On Thursday 03 January 2013 14:26 willshak wrote in alt.home.repair:

wrote the following on 1/2/2013 8:34 PM (ET):
Seems that every new house I see being built today are using trusses for
the roof. I dont understand the reasoning to that. Trusses are great
for large commercial buildings and barns, because they eliminate the
need for posts, but why are they being used on smaller homes, which have
walls under them and eliminate the need for using a truss?

Three reasons come to mind to NOT use them.
1. More lumber is needed to make a truss

Stick built roofs require at least 2" by 6" lumber.
Trusses are usually 2" x 4"s for general housing.
There may be more lumber, but it is smaller lumber.

Might be where you are -

In England, for the 1950's period +- 20 years, 4x2 are pretty normal for
rooves on mid sized to smaller houses.

The last trussed roof I saw was using virtually matchsticks - 2x1.5" at best
- just an awful lot of them!

2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

4. It may require a crane to lift the trusses, or more workers for low
roofs.


In stick built homes, the attic could be turned into a nice living
space. You can not do that with a truss roof. So, the attic is useless
other than a place to store stuff in between all the braces.

It just seems senseless to use them on a small home. Besides
eliminating a useful attic, the cost to build would be significantly
increased. Not just the cost to manufacture the trusses, but also the
cost to install them, because a crane is needed to get them on top of
the house, and a crew of men to install them. Framing a roof with plain
dimentional lumber is so much easier, as well as cheaper and one gets a
useful attic to boot..... One person can frame a roof by themselves and
no crane is needed. WTF?

I have yet to find any GOOD reason to use them on a house!



--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."