zoothorn

Hi- has anyone who might have built a 28mm log cabin, got a bit of wall log left over? 1x small 40cm long wall log rotted, needs replacing (28mm). I wonder if anyone might have a bit left over, or know if it possible to replace it? Thanks, zoot

Ok Peter thanks, that's much more civilised.. & so I read & take in more. I don't doubt this engineering info is correct, it sounds plausible. I'll call the Co monday. The TF Co came monday.. ok good point, that's true/ I see what you mean. But I was told they came monday by builder I suspected telling me fibs at the time (thinking he prolly had these made ready for a week before). Is this the usual way TF builds go then, the Co rep always comes on site after the groundwork, never during or even before it? Alot of this is my builder simply not communicating. Even no2 says to contact him "its smoke signals" rolling his eyes. So I don't mind what you think but you see I'm not to blame for this massive confusion. Like the miscommunication evidently here last few hrs, communication is essential. I told him & was firm with him this must change, I put on my project mngr tiara & waved my little wand under his grizzled chin.

Who is this gatecrasher? have you got a ticket??

Yup you say this now. I measured it & I stated this, I've know since yesterday & tried to explain it.. but everyone was suggesting there was extra to go on, because of the two sloped sides. I've been trying & trying to explain not so. Now you all agree, with sketches too, but say you don't & fire vitriol at me. Absolutely bizarre. Quite clearly a big miscommunication that's all, but I do not like the meanness aimed towards me from you all- it is bullying.

Utter nonsense. All of it. I knew clear as a bell why its the odd shape it is having drawn it so many times!! for goodness sake. A simple shape, a child could know. I knew exactkly where it would sit, just as your sketch, aoens ago but to me none of you seemed to know. Infuriating Peter. I was totally wrong about why I thought the groundwork was at the low position it was.. because I was convinced a week ago it was a mistake by no2 builder who did the groundwork. Convinced. I admit. Why? because no communication as to why from my builder. Nothing. Its no wonder I go sdearching for answers. But now I know the trusses have not been made as I thought, regardless of whether its how they have to be, its clear that this is the -better- reason (albeit the 200mm & 350mm still don't tally annoyingly). I can change opinion during a week if I find a better cause to an issue. I didn't hear anyone say "maybe its due to the top ceiling position is different/ check this, as builders work from the top down?". No-one. Go on show me where I queried why its the shape it is?! I've known all along where it goes/ there's no reason for me to question it! dreadful nonsense. If I trawl out where you said there'd be two sloping sides to the ceiling.. you'll look the fool.

Are you a Timber Frame expert tho? the clip shown to me says collar 1/3rd up max, & this is pro info is it not? All the general www info says consistantly collar 1/3rd up max too. But you disagree so wholeheartedly- I find this odd. The way these trusses are made, of softwood just pinned together with thin alu spiked brackets, no nails or glue too.. tell me they are -not- highly engineered huge load-bearing designs, but with a total of all of 7.. rather each a lighter design.. & moving the collar up just 20cm would be of no consequence. I believe my builder just oversaw/ forgot this small detail. I'm happy to be proved wrong, as I said, but with due respect Peter the TF Co can only do this as I still have huge doubts (eg as we still disagree about the ground 350mm figure, which is clearly followed on from this new collar level.. but you can't agree even with this). I will call them on monday & trace where & why these trusses are not as I planned. Can you at thev least though, agree that the lower ceiling H than I anticipated, that is on the plan, causes the knock-thru door to be extremely problematic with only 1860mm H from my existing bedroom floor up to the new adjacent ceiling height. Can you at the least agree with this?

Yes & it coincides with what Ive been saying for fkn ages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It did -not- start 350mm too low Peter. This 350mm is the end (the lowest) consequence of this collar being made 200mm too low. I know perfectly well why one side is offset. Its perfectly clear from the drawing I did months ago (why on earth you'd say this.. is unbelievable) its offset, therefore an offset truss would be needed. I have never suggested I am going tom do anything of the sort on monday. I might have said I don't understand (as I still do not.. if you now are back disagreeing with me, but before saying 'I'll have two sloping sides/ it'll all be fine/ your extra room H will happen' which I spent ages explaining why this was an impossibility- more bizarreness) but I need to be in the best position to counter what he might say, if, I still do not understand. At the moment I'm totally confused. Nothing makes sense, apart from it all having shifted down 20cm, which a definite/ this is undeniable/ you just cannot say this is not true. But you will. Asumption, after assumption. WHY??????????????????????????????

