Which flooring to choose for the ground floor - experiences?

If you have worse values, it just takes longer until you feel the warmth in the room.

However, you also need slightly higher flow temperatures to reach the desired room temperature. With wood, you therefore also have higher heating costs compared to tiles.



What do you mean by gap formation? Regarding the 3 layers, we would be talking about joints in the cross-section; at least I have never heard of that?! However, if we are talking about joints in the visible top layer, as far as I know, this is acceptable within certain tolerances (a few mm). Anything beyond that should be a case for the warranty.

The problem with 3-layer parquet compared to solid wood is that the 3 layers expand differently with heat. This can lead to unsightly gap formation.

Therefore, 2-layer parquet is also sufficient for gluing. By the way, I have not seen any gap formation in my old 3-layer parquet either. Only in winter was it barely visible, but unsightly gap formation is a myth.

However, slightly higher flow temperatures are also required to achieve the desired room temperature. With wood, you therefore also have higher heating costs compared to tiles.

That is not true. The wood takes a little longer to warm up to the same temperature as tiles. But once the temperature is reached, the heating costs are identical.
This is not just theory but actually true in practice.

But once the temperature is reached, the heating costs are identical.

I am not a physicist, but let's try a thought experiment:

If it were like that, why doesn't the floor covering gradually take on the temperature of the heating supply over time? If the thermal resistance only affected the heating-up time, then all the surrounding components would eventually have to show the same temperature.

Of course, they do not; the energy obviously takes other paths (mainly via the heating return). But if the same amount of energy no longer reaches the surface of your floor covering (better insulation effect of the parquet compared to the tile), the room becomes colder, and then you have to compensate with more energy (higher supply temperature).

Of course, you cannot notice this in practice because you hardly ever knock out the tiles in between and lay parquet.

Theoretically correct . But in practice too small an effect to be noticeable on the bill.

If our floor coverings were all 20cm thick, it would be different. Then you could easily see the difference from tile to wood on the heating bill.

In reality, due to the thinness of the coverings, it is a discussion about a golden pineapple.

Admittedly, I have actually never thought about the concrete impact on the bill. In the end, no one will choose their flooring based on whether it promises any heating cost savings. In this respect, thank you for the hint and nice that we talked about it!

Of course, you can't notice that in practice because you hardly ever knock out the tiles and lay parquet in between.

That’s what I meant by saying that you don’t notice any difference in practice. Whether it ends up being 500€ or 505€ heating costs – in the end, the costs are practically identical. In the last house, I had oak country house floorboards and porcelain stoneware laid side by side (open living/kitchen/dining area). In winter, everything felt the same. The flow temperature was around 27 degrees (the house is now a good 4.5 years old, back then about KfW55 with extremely closely laid heating loops).