De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
I live in an apartment complex and I called the office to ask whether the trash collectors would take a mattress and box springs for a fee. I was told as long as it fits IN the dumpster, they will take it, for no fee. My Cal King box springs are too long so I tore one of them apart tonight. That was fun and educational. A foundation is a fairly remarkable item - it looks good and does it's job, with a minimum of materials. The shame is, mine really were perfectly fine, but I just don't need them any more and didn't think anyone would take them as they and the mattress are 13 years old. I will take the mattress apart tomorrow. It would actually fit in the bin, but it would fill it up and that would be rude. Besides, I want to do an autopsy on it anyway, to see what's inside and how it's constructed, and see how compressed the layers of foam and fiber are. Here again, from all outward appearances it's a great mattress. No signs of impressions and no stains. Heck, it looks almost brand new. But if mattress years are like dog years, then this mattress is 91 years old and so out it goes, into the landfill. I hope and expect to never again have to dispose of a complete mattress. About all I foresee doing is replacing a layer of foam, maybe one of the top two 1" layers. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
It seemed to me the bed wasn't as comfortable as it once was. Sleeping on my side had become uncomfortable. The $64K question is, was it because of changes to the mattress, or to me? Given that there really wasn't a lot of foam in this mattress, any breakdown in what was there would have resulted in a significant reduction in comfort. What I regret talking myself out of was trying a topper. A 2" latex or memory foam topper might have been all I needed. I heard over and over so many times that I came to believe it, that a topper would be a temporary, and in all likelihood futile waste of money, that I didn't even try it. I abandoned the idea without even trying it, instead spending thousands of dollars on a new mattress. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
I just read something online saying that yes, as we get older, not only do we need to replace our mattresses sooner, but often what USED to work when we were younger no longer does as our body changes. I know for a fact, that I used to LOVE the mattress in guest room. I couldn't find anything to replace it! But, now when I lay on it, I'm not as pleased with its feel. I now prefer a bit more cushion. However, I still prefer a firm base....just maybe not as unpadded as I once did. So, yes, I'm sure it's a combination of a few things that result in how we feel on a mattress now as opposed to when we were younger. I think you should have tried a topper, too. I'm having a fun time experimenting with different toppers on my mattress. So much so that it's hard to choose which one will ultimately be "the sweet spot", or if that will change from week to week. :) haysdb wrote: It seemed to me the bed wasn't as comfortable as it once was. Sleeping on my side had become uncomfortable. The $64K question is, was it because of changes to the mattress, or to <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span>?<BR><BR>Given that there really wasn't a lot of foam in this mattress, any breakdown in what was there would have resulted in a significant reduction in comfort.<BR><BR>What I regret talking myself out of was trying a topper. A 2" latex or memory foam topper might have been all I needed. I heard over and over so many times that I came to believe it, that a topper would be a temporary, and in all likelihood futile waste of money, that I didn't even try it. I abandoned the idea without even trying it, instead spending thousands of dollars on a new mattress. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
I should have tried a topper first. And that IS what I started out to do. But I thought I wanted memory foam, and then got talked out of memory foam, and by the time I talked myself into latex, the thought of a latex topper simply never crossed my mind. It went something like this: I tried some all-latex beds and didn't like them. They were all too soft. But I fell in love with a couple of mattresses, one from Tempur-Pedic and one from Intelli-Beds which used latex in the core and then another material for the comfort layers. If wish I'd had the opportunity to experience a latex toper over a conventional innerspring bed, but that opportunity never arose. The next time I read "every foam bed developes body impressions," I will say "not true, my 13 year old mattress never did." Just because it's made with PU foam does not automatically make it crap. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
And, I imagine because your mattress had a relatively small amount of PU foam (and most likely an HR type)...it didn't compress like the mattresses with fluffy pillowtops and layers and layers of softer or cheaper foam. I think less is often times better when it comes to a good mattress. Then you have the option to build it into the bed you want, depending on how many comfort layers you prefer. And, the best thing--you don't have to take your whole mattress apart in order to replace those layers. Yeah, I wish you could have felt what it's like to have layers of latex and a PU foam base over a coil system. An entirely different feel than only latex or memory foam. Best of both worlds, in my opinion. haysdb wrote: I should have tried a topper first. And that IS what I started out to do. But I thought I wanted memory foam, and then got talked out of memory foam, and by the time I talked myself into latex, the thought of a latex topper simply never crossed my mind. It went something like this: I tried some all-latex beds and didn't like them. They were all too soft. But I fell in love with a couple of mattresses, one from Tempur-Pedic and one from Intelli-Beds which used latex in the core and then another material for the comfort layers. If wish I'd had the opportunity to experience a latex toper over a conventional innerspring bed, but that opportunity never arose.</p><p>The next time I read "every foam bed developes body impressions," I will say "not true, my 13 year old mattress never did." Just because it's made with PU foam does not automatically make it crap. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
BeddyBye wrote: And, I imagine because your mattress had a relatively small amount of PU foam (and most likely an HR type)...it didn't compress like the mattresses with fluffy pillowtops and layers and layers of softer or cheaper foam. I think less is often times better when it comes to a good mattress. Then you have the option to build it into the bed you want, depending on how many comfort layers you prefer. And, the best thing--you don't have to take your whole mattress apart in order to replace those layers. Yeah, I wish you could have felt what it's like to have layers of latex and a PU foam base over a coil system. An entirely different feel than only latex or memory foam. Best of both worlds, in my opinion.
