I didn’t want to hijack a nice photo thread about gang cutting and this topic regarding the plane of the roof came up. This particular topic is just another one of those in depth details that differentiate me with 99.99% of my fellow rough framers.
Now, the reason I set the racks under the birdsmouth, is that our tails are only 12″ projected from the house. I would rather have everything plane at the plate and the ridge.
Tim, I also was taught that getting the birdsmouth perfect was the ultimate rough frame carpenters goal, but in the last few years I’ve decided that this is not necessarily the right appoach. Please understand that we are discussing minutia here…..the relevance to most people’s roof frames is minimal. In fact this discussion is only meaningful to those that are gang cutting, and those that have “energy heels” and don’t actually cut birdsmouths…..
In your gang cutting set up, you mentioned that you set the supports up near the birdsmouth. You picture shows the support being north of the birdsmouth. I contend that you would be better served if you put them closer to the fascia.
I do agree that since you are using a 12″ overhang that this discussion is actually not needed….but…lets project out our arguments for the sake of learning something….
What if you were cutting 2×12 rafters and it had a 36″ overhang?
When you multiply the “dip” that happens on a 36″ cantilever, it could easily add up to an inch or more even if you are culling the severly crowned rafters. Of course the steeper the pitch, the more prominet the dip.
When you are gang cutting, you have the golden opportunity to get the roof planed as perfect as possible from fascia to ridge, using no additional time. I see that as a win win idea, yet your previous training, using different techniques stands in your way of understanding this idea.
What say you Tim?
blue
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I’m a hackmeister…they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Replies
View Image
I can't answer for Tim, but I always supported ganged rafters at the ridge and seat-cuts, with the goal of as uniform a height-above-plate as possible (more critical than uniform seat-cut depth, IMO).
I wouldn't want the camber of a highly crowned rafter to become "locked in" at the plate, in order to attempt a better plane-in at the end of the tails (i.e. the fascia line). We would correct most of the discrepancies in rafter crowns when we installed the purlin bracing, bringing everything into plane. This becomes a real issue when dealing with larger spans, or, as in your example, larger overhangs. A roof cut (or stacked) to match at the fascia can vary much more than an inch at mid-span (sometimes the seat cuts are uniform, but the rafter gets held way high at the plate). I see roofs in town that look like a roller-coaster ride, even with Spanish tile shingles!
That is another advantage of gang-cutting. When the rafters are "racked" tight (see photo above), a trouble-maker who won't fit reasonably in-plane with the rest of the rafters (i.e. your stated one-inch variation at the fascia line) will stand out like a sore thumb, and can be eliminated at that point (use it for jacks or blocks!), rather than fighting it later when you're running fascia.
Edited 2/6/2005 3:14 pm ET by Huck
I wouldn't want the camber of a highly crowned rafter to become "locked in" at the plate, in order to attempt a better plane-in at the end of the tails (i.e. the fascia line).
Huck, I would ask....WHY NOT?
More importantly, isnt the height of the plane of the roof just as important at the fascia as it is at the heel? Why does the plane at the wall line have a higher priority than at the fascia line. Why not 4' from the fascia? Why not 6' from the fascia?
I think you get my idea....for me, the ridge is critical, the fascia is just as critical....everything in between should be as close as possible depending on the dollars spent.
blue
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
I wouldn't want the camber of a highly crowned rafter to become "locked in" at the plate, because when I run my purlins, that rafter will sit high, up off the purlin. So I'll want to pull it down, and toenail it to stay. If the seat-cut is shallower, as would result from the method you advocate, I'll be fighting that to get the hump out. Then I gotta get my sawzall out and go modify that seat-cut to get the dang thing down where I want it! If I just ignore the hump, chances are good it will telegraph through the roofing, and look cheesy.I'm kinda picky about roof planes, I don't like the rippled look of a roof that isn't planed in. But you're right, its silly to ignore the importance of the fascia line. Like I said, I'd cull a rafter with a 1" variance at the fascia line.Maybe our differences result from regional variation. Possibly purlins are not used as extensively in areas where roof pitches tend to be steeper. Virtually all my roofs have been 5:12 pitch, 24" overhang, large and "cut-up" with hips and valleys. The roofing material of choice for these larger homes is consistently Spanish tile - and when a rippled roof shows through after being covered with Spanish tile, its ugly (of course I think its even uglier with a comp roof, which shows a lot more, but they don't use comp roofing on the large customs out here). Esp. when the afternoon sun hits at an angle.
