Information about up coming meeting and forms
Some good and some bad. I don’t like what they put at the end of the form…
Note: for underwriting purposes, your insurer may ask additional questions regarding your mitigated feature/s.
[FONT=Verdana]This appears to open the door for insurance companies to tack on additional requirements just like 4-Points.
[/FONT]
We need to do all we can to get rid of that.
The only thing I can think of is everyone write and complain??? Who knows maybe they will listen. I am sure some of our pro political types can come up with a good idea.
They can ask all the questions they want. I will be happy to supply the answers, for a fee of course.
we better do something to stop what I just saw the ara 5-27-2001 draft. that is crapo. they screw it up more and more each time. un f ing believable
Single Wraps Metal Straps must be secured to every rafter/truss with a minimum of 2 nails on the front side[f1]](http://www.nachi.org/forum/#_msocom_1) , wrapping
over and securing to the opposite side of the rafter/truss with a minimum of 1 nail. The Strap must be
attached to the top plate of the wall frame or embedded in the bond beam in at least one place.
[f1]](http://www.nachi.org/forum/#_msoanchor_1)Testing conducted by Simpson showed that 2+1 configuration is sufficient to produce resistance levels assumed in 2002 study.
So, it looks like those people who got reduced to clips or toe nails for having two nails in a wrap, are going to be getting automatic, retroactive, discounts, right?:mrgreen:
Look at the draft suppplied in the FLNACHI news letter IT says a total of 4 nails, 3 on one side and one in the wrap over on the other side. It also explains the same for double wraps. That is if the changes stay as they are now.
Look at the new form.(5/11)
Who knows what these guys will come up with next.
No, the 6-1-11 comment draft is what they’re working on now. That’s why it’s called a comment draft.
So they are just going to ignore this: Testing conducted by Simpson showed that 2+1 configuration is sufficient to produce resistance levels assumed in 2002 study.
The good news is that I’ll be getting a credit for ahip roof instead of a flat roof! Of course, by the time they straighten all this out, I won’t need homeowners insurance, at least windstorm anyway.
More than likely but, arguments can still be made so who really knows.
Testing conducted by Simpson showed that 2+1 configuration is sufficient to produce resistance levels assumed in 2002 study.
I copied the above from the consultants report that was done as part of the updates to the Wind Mitigation form. Quite frankly it is laughable, I wonder who did the above mentioned resistance study? Must have been Moe, Curly and Larry. Why does this form even mention the FBC or Product approvals when the form total ignores sound engineering.
Example: My personal home is built in exposure “c” 130 mph wind zone and is 50’ wide. Using the tables in FBCR 2007 each truss must be able to withstand an uplift force of 927#. But OIR says that all I need is 3 nails. I used the calculations in Simpson’s catalog for their most common truss anchor which is a META 16 and requires 9 nails. If I were too reduce the nails to 3 and use the published reduction tables in the catalog the strap would then only be rated for 423# in uplift and would not supply any lateral support which is also required of sound engineered design. What gives I would qualify for insurance discounts with just 3 nails but the FBC thinks my roof is going to blow off
I had nothing to do with that report!
I hope this brings it this into perspective as it is not intended to offend anyone but there is more at play than most seem to understand. Politics, money, statistics and engineering. Those do not play well together.
The wind mitigation form was not designed to follow code or engineering. If you keep drawing parallels it will drive you nuts. It is about statistics, statistically what holds together, who will get discounts and how much.
Take staples for an example, if you look up what the uplift should be you would be amazed. The issue is not with the staples but with the guys that put them in. They were overdriven and missed more “statistically” than nails(we can agree on that). So statistically a house with staples is more likely to come apart.
Now remember there is always jockeying when insurance companies deal for rates. This further muddies the waters, every insurance company looks at slightly different statistics based on their customers. The OIR puts the form together based on politicians, insurance groups, builders and inspectors and actual data after a storm. This is why it is not clear. Everyone has the answer that fits their data.
Now, go back to before unified code in ALL of Florida and you soon realize that in the beginning there was little real statewide data on buildings.
When they change the form or interpretation of the form, it is about who gets what discounts and statistically how that will affect rates. Sometimes it is just pure negotiation to keep an insurance company in the state and solvent.
Fill-out the form with the best and latest information they way it was intended, not how an engineer or code inspector would(no disrespect intended). Please do not just fill-it out without taking any class. Do this and you will be providing accurate, truthful reports. If you are not sure take one of the many classes available. InterNachi has a new free coarse, York and Dr Uz both have good classes.
If you fill-out the form incorrectly the re-inspectors have a field day with you even if by code or engineering you are correct. You make yourself look incompetent, is that the last impression you want to leave with a customer.
I hope this helps
Couldn’t agree with you more John ^^^. Speaking the truth in that post up there.
The other comment I would throw in is that it is very difficult to use an actual paper form to accomplish 2 different things…1) Help the person doing the actual Wind Mitigation inspection with information as to how to do it and 2) Show the RESULTS of the Wind Mitigation inspection itself in an easy to understand format. Each contradicts the other.
You cannot use a paper form to really instruct the inspector as to what they should be looking at and how. This needs to be in a piece of software instead that can more easily show a lot of instructions and help walk through the process and then the resulting report can concentrate on just the RESULTS of the inspection instead of trying to put in instructions also. Just my 2 cents.
I do believe that was a modest plug 
How does software teach someone how to do a wind mit?
Not a plug at all but just stating the facts… but to answer your question…the software in its simplest form it would have information lookups based on where you are in the Wind Mitigation process…and more detailed instructions as to what a wind mitigation person should be looking at during each step of the process. It its more advanced from it could have followup questions based on answers or things you check during the process to get into a more detailed process. Our software does some of this but would need to be customized more to really have some of the more advanced features…almost like a decision tree.
Ahh I get it. Thanks