That’s the issue GJ, no figures.
The first two builds were merely a replication of headquarters, not proof of concept in my opinion, they literally resembled the factory the HX was developed in without a roof or walls, labour intensive, tedious and expensive.
The salesman is living up to the reputation (if that’s what he said) as nobody in the market for a 450k house is paying a premium because it was built differently, the lending criteria still applies, banks won’t risk exposure just because FBR enthusiasts think the build is the way of the future, the house is worth whatever comparable sales dictate.
Not sure what to make of your calculations, give us more info if you can please, I don’t know what the HX will initially cost, then there’s maintenance of the vehicle itself, plus the wear and tear on the mechanisms etc, although I’d expect these to be produced/replaced reasonably cheaply.
The render argument is probably irrelevant if you’re going double brick anyway, so it really comes down to the cost of the block work itself, still need scaff etc so it’s strictly human vs machine, interesting and subjective at this stage, the embarrassing comparison of the HX being able to lay bricks/blocks as quickly as 35 people is laughable though.
In areas such as Vic the comparison lies in block vs timber (conventional build) and currently timber is the best and most cost effective way to build, irrespective of what anyone “thinks” to suit their agenda/bias.
Interesting ROI, problem lies in the execution, everything looks good on paper GJ.
Just my opinion, do your own research as you always do.
Expand
