Thanks for the insight about traps. Most popular building systems can deal with such forces if enough time and money is spent, but the costs of design and construction would probably kill interest in the private sector, unless the upside was pretty high. Sounds like you were dealing with a community that really didn't want the project.

I don't know about Texas, but the risk management experts I have hired to help me in California have made it clear that fear of litigation, and the resulting ridiculously high insurance rates, rather than a desire to protect the consumer, is what drives many seemingly unreasonable construction decisions.

I think we will have a leg up in this regard compared to traditional timber frame building systems once we obtain the approvals we are working to secure. FYI, part of getting our system approved (actually "listed" is the term of art) by ICC-ES (formerly ICBO) for use in the US is extensive analysis by structural engineers to ensure compliance with NDS standards, and destructive testing by independent certified laboratories. In addition, QC manuals from all manufacturers involved must be submitted and approved, eliminating most manufacturer's products from even qualifying for consideration. After ICC-ES listing, product liability insurance can be had for only a medium-sized fortune. The other advantage to obtaining ICC-ES listing is that structural engineers unaccustomed to designing post&beam with mortice & tenon etc. connections can confidently select the appropriate connector to handle the loads they calculate at a joint using a simple table, in the same way they would specify a Simpson joist hanger, for instance. They don't need a lot of experience with timber-frame connnections to make sound decisions quickly and with with confidence, and their E&O insurance rates won't go up if their insurance company finds out they are designing "antique connections" (not my term). Likewise, the plan review guys at the city can use published literature to easily check that the connections are specified correctly, knowing the product has been reviewed by acknowledged experts and is covered by product liability insurance.

In any case, we hope to avoid many of the problems your message suggested, but I doubt we will be able to sidestep all of them.

Re the name of the product, it is called MetalFit in Japan and was marketed for a time (foolishly without thought for product liability concerns) as MasterFit in the US. I am not certain what the final name will be. A google search will lead you to the relevant websites.

re costs, I am currently researching relative costs, a job that is a lot of work if one desires any real accurate comparison. Affordable housing is one type I am currently looking at, but things don't look good at the moment in light of the crushing politics and low quality standards involved. Things look better in upper-median range housing, where cash-flow vs erection time becomes important, and politics less so. In the semi-custom home arena, things look really good. This suits my company well because it is willing to spend it's own money to buy raw land and use its own products in its own projects.

Please guys, don't flame me for writing this: I am not pretending it is better than a timber frame: it is an entirely different product, and one that and will not even appeal to the folks that buy traditional timber frames.

Stan