Vinyl - Warm without underfloor heating - Warm with underfloor heating?

Hello everyone,

I am a bit confused about the use of vinyl flooring on underfloor heating.

Generally, floor coverings with high thermal conductivity are recommended for underfloor heating. For example, tiles. Because of the high thermal conductivity, tiles feel significantly colder if the underfloor heating is off. The floor practically draws the heat from the feet :)
Vinyl generally has very poor thermal conductivity, which actually speaks against its use. Now it is argued that the material thickness is very thin and therefore allows for rapid heat transfer.
But if that were the case, one would expect the feet to get cold quickly. It would conduct the heat away from the feet very well because it is so thin? In my experience, however, this is not the case!
Is this all just good marketing and vinyl is not really that well suited?

At a thickness of 13 mm, the thermal resistance (inverse of thermal conductivity) of ceramic tiles is approximately 0.012 m²K/W.
2 mm PVC is at 0.010 m²K/W, 3 mm plastic vinyl at 0.015 m²K/W.

So they are practically identical!

For comparison, 11 mm cork parquet is 0.124 m²K/W, laminate 0.05 m²K/W, 16 mm strip parquet (oak) at 0.08 m²K/W, or 6.5 mm needle felt at 0.12 m²K/W. That means 5 to 12 times worse heat conduction than tiles or thin vinyl. Accordingly, the former materials feel warmer underfoot but are also poorer heat conductors for underfloor heating.

And often there are impact sound insulation layers underneath, which also provide good thermal insulation—whereas glued PVC and tiles never have this.

Could it perhaps be that you have so far confused vinyl with laminate? [/B]

Does it really conduct heat away from the feet very well because it is so thin? In my experience, this is not the case!
Is it all just good marketing and vinyl is not really suitable?

I have had the same experience, that vinyl also feels warmer when unheated.
Nevertheless, it is exactly as suitable for underfloor heating as tiles.

I suspect this is because although it conducts heat about 4 times worse than tiles, it is only a quarter as thick.
As a result, heat is drawn away from the soles of the feet 4 times more slowly than with tiles, but the total resistance against the underfloor heating is identical.

With a higher thermal resistance, it just takes longer for the heat to arrive. If the temperature is not changed daily, it practically has no significance.

With a higher thermal resistance, it just takes longer for the heat to arrive. If you do not change the temperature daily, it practically has no significance.

This statement is unfortunately not correct. "higher thermal resistance" requires a higher supply temperature and thus higher consumption.

With higher thermal resistance, it just takes longer for the heat to arrive.
If the temperature is not changed daily, it basically has no significance.

Rather no.
The floor transfers the heat to the air to heat. However, if due to the insulating properties
of the floor not enough energy can "flow in," the room stays cold in doubt.