Huck, there aint nothing wrong with being picky.
I understand why you'd rather fight the humped rafters at the purlins. I'm guessing the purlins are much higher up than the plate though, so maybe that's different discussion.
I also think that Tims gang cutting method holds a lot of promise to rid the roof plane of humps by adding a secondary check before he stacks them. You could peek under the rack and pull out any oddball rafter that is disturbing the plane and .....jackplane it!?...or simply replace it.
Midspan purlins defintely would be a different discussion. This entire thread was based on establishing two perfect points of planing...the purlins is a third...
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
OK, I guess I see your point. But if I'm going to establish "two perfect points of planing", as you say, I want them to be structural. The fascia is not a structural member, it is basically a trim piece. If the roof is perfectly lined up at those two structural points (ridge and plate), it better not be far off at the fascia. If it is, that's a red flag that there's a problem with that rafter, not with the roof-cutting system.Midspan purlins are a given on the low-pitch (5:12) large-span roofs we typically encounter here, so for me it would naturally figure into any discussion of roof-planes. And another thing: all our fascias are square-cut, you very seldom see a plumb-cut fascia out here. Maybe that's another reason I'm having a hard time seeing your concern - I think there may be a little more "fudge factor" built into this type fascia, than a plumb-cut. Seems like the more obtuse angle at the fascia/sheathing junction makes things a little more critical. Don't know for sure, because I haven't done any! Anyway, if I'm running fascia, and one rafter tail wants to go a little high or low, I'm not going to fight the tail at the expense of the fascia. The tail can be a little off, the fascia can't.Edited to add a little clarification: with two guys running fascia, we would start nailing at one end. Once one end is nailed. the nailer moves to the next rafter tail from the end. His partner is holding the fascia up at the other end. He just hollers up or down, according to what he needs. This takes care of most of your little inconsistencies. And since the fascia is typically deeper than the rafter, it will correct the rafter rather than the other way around. The guy at the end of a long run of fascia has a lot of leverage, so its an easy deal. But if I were running fascia alone, and a rafter tail was a little off, I might try toenailing it down or up a little, but I wouldn't go hog-wild on fixing it. I'd basically allow it to be a little off, but I never want my fascia to be a little off, because your eye will pick that up right away. You'll probably never pick up the rafter tail being a little off, 'though, especially with stucco'd eaves.
Edited 2/6/2005 4:53 pm ET by Huck
But if I'm going to establish "two perfect points of planing", as you say, I want them to be structural.
Huck, I can't buy into the structural idea.
If Tim places his racks at the fascia line, and ridge line, and cuts the birdsmouths as shown, and the top plate of the wall is true, THEN the line at the fascia will be perfectly straight (I'm assuming that his racks are true and straight too), the ridge will be perfectly straight and the heels will fit tight to the bearing wall.
Thus, the structural argument has no bearing in this discussion.
Of course the midspan crowns will still be there and if you add a purlin and pull it down to fasten to the straight purlin, it will cause the cantilevered overhang to flare up!
Your explanation about the square cuts and different style of eave certainly would have a bearing on how, why this discussion affects me although it doesn't affect what we do much more than what you experience. I do have memories of having to put so much tension on a fascia to bring it into alingment that it popped up the rafter off the plate....
It fairly safe to say that nothing in roof framing is perfect and quite often we have 1/4" or more discrepencies in the height at the fascia. We just float the OSB by the low ones....it's good place for a spider to hide in.....
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
"Thus, the structural argument has no bearing in this discussion."
Was that intended to be a pun?
Anyway - No, I don't pull the crown out of the whole roof, only out of one naughty rafter that won't keep his crown in line with the rest of the gang!
When you multiply the "dip" that happens on a 36" cantilever, it could easily add up to an inch or more even if you are culling the severly crowned rafters. Of course the steeper the pitch, the more prominet the dip.
Thank you, now I know. But where the hell were you when I framed my roof? Around 7 in 12 and, yes, easily an inch. I'm currrently installing the copper. Fortunately it's so high you can hardly see it except from the roof. It's flat over my birds' mouths.
