I’m having a back and forth concerning the old 4 ft gable rule…r(concerning roof shape) remember when we were told not to include any gables under 4 ft?
Please add your comments.
Thanks
No foot rule.
A gable is now a gable according to how I interpret the current form.
Firm does not specify gables. Only mon hip features
Must be another one of those gems from Bill York…
non-hip feature
Is it a hip feature or not?
I’m having a “discussion” with another inspector, I say ANY gable regardless of size has to be considered in considering roof shape. He is saying ANY gable under 4 feet is not to be considered…what say you?
all should be considered.
What my word is not good enough 
Thanks John, I just wanted him to see it in print…especially from you.
The four foot rule is an old MSFH rule.
The question has been answered.
Measure ALL non hip features.
Mike,
I especially want to thank you for your quick imput! Sixty views and you were the only one to reply to my inquiry…AND I agree with you.
Thanks again
Thanks man because I was feeling left out and I really try to help all who ask.
I may not agree with all but I’ll stand behind my opinion to help fellow inspectors and their clients.
Agreed, but I don’t think it was ever not included for roof shape determination. It was however, considered to be “Braced” if under 4’ high on the first 1802.
What exactly is a “non-hip feature”?
And you are correct, the form asks for non-hip features only, it requires measuring of the complete perimeter in all situations. Then it requires measuring of the non-hip features for application of subtrahend from the minuend…this gives you the calculation for compliance with hip roof geometry.
The following information on roof geometry is false, minus maybe the last one with a gable end wall. Overhangs/soffits in excess of 36", regardless of if they are under truss or attached to the buildings roof structure directly, are non-hip features. Roof geometry has been falsely interpreted by the insurance industry for years, and the engineers are starting to realize this. The information insurer’s have been providing on roof geometry was not based off of actual engineering practices and was wrong in many cases, including this: http://honorconstruction.com/blog1/all-about-wind-mitigation/wind-mitigation-roof-geometry/
The small part you seem to leave out of every interpretation you make is very simple, the form is a compromise. It is a compromise between the studies, engineering, inspectors and insurance industry. I really love how you picked my old blog to make a point, considering it is long out of date. It is even funnier that you feel attacking me consistently is helping anyone else. You fail to comment on one of the several other wind mitigation classes including the FABI members that teach the class. I have two printed classes in my office that have almost the exact interpretation that I have. Also, I have had other instructors sit in my class and state that they almost agree 100% to what I teach(some are very well respected in your circles).
You made a post earlier where you insulted every wind mitigation instructor but I have yet to find a class you wrote or taught. You also state openly that you don’t do wind mitigation. You better be careful that someone does not file a formal ethics complaint on you for several of your comments, because there has been talk of it.
Can’t we all just get along?
Oh I just found myself agreeing with Robert
Like a rectangle house with a gable on the two short sides has any part hip roof to it is just ridiculous in the first place. It is an entire gable roof not to parts od four gable roof.
It will ONLY be done correctly when the OIR gives ALL RULES, DEFINITIONS and will answer questions directly from the clients and inspectors. Until then anyone teaching anything is JUST teaching their opinion.
No offence to those who do each their opinions. Some people have to guide in some manner or it would be a real , REAL joke.
No, the form needs to be changed to answer the questions asked by the insurance company. All of the questions should require a yes or no answer. There is no need for tables, graphs or formulas that have nothing to do with the question asked.
I offered my time and form creation skills to the OiR and they would rather pervert engineers reports and continue to put out woefully inadequate forms.
I am surprised the wm program still exists. I would think by now, they have milked out all the money from the homeowners, or at least most of it.
All packed and ready for a week off… 