Weight’s always the kicker with composite, isn’t it? I’ve been called out to fix a couple places where the homeowner or even the original crew didn’t really factor in the extra load—especially on older homes with 2x4 rafters. Sometimes folks just assume “newer material, must be lighter,” but that’s not always true. Out here in Nebraska, I’ve seen a few roofs bow after a couple bad winters. Curious, did your inspection mention anything about rafter spacing or if they had to add bracing? Sometimes the devil’s in those little details...
That’s a solid point about the weight. You’d think composite would be lighter just because it’s “modern,” but when I was shadowing a crew last fall, we weighed some samples and the composite was actually heavier than the old cedar shakes they were replacing. It caught the homeowner by surprise, and they had to go back and add extra bracing—kind of a hassle once you’ve already started.
The inspection PDF I got for my aunt’s house did have a whole section on rafter spacing, but it was buried under all these 3D diagrams and thermal images. Honestly, it’s easy to miss those notes unless you really dig in. They flagged her 2x4 rafters as “borderline” for composite, but didn’t flat-out say to reinforce them. Feels like sometimes inspectors assume you’ll know what to do if they mention it at all.
I’d double-check what your report says about load or spacing—sometimes they just toss in a line like “structural adequacy to be verified by contractor,” which is… not super helpful. But yeah, those little details matter way more than most folks realize.
Yeah, those inspection PDFs can be a maze. I’ve seen the “structural adequacy to be verified” line way too often—it’s like a polite way of saying, “good luck, figure it out.” You’re right, the weight difference with composite surprises a lot of people. Catching those details before you start saves a ton of headaches. Good call digging into the fine print.
I get what you’re saying about catching those weight differences early, but I’d argue the “structural adequacy to be verified” note isn’t always just a brush-off. Sometimes it’s a legit warning—especially if you’re swapping out old cedar shakes for something heavier like tile or even some composites. Ever had a situation where the engineer actually flagged a truss issue after the fact? I’ve seen it happen, and it’s a nightmare mid-project. I almost wish the reports were even more blunt about it instead of hiding behind that phrase...
I almost wish the reports were even more blunt about it instead of hiding behind that phrase...
Funny thing, I’ve actually had the opposite problem—got a report once that was so blunt it scared the homeowner into thinking their whole roof was about to collapse. Turned out the trusses were fine, just needed some extra bracing for the heavier shingles. I get why they use that “structural adequacy” line—it covers their bases without causing panic. But yeah, it’s a pain when you’re halfway through and suddenly there’s a flagged issue nobody saw coming. Guess there’s no perfect way to word it.