One of the many reasons I wouldn't frame for anybody but me.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
blue... good thread..
our typical roof would be a truss with an 8 pitch to 10 pitch... ( let's say 8 is average )
it will have a 12" energy heel and the 2x4 top chord will typically extend 16"
our out-to-out is measured from face of frame.... and we'll extend the sheathing above the plate so we don't have to build a seperate insulation dam to keep the insulation out of the soffit...
to help plane the roof and give us some of our required edge blocking we also use a sub-fascia of 2x4 .... we get some other bennies out of this... any curse can be shimmed out behind the finish fascia... the continuous 2x4 gives solid material for gutters should the homeowner want them...
and it can help to average the twisting errors of the extended chord ( the "rafter")
all of our roofs from here forward will have 2x4 sub-fascia and the sheathing will be 5/8 T&G (Advantech for us... plywood for others ).. this is an alternate adopted by RI for wind-uplift framing...
until that amendment.. we were required to have solid blocking at all edges and at 4' ( panel edge ) inside all of the roof perimeter... which also meant ... at the ridge and 4'down from the ridge , since all roofs are required to be vented
if we are cutting rafters.. then our pattern will be applied at the fascia and peak.. as you say.. to even out the fascia.. the birdsmouth will "float" with the lumber variationMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
if we are cutting rafters.. then our pattern will be applied at the fascia and peak.. as you say.. to even out the fascia.. the birdsmouth will "float" with the lumber variation
Mike sorry to hear that you have to do so much blocking at all the plywood joints. I'd ask the lumber yard to ship out 8'x8' plywood to help me eliminate all that joint blocking....or I'd get my sparky license and just cut corners there!
I agree with your idea that the birdsmouth should float, rather than the tail end. Tims gang cutting method would actually accomplish that automatically if he set up his racks at the fascia and then used a flat shooting board or something like that to let his saw ride over the ups and downs of the variably sized stock. It'd kinda average everything out and keep the roof plane incredibly flat overall.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
VaTom, I've lived through your nightmares.....I know your pain.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
What say you Tim? That is a classic Bill O'Reilly line :-) hmmmm
Given 2x12's and a 3' overhang, what would I do? I've never dealt with that before, so what I type here and what would happen after I got into the field may be slightly different, but. . . .
I would set the racks midway between the birdsmouth and the tail cut. For one thing, I have to. Using racks, the stock must be crowned down, so the sharp end of the plumbcut at the tail is on top of the racked rafters, so with the angle and length of the bar, I have to set the racks back a ways.
I think that splitting the difference would be a reasonable compromise. Of course, with an overhang like that maybe I would use the new TrusJoist engineered rafters and the whole issue would be moo (you know, like a cows opinion. It doesn't meant anything . . . . . . that was a line Joey said on Friends awhile ago and we use it all the time :-)) http://www.trusjoist.com/PDFFiles/2080.pdf
The other option is to insist on a shake roof and then no one will see it :-) I'm kidding. I think I would just split the difference. From experience, I can get away with about humps or dips about 1/4" without telegraphing through the comp roofing
Did I answer that for you? If not, ask again :-) By the way, take a look at the pdf link I posted. Would that be cool or what? We've been using the Trusjoist stringer material and it is unreal how much quicker the stair build when there aren't cracks or problems with the stringers http://www.trusjoist.com/PDFFiles/2124.pdf
I would set the racks midway between the birdsmouth and the tail cut. For one thing, I have to.
Okay...fair enough Tim....so why don't you set the racks midway between your birdsmouth and fascia on a 12'' overhang? I think its easy to understand that it probably is a better idea no matter what the size overhang...when you set it halfway, you basically eliminate all measurable differences at the heel, or the fascia....especially true on 12'' overhangs.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Blue,
The reason is, that with 12" overhangs, the rafter stock that we use, just doesn't move much. In other words, so far it has been very successful, so why change until the stock quality goes down?
I guess when I go back to the roofs we've framed and check them out to see how they are doing after time has gone by (which I do frequently), I've never seen a pefectly flat roof at the HAP, but then waves at the facia a foot (little more) away.
In other words, so far it has been very successful, so why change until the stock quality goes down?
Tim, that's why I say I'm different than 99.99% of the framers in the field.
