Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 66 to 130 of 194
  1. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Excerpt from Rick C., " ... Ether you are just to lazy to actually read what has been written, to stupid to understand what has been written, or lying just to confuse the discussion and cause trouble..."

    The other option is if a premise isn't something with which they agree then it's false and just stupid. If something on a web site contradicts overwhelming evidence, then the information found on the web is the absolute truth and fact because it supports their point. I think Nicko's association recommends a hand hold test.

    Heck most inspectors around here MAY check that the opener raises and lowers the door and that's it. If the SOP doesn't require it, they don't bother. Or, they don't follow any SOP other than Endorse-the-Check before depositing.

    F.I.R.E. Services
    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  2. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Wood View Post
    To be fair there is an Article and specific Education on Garages and Garage doors.
    Nachi TV
    Garage Doors and Openers - InterNACHI
    To be fair, this is just another perfect example why many of the state goverments felt there was a need for state regulations on home inspectors.

    Phoenix AZ Resale Home, Mobile Home, New Home Warranty Inspections. ASHI Certified Inspector #206929 Arizona Certified Inspector # 38440
    www.inspectaz.com

  3. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    McKinney Texas
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Hey Chris, welcome to the "I just tore up a garage door club". We have many members.


  4. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Harris View Post
    To be fair, this is just another perfect example why many of the state goverments felt there was a need for state regulations on home inspectors.
    The state regs are always written by the guys or gals who yelled the loudest or wore the other consultants down. Just cuz it is in the state regs doesn't make it the best or smartest, although it certainly relieves a lot of liability when you follow the prescribed procedures.

    (of course, in Colorado any Tom, Debra, or Harry can hang their shingle and call themselves a big bad house inspector and judging from a few that I have met, some have done just that.)


  5. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gene South View Post
    Hey Chris, welcome to the "I just tore up a garage door club". We have many members.
    I think I have told this story before, but many years ago. I pressed the opener button and up goes the door. I press the button again and the door jerks and comes crashing down. As the dust boils around me and the buyer, I hear his voice say, "I am your witness, all you did was press the button."

    No one asked me to pay for a door, nor would I have, even if in Idaho Falls.


  6. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    The state regs are always written by the guys or gals who yelled the loudest or wore the other consultants down. Just cuz it is in the state regs doesn't make it the best or smartest, although it certainly relieves a lot of liability when you follow the prescribed procedures.

    (of course, in Colorado any Tom, Debra, or Harry can hang their shingle and call themselves a big bad house inspector and judging from a few that I have met, some have done just that.)
    Agreed. At least state requirements require if you don't inspect a required item, the inspector is required to state so, and make a recommendation ...

    With this vague inspection training/information [below] from some one that "certifies" new inspectors based on their on-line courses. Why would a new inspector attempt to inspect the safety devices at all.
    Not to mention the photo shows testing the door by hand , a completey different method from the way most manufactures and the Consumer Product Safety Commission recommend testing the openers safety adjustment.

    2.Some sources recommend placing a 2x4 piece of wood on the ground beneath the door, although there have been instances where this testing method has damaged the door or door opener components.

    Last edited by Dan Harris; 07-23-2012 at 11:10 AM.
    Phoenix AZ Resale Home, Mobile Home, New Home Warranty Inspections. ASHI Certified Inspector #206929 Arizona Certified Inspector # 38440
    www.inspectaz.com

  7. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    NO BODY has said the only test is by using a 2x4
    NO BODY has said that a compleat inspection of the garage door not be done.
    It looks like everyone agrees that the door is to be inspected BEFORE using a 2x4. The point of discussion is some say not use a 2x4 during the test, and some say to use one.

    Ether you are just to lazy to actually read what has been written, to stupid to understand what has been written, or lying just to confuse the discussion and cause trouble.
    I don't think your to lazy to read, and I don't think your stupid. I do think that you would say almost anything to discredit someone (especially Jerry).
    It seems that you think that by discrediting someone else, it will make you look better. It does not.

    If I said something to offend you, get over it.

    BTW Scott said he DOES NOT use a 2x4




    Jerry states that the door should be inspected BEFORE using a 2x4
    Mr. Cantrell,

    Again, it is you, whom projects, and again you, whom forgets, what has been written, said, and what the INDUSTRY standards are.

    Mr. PECK stated back up on post 8:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck
    I usually agree with what Scott P. says, however, in this case Scott is w-a-y off base in my opinion.

    Scott would be correct to chastise you for using your hand and not the approved and only recognized reversal test - the 2x4 on the floor and done correctly (many, if not most, HIs seem to not do this test correctly, and thus are afraid of this test).

    "Failed under testing" if how I have handled it in the past ... I cam up with that phrase after a garage door fell off the tracks.

    With regard to the garage door "operating properly" before it damaged ITSELF (you did NOT damage the door, it damaged ITSELF), if the door was "operating properly" prior to the test, the door would have have damaged itself.

    I do agree that the HI should look the door over first for things like damage to the top of the door where the operator connects to the door - it is not uncommon at all to find doors which do not have the required stiffener brace installed at that location and you will find many doors which are wrinkled/crinkled at that connection point. Me, I tested those doors anyway, but damage like that is reason enough to write the door up for repair without testing ANYTHING - if you are not going to test the entrapment avoidance systems - ALL of them - don't bother trying to fool your client by only testing the easy ones. You could create a false sense of 'the door operates properly' in the client because you, the professional, did not feel the need to test the auto-reverse feature.

