I will attempt to address what I read as questions in order:

- Not sure I have seen a window with a vinyl interior and wood exterior.

- Depending on the fiberglass window, the profiles will be as narrow as any historic wood window, are paintable, and there should be no issue with exterior grid longevity.

- The concerns about the expansion and contraction rates of a well engineered window (in any of the above list materials) are ill-founded.

- Can't comment on the sash thickness without knowing the window and there are some vinyl windows with sashes that have similar profile dimensions to wood so that point might be moot as well.

- Whether they will look good in 10 years is up to the manufacturer, the design, and quality of the unit. Again, can comment on that without specifics except to say that most vinyl windows produced and used in new construction today will probably look better than their wood counterparts. Unless you are using a really well engineered wood window (not typically found in new construction) most will have a higher failure rate than their more "cheaply" considered vinyl equivalents.

- If they house is on fire, there are so many chemical and off gassing components that are burning that the vinyl is not your biggest concern. You should not be near or in the smoke path of any house fire. Every single combustible will have major carcinogens in it and the vinyl is usually a less culprit as it will melt before combustion. Most house fires show the vinyl windows in a pool at the base of the home before they show them in smoke.

- Given that persons purchase and own their property, I would be a much bigger fan of attempting to educate folks on the aesthetic and energy implications rather than mandating they follow a specific protocol.

The DOE Vermont study has been well discussed on this board and had many of its claims about energy efficiency effectively challenged. Given your climate region, you are a much milder than other parts of the country.

If a window is wood and of historic nature, these type of woods are nearly impossible to duplicate and the addition of storms (interior or exterior) will usually net you close to the same performance of a average replacement. If you have questions as to this claim, I suggest you read the thread that is linked at the bottom.

Some will argue (I would agree) that storm windows are as visually off putting as a well chose replacement when it historic value as well.

As far as creating a system of guidelines, you might want to soften your vinyl opinion unless you plan on banning PVC/composite trim. While wood is more historically accurate, painting and replacing wood where PVC/Composite is almost visually identical while being more "green" in the lifecycle analysis.

Technically speaking, you should be heating the new homes with terribly inefficient coal or wood fired stoves but I am not sure that the the better alternative either.

As far as the window choices go, I don't think 100% vinyl window works in any historic application that is designed to mimic construction materials/aesthetics from the early 20th century.

There are more efficient and long lasting equivalents in fiberglass and composite that will work and should be considered.

I would hinge my decision more so on the construction type, aesthetics, and accuracy than I would specifically on the material used.

Here is a link that might be useful: Replace vs. Repair

+1

Vinyl will probably not work in your situation as I mentioned above but a fiberglass with SDLs would look just as good, if not better, than clad wood.

I had to laugh at this part of the study Fenestration....

A survey analysis shows that aluminum and timber windows can easily last more than 40 years. Al-clad timber being new on the market, is expected to have a service life well over 40 years. PVC windows, in most cases, are reported to have an optimum service life of 25 years.

....40 years...ummmm...not quite.

There are so many variables that can go into how a window is treated over time. Climate, exposure, how it's maintained etc. Time is the only true test. But it's food for thought on some of those findings.

Agreed.

Find me a clad wood window that is older than 25 years old though.

I can find you thousands that are 10-15 years old that are failing miserably.

There is not treatment that would have prevented this either. Cladding a wood window in anything but a desert/arid climate is going to be a less than 20 year solution.

What about extruded aluminum clad windows as compared to the roll formed. I'm on the west coast so we don't have nearly the problems with weather. I can see your point in relation to the roll formed. You're simply capping the wood with that. But extruded aluminum is totally different and I'd hope and think they'd last much longer. The extruded profile is still relatively new in the window world though.

Eastern Long Island here and some yes so know. Kolbe and Marvin stand up pretty good and I have seen pretty good life out of them (25 yrs generally) with little issues, but I have seen issues with wood from Marvin or Kolbe, even the K-Kron from Kolbe if not maintained. Actually the worst part is the sills and casing on the wood from the FJ's mainly.

I think 25 years is attainable in the right climate.

The broad based claim of the study (over 40 years) without clarifying the specifics of the window is laughable.

Fiberglass and composite will be stealing a good bit of market share from wood in coming years.

In a perfect world we would all love to afford real wood windows. I am facing this issue with an old home renovation. I am spending money on the front façade but can not afford the marvin quote on the rest of the windows. My builder suggest vinyl and he can copy the rotted exterior casing and build out the inside. Original windows are long gone. Has anyone done this, and if so what type of one over one vinyl have you used.

And yes, I know vinyl is no good in a historic renovation. I have saved this home from demolition and can just not afford another 16k on wood windows.

We see that done here around DC quite often. Stay historic on the facade and replace with a more durable and less expensive medium on the non-historic specific sides.

Done the same way in NYC and they are PITA with the Landmark/Historic sites.