I base all my techniques on sound prinicples that are explainable to all and make sense for all applications. When I'm teaching the rookies to set up the racks, I want them thinking in the most technical way of "why" they set up the way they do. Using your racks, I could easily demonstrate why it's critical to move the racks closer to the main base lines, rather than an intermediate point. To demonstrate the principle that I teach, I'd pick two distinctly different rafters, one would be perfectly straight and I'd pick a crowned one that would barely make the cull cut. But sliding the racks in and out, I'd demonstrate how the placement either helps solve the discrepency at the fascia line (which is my primary focal point and therefore most deserving of consideration) or excabarates the differences.
My demonstrations would need to be logical when I'm demonstrating on 48" overhangs or greater (occasionally we have some extended porches), as well as on our routine 12" overhangs. In either case, I demand that my carpenter know what, where and why we place our supports where we do.
After I demonstrate that principle, I later can apply the same theory to line snapping, squaring decks, straigtening two story-two piece walls, etc.
I'm not trying to get you to move your racks, I'm just pointing out something that few framers think about. I have some real world experiences that can further point out why the fascia should be the first and foremost starting point.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Blue,
I appreciate what you are saying, but in reality I can't have the racks too close to the tail cut. Unless I want to start messsing with the size of the bar and depending on the stock depth and the pitch of the roof . . . . or, since it works this way just fine, has worked this way for others gang cutting and in the books, I could call it good and focus on something else.
That's my thinking anyway. I'm all for discussion and learning new techniques, but at the end of the day it needs to make sense or it isn't worth it.
Now I'm going to razz you a little. Ready? :-) For a guy who "eyeballs" his plumb cuts, you sure are being analrentive about a little hump at the fascia that isn't discernable in the first place. HAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Edited 2/6/2005 5:13 pm ET by TIMUHLER
I'll take alll that razzing.
You got to understand that I framed this entire thread along the lines of theoretical discussion. I opened the thread saying that we are dealing in minutia here and as a practicality it really doesn't amount to much.
One of the reasons that it comes to my attention is because I have a framer or two that seems to think that the placement of the heel is more critical than the tip of the trusses planing in to our designated spot on our fascia system. I can't seem to get it into their heads that if they look at the tip of the fascia and make that plane into the exact spot, that takes precedence over the lining up of the heels at the plate line.
The reason that I prefer the fascia line to be the governer is becaue often the heels wander on trusses. It doesn't wander much, but occasionally on cathedral trusses, it can be a severe difference from truss to truss. The easiest common denominator is the fascia line, which we ALWAYS have up, and therefore is probably the best spot to work from....but alas, old habits die hard.
I just don't want you to develop mindless habits like my guys have.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
ohhh, a TRUSS roof. Now thats a horse of a different color. I thought we were talking about a cut-and-stack. So I guess you would just shim at the plate as needed to make the tails dead-on?
Huck, this discussion was about Tim's conventional stacked roofs, gang cutting style.
On our trussed roofs, I never have to tamper with the plate heights...all plates are level...we never frame on slabs.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
In that case, I stand by my original story...whatever it was!
Blue,
Just seems to me that the plate line is a good reference point all around the house regardless of wall heights, pitchs, HAPs etc. For me it just takes an irrelevant step out of the equation for ~12" tails
Whatever it takes to discuss roofs. I don't care if it's minutae or not. I always learn something :-) Thanks for the discussion.
Just seems to me that the plate line is a good reference point all around the house regardless of wall heights, pitchs, HAPs etc. For me it just takes an irrelevant step out of the equation for ~12" tails
You wouldn't be saying that if you had your overhangs done before the rafters were set! Irrelevant is not the right word!
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Good point Blue. Very good point.
Can I step in here, Blue, and request a clarification?
I was spellbound when reading yours about the octagon roof framing, and noticed that your rafters had a simple horizontal cut at bottom, not a typical birdsmouth, and that the cut bore directly on the subfascia that had been built out on the soffit edge at wall-build time.
The rafters seemed to bear on the subfacia, and had no stand-down blocks for bearing on the wall plates.
Was I missing something?
And was the main point of your post, re gang-cutting the birdsmouths, that HAP will vary due to lumber width variation, and the roof plane will look like a lie detector printout?
I thought that too, of Tim's method, and thought that maybe he ought to be climbing under those racks to shim rafters to a common plane, but that would make for tough sawing atop, with the ups and downs.
"I thought that too, of Tim's method, and thought that maybe he ought to be climbing under those racks to shim rafters to a common plane, but that would make for tough sawing atop, with the ups and downs."