    Either test the door or don't test the door, but don't do a half-arsed test by testing only the easy stuff. Crimeny
    He said: "I tested those doors anyway". To have done so, when "those doors" failed the visual examination, (i.e. missing brace, or wrinkled/damaged door), meant that proceeding with an OPERATION, BEYOND the accepted standard testing protocols was inproper, inppropriate, unsafe, and was in no-way a proper "TEST". If ANY of the multi-step, multi-examination, multi-test procedure steps in the ORDER they are to be performed on the system is a "no-pass" or "stop", one STOPS the "TESTING PROCEDURE" and writes it up for correction.

    I wouldn't recommend even MANUALLY OPERATING an OH door which has wrinkled or is damaged, or is in anyway not in an acceptable state or condition of installation, maintenance, etc.

    This conversation has been repeated, many times. I remind you that it was you, who confused participants in the previously referenced discussion thread, and who skipped, as has Peck, what the standards are.

    BEFORE testing the auto reversing feature(s), there are BOTH inspections AND TESTING PROCEDURES which MUST be employed PRIOR to "doing the 2x4" test. Testing the force & balancing are two such tests which MUST be performed (AND PASSED) PRIOR, as well as TESTING the MANUAL OPERATION OF THE DOOR (following a visual INSPECTION of the door system, track, spring, reinforcement, and that of the opener system, etc.).

    Mr. Peck continues to INSIST the actual 2x4 "test" is the ONLY test. It is a multi-step, multi-test, PROCEDURE, which meets the STANDARDs. It includes a visual inspection of the door & system, checking the manual operation of the door/system, the balance, the force test, checking the (manually triggered) STOP/REVERSE function BEFORE checking an auto/reverse function.

    It is not unlike a HI "testing" an Oven without FIRST looking inside said oven for materials within (like plastic, pans, a can of oven cleaner, a bullet, etc.); "testing" a fireplace without FIRST assuring the damper is OPEN; "testing" a washing machine or dryer without first looking INSIDE same AND verifying the drainage hose or discharge vent connector is attached; "testing" the ability to hold water and/or the drainage of a kitchen sink, or "testing" a disposer, or "testing" a DW, without FIRST looking UNDER the SINK to make sure there actually IS DRAINAGE PIPING PRESENT - or FIRING up a fuel-fired forced air furnace, without FIRST assuring there is a VENT PIPE attached, connected, etc.; or stepping off a roof without FIRST visualizing/finding/feeling for the LADDER!

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 07-23-2012 at 12:48 PM.

  8. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Mr. Cantrell,

    Again, it is you, whom projects, and again you, whom forgets, what has been written, said, and what the INDUSTRY standards are.

    Mr. PECK stated back up on post 8:


    He said: "I tested those doors anyway". To have done so, when "those doors" failed the visual examination, (i.e. missing brace, or wrinkled/damaged door), meant that proceeding with an OPERATION, BEYOND the accepted standard testing protocols was inproper, inppropriate, unsafe, and was in no-way a proper "TEST". If ANY of the multi-step, multi-examination, multi-test procedure steps in the ORDER they are to be performed on the system is a "no-pass" or "stop", one STOPS the "TESTING PROCEDURE" and writes it up for correction.

    I wouldn't recommend even MANUALLY OPERATING an OH door which has wrinkled or is damaged, or is in anyway not in an acceptable state or condition of installation, maintenance, etc.

    This conversation has been repeated, many times. I remind you that it was you, who confused participants in the previously referenced discussion thread, and who skipped, as has Peck, what the standards are.

    BEFORE testing the auto reversing feature(s), there are BOTH inspections AND TESTING PROCEDURES which MUST be employed PRIOR to "doing the 2x4" test. Testing the force & balancing are two such tests which MUST be performed (AND PASSED) PRIOR, as well as TESTING the MANUAL OPERATION OF THE DOOR (following a visual INSPECTION of the door system, track, spring, reinforcement, and that of the opener system, etc.).

    Mr. Peck continues to INSIST the actual 2x4 "test" is the ONLY test. It is a multi-step, multi-test, PROCEDURE, which meets the STANDARDs. It includes a visual inspection of the door & system, checking the manual operation of the door/system, the balance, the force test, checking the (manually triggered) STOP/REVERSE function BEFORE checking an auto/reverse function.

    It is not unlike a HI "testing" an Oven without FIRST looking inside said oven for materials within (like plastic, pans, a can of oven cleaner, a bullet, etc.); "testing" a fireplace without FIRST assuring the damper is OPEN; "testing" a washing machine or dryer without first looking INSIDE same AND verifying the drainage hose or discharge vent connector is attached; "testing" the ability to hold water and/or the drainage of a kitchen sink, or "testing" a disposer, or "testing" a DW, without FIRST looking UNDER the SINK to make sure there actually IS DRAINAGE PIPING PRESENT - or FIRING up a fuel-fired forced air furnace, without FIRST assuring there is a VENT PIPE attached, connected, etc.; or stepping off a roof without FIRST visualizing/finding/feeling for the LADDER!
    Mr Watson
    I'm not being funny, mean, nasty, or sarcastic, you need to get help.
    I'm not saying you're crazy, but something is just not right.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  9. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Treasure Coast
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence Thomas View Post
    I would NEVER be able to get away with the "Failed During Test" defense. The realtors and the seller Always consider it to be my fault if the garage door gets bent.

    This usually happens with an older opener that also has been reinforced before with a 2 x 4 at the bracket and the thinnest door ever (the ones that I call a tin-foil door). When there is not an optical reverse, I almost think that there must be a pressure reverse. Even using a 2 x 4 under the door sometimes results in the top panel getting wrinkled.

