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

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!

On 1/2/2013 7:34 PM, wrote:
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
2. It costs more than just using lumber
....

Both of those are wrong and it's the "why"...as well as the time factor
of not having to stick-build on site but simply set the truss in place.

--

On Jan 2, 7:34*pm, wrote:
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
2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

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!

They permit the use of wide, unsupported areas on the main floor,
which is necessary for the open concept homes that are currently in
vogue

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:34:21 -0600, wrote:

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?


Trusses use smaller lumber because the truss reduces unsupported spans
and provides good bracing. Overall it can actually use LESS lumber -
and at the very least, cheaper lumber.
Three reasons come to mind to NOT use them.
1. More lumber is needed to make a truss
2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

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!

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

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!

Hi,
Almost all houses built today is pretty well assembling prefab trusses,
walls, staircase, railing, cabinets, windows, etc. you name it. Simply
law of economics. You can still have a post and beam custom house if you
want. It will cost more and take longer to finish.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:59:27 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:



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

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!

Hi,
Almost all houses built today is pretty well assembling prefab trusses,
walls, staircase, railing, cabinets, windows, etc. you name it. Simply
law of economics. You can still have a post and beam custom house if you
want. It will cost more and take longer to finish.
Up here in Canada most houses are still built "on-site" but the VAST
majority use pre-engineered trusses for the roof - and quite a few use
manufactured floor joists as well (plywood or aspenite web with 2X4 or
2X3 lomber cap strips. All about not requiring "old growth" lumber
(2X8 and larger dimensional lumber)

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:34:21 -0600, wrote:

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

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!


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

wrote:

Trusses come with engineering that you need in a lot of places
They also require a lot less on site carpenter skill and lower labor
cost. I wouldn't bet most of the kids today could cut a rafter.
They are much faster to do.
I am not even sure they use more lumber since trusses are 2x4s and
rafters are usually 2x6 or 2x8s with 2x6 joists.

The crane is chump change compared to the labor of laying out, cutting
and setting rafters.

My English house, built in the 1950's uses 2x4 rafters with purlins at the
halfway point - and a centre load bearing wall. Hardly extravagent with
timber volumes.

Mind you, timber was better back then - I can walk on the old ceiling
rafters with no noticeable deflection over a 3.8m span.

Trusses are cheap in that they are banged out at the factory and need little
skill onsite, other than a bloke who can space them evenly and nailgun a few
diagonal braces across them to keep them upright.

But I agree - hideous things. Any future loft conversion involves rediculous
amounts of work.

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

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

Doug wrote:


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.

My house (1950's) has excellent regularity in the original framing work.
Unlike the loft conversion that was done in the 1970's by a moron with a
hammer.

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

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

On 1/2/2013 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:59:27 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Up here in Canada most houses are still built "on-site" but the VAST
majority use pre-engineered trusses for the roof - and quite a few use
manufactured floor joists as well (plywood or aspenite web with 2X4 or
2X3 lomber cap strips. All about not requiring "old growth" lumber
(2X8 and larger dimensional lumber)



In Halton I notice alot of floor joists made from engineered plywood but
I don't always see caps on/in them. Seen this in a couple of over
million dollar homes from the basement side. Maybe I missed the caps.

Owners of over million dollar house don't like a common man studying new
construction techniques of their homes too closely...

On 1/3/2013 3:18 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
Doug wrote:


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.

My house (1950's) has excellent regularity in the original framing work.
Unlike the loft conversion that was done in the 1970's by a moron with a
hammer.


New housing has become a volume business. Build dozens if not hundreds
of houses at one time using methods that a car manufacturer or a fast
food restaurant would use...

On 1/2/2013 8:34 PM, wrote:
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
2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

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!

In all the replies this was not mentioned. With trusses, heating ducts,
etc. can be run perpendicular to the truss itself ... not so with solid
joists. This makes the room below without bulkheads to house that
stuff. In my house it uses trusses over the basement. The basement
ceiling is totally flat. So if someone wanted to finish a basement
room, it would work out well.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:18:08 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Doug wrote:


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.