Huh? Shim the rafters so that they have a common-plane where? Along their bottom edge, and let the differences show up along the top edge, where the sheathing occurs? Wouldn't it be better to let the diffences due to width variation occur along the bottom edge (which is generally buried in the attic)? As shown in Tim's photo, the top edges are effectively lined-up to a common plane, by the rack they're sitting on.
View Image
Edited 2/6/2005 2:57 pm ET by Huck
You are totally right and I am totally wrong.
Racking them as shown puts the top edge at common roof plane. The sawyer may have to deal with some dips and highs, though, when whacking the birdsmouths.
The sawyer may have to deal with some dips and highs, though, when whacking the birdsmouths.
I agree Gene and that is why I'd run the saw over some sort of planed straightedge, if I was shooting for 110% perfection.
Don't worry about that 110% figure....I'm only good for about 75% these days...
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Was I missing something?
Gene, yes you did miss something.
Here's a pic that shows "stand down blocks". I call them heel blocks.
Actually, one of the key components of framing in this way is making sure the overhang is level to begin with, then installing those heel blocks after the rafter is standing. When I do these small octogons, I go with the technique that I posted, but I'm always analyzing which method is the best for each individual application. For instance, a couple of months ago, I posted some pics on a cone roof that I framed. On that roof, I started out with heel blocks that were about 40" long. On that roof, I attached the heel blocks to the rafter before i stood the rafter up.
And was the main point of your post, re gang-cutting the birdsmouths, that HAP will vary due to lumber width variation, and the roof plane will look like a lie detector printout?
Not exactly my point... actually I was trying to make the point that he has a golden opportunity to get the roof to plane perfectly using the gang cutting method, but since he placed the racks at the wrong spot, he eliminated a key advantage of the gang cutting technique.
I thought that too, of Tim's method, and thought that maybe he ought to be climbing under those racks to shim rafters to a common plane, but that would make for tough sawing atop, with the ups and downs.
I think your are mixing up your plane thoughts! If he shimmed them underneath like you suggest, the inside of the roof (the attic side) would be perfectly flat and the exterior would vary more.
blue
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
Let's see that photo, Blue. You were too quick to click "post" in your reply regarding the blocks.
As I said to another poster, I stand corrected on that stupid HAP and shim comment! What was I thinking?
So, are you saying re the "perfect opportunity" that Tim should have his rack line right at the rafter end, so that the line of roof is linear right at the fascia?
I'm thinking now that is the way I would rack, if ever gang cutting. The rack supports are right at both extreme ends of the rafter group, thus my plumb cuts at ridge and fascia produce perfect lines. There may be some wows in between, but architectural shingles hide most all flaws there.
Gene,
You weren't stupid, you just had things turned on end.
And you pointed something out to me............that gang cutting birdsmouths this way will lead to descrepancies in the cut at the birdsmouth due to the fact that you are cutting from the bottoms of the rafters, not from the point of 'rack' where you might normally cut from if you were to use a pattern, mark and cut system on individual rafters.
The accuracy of these cut will depend soley upon the descrepancy in dimensions of the lumber being used.
I knew something was bothering me from the start, and this is the most depth I have ever given to looking into this topic.
Again, no disrespect to anyone here, but this is one drawback of cutting in this fashion. I think Blue started to say something about 'what if it were a cathedral?...' back aways or in the thread Tim started.
I'm always looking for holes in a process or theory. i don't believe it is a negative thing, just an inate investigative quality I have.
If the lumber is all the same dimension, this process will work very well. Short of that, Blues idea of some sort of shooting board will help to minimize these differences.
EricI Love A Hand That Meets My Own,
With A Hold That Causes Some Sensation.
Eric,
That point about a cathedral ceiling is a good one. Have you ever framed a floor with 2x12s? The taper has to do more work because of the quality of the lumber, but he just has to deal with it in some cases. Obviously I-joists would be better, but not always possible.
Same thing with the rafters. As I pointed out earlier, if the material is bad, we cull. Don't forget that with 2' centers that 1/4" isn't going to be seen when the taper gets done.