    I have a local overhead door company on speed dial. It usually costs be about $80 - $90 to repair and that comes out of my inspection fee. It's a tragedy all around, but I must test the reverse, If it fails and causes damage that is my fault and I must repair it to stay in good standing with the realtors.

    This happens to me about once a year and I just consider it a business expense. All of those inspectors who say "Failed During Test" would have a business that "Failed By Methods" in my area.
    There is one other issue here. The "failed under testing" statement doesn't hold water. Here is a situation that happened to me about a year ago. I was doing an inspection and testing a window. It opened and because the springs were shot, fell and the glass broke. Failed under testing? Not according to the attorney that was called by the Realtor right after it happened. "The inspector is employed by the Buyer and the Buyer is responsible for any damage done to the property, no matter how it occurred."

    I worked out a deal with my client and no money changed hands,but, I would caution those who think that they can break things in peoples homes and not face any repercussions.

    As to the garage door, Jerry is correct that you should inspect the door before you operate it. When the Florida SoP comes out, there this section,
    (8) Inspectors are not required to perform any procedure or operation which will, in the opinion of the inspector, likely to be dangerous to the inspector or other persons or damage the property or its systems or components. This situation will be noted in the home inspection report.

    That gives you the opportunity to not inspect something if you feel it may be damaged during the testing. I would say that the standard also warns you about testing a door that shows damage, and then it fails. You will be paying for that door.

    Eric Van De Ven Magnum Inspections Inc. (772) 214-9929
    www.magnuminspections.com
    I still get paid to be suspicious when I got nothing to be suspicious about!

  10. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Van De Ven View Post
    There is one other issue here. The "failed under testing" statement doesn't hold water. Here is a situation that happened to me about a year ago. I was doing an inspection and testing a window. It opened and because the springs were shot, fell and the glass broke. Failed under testing? Not according to the attorney that was called by the Realtor right after it happened. "The inspector is employed by the Buyer and the Buyer is responsible for any damage done to the property, no matter how it occurred."

    I worked out a deal with my client and no money changed hands,but, I would caution those who think that they can break things in peoples homes and not face any repercussions.

    As to the garage door, Jerry is correct that you should inspect the door before you operate it. When the Florida SoP comes out, there this section,
    (8) Inspectors are not required to perform any procedure or operation which will, in the opinion of the inspector, likely to be dangerous to the inspector or other persons or damage the property or its systems or components. This situation will be noted in the home inspection report.

    That gives you the opportunity to not inspect something if you feel it may be damaged during the testing. I would say that the standard also warns you about testing a door that shows damage, and then it fails. You will be paying for that door.

    EXACTLY!


  11. #76
    Ron Bibler's Avatar
    Ron Bibler Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Dang... What to do with all of this...? Old Cars. No Testing for me. Door has any kind of damage or missing parts. No testing for me.

    Some things you just got to do or test and roll with it or get the owner to test/open. I had a breaker that was in the off position last month. Told the agent and the buyer i could not move that to the on position. This lady agent went over to the panel and move the breaker to the on position the AC unit kick on and that was the last inspection i will be doing for her.

    It would have been kool if the breaker sucker had started smoking or sparking...

    Guys we just make our own calls every day...

    Just my 2 cents.

    Best

    Ron


  12. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    84

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    We all take risks in this business and minimize them when we can....I always prefer to have a witness when testing, be it the buyer, seller (even if they get pissed if something goes wrong)..or agent (worst case scenario).


  13. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Treasure Coast
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Bibler View Post
    Dang... What to do with all of this...? Old Cars. No Testing for me. Door has any kind of damage or missing parts. No testing for me.

    Some things you just got to do or test and roll with it or get the owner to test/open. I had a breaker that was in the off position last month. Told the agent and the buyer i could not move that to the on position. This lady agent went over to the panel and move the breaker to the on position the AC unit kick on and that was the last inspection i will be doing for her.

    It would have been kool if the breaker sucker had started smoking or sparking...

    Guys we just make our own calls every day...

    Just my 2 cents.

    Best

    Ron
    Had a Realtor do the same thing for a pool pump breaker....After the paramedics left, I finished the inspection.

    Eric Van De Ven Magnum Inspections Inc. (772) 214-9929
    www.magnuminspections.com
    I still get paid to be suspicious when I got nothing to be suspicious about!

  14. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Van De Ven View Post
    There is one other issue here. The "failed under testing" statement doesn't hold water. Here is a situation that happened to me about a year ago. I was doing an inspection and testing a window. It opened and because the springs were shot, fell and the glass broke. Failed under testing? Not according to the attorney that was called by the Realtor right after it happened. "The inspector is employed by the Buyer and the Buyer is responsible for any damage done to the property, no matter how it occurred."
    Not impressed.......you could have found an attorney (probably on your first call) who would have said that you had no liability at all. If we have liability for anything that doesn't work or quits working or breaks under normal use (or testing), then none of us could afford the insurance premiums. That attorney or a lying Realtor bluffed you.

    It's ok to get fooled once. Those are lessons that we remember.


  15. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Treasure Coast
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    Not impressed.......you could have found an attorney (probably on your first call) who would have said that you had no liability at all. If we have liability for anything that doesn't work or quits working or breaks under normal use (or testing), then none of us could afford the insurance premiums. That attorney or a lying Realtor bluffed you.

    It's ok to get fooled once. Those are lessons that we remember.
    It is in the real estate contract that the buyer signed.

