Choosing the best tools
Readers sometimes complain that our power-tool reviews never say which one is best. People assume we equivocate because we’re afraid of upsetting our advertisers, but having fielded a number of phone calls over the years from angry advertisers, I can assure you that’s not the problem. We don’t want to upset anyone, but our primary goal when reviewing tools is to help readers spend their money wisely.
The problem, or challenge, really, is that Fine Homebuilding enjoys a diverse readership. The best tool for a professional builder might not make sense for a weekend warrior. Likewise, what works for a framing contractor running a large crew might not be right for a one-man remodeling company. Nonetheless, we always press our reviewers to answer the ultimate question: Which one would you buy? Their conclusions usually fall into two categories: 1. “If money were no object …”; and 2. “Given a limited budget …”
Starting with issue 165 of Fine Homebuilding, we’re going to identify the reviewer’s top tool choices with a pair of visual icons: Author’s choice: Best overall; and Author’s choice: Best value. Our goal is to make the author’s conclusions clear and immediately visible. But keep in mind that opinions vary, and if you disagree with our author’s conclusions, we want to hear about it. You can email us at [email protected], or share your thoughts directly with other readers through our online discussion forum, Breaktime, at www.finehomebuilding.com.
—Kevin Ireton, editor
Quicker coping
I cope all my inside joints as Tom O’Brien suggests in “Building Skills” (FHB #164, pp. 116, 118). To speed up the back-cut on many standard baseboard moldings (such as ranch or colonial base), I use the miter saw. Because most of the profile is straight, I just flip the base upside down after making the inside 45º cut and cut a 15º bevel along the cutline. I stop the sawcut where the molding profile begins to curve and finish with a coping saw.
Also, Fine Homebuilding published a tip years ago that I use all the time to sand copes to perfection. The tip, shown at left, recommends using spray-on contact cement to bond 220-grit sandpaper to a scrap piece of base. This creates a contoured sanding block for the tightest copes you’ve ever seen.
—Mike Guertin, East Greenwich, R.I.
Questions cost of universal design
I’m writing to take issue with the cost information given in John P. S. Salmen’s article “A Home for the Next 50 Years” (FHB #163, pp. 98-103). Specifically, he states that construction costs for universal design “are less than one-tenth of 1% of what the same work would cost as a retrofit.” Any attempt to put such a precise number on such a vast, diverse set of circumstances is immediately suspect. It simply cannot be measured that perfectly.
Second, let’s do the math: “less than one-tenth of 1%” is less than 1/1000. Is the author actually claiming, for instance, that the time it takes to plan for and install something simple like reinforcement for a grab bar would cost less than $1? And that retrofitting would cost more than $1,000? Maybe in an expensively tiled wall, but certainly not in most situations. Such indefensible nonsense has no place in an otherwise useful discussion on the merits of universal design.
—Mitch Moschetti, Fletcher, N.C.
John Salmen replies: Those numbers come directly from “The Costs of Accessibility,” published by the U.S. Printing Office and written by researchers at the State University of New York. But I agree that it is hard to compare apples to apples here. That study compared only the construction costs (no design fees) for newly constructed commercial (not residential) buildings. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find comparative studies of accessible versus inaccessible residential construction. The important message, however, is that the costs for accessibility are greatly reduced when accessibility is planned at the outset, rather than retro-fitted later.
Pressure-washer tips mislabeled
There is a reason why the 0º tip for a pressure washer is red: because it creates a powerful spray that can damage your house. In “The Art of Pressure Washing” (FHB #162, pp. 94-96), we mislabeled the pressure-washer tips. Most pressure washers that come with different tips for different spray angles use the same color-coding. The correct tips and labels are shown at left. The 0º tip is red, the 15º tip is yellow, the 25º tip is green, the 40º (not 45º) tip is white, and the chemical, or soap, applicator is black.
—The Editors
Using water levels
Your article “Using a water level” (FHB #161, pp. 126, 128) did a good service to people, particularly remodelers and do-it-yourselfers. I have used water levels for some time and just want to add to your comments.
Are you aware that the water level is widely used in commercial work? In office buildings, it pays to install the ceilings in the various rooms with a water level so that when someone is promoted and an office expands by tearing out a wall, the ceilings match. You’ll be a hero.
On p. 126, you show the editor in a Zenlike trance observing a siphon at work. This is good for many things including pondering the meaning of the universe, but not for the task at hand. Stick the tubing into a garden hose and turn it on. In about 10 seconds, you will not have any bubbles (double-check anyway). Then put in the soap and the food coloring.
Wrap a piece of electrical wire with a hook on it around each end of the tube. Hang it on a nail at each end. Then one person can use the level. If you don’t want to adjust it, just measure up or down. And always carry two golf tees to put into the ends when you are not using the water level; then you don’t have to refill it.