My house (1950's) has excellent regularity in the original framing work.
Unlike the loft conversion that was done in the 1970's by a moron with a
hammer.


I'm not surprised and I was referring to more modern housing. I've
seen some modern wood construction in home building that made me glad
I wasn't buying that home. I also know a good carpenter that almost
got fired because he couldn't make a quota on hanging front doors and
it wasn't due to lack of knowledge. Personally I love really old
homes circa early 1900s tho I do recognize that some aspects of
construction have improved, if DONE PROPERLY.

On Thursday 03 January 2013 13:23 Art Todesco wrote in alt.home.repair:

On 1/2/2013 8:34 PM, wrote:
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
2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

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!

In all the replies this was not mentioned. With trusses, heating ducts,
etc. can be run perpendicular to the truss itself ... not so with solid
joists. This makes the room below without bulkheads to house that
stuff. In my house it uses trusses over the basement. The basement
ceiling is totally flat. So if someone wanted to finish a basement
room, it would work out well.

Did you mean "engineered joists" rather that "trusses" which implies "roof
trusses"?
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

On 1/3/2013 7:40 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:18:08 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

Doug wrote:


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.

My house (1950's) has excellent regularity in the original framing work.
Unlike the loft conversion that was done in the 1970's by a moron with a
hammer.


I'm not surprised and I was referring to more modern housing. I've
seen some modern wood construction in home building that made me glad
I wasn't buying that home. I also know a good carpenter that almost
got fired because he couldn't make a quota on hanging front doors and
it wasn't due to lack of knowledge. Personally I love really old
homes circa early 1900s tho I do recognize that some aspects of
construction have improved, if DONE PROPERLY.

But how many homes built in the early 1900s are still around? It
is true that the ones that are still around were well built, but
the ones that aren't around may have been poorly built. You have
to figure out what the average was. I'm sure that there were
homes built back then that were junk from the start particularly
small homes. When I was young we were renters and we lived in
some houses that were basically shacks with pretensions. You
haven't lived until you have lived in a house with single wall
construction. The only thing keeping out the wind is the wall
paper.

Bill Gill

Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.


If by lazy, you mean being able to build a quality product for less
money, then yes. Modern trusses are mass produced. The material and
labor to install them is less, not more. And, yes, as someone else
said, the installation is more like to go smoothly even if some of the
workers are "incompetant" as you say.

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.

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!



--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

wrote in news:j9n9e8h2ntua6pro7k3k2rh1kdl4ro3ndh@
4ax.com:

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

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.

There is no usable attic in todays homes because the insulation
reguirements of 12" to 20"(R30-40)far exceed truss dimensions. Framing for
usable attic space to accomodate the insulation would be cost prohibitive.


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!

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:34:21 -0600, wrote:

- SNIP-

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!


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

Agree. The "local workmanship" around here framed our house thinking that
somehow we wanted garage doors that were only 3 feet high. After the
builder fixed that -- wasting time and a lot of wood, I was glad to see the
prefabricated trusses and other structural parts arrive.

I'll throw in another reason to use prefab trusses as well. As I visited
several "independent living" retirement communities with a relative
contemplating moving into one with detached homes, we were surprised to find
the management very willing, at no extra charge, to tear out walls and
partitions to suit whatever living style was wanted. The single-story homes
had no attics and with truss construction could be remodeled easily into
different floor plans including one large kitchen-dining-living room. Some
units were being changed every 5 years or so.

Tomsic

On 1/3/2013 8:02 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
....

Did you mean "engineered joists" rather that "trusses" which implies "roof
trusses"?

Not necessarily...they're commonly also called "floor trusses"...

http://www.trusssystemsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&It emid=56

--

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."

On Thursday 03 January 2013 14:28 TomC wrote in alt.home.repair:

wrote in news:j9n9e8h2ntua6pro7k3k2rh1kdl4ro3ndh@
4ax.com:

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

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.

There is no usable attic in todays homes because the insulation
reguirements of 12" to 20"(R30-40)far exceed truss dimensions. Framing for
usable attic space to accomodate the insulation would be cost prohibitive.

