We're not discussing appearance or opinions about it, just functionality.
A bit curious about what disadvantages there are with a minimal roof overhang like the photo of the red house below?
Is it something that's a bit exaggerated, it's just a little extra roof that sticks out 50cm from the facade. It will still rain on the facade, the sun will still hit the facade. What's so fantastic about this little extra roof overhang? I have metal above the windows to protect them. My house is a single-story villa in the Stockholm area and not near water and is quite wind-protected.
What do you say?
An opinion.
More opinions
A bit curious about what disadvantages there are with a minimal roof overhang like the photo of the red house below?
Is it something that's a bit exaggerated, it's just a little extra roof that sticks out 50cm from the facade. It will still rain on the facade, the sun will still hit the facade. What's so fantastic about this little extra roof overhang? I have metal above the windows to protect them. My house is a single-story villa in the Stockholm area and not near water and is quite wind-protected.
What do you say?
An opinion.
More opinions
Last edited:
Adequate eaves protect, for example, the overlying window trim so that rain cannot get behind them. You can also block unnecessarily harsh sunlight. That is, in the morning and evening when the sun is low, it can shine in, but in the middle of the day during summer when it is at its strongest, you can use the eaves as a fixed awning.
Advantages of minimal roof overhang, I can't think of any. A disadvantage mentioned earlier is protecting the facade (how much/little it contributes I have no idea about). Then, it must be a very special, architect-designed house for it to work without overhang. Otherwise, my personal opinion is that it looks terrible without. It looks bare and a bit silly. At least, that's what I think 
In the event that the gutter becomes clogged with ice, leaves, or other debris, there is a risk that rainwater will flow directly down the facade if there is no roof overhang, which can hardly be good...
Oops, just noticed the bold text about not commenting on appearance so ignore the last thing I wroteGoteborg said:Advantages of minimal roof overhang, can't think of any. Disadvantage as mentioned earlier is protecting the facade (how much/little it contributes I have no idea). Then it must be a very special, architect-designed house for it to work without overhang. Otherwise, my personal opinion is that it looks terrible without it. Looks bare and a bit silly. Just my opinion anyway
I have seen some areas where they built a number of dozens of identical small houses with minimal roof overhangs a few years ago, and it's quite easy to see which ones have extended the roof overhang afterward, and which ones have replaced the siding on the house, and it is so common that it must be because the function has been too poor (that is, the facade needs to be replaced because it has been damaged too severely).
It must be a considerable amount of rain that falls in a year that falls down at a few degrees angle, this effectively protects a facade against it with a roof overhang. However, as mentioned, during a storm it doesn't matter.
Advantages.
* Less material is needed, such as roof tiles/sheet metal and others.
* The architectural expression (if desired for the building in question).
(And houses with a high eave, not a complete story, where a wall window and a roof window are aligned just above the wall-roof angle would probably look significantly better)
* On the margin, a minimal eave may be a slightly lesser obstacle for vertical convection-driven air flow along the wall side, but this effect should not be overestimated.
* More of the roof construction is heated by the house, but I have never heard of general moisture/mold/rot problems in our protruding eaves, so it probably doesn't matter.
* If you plan to make a roof with exterior insulation on rough sheathing, it may be advantageous not to have an eave to consider structurally and aesthetically.
Disadvantages.
* No eave to protect the facade and facade details partially during rain.
For example, windows on the long side of single-story houses have pretty good protection from a half-meter eave; rain generally does not reach the connection to the facade at the top, and it typically does not rain frequently or heavily on the window itself.
* It is better to have a long distance between ground/facade considering splashing water.
* Falling snow has a greater tendency to form a snow heap against the facade.
* Falling snow and ice have a slightly higher chance of damaging windows, facade, window sills, etc.
(depends a lot on the roof slope as well)
* Does not look good if one is a traditionalist or building a traditional Swedish wooden house.
These were a few things I thought of in haste.
I would argue that the differences are not so significant that they need to be considered.
Simply build the house with the desired appearance.
If one is absolutely without opinion on appearance, choose an eave of 30-50 cm.
* Less material is needed, such as roof tiles/sheet metal and others.
* The architectural expression (if desired for the building in question).
(And houses with a high eave, not a complete story, where a wall window and a roof window are aligned just above the wall-roof angle would probably look significantly better)
* On the margin, a minimal eave may be a slightly lesser obstacle for vertical convection-driven air flow along the wall side, but this effect should not be overestimated.
* More of the roof construction is heated by the house, but I have never heard of general moisture/mold/rot problems in our protruding eaves, so it probably doesn't matter.
* If you plan to make a roof with exterior insulation on rough sheathing, it may be advantageous not to have an eave to consider structurally and aesthetically.
Disadvantages.
* No eave to protect the facade and facade details partially during rain.
For example, windows on the long side of single-story houses have pretty good protection from a half-meter eave; rain generally does not reach the connection to the facade at the top, and it typically does not rain frequently or heavily on the window itself.
* It is better to have a long distance between ground/facade considering splashing water.
* Falling snow has a greater tendency to form a snow heap against the facade.
* Falling snow and ice have a slightly higher chance of damaging windows, facade, window sills, etc.
(depends a lot on the roof slope as well)
* Does not look good if one is a traditionalist or building a traditional Swedish wooden house.
These were a few things I thought of in haste.
I would argue that the differences are not so significant that they need to be considered.
Simply build the house with the desired appearance.
If one is absolutely without opinion on appearance, choose an eave of 30-50 cm.
If we talk about reducing to about 30cm roof overhang for a slightly more discreet appearance, the difference compared to 50cm must be marginal in function?
Has anyone seen examples where there is a minimal roof overhang and no fascia board used at all? Or maybe about 20-30cm roof overhang without fascia board and visible rafters?
Is being without the fascia board a construction problem, i.e., are you removing something that has a good function?
Has anyone seen examples where there is a minimal roof overhang and no fascia board used at all? Or maybe about 20-30cm roof overhang without fascia board and visible rafters?
Is being without the fascia board a construction problem, i.e., are you removing something that has a good function?
In Sotenäs municipality, in the old wind-swept fishing communities by the sea, the roof overhang is around 20 cm.Suhagg said:
So your thesis doesn't hold.
Diversearbetare
· Göteborg
· 11 183 posts
It's because the houses shouldn't bump into each other. There's simply no more space between the houses on the crown islets. 🤓😉E Erik Salhammar said:
I would say that in Bohuslän, there are completely normal roof overhangs.
...so your observation doesn't hold