    Eric Van De Ven Magnum Inspections Inc. (772) 214-9929
    www.magnuminspections.com
    I still get paid to be suspicious when I got nothing to be suspicious about!

  16. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Well from the war stories of doors failing without warning makes me feel lucky or at least reassured in the methods I use. I have never had a door have a catastrophic failure that I did not expect/anticipate to fail. Haven't ever (unintentional) damaged a door from inspecting and testing. I have stopped the process of operating a door's seeing that it was failing or would fail. I have demonstrated, under a controlled situation, to owners that a door being replaced was ready to fail and why.

    Either it has been plain dumb luck or it is the method and process employed.

    I hope that it has been as a result of process and method and not luck. Being lucky is not dependable nor consistent. Caution trumps luck. Knowledge and experience trumps caution.


  17. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Treasure Coast
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Fortunately, I have had only one garage door incident. The chain broke, whipped around and nearly decapitated the homeowner. No one got hurt, but, it was a scary moment for sure. I, whenever possible, try to have people around when I test the doors, just in case.

    Getting back to my previous post.
    Lon, I am not trying to "impress" anyone. Merely stating the facts. I spoke to the attorney and asked him for his clients homeowners insurance policy number since he had asked for my GL insurance number. He asked why and I said, because I cut myself and since I was injured on your clients property, I am going to have to go to the hospital, get an exam, etc..
    That pretty much ended the discussion about the $100.00 piece of broken window glass.

    Eric Van De Ven Magnum Inspections Inc. (772) 214-9929
    www.magnuminspections.com
    I still get paid to be suspicious when I got nothing to be suspicious about!

  18. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Eric, one of the problems with print is that it is easy to be misunderstood. My "impress" comment was directed toward the real estate agent that tried to intimidate you.

    Your response was excellent and I'll remember that.

    Colorado laws are different. While a buyer is responsible for damaging a house, it is generally interpreted that they are only responsible for breaking something while acting beyond normal behavior or using something beyond its intended use. For instance, like the garage door that crashed down while I was inspecting. All I had done was press the opener button and no one even considered asking the buyer or me to pay for repairs. In fact, the buyer requested the door be repaired in his Inspection Notice to the seller.

    I gotta say that doing inspections in Florida sounds like a riskier business than here. I would have written some checks over the years if I had to pay for some things that "broke" under normal use.


  19. #84
    Terry Griffin's Avatar
    Terry Griffin Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    I agree with Scott. The door may have already been damaged and testing the manual reverse may finish it off. Play it safe.


  20. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Caledon, Ontario
    Posts
    5,005

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    ... I spoke to the attorney and asked him for his clients homeowners insurance policy number since he had asked for my GL insurance number. He asked why and I said, because I cut myself and since I was injured on your clients property, I am going to have to go to the hospital, get an exam, etc..
    That pretty much ended the discussion about the $100.00 piece of broken window glass.
    Love it! Great retort to a lawyer! Thanks for that.


  21. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Treasure Coast
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    Eric, one of the problems with print is that it is easy to be misunderstood. My "impress" comment was directed toward the real estate agent that tried to intimidate you.

    Your response was excellent and I'll remember that.

    Colorado laws are different. While a buyer is responsible for damaging a house, it is generally interpreted that they are only responsible for breaking something while acting beyond normal behavior or using something beyond its intended use. For instance, like the garage door that crashed down while I was inspecting. All I had done was press the opener button and no one even considered asking the buyer or me to pay for repairs. In fact, the buyer requested the door be repaired in his Inspection Notice to the seller.

    I gotta say that doing inspections in Florida sounds like a riskier business than here. I would have written some checks over the years if I had to pay for some things that "broke" under normal use.
    I have been very fortunate in my 20+ year career in that I have only had to give back around 2,400.00 dollars. 2K of it was due to an attorney client who know how to use, er, abuse the legal system.
    That would be my main point to other inspectors, do what you can to avoid conflict and an appearance in court.
    In the case above, I could have fought it and won, even with free legal services from a friend, it would have probably cost 5-10K to defend.
    As a former roofer friend once said to me, it is easier to push the pencil than the hammer. The 2K spread out over six months,and one payment in all singles, seemed the way to go!

    Eric Van De Ven Magnum Inspections Inc. (772) 214-9929
    www.magnuminspections.com
    I still get paid to be suspicious when I got nothing to be suspicious about!

  22. #87

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    You can put all the tech stuff you want, but I am telling you you will be sorry someday. Read my earlier reply.....


  23. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,365

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    That's an all too common misconception home inspectors have of how to test a garage door, with or without a 2x4. And this has been said over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over ... (whew, enough already) ... and over again time after time by myself and others - yet some apparently *ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION* to what is being said:
    - 1) The garage door *is not* supposed to reverse on pressure on the 2x4 and you do not measure the pressure the garage door exerts before it reverses.
    - 2) The garage door *is* supposed to reverse ... ON CONTACT WITH ... yes, that is correct, ON CONTACT WITH ... the 2x4.

    If you stand there watching the door operator force the door downward while the track arches upward and then, finally, the door reverses ... THE AUTO REVERSE FAILED.



    If you place the 2x4 *where the 2x4 is supposed to be placed* and the door makes contact with the 2x4 ... the door is supposed to reverse, right then and right there.

    So many home inspectors think that the door is supposed to partially crush the 2x4 before the door reverses and that there is no way they would want "my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ... DUH!

    "ON CONTACT WITH"

    Why don't you guys understand that and get that? It IS that easy.

