Some Guy wrote:

Look what the original poster (OP) said:

"Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the ceiling
rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
ceiling)."

So we can assume that the rafters are strong enough to support someone
wiggling around putting plywood down?

3/4 plywood to tie the rafters together will certainly give some
additional strength to the load-bearing capacity.

It's adding a substantial load just sitting there and it's overkill.
It will help spread out load, it won't add to the overall capacity.

R

On 1-Jul-2005, Goedjn wrote:

Rant: For a home that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd think
the builder could've been a little more liberal budgetwise and built the
house to higher spec.

Ken

What for? You bought it anyway...

That's the problem - the builders brag about meeting minimum standards (as if
that's an accomplishment) and then people buy them regardless. Price comes
before quality as usual.

Mike

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

[...]

What for? You bought it anyway...


And, "what the customer doesn't know won't hurt him..."? Uh huh. I used to
work in floor covering and dealt with many a commission salesman... Talk
about tunnel-vision! You can recite any of the litany of self-serving
excuses all you like. I've heard them all before.

Ken

Ken Moiarty wrote:
"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

[...]

What for? You bought it anyway...


And, "what the customer doesn't know won't hurt him..."? Uh huh. I used to
work in floor covering and dealt with many a commission salesman... Talk
about tunnel-vision! You can recite any of the litany of self-serving
excuses all you like. I've heard them all before.

I don't think Goedjn was commenting on the morality of doing inferior
work - not that trusses are in and by themselves inferior, but more
that the OP didn't have to buy the house in the first place. If he
needed attic storage, he should have bought attic storage or insured
that it was doable on his budget. If he didn't do the homework, he
shouldn't hold it against anyone but himself.

R

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:24:17 GMT, "Ken Moiarty"
wrote:


Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over the
ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact that
the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are composed
of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique angles between
the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It would certainly make
my attic storage efforts easier if some of these cross-members could somehow
be removed out of the way (that is... in such a way as to not compromise the
structural integrity of my roof, of course).

Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering' (i.e.
reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal of some
of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a carpenter or
structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed comments/advice from
others before going further with this.

Thanks.

Ken




This is the main reason I would NEVER build a house with trusses. The
older homes I have lived in all my life had stick framed roofs.
Normally 2x8's across the floor (above your ceiling) and they go from
the outer walls to the center support wall. Then the roof is 2X6's
from the outer walls, and come together at the peak. Built that way,
you can make a real attic, build rooms up there and whatever. Trusses
save the expense of the larger dimension lumber, but are all wasted
space. They are fine for a barn or something where you would not need
an attic, but for a house they are just a big waste of space.
Considering the high cost of trusses, I tend to wonder if they are
really worth the savings, because I tend to think the savings is
minimal. You can call me old fashioned, but I was taught to never have
boards end midstream between supports on horizontal runs (between
walls), but I have alot of disputes with modern construction. Don't
even get me started about those particle board floor joists, and if
you use them be sure your toilet never overflows or you might end up
sitting on your basement floor on top of a pile of wood chips.

Well, you can get trusses designed to provide attic space.

Matt

On 1-Jul-2005, wrote:

I realize trusses go up
faster, but normally a crane is needed to lift them to the roof, and
renting or owning and running that crane adds to the cost of the
labor. Stick construction just requires some men to lift the boards.

Pick-up-sticks construction? They don't just lift them, they have to
put them together. That takes time ($$$). Even with the cost of a
crane, there's no way that hand-built roofs in the field can be cheaper
than factory built roof trusses unless you're talking about building
_one_ house with cheap labour.

Mike

On 1-Jul-2005, wrote:

They MUST be load bearing walls. In most homes the wall down the
center of the house IS the load bearing wall. The way to find out is
to see if that wall is on top of the support beam in the basement.

Maybe where you live, but I've seen lots of bungalows built with a
centre support beam holding up the floors and full span roof
trusses. The centre wall in those cases is not load bearing.

Mike

I don't think Goedjn was commenting on the morality of doing inferior
work [...]

I [the OP] didn't take him to be commenting in any way on "morality" in
any way. My comment was simply to convey my personal distaste for
builders and/or other vendors, even other consumers, etc, who are just
plain "cheap". IOW, what's wrong with a little "class"? I will accept
however, that most people don't care to possess much in the way of this
quality. So I am well out-voted by the majority here.

Ken

wrote:
I don't think Goedjn was commenting on the morality of doing inferior
work [...]