Here is another pic of the birdmouths http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL293/2163851/4215122/53031627.jpg As you can see, the seatcut portion is very uniform. View Image:
Edited 2/6/2005 5:03 pm ET by TIMUHLER
tim.. cathedral ceilings..... seems like a good place to strap the ceilings , don't it ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
I have no idea. I've never seen that done here in this area.
you could be the first on your block....
start a new trend.... it sure makes it sweet for planing ceiling surfaces and putting in light blocks.. showing exposed hips
the rockers would love youMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I've never given much thought to strapping. How does that make the cieiling plane better?
Yes...I agree Mike. strapping the ceilings on a wavy cathedral makes sense.
Of course when I was done, it would still be wavy....
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
On occasion, the rockers would call us in to furr out the bottom of one or two rafters that were sitting high (on a vaulted ceiling). If it was just say an eighth inch or three sixteenths, they'd probably just rock over it. I watched some of the guys that were really good and sometimes they'd actually run a blade full of mud over a rafter that was a touch high. They'd nail off the adjacent rafters, but leave that one un-nailed. Then when the mud dried, they'd nail it off too, and it would plane in perfectly. What I used to really hate was when I'd forget it was vaulted when I cut the roof, and neglect to trim the hip down to plane in along the bottom edge. Man is that a PITA to do after the fact!
Huck, good rockers easily deal with those pesky highs and lows. The primadonnas makea big deal out of every minor defect, the pros don't have time for the whining and arguing.
I've been called back to deal with 3/8" high framing members. I just laugh and walk out....
Every glue tube that I've ever read says that the glue will span 3/8". If I'm rocking, I set some nails in the frame with the heads sticking out the 3/8". I then apply heavy glue. I lay the board and take care not to over drive the nails on the problem framing member. Eventually the glue sets up and creates a very stable bridge.
I'd use the mud idea, but mud usually isn't as available as glue. Either way, the gap is bridged.
If the gap is 1/2", then he can shim it with a chunk of drywall. If it's bigger than that, he needs the drywall and "heavy glue".
If there is a lot of problem areas, I always appreciate knowing and I track down the problem. If it's one rafter, then I blame God...he's the one that grew it.
blue
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!
hey bubba, could you use a little smaller pics? That one won't even fit on my screen.
View Image
Edited 2/6/2005 5:13 pm ET by Huck
Sorry about that :-) I was just trying to see if I could get it to work. Thanks for resizing the pics. One problem I have is that I take pics at 6megapixel resolution at the jobsite because that is what JLC told me to do so that if I get a good pic, they can use it in the magazine. Of course the pics they've used, they reduced to 2" x 2" in the mag :-)
Tim - I found a way to make the pics smaller when I post. Here's how I did yours: <IMG SRC="http://blahdedah.jpg" WIDTH=420 HEIGHT=280>BTW, I just guessed at the ratio (420/280, which is 3/2), and it turned out pretty good so I left it.
Gene,
With racking, the rafters are crowned down. So the tops of the rafters will be exact at the birdmouth. The differences will show up on the underside of the roof. When it's cathedral, then it would make sense to shim the rafters up.
Blue,
On a stick framed gabled roof with a 2' overhang and 24' 2x12 rafters would you frame your overhangs first like you do and not put a birdsmouth and just put a level cut at the fascia line and nail that 2x12 on top of the overhang like you do and then go back and put blocks at the plate line?
On a stick framed gabled roof with a 2' overhang and 24' 2x12 rafters would you frame your overhangs first like you do and not put a birdsmouth and just put a level cut at the fascia line and nail that 2x12 on top of the overhang like you do and then go back and put blocks at the plate line?
Probably yes. I don't work with too many 2' overhangs so I'm not experienced at the potential problems that might pop up during the framing and after the fact. I recently installed a 2' overhang, but it was a 5/12 roof and all trusses.
As the overhang extends out farther and farther on the cantilever, I realize that the tendency to fall away grows exponentially. In the case of the one mentioned above, I put a secondary nailing member to better give me solid toenailing ability. I briefly discussed the possibility of adding some type of metal tie, but nixed the idea when we decided to add the second subfascia.
I have on occasion added internal bracing to overhang configurations. Here in michigan, all our overhangs are closed and sometimes there is substantial space in there to do a lot of internal bracing, so every overhang warrants a thorough evaluation of technique. Mostly, however, I use the level cut and 2x subframing technique that I've posted.
blueJust because you can, doesn't mean you should!
Warning! Be cautious when taking any framing advice from me. There are some in here who think I'm a hackmeister...they might be right! Of course, they might be wrong too!