You advocate a one-man level by sticking tubing into a bucket and using silicone to seal the connection. This is bad form. Before there was silicone, we drilled a hole in a 5-gal. paint bucket and inserted the threaded 1⁄4-in. hollow tubing that is used in table lamps, put a washer and nut on both sides, and voilà, a one-man level. The plastic hose fits neatly over the threaded tubing. I always use 3⁄8-in. tubing because it is easier to see and will settle more quickly. Set the bucket on a stepladder so that it is at about eye level.
Did you know that before we had plastic tubing in the 1950s, we used a garden hose with the glass cases that fine cigars came in on each end? Worked like magic.
I have one more thing to add: When using a water level, always check back to your starting point.
—Joe Clements, via email
Engineer questions cantilevered steps
I just received my June/July issue (FHB #164) and noticed the “Cantilevered deck step” tip on p. 24. Because it lasted 14 years, it is safe to assume that Mr. LeBeau’s deck doesn’t extend far out from his house, or that there are sufficient multiple supports to which the deck joists are anchored. Mr. LeBeau correctly noted that “… most loading occurs when you step on the tread.” He then assumes that the load magically disappears because the tread support presses upward against the bottom of the deck joist and his little cantilever doesn’t move out there. But guess what? That load is truly levered back along the entire length of the deck joist to which it is attached. Depending on where the closest support post is located, the shear load at that location could cause failure.
Furthermore, because the entire deck joist becomes a lever, the load is transmitted back along the joist to the next support post (or posts), perhaps all the way back to a ledger board attached to the house frame, where the uplift could be significant. If those support points aren’t strong enough, the structural damage that could occur would be significant. Even scarier is the six-riser version mentioned at the end of this tip. While there may well be specific types and details of construction that would permit the use of a cantilevered step, there are probably many more that will result in structural failure. Fine Homebuilding should know better than to issue effectively a blanket endorsement of a structural detail created by a nonengineer. Next time, check with someone who knows what they’re doing.
—Matthew Nousak, P.E., via email
Put headers in the floor system for best results
I read with great interest your article “All About Headers” (FHB #162, pp. 62-67) and want to stress an important point.
When a house is framed, a traditional wood header may bear directly on the trimmer studs that frame the sides of a rough window or door opening. But you can expect a wood header to shrink significantly more across its width than the trimmer studs will shrink lengthwise. As the author points out, even a 2×6 header can shrink 1⁄8 in. This creates a gap between the top of the trimmer stud and the bottom edge of the header. Drywall cracks are the usual result of this shrinkage, but the gap also means that the trimmer studs are no longer supporting the header; this work is being done by nails driven through the king studs and into the ends of the header.
Fortunately, there is a way to eliminate this differential shrinkage completely, and I think it should be emphasized. On p. 63, the author shows the “hidden header” trick, where the rim joist is doubled up over an opening to serve as the header. Locating the header in the floor system overcomes all the disadvantages of the traditional approach, and then some. It costs less, is stronger, eliminates differential shrinkage and drywall cracking, allows more insulation, and provides some greater architectural options, such as transoms and roundtop windows.
—Richard E. Caron, Salem, N.H.
Another opinion on rotary hammers
I liked the rotary-hammer article in your April/May issue (FHB #162, pp. 72-77) , but I felt the conclusions were all wrong. Spending $500 on an SDS-plus rotary hammer is not a good deal. For the same money, you can get the SDS-max. In fact, you can get the best SDS-max there is: the Bosch (11318EVS), which provides more impact energy than most spline-drive rotary hammers.
The SDS-max offers so much more in the way of attachments, such as a grounding-rod driver; a spade for digging, which is critical for footings and post holes; and a tamper for compacting dirt for concrete, to name a few.
—Shantara Ford, Santa Fe, N.M.
Roof-truss caution
I found Mike Guertin’s article about fitting new skylights around roof trusses very interesting (FHB #164, pp. 92-97). I work for a roof-truss manufacturer in Michigan and will pass the information on to customers. I did, however, find something missing. When the rigid drywall was removed from the bottom chord of the truss, the lateral restraint also was removed from that critical portion of the trusses. If proper bracing is not in place, the bottom chord of the trusses may bow out of plane and cause some cosmetic, or even structural, problems. Whenever the rigid bracing material is removed, the manufacturer should be consulted for replacement solutions. A simple 2×4 brace attached to the bottom chord may be the only thing required to do the job (along with some X-bracing at either end of the lateral brace).
—Kevin Haskin, via email
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Affordable IR Camera
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Reliable Crimp Connectors