I [the OP] didn't take him to be commenting in any way on "morality" in
any way. My comment was simply to convey my personal distaste for
builders and/or other vendors, even other consumers, etc, who are just
plain "cheap". IOW, what's wrong with a little "class"? I will accept
however, that most people don't care to possess much in the way of this
quality. So I am well out-voted by the majority here.

How does "class" enter into it? I'm not sure what you could mean by
that. Do you mean that a builder should just throw in all sorts of
extras and upgrades for free to show he has class?

You wrote:
"Rant: For a home that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd
think
the builder could've been a little more liberal budgetwise and built
the
house to higher spec."

The builder didn't set prices for the materials he bought, the
subcontractors he used, the land in your area, etc., etc. He set the
sale price for the house based on what he thought the market would
bear. If he, or a subsequent owner that you purchased it from, had
priced it higher you might not have bought it, or it might not have
sold at all. It's a balancing act. If the builder was a fly by night,
or cut every imaginable corner, this should have shown up when you were
doing your research.

Since you bought the house, you must have felt it was a good value at
the time, based on your research into the housing market in your area.
From your personal distaste comment above about cheapness, you couldn't
have been afraid to spend the necessary money. So how did the building
all of a sudden become cheaply made?

Obviously it didn't change from when you had it inspected and made your
offer. You did have it professionally inspected, right? If the house
is as shoddily built as you say, I'm surprised that the inspector
didn't steer you away from the house you're in.

I'm not sure if this is the first home you've bought, but it sounds
like you've come to realize that you now have higher expectations for
your house, and have learned more about how houses are built.

Looking on the bright side, with the market the way it is, your house
is probably increasing in equity value fairly rapidly - regardless of
the way it was built.

R

"John Willis" wrote in message
...
[...]

Really? Seems you fail to understand that as with any business these
days, accounting is what actually runs it, not the quality control
department!:~(


Accounting is just a tool. As with any tool, the tool itself doesn't
determine what your mix of priorities are to be. "People", with their
objectives, interests, values, aspirations and desires etc. ultimately
determine that. If the people don't enter "quality control" into their
accounting equations, it is 'people' who have chosen to not do so, not the
'science of accounting'.

You seem to imply that "quality" is some kind of silly, superfluous, entity,
which is non-essential to productive business activity. Though I expect no
shortage of, say... overpaid government bureacrats, slick talking used-car
salesmen, or back street drug dealers, etc... who'd likely be eager to agree
with you, I for one beg to differ!:~)

Ken

Oh, I really have disturbed a bees nest! g

Ken


"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I don't think Goedjn was commenting on the morality of doing inferior
work [...]

I [the OP] didn't take him to be commenting in any way on "morality" in
any way. My comment was simply to convey my personal distaste for
builders and/or other vendors, even other consumers, etc, who are just
plain "cheap". IOW, what's wrong with a little "class"? I will accept
however, that most people don't care to possess much in the way of this
quality. So I am well out-voted by the majority here.

How does "class" enter into it? I'm not sure what you could mean by
that. Do you mean that a builder should just throw in all sorts of
extras and upgrades for free to show he has class?

You wrote:
"Rant: For a home that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd
think
the builder could've been a little more liberal budgetwise and built
the
house to higher spec."

The builder didn't set prices for the materials he bought, the
subcontractors he used, the land in your area, etc., etc. He set the
sale price for the house based on what he thought the market would
bear. If he, or a subsequent owner that you purchased it from, had
priced it higher you might not have bought it, or it might not have
sold at all. It's a balancing act. If the builder was a fly by night,
or cut every imaginable corner, this should have shown up when you were
doing your research.

Since you bought the house, you must have felt it was a good value at
the time, based on your research into the housing market in your area.
From your personal distaste comment above about cheapness, you couldn't
have been afraid to spend the necessary money. So how did the building
all of a sudden become cheaply made?

Obviously it didn't change from when you had it inspected and made your
offer. You did have it professionally inspected, right? If the house
is as shoddily built as you say, I'm surprised that the inspector
didn't steer you away from the house you're in.

I'm not sure if this is the first home you've bought, but it sounds
like you've come to realize that you now have higher expectations for
your house, and have learned more about how houses are built.

Looking on the bright side, with the market the way it is, your house
is probably increasing in equity value fairly rapidly - regardless of
the way it was built.

R

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:37:11 GMT, "Ken Moiarty"
scribbled this interesting note:


"John Willis" wrote in message
.. .
[...]

