It isn't 'specialist wisdom', Jim, it's merely an understanding of structural principle. You don't need the knowledge; leave it to the people that know what they're doing with it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
loft conversion _without_ strengthening roof?!?
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
yeah yeah yeah...
So no explanation for your derision then? sounds about right.. quiet at the office?
Why are you touting as doom-monger on UK-DIY if you're not prepared to explain your position ?
JimK
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Roof wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 21:27
Sounds like hot air to me. The strength of the floor is an obvious point that needs to be considered. in most cases.
Unless the floor gains much of it's strength from the roof, or the conversion is going to remove a lot of the roof or add weight to it, why would the roof need strengthening? Even with mine, 2 dormers and a huge amount of the original roof is chopped away, nothing much has been strengthened beyond the floor and the addition of an extra "ridge beam" (below the existing ridge beam, to take the weight of the centre of the dormer roof. Of course the purlin supports have been replaced and repositioned but that's par for the course.
You pop out of nowhere and start accusing people who have actually built their own loft extensions (properly and by the book) of not knowing anything.
Would you like to back your own credibility up as you have no history here to base any judgement on?
Cheers
Tim
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Roof wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 21:37
Well, there's an attitude to put the Holy Guild of Master Masons to shame.
Or you are a troll and I claim my £5.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
smells about right Tim, can I split it with you? :>)
JimK
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
No, I'm not accusing anybody of 'not knowing anything', I'm suggesting that people that don't understand structural principles shouldn't give structural advice.
From the way you describe the work carried out on your own roof, I know that you don't understand how your roof behaves structurally.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Roof wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:05
Then kindly prove you do. Otherwise your words might as well be the trumpeting emissions of an after-curry kip.
I learnt a long time ago to take a general distain people who are verbally all fur coat and no knickers...
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Or how about you describe your roof structure to me and explain how it stands up, for the situation before and after you converted the roof space?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
15 years ago when we bought our current house it was an absolute wreck of a house and riddled with Dry Rot. We looked for professional structural advice (especially as the dry rot was having a good old munch on the ground floor, first floor and roof timbers) and the advice we were given was frighteningly expensive and time consuming. A local builder had a look and for a tiny fraction of the price and time he supported the house/roof with dozens of acro props and in no time he'd cut out the ground floor, first floor and roof timbers and replaced and treated all the roof and floor timbers.
Sorry 'roof' but sometimes the more accomplished DIY person or local builder has more knowledge and common sense then the 'professionals' and their certificates and diplomas.
Ash
PS. ... the house/roof is still standing and no sign of the dry rot
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Remember the Ark was built by an amateurs and the Titanic was built by professionals
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
What you're describing is a straightforward repair situation. I would expect any competent builder to be capable of replacing deteriorated timber members on a like for like basis.
What bothers me is who gave you the advice in the first place that you needed 'professional structural advice'...was it someone on this newsgroup?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
No ... not this Newsgroup .... but if you look at a few more threads you'll find this Newsgroup offers a lot of good old common sense advice and also professional advice.
It was the damned building surveyor who, as a condition of a mortgage, recommended a full structural survey and it was them that wanted to provide additional support to the walls, floors and roof whilst the work was undertaken. They even wanted to underpin part of the house because it had settled a little (the house was built circa 1900) all of which was over the top in my humble opinion and proved to be over the top because the local builder knew the houses and the area and what to expect from a 100 year old house.
Ash
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Do you have any experience of fall-out shelters?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
That it might be, but it is not the right place to be giving out structural advice.
A 'building surveyor' is not a structural engineer and a 'full structural survey' is nothing more than a wordy condition survey.
What did your builder suggest caused the settlement? And each time you buy buildings insurance do you advise them that your house has suffered historic structural movement and that you chose to ignore professional advice on putting it right? Because if you did, I doubt you would get anyone to take on the risk.
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Do you?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
Roof wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or shut up.
I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and decided to morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a justifiable use at last :O
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that don't understand structural principles shouldn't give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does this make any sense yet?
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
But you're giving advice aren't you?
The building surveyor called in the structural engineer
Settlement
- The house is circa 100 years old so you'd expect some settlement
- The house is built on clay
- Since 1900 additional drainage, pumping stations etc have been installed in city to lower the water table which has led to some drying of the clay
- The house is built on stepped brick foundations and not modern solid concrete foundations
- World War 2 and a lot of bombs !
Insurance
- Ha ... caught you out ... you're working hand in glove with the insurance companies aren't you to push up premiums!
- The 'best professional advice' I got was from the local builder who agreed with me that there was absolutely no need whatsoever to underpin the house. The house is 100 years old and you can't expect the walls to be 100% plum.Over about 10m the house wall maybe drops 2to3mm but is that sufficient to underpin ... I think not ... there's no large cracks and the house is in keeping with the houses either side and is water tight and repointed to a high standard. To the average 'common' eye the house looks fine but to the pedantic money grabbing 'I've got a diploma' professional it's a gold mine for structural repair ... B#####ks
Ash
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
No, Ash, no vested interest in insurance. I'm just aware of a number of instances where insurance companies have withdrawn cover and refused to settle claims for structural damage as a result of non-disclosure
- Vote on answer
- posted
14 years ago
No, and I don't need any...