"Offsetting" of roof trusses?

[Lindev92]

Has there possibly been a load-bearing wall under these roof trusses?

To me, there are several odd things. First, the dimension of the bottom chord indicates something other than a temporary construction to stabilize during the build, your threaded rod indicates that as well. The consumption seems to support the bottom chord on a number of roof trusses. Then, your current roof trusses do not match the drawing you attached. According to the drawing, there would hardly have been room to furnish an upstairs, and it looks like someone is converting a saddle roof truss to a frame truss. Do you possibly have old nail holes somewhere in your bottom chord?

An engineer should look at this

That's right! Found old nail holes now that you mention it. The angle of them looks like the drawing.
Do you think it has a load-bearing structure now that there's no floor structure and upper floor left in that part of the house?

 

[Lindev92]

When I see the last picture, I understand better. Let the horizontal beam stay. It probably has the same function as the one on the left. Perhaps it was added when converting the attic, and it was discovered that it swayed a bit too much.

Okay, but do you think the diagonal ones can be removed?
We've accepted the idea that we don't have any stylish rafters, and they will be covered, if we can't remove them, they'll stay, and we'll find some stylish solution

 

[Lindev92]

I dug around in the drawing archive on the municipality's website and found these drawings for the conversion to a furnished attic in 1970. That is, 7 years after the year of construction.

 

[prototypen]

I wouldn't remove what looks like a truss running lengthwise. The trusses are not purely W trusses, this is to provide more space on the upper floor. It seems a bit TOO well-made to be a temporary brace left behind; it could be that they are needed if the gable peak rests on the gable wall. If the gables are made in one piece with posts running from bottom to top, then the diagonal brace is not to support the gable wall. In one picture, I think I see a beam on the other side under the intermediate floor; is that the case? Then perhaps the lengthwise truss has a role in supporting both the intermediate floor and the roof.

Protte

 

[Lindev92]

I wouldn't remove what looks like a truss running the length.
The trusses are not purely W trusses, as this is to provide more space in the attic.
Seems a bit TOO well-made to be a temporary brace, they might be needed if the gable peak sits on the gable wall. If the gables are made in one piece with posts from bottom to top, then the diagonal brace is not for supporting the gable wall.
In one of the pictures, I think I see a beam on the other side under the floor joists, is that so? Then maybe the longitudinal truss has a role in supporting both the floor joists and the roof.

Protte

Yes, that's correct, there was a load-bearing beam that we replaced with an IPE 200 when we started demolition.

 

[Lindev92]

Here comes a picture from the other side

 

[justusandersson]

Unfortunately, this is probably a problem that isn't particularly well-suited for discussion over the internet. I get more confused with each image. Looking at the drawing in post #18, the plans and elevation/section are drawn to different scales. Have the roof trusses been reoriented?

 

[Lindev92]

Unfortunately, I think this is a problem that isn't very suitable for discussion over the internet. I get more confused with each picture. If you look at the drawing in post #18, the plans and the elevation/section are drawn in different scales. Have the roof trusses been rotated?

Haha, no, I really don't know. This is what I got from the digital drawing archive.
I understand it's very difficult to provide an answer via a forum. But I sincerely thank you for your responses!