Down the line I plan to deconstruct my current mattress and replace the PU foam with denser and more durable materials--which is why Hays's dissection is so interesting to me. Seems like the various components are easily separated. I couldn't agree with you more about having the best of both worlds. When I was looking for a latex mattress the one that felt the best was actually a hybrid made by Englander. It had a coil system with latex and memory foam over it, and I found it so much more supportive than either the straight latex or latex with visco topper. I still like the passive feel of memory foam for a top layer and would love to find a Dunlop latex topper to fit between the visco and the coil unit. (Talalay--well I don't even want to go there...) That would make the perfect mattress for me. Our bodies do change as we get older and what was comfortable at one time can begin to feel a lot less so over time. Case in point, my old innerspring mattress that I bought after my Dunlop began to disintegrate. It was extra firm and my back just loved it, but I'm a side sleeper, and over time that bed began to feel more and more uncomfortable on my hip and shoulder. Bit by bit I started adding various toppers when the ones I already had on there were no longer enough. By time I consigned it to the guest room it had about 4" of extra comfort layers on the top. I figure my new mattress also has about 4" of comfort layers already built into it. They just don't seem to be as comfortable overall as the ones I added myself. I'm now a firm believer in the concept of simply buying a basic mattress with the correct level of support and then adding comfort layers to suit. This way you can easily change things out as your needs change. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
I can't use this forum on my new Safari browser, so just dropping in on an old machine. If want innerspring, basic plus building up/adjusting comfort layers definitely the way to go. Was looking for a decent mattress for daughter over weekend. Had an honest mattress owner store tell me that the way mattresses made today with excessive cheap foam, very lucky to get 8 years AND made that way on purpose so have to replace more frequently. Problem is finding basic, minimal padding mattress. I'm still on a very old innerspring since haven't custom made one yet. Put 3 Overstock cheapo latex 1" convoluted toppers (mating 2 surfaces) and actually is comfortable, but underlying support of worn out mattress still lacking. I would recommend at least 2 of the latex toppers to anyone as an interim/experimental solution. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
Cloud9, for a dunlop topper, try SleepWarehouse and AbsoluteComfortonSale. SleepEZ is another possibility as I know they carry both talalay and dunlop. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
Yep. GMTA. :-) When I visited a couple of independent mattress makers some years back, I was so turned off by the "not so purdy mattresses" they were making. I had been suckered into thinking that a good mattress had to look like an ice cream sundae with lots of whipped cream on top. Not so at all. In fact, just the opposite is true most of the time. Look at the McRoskey. Now I know it's not for everyone. And there isn't an ounce of foam in it, HR or otherwise....but it's a good example of how a thinner profile mattress with TWO sides can look very basic and not have layers and layers and layer of cheap fillers....and YET they seem to hold up for years! And, for many people, the best thing they've ever slept on. But, like you said, there are also perfectly wonderful mattresses made with minimal layers of HR foam and a good innerspring system...or at least they used to be. I have found a few mattress companies in the area who still use high quality foams and who will build them to your specs. and comfort level. But, I just happened to be intrigued by the concept of being able to unzipper my mattress and add or subtract layers as needed. But, I'm sure if I hadn't found this store, I would consider one of the good, basic HR foam and innerspring mattresses from the independent stores. I also liked that no one was on commission or needed to lie in order to make a sale. cloud9 wrote: BeddyBye, I think you nailed it. Years ago manufacturers used HR foam that held up much longer than today's low density PU foams. And also, there just wasn't as much foam in the old double sided mattresses. </p><p>Down the line I plan to deconstruct my current mattress and replace the PU foam with denser and more durable materials--which is why Hays's dissection is so interesting to me. Seems like the various components are easily separated. I couldn't agree with you more about having the best of both worlds. When I was looking for a latex mattress the one that felt the best was actually a hybrid made by Englander. It had a coil system with latex and memory foam over it, and I found it so much more supportive than either the straight latex or latex with visco topper. I still like the passive feel of memory foam for a top layer and would love to find a Dunlop latex topper to fit between the visco and the coil unit. (Talalay--well I don't even want to go there...) That would make the perfect mattress for me.</p><p>Our bodies do change as we get older and what was comfortable at one time can begin to feel a lot less so over time. Case in point, my old innerspring mattress that I bought after my Dunlop began to disintegrate. It was extra firm and my back just loved it, but I'm a side sleeper, and over time that bed began to feel more and more uncomfortable on my hip and shoulder. Bit by bit I started adding various toppers when the ones I already had on there were no longer enough. By time I consigned it to the guest room it had about 4" of extra comfort layers on the top. I figure my new mattress also has about 4" of comfort layers already built into it. They just don't seem to be as comfortable overall as the ones I added myself. </p><p>I'm now a firm believer in the concept of simply buying a basic mattress with the correct level of support and then adding comfort layers to suit. This way you can easily change things out as your needs change. |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
| What is HR foam? |
Re: De-constructing a mattress and box springs
|
Joanel wrote: What is HR foam? Sorry, we speak in tongues. HR is "High Resilience" foam. It's the highest quality of flexible polyurethane foam. The Polyurethane Foam Association has some good educational materials on their website that are "consumer level" materials and not overly technical. This message was modified Oct 25, 2007 by haysdb
|