    As I've stated in posts above: "Sounds like someone does NOT know how to test garage doors with the 2x4, which is the recognized method for testing the auto-reverse mechanism."

    The 2x4 test really is not that difficult to understand.
    By this logic a marshmellow would also work....


  24. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Treasure Coast
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Fellman View Post
    By this logic a marshmellow would also work....
    A very old one might.....

    Eric Van De Ven Magnum Inspections Inc. (772) 214-9929
    www.magnuminspections.com
    I still get paid to be suspicious when I got nothing to be suspicious about!

  25. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolland Pruner View Post
    After replacing 3 garage doors and openers in the past FROM testing with a 2x4 as most people have stated here, I learned NOT to test garage door openers, I simply disclaimed why in my reports and attempted to explain what it is suppose to do! I told them I would test if home owner approved.

    I say pay the man & manup!

    Retired Home Inpsector after 24 years.


    (my opinion) if it counts
    Rolland,
    Had to go back to see what you posted. Had let it go by without comment. But could not pass it twice. Please do not take the following to personal. No desire to distress you, just concerned how someone may take your advice and excuse themselves from inspecting a garage door.

    You replaced doors and openers. You really must not have known how to inspect the doors and operator. Also, to wreck both the door and the opener is a trick in and of itself. You must have had a unique technique for testing. I can understand how you would be afraid to get involved with the garage door. But it would have been better to develop the knoweledge of how to inspect a door and operator and know when and where to stop before causing damage. Telling a client that I am afraid to operate the garage door and you have to take your chances with it on your own. I would have been ashamed with myself as being so incompetent.

    I only comment on your post because I just could not let it go by twice. The suggestion not to learn how to do something correctly is an extremely bad message to send to anyone that looks to this forum for insight.


  26. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Fellman View Post
    By this logic a marshmellow would also work....
    If it would not compress past 1 inch.

    It is not about the pressure, which is adjustable, it is about reversal.
    But, to prevent the possibility that excessive force is exerted causing the door to buckle and deform you should determine the amount of force the operator is exerting. This is done before using a fixed (solid) obstruction to test the reversal function. Testing the reversal at the floor with anything is the last thing that is done in the door/operator inspection.

    If testing the door operation with a 2x4 is the first thing that you do then you will be headed for an uncontrolled potential failure.


  27. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    If it would not compress past 1 inch.

    It is not about the pressure, which is adjustable, it is about reversal.
    But, to prevent the possibility that excessive force is exerted causing the door to buckle and deform you should determine the amount of force the operator is exerting. This is done beforeusing a fixed (solid) obstruction to test the reversal function. Testing the reversal at the floor with anything is the last thing that is done in the door/operator inspection.

    If testing the door operation with a 2x4 is the first thing that you do then you will be headed for an uncontrolled potential failure.
    Exactly what I've been saying on this and other threads.


  28. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,546

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolland Pruner View Post
    After replacing 3 garage doors and openers in the past FROM testing with a 2x4 as most people have stated here, I learned NOT to test garage door openers, I simply disclaimed why in my reports and attempted to explain what it is suppose to do! I told them I would test if home owner approved.

    I say pay the man & man up!

    Retired Home Inspector after 24 years.


    (my opinion) if it counts
    Roland, I had to search thru 'all posts by' you to find that sucka!
    PS, thanks for the veteran's point of view. It counts in my book.

    PPS Per the manufacturers, garage doors go out of adjustment and need to be tested and readjusted on a regular basis. You tested it, big deal. No guarantee the door will be ok a month from now when they move in.

    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  29. #94
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    No. San Diego Co., CA
    Posts
    562

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    The original post clearly identified existing damage and a suspect repair but not until after the door had failed, i.e. looking for the cause of failure. Those issues should have been seen and noted before the door's operation, That IMO is where some liability falls squarely on the OP's shoulders. He tested a door that had an inherrent defect, which was not observed prior. A crucial visual first step in the door's inspection/examination was not performed or at least not performed thoroughly. Had the repair been identified then he would have had good reason not to make any further testing or at least limit the extent of testing and include those limitations and reasons in the report. With the existence of damage/repair both noted and of understanding possible consequences, he would have been forewarned as to a potential mishap. The fact that the repair was not identified until afterward only provides for some limited mitigation.

    Any attorney, in court need only ask two questions ..."Did you examine the door prior to testing?" If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is, "...But you went ahead and tested it anyway?" If the answer is "No." The next question is, " Why not, isn't that a Standard Proceedure?" The attorney's next line is, " You failed to perform your duties, I rest my case."


  30. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Page View Post
    Any attorney, in court need only ask two questions ..."Did you examine the door prior to testing?" If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is, "...But you went ahead and tested it anyway?" If the answer is "No." The next question is, " Why not, isn't that a Standard Proceedure?" The attorney's next line is, " You failed to perform your duties, I rest my case."
    And the answer to the last question is "I did not fail to perform my duties in accordance with the SoP as the SoP DOES NOT REQUIRE the testing, operation, or inspection of ANYTHING that the inspector feels is unsafe." The attorney that asked that question and went in that direction is now dead in the water - he just lost the case for his client.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  31. #96
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    No. San Diego Co., CA
    Posts
    562

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    And the answer to the last question is "I did not fail to perform my duties in accordance with the SoP as the SoP DOES NOT REQUIRE the testing, operation, or inspection of ANYTHING that the inspector feels is unsafe." The attorney that asked that question and went in that direction is now dead in the water - he just lost the case for his client.
    Jerry... But you HAVE to know - or believe/feel it to be unsafe before declining to test, giving reasons, which should be documented. Hence one of the purposes for performing an examination in the first place, which is the underlying reason before conducting any physical check of the apperatus/appliance etc. Visual examinations (of whatever) are in all aspects of all HI's SoPs. Not only to determine if it is in good, safe working order and performing as it should but also to determine if it is safe to perform further testing. Attorney for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's case, still alive and well....Judgement for the Plaintiff.


