Hi Sean...

Do you think it is the "longer timbers" that makes the turness of the frame easier to accomplish during raising...or...could it be the layout modality of the frame?

Now that we are moving into larger and larger frames..."longer timbers" (40 meters plus) is logistically much harder to achieve than shorter 6 meter timbers. As such..."line layout"...presents as creating much "tighter" joinery the first time around with zero test fitting ever necessary before raising day. We can even have several shops at once working on the same frame, even with "live edge members. These too come together well at raising time.

Further...if joints are "cut correctly" the frame should stand "square and level" without much racking in most frames...I got that "tidbit" from the Amish I learn from. Again, I think this stems from "layout" and the Asian designs motifs we tend to follow. With the addition of long splines and corbel elements designed into the frame...we see further "shortening" of frame members, yet still achieve tighter truer frames. Sense this conversation started, I have been looking back at many of the Asian designs overall, and many are comprised of "stack," corbeled, and generally much shorter timbers that we see in Western framing overall...yet have the oldest and some of the most enduring frames.

I am very curious about monitoring and observing how we all approach our "craft" of timber framing and comparing the modalities for efficacy and stiffness of frame with the varied techniques we each employ...Of course this is outside the scope of "historical work" which comes with its procedural designs and construction modality mandates of of means, method and material.

Regards,

j