low-e set ups. If the comparison in U-Factors was with surface 4, that is not a valid comparison and the TP window would 100% be the more appropriate choice. Didn't see that discussed if it was...but this is also the longest thread we've ever seen.

[57ringo]

WoW, since I don't quite understand what you mean ( surface 4) in your last paragraph, does this link to the glass packages I was talking about give the info you mentioned between the omega 12 (with thermal U plus) and the AR90 ?
https://www.sunrisewindows.com/windows/ ... w-e-glass/

[Windows on Washington]

I am not sure they are doing to change that specification to be honest. Most of the guys here know the Sunrise line up better than me. Surface 4 low-e (i.e. the surface facing the room side) is not ideal for most folks in a cold climate.

[57ringo]

There is many more days over 100 here than below Zero if that matters.

[HomeSealed]

I was curious what people on this board thought what the advantages and disadvantages would be between the the double and triple pane windows that are close to the same ratings.

Zero.

If the triple pane window isn't approaching 20% more efficient, there is no benefit to it over an appropriately specified Low-e range double pane window.

I won't put words into WoW's mouth, however I'd add a couple of qualifiers in the context of this conversation (WoW, please comment if you disagree):

1) Please note that he stated "appropriately specified". I mentioned an example in my most recent post of a situation where the double pane option would be inappropriately specified, and therefore a distinct disadvantage exists. In that case, a surface 4 coating in a very cold climate that reduces condensation resistance is indeed a disadvantage. At that point it would be up to the homeowner to make an informed decision as to whether the cost savings are worth that trade-off.

2) I'd suggest that the level of improvement needed in efficiency from double to triple will also depend on the region in which you live. For Kansas and Virginia you probably need to see a 20% difference in efficiency to justify the cost, whereas a very cold location such as Wisconsin or Minnesota might realize greater savings with a slightly slimmer margin. The cost difference will affect this as well, as some companies offer triple for the same price or run a lower markup on it.

With all of that said, I do believe that your choice is a nice option for your situation ringo. I just like to add the qualifiers as folks from all over the country read these posts and could apply good advice incorrectly based on location.

Agree on all points. I used the 20% improvement as it pertains to a comparative to DP in this case. Just because that is what I am most used to when looking at the jump in the offerings that I usually work with.

You are correct that the "appropriate" is what I was going for. Surface 4 in a colder climate is a danger zone issue.

In this comparative, I was mostly thinking that the OP was comparing two windows, one in DP and one in TP, that had similar ratings in standard (i.e. no surface 4) low-e set ups. If the comparison in U-Factors was with surface 4, that is not a valid comparison and the TP window would 100% be the more appropriate choice. Didn't see that discussed if it was...but this is also the longest thread we've ever seen.

Longest thread indeed! lol...

I believe that the OP was comparing Sunrise with a triple pane glass option to a double pane surface 4 option (hence the similar rating in the same window... Then again, I may be lost myself in this bees nest...

[Windows on Washington]

There is many more days over 100 here than below Zero if that matters.

Anything near zero on a surface 4 equip window will sweat like bad person in the choir.