  32. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Page View Post
    Jerry... But you HAVE to know - or believe/feel it to be unsafe before declining to test, giving reasons, which should be documented.
    You don't have to document *why* you think it is unsafe, in fact, some here think it is unsafe to test the overhead garage door with the approved 2x4 test. That in and of itself is sufficient for those people to deem the test unsafe.

    Attorney for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's case, still alive and well....Judgement for the Plaintiff.
    Judgement was for the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the inspector as the client was withholding payment because the inspector did not test the garage door, thus the inspector sued the client for payment.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  33. #98
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    No. San Diego Co., CA
    Posts
    562

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    You don't have to document *why* you think it is unsafe, in fact, some here think it is unsafe to test the overhead garage door with the approved 2x4 test. That in and of itself is sufficient for those people to deem the test unsafe.



    Judgement was for the plaintiff and the plaintiff was the inspector as the client was withholding payment because the inspector did not test the garage door, thus the inspector sued the client for payment.
    Responding to your first para. above: Those reasons for not performing this test or any other, absent signs of existing critical condition, would be based on prior (preferably first-hand) experience, knowledge, expertise and, if necessary previously documented and reported incidents of failure known to the inspector. I believe you should document why you believe it to be unsafe (to perform a specific test) in support of your reasoning not to test. IMO it would be improper to simply say "Test not performed" without giving rationale, as your post implies. That would not be fulfilling duties under most HI contracts, unless the contract specifically identifies that such testing will not be conducted.

    2nd para....Oh, come on ...Nice try but no chicken dinner.


  34. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Who'd a thunk that testing a garage door could generate so much controversy.......?

    At the risk of stating the obvious, the block test is a test of the opener. It should work properly regardless of the condition of the door. It could easily be argued that even if you see damage or some problem with the door, the block test should always be done. The block test isn't about testing to see if the door falls apart but rather if a child or puppy would be pinned or worse.

    After 30 some odd years of being around the real estate biz, I can tell you that you cannot depend on judges to have common sense. You can find yourself on the wrong side of a decision no matter what you do. So, my two cents is to make your decision, based on the arguments that you feel confident presenting to a judge and move on.

    So, out of curiosity, if there is still anyone following this thread, I am wondering if any of you have changed how you test garage doors. I started using the block test after our last discussion. So, I am calling for a show of hands, so to speak. Has this discussion changed anyone's mind and practice?


  35. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Lon and others,
    So many seen to be hung up on the use of a 2x4 and the resulting damage.
    The real issue is what was done before that 2x4 test.
    Provided that, there was neither notification by the owner nor a notice posted on the door and its controls that alerted against operating the door.
    First a systematic examination of the door, installation and its operator must lead you to believe that the door should function as designed.

    Following that you further inspect the door and test its operation for its reversal function on meeting resistance in movement above the floor (3 ft, 6 ft it does not matter)

    Now be aware that some of the newer circuit boards in the openers actually determine lack of movement of the door rather than a load on the motor as the determinate trigger. But that is a discussion for another day.

    Presuming you have determined that the door operator will recognize that the door has been obstructed and reacts. Then and only then should a prudent inspector move to the last ( and I stress LAST ) part of the doors inspection/operation which is using an obstruction placed on the floor.

    All of the prior is the essence of the inspection procedure to insure that the inspector understands and can describe what occurred when an obstruction was placed on the floor. It may be that the inspector halts the inspection for a preceding reason and does not complete testing/operations using an obstruction on the floor beneath the door. Else the inspection of the doors operation would culminate in placing a 1 inch thick obstruction to test the final function of the door's operator.

    That is the essence of an inspection which is different than reasonable expectation of a door's operation. The reasonable expectation that a home owner maintains the property against hazards and maintains the equipment to minimal specifications. It is the owners responsibility that a garage door and its operator is operating correctly. It is by the owners testing and maintenance he assures proper function and safety. The fact that most do not is not a valid argument not to be responsible for the testing and maintenance.

    Devils advocate.
    Under normal operation of the door by an electric opener it is by default expected to reverse with an obstruction 1 inch or greater. It is an instrumental part if the normal operation of the opener and door. Thus, it is expected to function correctly at all times. Anyone at anytime can place an object under the door and have the expectation of it reversing. Damage to the door is not relevant to the reversal function, though it should be addressed in the proper installation of the electric opener to that door. Under the condition that the installation, maintenance/testing was performed correctly the door will not be damaged by meeting the obstruction.

    So, if a HI that is dumber than dirt following a check list inspection on his first inspection places a 2x4 under the garage door as it closes, should under reasonable expectations believe that the door will reverse and not be damaged. Why ? The door and opener are to installed correctly and the owner is to maintained the door and opener to manufacture specifications. Thus failure and damage is the owner's responsibility not the HI nor any person allowed on the property. In fact a thief may have recourse it the thief was injured/killed by the door as he was leaving the property (depending on the Judge and jury here in absurdistan).

    You could argue both sides of the issue. Though bottom line the HI should have the knowledge that separates them form the common folk. It is their job to know what to do, how to do it and when not to do something. But, foremost to understand why and to be able to communicate effectively to the client and others.