Really? Seems you fail to understand that as with any business these
days, accounting is what actually runs it, not the quality control
department!:~(


Accounting is just a tool. As with any tool, the tool itself doesn't
determine what your mix of priorities are to be. "People", with their
objectives, interests, values, aspirations and desires etc. ultimately
determine that. If the people don't enter "quality control" into their
accounting equations, it is 'people' who have chosen to not do so, not the
'science of accounting'.

You seem to imply that "quality" is some kind of silly, superfluous, entity,
which is non-essential to productive business activity. Though I expect no
shortage of, say... overpaid government bureacrats, slick talking used-car
salesmen, or back street drug dealers, etc... who'd likely be eager to agree
with you, I for one beg to differ!:~)

Ken


Sorry if what I said seemed to imply what you inferred. It was not my
intention. The point being exactly as you made it. The lack of quality
is caused by a short term focus on one portion of the equation, that
being the bottom line at the end of the day, instead of the end of the
decade. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that the "Wal-Mart"
syndrome is everywhere...


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

"John Willis" wrote in message
...
[...]

Sorry if what I said seemed to imply what you inferred. It was not my
intention. The point being exactly as you made it. The lack of quality
is caused by a short term focus on one portion of the equation, that
being the bottom line at the end of the day, instead of the end of the
decade. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that the "Wal-Mart"
syndrome is everywhere...


Thanks John. You're vocabulary has picked-up where mine has fallen short.
Yes, it is exactly this "Wal-Mart syndrome", which seems to be afflicting
areas ranging from construction to health-insurance, that has got my goat.
Well said.

Ken

According to Robert Allison :
Chris Lewis wrote:
According to Some Guy :

For liability issues no-one is going to look at your drawings and give
you a thumbs up or down.

That's what civil engineers are _for_.

The civil engineers that I use don't do structural.

Maybe a terminology difference. Here, I believe there isn't
a "structural engineer" designation per-se, it's a specialty
in civil. My dad was a civil, and he did structures, tho,
his main work was in other stuff.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In a previous post says...
I didn't know they make "attic trusses". But if they are as costly as
you are saying, then I'd think using dimensional lumber would be about
the same price, both in materials and labor. I realize trusses go up
faster, but normally a crane is needed to lift them to the roof, and
renting or owning and running that crane adds to the cost of the
labor.


If you time your truss delivery properly, then the delivery driver will
lift them onto the roof for you. All you need to is roll them up and
nail them down.


--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

In a previous post Chris Lewis says...
Maybe a terminology difference. Here, I believe there isn't
a "structural engineer" designation per-se, it's a specialty
in civil. My dad was a civil, and he did structures, tho,
his main work was in other stuff.


The designation of "civil" vs "structural" engineer will vary by state.
The requirements for becoming a "Structural" engineer also vary by
state.

In Washington State, you must be a licensed PE (civil, mechanical,
mining, etc.) before you are allowed to sit for the structural exam.

A summary of requirements goes like this:

1. 4 years college or appropriate work experience
2. Take and pass the Engineer-in-Training exam (8 hours)
3. 4 years work experience for a total of 8 years counting college
4. Take and pas the PE exam in an appropriate discipline (usually civil)
5. 2 more years work experience
6. Take and pass the NCEES Structural I and II exams (16 hours)
7. Take and pas the Western states seismic exam (8) hours)

So to be a licensed structural engineer in Washington State you must
have the following minimum requirements:
a. 10 years appropriate work experience
b. take and pass 32 hours of examination

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:24:17 GMT, "Ken Moiarty"
wrote:


Background: I'm trying to modify my attic a little bit in order to store
some things up there. Currently I'm busy fastening 3/4" plyboard over
the ceiling rafters (so objects to be stored won't crash thru the drywall
ceiling). However movement/activity up there is hampered by the fact
that the roof is supported by factory produced 2x4 trusses, as these are
composed of many cross members that switch back-and-forth at oblique
angles between the upper and lower rafter sections of each truss. It
would certainly make my attic storage efforts easier if some of these
cross-members could somehow be removed out of the way (that is... in such
a way as to not compromise the structural integrity of my roof, of
course).

Therefore I'm requesting feedback on the following idea: 'Sistering'
(i.e. reinforcing with) 2x6s to the topmost rafters, followed by removal
of some of the supporting cross-members of said trusses. Not being a
carpenter or structural engineer of any kind, I'm seeking informed
comments/advice from others before going further with this.

Thanks.

