My nomination for dumbest plumber of the year . .

[Bain]

. . . goes to the creator of this hilarious mess.

The 2" x 4" rafters were already undersized.

Image Insert:

135.15 KB

Image Insert:

132.9 KB

[Brian G]

What a moron. He actually created more work for himself than if he had simply extended the run to just inside the rafters, and brought it back in at the end where needed. If that were my house he'd pay to fix that or see me in court. Jeez. [:-dunce]

Brian G.

Revoke That Man's Sawzall Privileges [:-crazy]

[Eric B]

That looks like an old house with true 2x4's. I think that you'd find that they work quite well as rafters. The density of the wood is vastly different from the "2x4's" of today. Ever notice that the wood on an old house has little decay? On today's homes I'll find decay within a year of construction. Basically old timber has far superior capacity for carrying loads.

[hausdok]

The majority of housing stock that I look at is over 80 years old and has 2 by 4 rafters placed 24-inches on center with a 1 by 6 ridge board and 1 by six rafter ties. On top of that, there's often skip sheathing, an initial layer of cedar shingles, and two or three layers of comp shingles. Sometimes they'll crack at knots or sag a few inches (kind of like my midsection) but it's pretty rare that I find them actually collapsed - only had one or two after the last deep snowstorm we had that dumped about 10-inches of snow on roofs (1996).

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Bain]

I do find them cracked from time to time, and there's also a structural engineer in town that condemns them whenever he sees them. So . . . I have to be careful how I describe them.

The sagging is the worst aspect, like Mike said. I think most of the damage comes from the really severe ice storms we have every 7-10 years.