Ventilated, suspended facade instead of ETICS?

Ok, a gable side is of course "easier" to do.

In my case, it would be a complete facade, about 200 sqm :-(
That takes a lot of time.

First statement from a specialist company: About twice as expensive as a corresponding ETICS (which would cost about €100 / sqm). Financially, that is of course never profitable.

Without possible personal contributions, it is unfortunately not an option for me either.

Let's see what my head says in spring... This year it's not going to happen anyway.

Hello,

We are planning (for ideological reasons) a solid construction with 50cm bricks and on the outside (for aesthetic reasons) a wooden facade.

What about the ventilated cladding facade in new buildings? Can the battens with the glass wool be applied directly onto an unplastered brick wall to save on thermal plaster, etc.?

Another question is whether one insulation layer is sufficient here. That is, a horizontal battens with insulating wool and then already the ventilation layer.
Do you have to put a protective foil over the glass wool?

The outermost visible layer shall be a horizontally installed tongue and groove batten.

Best regards

I would consider a single layer because of possible thermal bridges. But that's just my gut feeling. Yes, there will also be a [diffusionsoffene Folie] in front as protection. You can also nicely do it yourself.

I would consider that in a new building. Such a wooden facade is not exactly durable. At least a solid 50cm base should then be present as structural wood protection.

I agree, wood as a facade requires a lot of work and incurs regular costs. If the money is available, then better [Eternit] or something similar. Once installed, you don't have to do much for a long time, and the follow-up costs are kept to a minimum.

As far as I know, no plaster is needed then. Important, though, I am not a professional.

I once read that insulation thickness above 50mm becomes less cost-effective. Using the U-value calculator, the U-value for most stone walls (~50cm thick) is halved at about 50mm insulation.
At 150mm insulation, about 1/4 remains.
You can calculate it and decide for yourself what you consider necessary and affordable.
Cross insulation certainly has an advantage, but I don't know if it is that significant. On the wall, it might not be as noticeable as on the roof.

Insulating crosswise certainly has an advantage, but whether it is that significant, I do not know. On the wall, perhaps not as noticeable as on the roof.

What do you mean by that?

I once read that insulation thicknesses above 50mm become less cost-effective. In the U-value calculator, the U-value for most stone walls (~50cm thickness) is roughly halved at 50mm insulation. At 150mm insulation, about 1/4 remains.

That sounds like a highly interesting source. Total insulation thicknesses of 12 to 16 cm seem to be the most common to me—especially where people rely on U-value calculators for advice.