If using glasswool/sheepswoold/rockwool. You can roughly halve the thickness
if using a PIR type foamboard (eg Kingspan/Celotex etc). Say, on a 4x2"
rafter roof, you can, according to English building regulations currently in
force, have:

1) 3"/75mm between rafters leaving a 1"/25mm air gap provided you use a
breathable membrane under tiles.

2) Another 3" under the rafters will still leave a lot of space. Another
option is to warm-deck the roof and stick the foam board on the outside of
the rafters.


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/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

On Thursday 03 January 2013 14:23 Pat wrote in alt.home.repair:


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.


If by lazy, you mean being able to build a quality product for less
money, then yes. Modern trusses are mass produced. The material and
labor to install them is less, not more. And, yes, as someone else
said, the installation is more like to go smoothly even if some of the
workers are "incompetant" as you say.

I dispute your use of "quality".

If you said "just adequate", I would agree.


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

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

On Thursday 03 January 2013 14:30 dpb wrote in alt.home.repair:

On 1/3/2013 8:02 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
...

Did you mean "engineered joists" rather that "trusses" which implies
"roof trusses"?

Not necessarily...they're commonly also called "floor trusses"...


http://www.trusssystemsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&It emid=56

--

Fairy'nuff - we'd usually call those "engineered" but it was what I was
thinking of. I have no objection to those and it does avoid plumber hacking
bloody great notches in them.


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

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

Seems that every new house I see being built today are using
trusses for the roof. I dont understand the reasoning to that.
Three reasons come to mind to NOT use them.
1. More lumber is needed to make a truss

In most cases, trusses use less lumber because they can make use of
smaller 2x4 lumber instead of larger rafters and ceiling joists.

2. It costs more than just using lumber

Based on materials alone, it kind of depends on the roof design. Most of
the time, a truss still costs less. If you factor in labor costs, trusses
go in faster and therefore cost less to install.

3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

Trusses can be ordered with attic rooms. Most aren't ordered that way
because of cost and/or there isn't enough headroom in the attic anyway.

It just seems senseless to use them on a small home.

Trusses offer many advantages:

- Since they're built in a factory with jigs, they are consistent and
accurately measured.

- They install quickly saving labor costs and help to get a building
closed in to the weather faster.

- They can span large distances if you want an open floorplan. Walls then
become simple partitions that can be moved around as needed.

- They provide lots of space for insulation. In a vaulted ceiling with
stick framed lumber, you have to use large oversized rafters to
accomodate the necessary insulation.

a crane is needed to get them on top of the house,
and a crew of men to install them.

Not always. My wife and I carried our roof trusses about 100 feet down to
our house, set them on the walls, and tilted them up ourselves. Granted,
ours only spanned 16', but we could have handled larger trusses easily
too.

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

I used trusses on part of our house, and stick framed the rest.

Where we had bearing walls to support the roof, I used 2x12's to span the
rooms and provide space for insulation.

In our living room we needed to span a 16' space, with a 6/12 pitch
inside and a 9/12 pitch outside, and a 2' high space for insulation. This
would have been expensive and difficult to build with stick framing.
Trusses handled this situation easily at a much lower cost.

We did stick frame our garage roof using 2x6 rafters and 2x12 ceiling
joists (to free span the 24' wide garage). With an 8/12 roof pitch this
gave us a lot of storage space in the attic.

Anthony Watson
Mountain Software
www.mountain-software.com/about.htm

On 1/2/2013 8:58 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:34:21 -0600, wrote:

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

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!


Trusses come with engineering that you need in a lot of places
They also require a lot less on site carpenter skill and lower labor
cost. I wouldn't bet most of the kids today could cut a rafter.
They are much faster to do.
I am not even sure they use more lumber since trusses are 2x4s and
rafters are usually 2x6 or 2x8s with 2x6 joists.

The crane is chump change compared to the labor of laying out, cutting
and setting rafters.