Ken




This is the main reason I would NEVER build a house with trusses. The
older homes I have lived in all my life had stick framed roofs.
Normally 2x8's across the floor (above your ceiling) and they go from
the outer walls to the center support wall. Then the roof is 2X6's
from the outer walls, and come together at the peak. Built that way,
you can make a real attic, build rooms up there and whatever. Trusses
save the expense of the larger dimension lumber, but are all wasted
space. They are fine for a barn or something where you would not need
an attic, but for a house they are just a big waste of space.
Considering the high cost of trusses, I tend to wonder if they are
really worth the savings, because I tend to think the savings is
minimal. You can call me old fashioned, but I was taught to never have
boards end midstream between supports on horizontal runs (between
walls), but I have alot of disputes with modern construction. Don't
even get me started about those particle board floor joists, and if
you use them be sure your toilet never overflows or you might end up
sitting on your basement floor on top of a pile of wood chips.

Well, you can get trusses designed to provide attic space.

Matt

Exactly. Not of much help to the OP, but that's the way to do it. I have
just completed the rebuild of a total ground up rebuild of my home that was
lost in a fire. The original home (50 yrs old) had a stick built roof and
was considered to be in the premier neighborhood in the area at the time.
The construction was what I would rate as average, although contractors who
examined what was left said it was very well built. 2x6 outside walls,
plaster walls, mahogany trim, etc. Attic access was through the garage. 2
X 8's on 16" centers spanning 24'! Most of the plaster on the garage
ceiling was cracked due to sag. Didn't store too much other than christmas
stuff and empty boxes. Still, just my weight (170lbs) you could feel the
joists move. In the new house, I had the garage (increased to 35') area
trussed for storage (the truss people like to call it a "bonus room").
Solid as rock! I can literally jump up and down and the floor/ceiling
doesn't give a bit! So much for old vs. new construction. Could a free
rafter roof be as solid? Sure, I have no doubt. Lot's more expensive
lumber. The big bonus as far as I'm concerned with trusses is the future
flexibility with floor plans. Want to move a wall? No problem. Most
interior walls are non-load bearing so just knock 'em down and move 'em. As
far as the "particle board" I-joists, I doubt a toilet over flowing once (
or even a dozen times) is going to dissolve them. And if you've got that
bad of a water problem, you've got some serious problems! They got a bad
rap early on, but the adhesives have vastly improved in the last ten years.
A good analogy is the world of automobiles. Once upon a time, to build a
solid car, you added more metal. Now, look at the most structurally solid
cars. What do they use? Carbon fiber in honeycomb EPOXY matrix. Yeah,
they're glued together! Try to field a formula one or indy car out of good
old fashioned steel and see where you get. Technology marches on. If you
use it wisely, you can build a very solid house. However, I am convinced
after working early on in the design phase of my home that your typical GC
doesn't give a hoot about quality. If you want a well built house (or
anything else, for that matter) you're better off building it yourself.
That's what I had to do.

I just built a house and used trusses because I have a floor plan with the
kitchen/dining/living room all open.
There is a 32' open span that couldn't be done with ceiling joist/rafters.

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

So much for old vs. new construction. Could a free
rafter roof be as solid? Sure, I have no doubt. Lot's more expensive
lumber. The big bonus as far as I'm concerned with trusses is the future
flexibility with floor plans. Want to move a wall? No problem. Most
interior walls are non-load bearing so just knock 'em down and move 'em. As
far as the "particle board" I-joists, I doubt a toilet over flowing once (
or even a dozen times) is going to dissolve them. And if you've got that
bad of a water problem, you've got some serious problems! They got a bad
rap early on, but the adhesives have vastly improved in the last ten years.
A good analogy is the world of automobiles.

Joe wrote:
I just built a house and used trusses because I have a floor plan with the
kitchen/dining/living room all open.
There is a 32' open span that couldn't be done with ceiling joist/rafters.


Well, it COULD be done, but it would be expensive as you'd need glulam
or other engineered lumber for the joists and rafters. :-)


Matt

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:06:36 GMT, "Joe" wrote:

I just built a house and used trusses because I have a floor plan with the
kitchen/dining/living room all open.
There is a 32' open span that couldn't be done with ceiling joist/rafters.

My garage has a 32' clear span and I did it with I-joists. Plus, I
put them up singlehandedly.

Wes Stewart wrote:

My garage has a 32' clear span and I did it with I-joists. Plus, I
put them up singlehandedly.

Amputee?

R

On 9 Jul 2005 20:48:53 -0700, "RicodJour"
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:

My garage has a 32' clear span and I did it with I-joists. Plus, I
put them up singlehandedly.

Amputee?

No, one hand on the ladder, one hand pushing the joist into the
hanger. :-)