In term of cost, which method is cheaper?
2006-12-19 01:45:46 · 8 answers · asked by bonpon2003 1 in Home & Garden ➔ Maintenance & Repairs
Trusses are much simpler to work with for framers. However, there are framers who prefer, and are good at, contructing stick framed roof rafters.
As far as cost, the trusses cost more in the long run, even if you add up the labour cost for a stick built roof.
For trusses you pay for the engineering, manufacturing, supplier, plus the installation. The installation of some truss roofs could be much more complicated than stick built with so many valleys, hips and ridges. The installation for most truss roofs involves actually constructing parts of the roof on the ground and using a lift-all or other crane to lift it into place which you also pay for.
If you decide to build a stick built roof, make sure that your framer has done this before. It is an art form in itself with all the different angle and birdmouths cuts that one only gets from experience.
2006-12-19 03:03:07 · answer #1 · answered by Building Inspector 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would like to say something better and more informative than the Building Inspector, but he nailed it! (Hey, that's kinda funny.)
His answer is best.
But, I will say this - in my previous life as a purchasing manager for a home builder we would never even consider highing a framer to conventionally frame a roof. It is inefficient and slow. It also takes a certain bit of talent (which I hate to say, is becoming a lost art).
If I were putting a roof on a shed, I would conventionally frame it, if I were putting a roof on my home - premanufactured trusses are the only way to go...larger cost or not.
2006-12-19 09:01:04 · answer #2 · answered by Montgomery 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree with Michael, the architect above. Thank you, Michael, for being one of the few architects I've encountered who can give a good answer to this question. Yes, the material cost for trusses will be more, and the labor TIME will be less; however, most contractors I've dealt with won't give you any break on price for using trusses, eventhough they probably should. And, Michael is right, no truss manufacturer or building materials dealer gives an architect a kickback for using their product.
2016-03-13 08:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The trusses are better because of the engineering. The problem is the engineering - less trusses are used usually 24" on center and it is not what i want on my home. Trusses have a better weight load but again they are placed farther apart. so what?
Trusses cost more but u use less.
They can be engineered for longer span(over 24') with out extra braces for under support.
2006-12-19 01:55:52 · answer #4 · answered by john t 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on the complexity of your roof. Very simple roofs will be cheaper to build in place. More complex roofs with multiple slopes and valleys will be cheaper to have trusses made.
2006-12-19 08:57:24 · answer #5 · answered by Jeffrey S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Trusses are cheaper in terms of manhours spent putting on the roof. And if you need attic storage space, you can have them designed to carry the loads.
2006-12-19 02:44:39 · answer #6 · answered by JML 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
materials vs. labor is the difference. also, no or very limited attic storage with trusses. you need more crew or a crane for trusses. lots of variables to consider.
2006-12-19 02:16:58 · answer #7 · answered by car dude 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
truss ( less material and time - plus you can sometimes use 24" center wall studs instead of 18" - check your local codes )
2006-12-19 01:47:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
stick is cheaper
2006-12-19 01:48:16 · answer #9 · answered by wofford1257 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