I am always amazed at the efficiency when I drive by new construction
and I see a crane setting up and a load of trusses and a finished roof
later in the day.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:25:33 -0500, Hench wrote:

On 1/2/2013 10:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:59:27 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Up here in Canada most houses are still built "on-site" but the VAST
majority use pre-engineered trusses for the roof - and quite a few use
manufactured floor joists as well (plywood or aspenite web with 2X4 or
2X3 lomber cap strips. All about not requiring "old growth" lumber
(2X8 and larger dimensional lumber)



In Halton I notice alot of floor joists made from engineered plywood but
I don't always see caps on/in them. Seen this in a couple of over
million dollar homes from the basement side. Maybe I missed the caps.

Without the "caps", how are they held in place? How does the decking
attach to the joists? They just have 3/4" ply standing on edge?
Really?

Owners of over million dollar house don't like a common man studying new
construction techniques of their homes too closely...

"Anyone can build a bridge than can stand. It takes an engineer to
build a bridge that barely stands." ;-)

On 1/3/2013 8:39 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
On Thursday 03 January 2013 14:30 dpb wrote in alt.home.repair:

On 1/3/2013 8:02 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
...

Did you mean "engineered joists" rather that "trusses" which implies
"roof trusses"?

Not necessarily...they're commonly also called "floor trusses"...
....

Fairy'nuff - we'd usually call those "engineered" but it was what I was
thinking of. I have no objection to those and it does avoid plumber hacking
bloody great notches in them.

Well, of course they're engineered but a truss is still a truss whether
it's flat or peaked or whatever-shaped to fit the need...it's the
principle of using the diagonal member to take the load and provide the
stiffness in lieu of solid material that's the key here, not the shape
or the purpose.

--

On Jan 3, 1:34*am, wrote:
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
2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

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!

It may use more lumber but it will be from smaller cheaper trees.

The load is distributed better. There are no large point loads on the
walls.

Trusses are available that allow for living space in the roof.

It allows the roofs to be factory manufactured off-site.

On Jan 2, 5:45*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
On Jan 2, 7:34*pm, wrote:





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

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!

They permit the use of wide, unsupported areas on the main floor,
which is necessary for the open concept homes that are currently in
vogue

Yep, The addition I put on my very small house is 18'x30' with the
trusses spanning the 30' dimension (needed to match the existing
roof).

Yes, trusses are cheaper both in the lumber used, time to build and
time to erect. They do not need a "crew to erect other than the
carpenters alrady on scene plus the truck driver to operate the trucks
crane (part of the delivery cost.

Harry K

On Jan 2, 5:34*pm, wrote:
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
2. It costs more than just using lumber
3. There is no usable attic in those homes.

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!

I am glad to see that you have just overturned over a 100 years of
construction practices. Too bad taht 2 ourt of three of your reasons
are wrong.

Harry K

On Jan 3, 1:18*am, Tim Watts wrote:
Doug wrote:
Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

I think that is just a sign of modern builders being lazy or incompetant.

My house (1950's) has excellent regularity in the original framing work.
Unlike the loft conversion that was done in the 1970's by a moron with a
hammer.

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

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

It's not that the builders are lazy or incompetent, it's just good
business sense. It's more efficient to have them built in a factory
in controlled environment, Most of the time, attic space aren't
engineered for loft use anyway, even though many people think they can
put some plywood down and built some knee walls and move in. Then
they complain about the below ceiling sagging.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:39:53 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband
wrote:

Not always. My wife and I carried our roof trusses about 100 feet down to
our house, set them on the walls, and tilted them up ourselves. Granted,
ours only spanned 16', but we could have handled larger trusses easily
too.

How big is your house? 16ft wide is not a very large house, unless it's
long and narrow. And if you have any overhang, then the house would
only be 24 of 15ft wide....

I can see being able to hand carry a 16ft truss. Probably up to a 22ft
by hand.

Of you only have a 14 to 16 foot indoor span, you must not have a center
wall, because your rooms would only be 7 or 8 foot wide.

