UMMV is ?
Hey Mike,
I suppose I shouldn't have said wasn't compromised, but should have said is not compromised sufficiently to require replacement for strength. But alas its being replaced anyways. The moving the loft blocks was just something I thought about with it if we weren't replacing it. What is the reason not to do it that way?
..............................0 fleet runs nice and quiet and passing lines don't tend to rub the cheeks of the loft blocks they pass. This means the end of the batten reeved to the DS groove of the head block will be further DS than the end reeved to the US groove. Some installers will line the loft blocks up in a perfect line parallel to the plaster line..............
<snipped>
I'll talk about the issues imposed by an elevated head block, why that method was introduced, and how to deal with those problems at a later date in it's own thread.
First, as all installers know, there is no such thing as a "perfect" line set with "True zero" fleet angle. The closest one can come is if both the head block is slightly offset (called fair lead) and the head blocks and loft blocks are angled ever so slightly so that each one is aligned directly with the groove in the matching block.
I like and specify the multi line short line loft block square to headblock and then just idlers. It seems to work well.
Since there is no manufacturer provided shim, the fair lead method we have interpreted as being a violation of ANSI 1.4 Paragraph 3.2.7 (e) "Mounting clips shall... They shall be installed so that the block cannot shift on the support structure." By cocking the block to the side slightly one of the mounting bolts will not touch the beam. This would allow it to potentially shift under load - thus the violation.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.