  36. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,446

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Jerry,
    According to ASHI SOP 2.2.B.4...
    The inspector shall: Report: "on any systems and components designated for inspection in these SOP which were present at the time of the Home Inspection but were not inspected and the reason they were not inspected".

    I believe you have to give a reason why something is not inspected.


  37. #102
    Mark Krajcar's Avatar
    Mark Krajcar Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    Not impressed.......you could have found an attorney (probably on your first call) who would have said that you had no liability at all. If we have liability for anything that doesn't work or quits working or breaks under normal use (or testing), then none of us could afford the insurance premiums. That attorney or a lying Realtor bluffed you.

    It's ok to get fooled once. Those are lessons that we remember.
    +1.

    Any decent attorney will tell you it is your fault and you are responsible whether or not it is true. If you take the bait, then they have won and they and their clients are happy. It may be that the attorney did not know all the facts and was going from hat his client, next door neighbor, golfing buddy had told him. You need to stick to your your guns on this and say no, and then call an attorney or your E&O provider. If it was something truly not your fault and they know it but were just trying to get you to pay for it. It usually goes away just as fast as it appeared. That has been my experience and is my 2 cent legal advice! For better advice, talk to an attorney. A 30 minute consultation is not much money and will give you a lot of knowledge.


  38. #103
    Mark Krajcar's Avatar
    Mark Krajcar Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Dear Home Owner
    I regret the garage door was damaged and understand your concerns.
    However, I did not cause the damage. The damage was caused by EITHER improper MONTHLY MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED maintenance, OR IMPROPER INSTALLATION.
    The garage door sustained damaged during normal operation and testing methods. Had the garage door been maintained in normal operating condition, no damage would have occurred.
    Operation and testing methods used, were in accordance with state requirements, Federal Government safety standards, manufacturers instructions, and industry standards.
    (Home buyers having a home inspection performed have every reason to expect the inspection to include operation and testing of the garage door and related safety features. Would you expect less from an inspection on a home you are about to purchase? )
    Thank you[/quote] (change to SINCERELY)

    Nice letter. I added a couple possible changes for consideration. The fact that it failed is all you really know. You don't know who installed it and to what standards they installed it to. Could have been the original opener was installed perfectly, then broke, was replaced by the previous owner (not the current owner) who with the help of a 6-pack and a neighbor installed this one improperly.
    Do you know as it has been written above that in fact the manufacturer of that unit said to do monthly testing? If you do not know this, then eliminate the bit about monthly testing. Example. We bought our home a year ago, it has 2 openers, no optical eyes and no documentation. As homeowners, we have no idea how these things work or are supposed to be maintained. Like all homeowners, we know that when we push a button the door is supposed to go up or down.

    The 2nd big red change is to eliminate that whole paragraph. It could easily be taken as very condescending at best. It is not needed for any reason IMHO and could further fan the flames you are trying to put out. Keep it short, sweet, to the point and be respectful.


  39. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Hi Mark
    Thanks for the feedback
    My original post did not say "monthly " anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    I would also send the HO a written response, such as;

    Dear Home Owner
    I regret the garage door was damaged and understand your concerns.
    However, I did not cause the damage. The damage was caused by improper maintenance.
    The garage door sustained damaged during normal operation and testing methods. Had the garage door been maintained in normal operating condition, no damage would have occurred.
    Operation and testing methods used, were in accordance with state requirements, Federal Government safety standards, manufacturers instructions, and industry standards.
    Home buyers having a home inspection performed have every reason to expect the inspection to include operation and testing of the garage door and related safety features. Would you expect less from an inspection on a home you are about to purchase?
    Thank you


    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  40. #105
    Mark Krajcar's Avatar
    Mark Krajcar Guest

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    Hi Mark
    Thanks for the feedback
    My original post did not say "monthly " anything.
    Hi Rick,

    No, it did not. It is unfortunate, but our society seems to always want to blame the other guy. It is never that person's fault.

    If you knew they had an owners manual that mentioned monthly checks and all, then bringing this to their attention should let them know who was responsible. Who knows, maybe they did do their monthly checks and the last one did pass, just not this one and now we have damages.

    I liked your letter, just made a couple suggestions that could, or not, be incorporated into it. Fact is, even though this has yet to happen to me (it will I am sure) I copied the letter into a word document to be used when I need it. Thanks for the letter!

    Mark


  41. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Krajcar View Post
    Hi Rick,
    ...
    I liked your letter, just made a couple suggestions that could, or not, be incorporated into it. ... I copied the letter into a word document to be used when I need it. Thanks for the letter!
    That is why I posted it, someone may be able to use it, or a version of it

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Krajcar View Post
    ...Fact is, even though this has yet to happen to me (it will I am sure)
    Not likely to happen to you, or anyone else with due caution.
    Of the people that have read this thread, about how many garage doors have been tested? 10,000, 7,000, maybe only 5,000. And of those 5,000- 10,000 that have been tested, how many resulted in damage? 15 maybe 20. Of that 15-20 damaged doors how many were already damaged and the inspector did not catch it? At least 1.
    Anyhow it is highly unlikely that you will damage a garage door, especially if you do an inspection of the door before you ever touch the "OPEN" button.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  42. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann View Post
    Jerry,
    According to ASHI SOP 2.2.B.4...
    The inspector shall: Report: "on any systems and components designated for inspection in these SOP which were present at the time of the Home Inspection but were not inspected and the reason they were not inspected".

