Are lift-and-slide doors generally less airtight?

What do you want with a lift door on the upper floor? Or is there a balcony there?

No, I’m just completely into lift-and-slide doors and would simply love to install them everywhere instead of the regular windows...

Nonsense! Sorry, had to say it :p...

Of course there’s a balcony up there, I would rather call it a medium-sized terrace, which is why personally we like a sliding door so much better...

No, only the former window guy says that the width 250 is actually also at the lower limit of a sensible lift-and-slide door.

Is there also a technical explanation for your opinion on the minimum width, or is it basically about the additional costs that such a door entails compared to a normal sash?

Is there also a technical explanation for your opinion on the minimum width?

I don’t have an opinion on that, only the technical explanation, which is simply logical: even with an ideal split width of 50:50, (since the two "leaves" can at best be aligned but cannot be shifted out of the total width) at most half the width is available as a passage. To avoid a disadvantage compared to a 113 cm door width (which by itself allows carrying a cake tray or laundry basket without any risk of bumping both elbows), a minimum width of 226 cm is required. In a panoramic view, the front is shaped by the horizontal axis, so a landscape format appears a bit more pleasing than a square format. You may call this "addition" my "opinion," but the first 226 cm of the minimum width are "fact."

Interesting statement which I would still completely consider your opinion and not fact. Sorry for the contradiction, but the assumption of a minimum width of 113cm for a passageway I would rather call generous, considering that the "standard door" with 98.5cm, in my apartment, has a passage width of only about 82cm. I can get through here quite well with my breakfast tray, but would still prefer a full meter for a passage to the outside.

Nevertheless, I will take your measurements into consideration and also think about the height/width ratio.

Of course, there is a balcony up there; I would rather call it a medium-sized terrace, which is why we personally would much prefer a sliding door...

How is the balcony constructed and especially drained? A cantilevered wooden balcony or similar where water drips through the decking, or a cantilevered concrete element? The problem with doors (whether classic or sliding) would be standing water due to clogged drains, snow drifts, etc. With a "sealed" balcony, the water-bearing level must be below the door threshold. So you either have a step, raise the flooring and/or create a channel between the threshold and the flooring. If that works, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a classic or sliding door.

Otherwise, just a note that the frame component of a sliding door is really substantial. The smaller the door, the more this has an effect. You should take a look at this live somewhere.

Interesting explanation which I would still describe thoroughly as your opinion and not as a fact. Sorry for the contradiction, but the assumption of a minimum width of 113cm for a passage I would rather describe as generous,

FACT is that with a lift-and-slide door the "leaves" slide one in front/behind the other and only half the width is "open." EXPERIENCE is that for front doors and doors for occasionally fully loaded passage (without wanting to make a concentration/dexterity exercise out of it), one better advises the 113cm width rather than the 101cm width (I have been planning buildings for more than forty years, was until seven years ago still a window manufacturer, and then until two years ago a window dealer). You pass through a room door without a threshold. OPINION is, as I already said, to add a bit on top of the double passage width in order to visually clearly move from the portrait or square format to the landscape format.