We do not agree then. It gets stranger. Lifting the collar truss 200mm (& leaving the outer beams exactly as they are) is not of any consequence. Lifting it gives me the 20cm height the collared ceiling should be doing according to the plan. At the moment its giving me 0cm additional height. If there was any issue with the plan I drew (based on 1/3rd rule.. IE the collar max 1/3rd up, but no more than this) then my builder would have said. On the contrary he said the plan is very good a few times. Here is the very crux point I was striving for: at least we're on board as to where Ive been on about.

@PeterW can you see your sketch is different to my plan on the RHS above your 2300 squiggle? just forget if you think its drawn badly, or whatever.. can you just answer this Q.

So you agree with me then. How strange is this. Case closed?? it would be if the plan was the same!! it would be if I had the additional 20cm ceiling H a collared ceiling was meant to give me, which this sketch clearly shows is awol. etc etc.

I didn't have any notification of this reply Peter. Please don't assume I just flit over it. Its great. Its correct. It has NO slope RHS. Its orientated correctly too. Thanks. So why if your sketch concurs with me.. do you still not seem to agree???? this sketch is exactly what Ive been saying all along; you must have agrred with me to have made it.... ... so why oh why oh why... would you not say so? bizarre.

Ok, so your drawing is opposite to the plan which is confusing.. but now I understand. Thanks its a useful sketch, & I can refer to it as correct, as it further confirms that I am indeed right. But can you reverse it please? We agree then. This is exactly how I have been continually suggesting the roof will go. This shows a slope one side. And no slope the other. This is A) does not giving me any additional ceiling the very collared roof idea was meant to (relative to the highest 2.3m wall top) it B) does not follow the plan (which I will shout to the hills IS accurate & precise) it C) therefore pushes the ceiling approx 200mm lower, so the discrepency between this room's ceiling point -and the adjacent master bed's ceiling height- is 200mm off kilter, from 2060mm from existing masterbed floor.. down to a ver annoying/ low 1860mm. it D) makes the door frame between these two rooms & step within the wall as a compromise, problematic, & low/ & distinctly incorrect (I spent 6 months getting this right). it E) pushes the floor of ipper room down 20mm it F) pushes the lower room down 200mm it G) makes me have to pay a fkn digger day to skim offv driveway 6" & feather the ground right down a good 200mm+ to the dpc level (awful). it H) makes my balcony 200mm lower. ----------- Now, Jamie do you understand any of these A-H issues? ALL arte a direct result of this upper ceiling H too low. And can you at least consider why this might be, that ALL has followed-on, from this innitial wretched cross beam that has been made 20cm too low down-?

Try not to get angry. I just didn't see it because its on the wrong side & pretty small jamie. The assumption seems to be the truss is orientated the same as the drawing. Its not. I said this. I cannot lift it, or reverse the photo of it, or the drawing. The notch should be quite clear to marry with the lower wall LHS. If it went on the higher RHS the ceiling would be a slope of 15*! Can someone proove just this: that I do have a sloped ceiling RHS & not a 90* direct off the top of the wall. Just this.

Where is the notch? [edit I see it RHS of the croos beam). Erm.. but you got the truss the wrong way round. I said its too heavy to lift around & cannot reverse the drawing or photo. And you have two walls equal heights. Mine are 2.1m & 2.3m. Rather easy to proove this wrong on many aspects, but thanks for trying. I'm afraid its just full of assumptions. One notch made, not two. Why do you think? because the notch marries with the lower LHS wall.. no notch on opposite side.. & further evidence this side of cross beam rests upon the wall top, & that I am right: & this equates to no additional ceiling height. One slope LHS near door, notch side of truss. No slope RHS, but 90* here (this bit you have sort of correct). Really appreciated though, honestly.