I'm planning to build a small single story house this summer, and intend
to stick build it. I'm an experienced carpenter so that is not
difficult. I intend to make it 23 ft wide. That way the floor and
ceiling joists are 12 footers, overlapped in the center over a beam.
Having a center wall for support, will allow rooms to be about 11ft.
wide. That's adaquate, even though I'd prefer a little wider, but cost
is the big factor. For length, I'm thinking 30ft. I can always build
an addition later, and probably will as money allows. I intend to use
the attic for part of the living space, (bedroom & storage) so that way
I can make the entire house smaller. Because of this, I think I'll get
more livable space for the money, even if the larger lumber costs more
than trusses. The plan is 2x6 for the roof rafters, 2x8 for the floor
and ceiling joists.

This house will be a big improvement over the cabin I live in now, which
is only 12 x 16 ft. and has no indoor plumbing.

Hench wrote:

In Halton I notice alot of floor joists made from engineered plywood but
I don't always see caps on/in them. Seen this in a couple of over
million dollar homes from the basement side. Maybe I missed the caps.

Owners of over million dollar house don't like a common man studying new
construction techniques of their homes too closely...
Huh?
No caps? How? One of my son's buddy is engineer in charge at a local
plant where they produce trusses and so called silent floor joists,
laminated micro beams.
I can't see how they can make the joist w/o caps.

On Jan 3, 5:23*am, Art Todesco wrote:
On 1/2/2013 8:34 PM, wrote:



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

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!

In all the replies this was not mentioned. *With trusses, heating ducts,
etc. can be run perpendicular to the truss itself ... not so with solid
joists. *This makes the room below without bulkheads to house that
stuff. *In my house it uses trusses over the basement. *The basement
ceiling is totally flat. *So if someone wanted to finish a basement
room, it would work out well.

??? Somehow I don't picture that unless you mean running them
_through_ the bottom chord.

Harry K

On Jan 3, 6:39*am, Tim Watts wrote:
On Thursday 03 January 2013 14:30 dpb wrote in alt.home.repair:

On 1/3/2013 8:02 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
...

Did you mean "engineered joists" rather that "trusses" which implies
"roof trusses"?

Not necessarily...they're commonly also called "floor trusses"...

http://www.trusssystemsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...



--

Fairy'nuff - we'd usually call those "engineered" but it was what I was
thinking of. I have no objection to those and it does avoid plumber hacking
bloody great notches in them.

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

"She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."

Ah, now I get it.

Harry K

Doug wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:34:21 -0600, wrote:

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

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!


Aside from the other replies I read, I'd say overall better
workmanship and more uniformity in measurements.

Hi,
That is true but still it depends on experienced trades people.
There are many poorly slapped together houses flooding the market.
Always buyer beware like every thing else. I always had my houses custom
built per my specs. 7 times in my life time including one 4 season
cabin in the woods.

Uh, because structurally, and financially, they are the best way to span
open spaces with something that will hold up the weight of the roof and a
snow load?

What do I win?

Steve

On Thursday 03 January 2013 17:14 Steve B wrote in alt.home.repair:

Uh, because structurally, and financially, they are the best way to span
open spaces with something that will hold up the weight of the roof and a
snow load?

What do I win?

Steve

I guess a lot comes down to the roof angle too.

If you have a 40 degree pitch as I do on a 8x12m building, then it is
begging for a loft conversion. Though, these days, you might as well build
that in from the get-go - as someone said, if you can get engineered trusses
with big cuboid spaces built in, then why not...

If you have a 20 degree (or less) roof, no-one is likely to do very much in
the roof space...

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

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

On Jan 3, 9:30*am, dpb wrote:
On 1/3/2013 8:02 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
...

Did you mean "engineered joists" rather that "trusses" which implies "roof
trusses"?

Not necessarily...they're commonly also called "floor trusses"...

http://www.trusssystemsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...

--

But it only makes sense to use them in the spring. I quote from the
website:

"Why have they become so popular lately?
There are numerous answers to this question, how ever, the most
important are the may cost saving benefits."

If they only save money in May, that really puts them at a
disadvantage to other building methods.