I think what we miss sometimes is that we are supposed to be designing buildings, not timber frames.
The hammer beam system (Brungraber swears it does not meet the classical definition of a truss) worked quite well for centuries when placed atop and within substantial masonry walls.
Contemporary timberframers and their engineers have been driven to dramatically upsize the lower posts to try to resist the bending that logic and science tell us flow downward from that big lower hammer brace (often) into the middle (most bendy) part of the column. Straw bales and stress skins do not offer the same push back as buttressed stone.
Likewise, hammer beam systems on end walls can display alarmingly little resistance to wind-driven distortion, especially when that wall is mostly glass, with a fabulous ocean view.
What to do? Always take a long hard look at the historical successes (the failures are long gone); they have likely endured a great deal more than the some of the frames we see in the lifestyle magazines.
A willingness to learn from the patterns of our predecessors does not (necessarily) mean we are compelled to use hand tools while wearing animal skins.