Jamie thank for just sticking with me. Starting with premise you're right.. is impossible, as I fundamentally cannot agree with "there will be no sloping ceiling". There clearly must be, if there's a notch on the outer beam a good 50cm away from the cross beam. If the notch designates where it meets the outside of the LHS wall, it then angles inwards 50cm.. then the ceiling starts. Would you disagree with this? On the left hand wall top at 2100mm there has to be something

Why? my builder keeps commenting on how good it is. If you give me a specific reason as to anything incorrect on it, one line as an eg, I'm happy to bin it. Just because its hand drawn is not a reason though. Why can't you answer my two concurring 4200mm figures Q instead tho? its a simple Q for any of you, but instead of answering it you seem to be getting angry & just getting at me instead.. its not making me think I'm wrong is it. Proove me wrong. I want any of you to. If you do I am very happy.. as I do have extra ceiling height than the RHS wall top, I do have a slope section here. I will be hugely grateful I swear it.

This is incorrect. There will be sloping ceiling on the LHS only.

Please tell me how it gives me a bit more ceiling space above the RHS wall top? Can you answer me that? Jamie I cannot put any more packers in, bc we're up to the very max we can go 150mm shy of the house slates. Why so far? because he realises only now too the roof levels relative to each other (knock thru door) are too big. We discussed all this.. him notice all jokes gone, now slightly concerned, measuring ever wee thing suddenly, marks everywhere.. me not yet realising -only yesterday PM- the truss has been made incorrectly/ its bar across made too low (Im still open, willing & waiting to be proved wrong by any of you). Look we were even chatting away on the new grey roof (dividing floor) about the ceiling H at 2300mm as soon as I was able to get up there. The wall H in front of me I measure 2300mm. So there's no additional height to be added. He knew I hadn't cottoned on about the truss bar being wrong at this stage, so just showed me how we could just squeeze the door in with a step he said for 1st time -within- the thick wall.. me scratching my head as to why this has all occured.. him elaborating 2.3m into 2.4m or 'packers' or 'all fine'.. a compromise I am not happy about, unless I am wrong).

Please BigJ- just help me out.. just when I ask the q, you bail out? this doesn't help me think you're right.. & I'm wrong does it. 4200mm I measure outside to outside walls. The same I measure from start of cross beam to notch. So they fit together, can we agree on that at least?

Done so (I didn't see the question/ post of yours before, no beep alert as usual.. so 'inside.. or outside' was random & meaningless). Please don't asssume anything BigJ, it doesn't help & just encourages sniping posts from a few. thanks. I await to be proved wrong. Anyone.

Sorry I missed this post. I measure as I said many times, from the outside of the wall >>>> to the outside of the other wall. I am perfectly open to being proved wrong. Honestly. I HOPE to be proved wrong. This is why I'm doing this. If so.. I do get the added height a collared ceiling should give me/ & the builder's correct, I'm wrong/ & my plan is adhered to.. but I cannot see any evidence of it.

What 'inside or outside'? Ive no idea what you are asking.. its not even a question BigJ. Please can you redo whatever Q this is meant to be.

Come on AB.. you'tre opinion I respect the most. Look 4200mm I measure across the horizontal truss beam from pinpoint where it starts, to the notch edge. 4200mm I measure on site one outerv edge of wall >>> across to the other. So tell me how this 4200mm horizontal spans across/ sits on the walls.. & magically gives me additional ceiling height-?

Everyone? no-one has explained it. No-one bar you & tennentslager only understand what I'm suggesting. You can see the truss is wrong just by looking at it & comparing to my drawing (whether or not you don't believe its accurate.. which it is extremely accurate both in shape, the angle, the dims, everything.. to scale.. perfectly.. regardless of whether figures are marked on/ this does not mean the lines are not precise).. you can measure its cross beam to give added strength to my view, you can measure this 20cm too low figure run throughout the build tip to toe!! what more evidence do you need?! but still, just bc my plan is hand drawn, I am wrong & the builder is right. NO NO NO. Proove me so. You can't. look at the vertical bar in the photo.. its too long!! there is to be no slope RHS, but instead ceiling will join at a right angle to the wall here. This is wrong. This does not give me the very design feature a collared roof should give me: additional height.