    I believe you have to give a reason why something is not inspected.
    Jack,

    Is there a list of reasons which is "unacceptable" to use for not testing something?

    I.e., "I didn't test the garage door with my hand for downward travel resistance because there is not verifiable test for what the result should be and because I am not adjusting the door."

    I.e., "I didn't test the garage door with the standard 2x4 test because I have heard so many horror stories about causing damage."

    This is from higher up in the thread, I let it go by because I am such a nice guy , but this is a good time to point out that it is totally incorrect:
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells
    The reversal test using either a 1" or a 1.5" dimension can crush the life out of the obstruction and will pass the test if it reverses. If door bows like a banana and then reverses it meets the reversal test.
    Nope, that door does not pass just because it "bows like a banana and then reverses it meets the reversal test" - the requirement is that it reverse .. (most people seem to have gotten this, others seem to still have missed it) ... ON CONTACT with the 2x4.

    While you are standing there watching the door and track bow up and then watching it reverse, you have plenty of time to write that sucker up for having failed the reversal test.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  43. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    ... - the requirement is that it reverse .. (most people seem to have gotten this, others seem to still have missed it) ... ON CONTACT with the 2x4.
    ...
    Jerry I think the standard is within 2 seconds of contact.
    Correct me if I'm in error.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  44. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    Jerry I think the standard is within 2 seconds of contact.
    Correct me if I'm in error.
    Rick,

    A review of the links in this thread reveal:
    - http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/523.pdf :
    "Place*a*2x4*on*the*floor*of*the*garage*in*the*doo r's*path.*If*the*door*does*not*properly*reverse*when*striking*the*2x4*then*the*garage*door*opener*should*be*disengaged* until*the*unit*is*either*adjusted*according*to*the *instructions*in*the*owner’s*manual,*repaired,*or* replaced*with*a*new*garage*door*opener.**"

    - http://www.gatestore.com/garage_door...f/CLM-3265.pdf :
    "TEST
    • With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" (3.8 cm) board (or a 2x4 laid flat) on the floor, centered under the garage door.
    • Operate the door in the down direction. The door must reverse on striking the obstruction."

    - DASMA Door and Access Systems Manufacturers Association :
    "Test the reversing feature every month.
    1. First, test the balance of the door. If the door is properly balanced, then proceed.
    2. With the door fully open, place a 1-1/2" thick piece of wood (a 2" X 4" laid flat) on the floor in the center of the door.
    3. Push the transmitter or wall button to close the door. The door must reverse when it strikes the obstruction. (Note that the bottom part of "one-piece doors" must be rigid so that the door will not close, but will reverse when it contacts the obstruction.)
    4. If the door does not reverse, have it repaired or replaced. Have a qualified technician adjust, repair, or replace the opener or door."

    - Garage door maintenance checklist, tips, tests - garage door tests to keep your garage door system running properly :
    "With the door fully open, lay a piece of wood such as a section of a 2 x 4 on the floor in the center of the garage door opening where the door would touch the floor. Push your garage door opener’s transmitter or wall button to close the door. When the door strikes the wood, the door should automatically reverse. If the door does not automatically reverse, the door should be serviced by a trained service technician."

    Okay, so all of the information which would normally be read by most people states (basically) 'on contact with' in their various wording on when it should reverse.

    Now, once we get into the actual CFR standard, if one wanted pull out one section and say that 2 seconds is allowed, then one must also know all the other entrapment requirements, which, along with that 2 seconds, makes the entrapment protection work - testing just one section of the entire standard is like being one of the blind men describing an elephant and that blind man happens to be holding the elephant's trunk - his description of the elephant is not going to amount to anything different than trying to apply one section of the standard. If you want to pull out that 2 seconds time, then you need to make sure that all other aspects of the standard are also working as stated in the standard, and if you want to do that, then most of what we have discussed in this thread is just kid stuff anyway:
    - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201...2-part1211.pdf :
    "§ 1211.6 General entrapment protection requirements.
    - (a) A residential garage door operator system shall be provided with primary inherent entrapment protection that complies with the requirements as specified in § 1211.7.
    - (b) In addition to the primary inherent entrapment protection as required by paragraph (a) of this section, a residential garage door operator shall comply with one of the following:
    - - (1) Shall be constructed to:
    - - - (i) Require constant pressure on a control to lower the door,
    - - - (ii) Reverse direction and open the door to the upmost position when constant pressure on a control is removed prior to operator reaching its lower limit, and
    - - - (iii) Limit a portable transmitter, when supplied, to function only to cause the operator to open the door;
    - - (2) Shall be provided with a means for connection of an external secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.11; or
    - - (3) Shall be provided with an inherent secondary entrapment protection device as described in §§ 1211.8, 1211.10, and 1211.12.
    - (c) A mechanical switch or a relay used in an entrapment protection circuit of an operator shall withstand 100,000 cycles of operation controlling a load no less severe (voltage, current, power factor, inrush and similar ratings) than it controls in the operator, and shall function normally upon completion of the test.
    - (d) In the event malfunction of a switch or relay (open or short) described in paragraph (c) of this section results in loss of any entrapment protection required by §§ 1211.7(a), 1211.7(f), or 1211.8(a), the door operator shall become inoperative at the end of the opening or closing operation, the door operator shall move the door to, and stay within, 1 foot (305 mm) of the uppermost position.
    [57 FR 60455, Dec. 21, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 70657, Nov. 27, 2000]

    § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
    - (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
    - - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when the operator senses a second obstruction during the upward travel.
    - - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
    - (b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed.
    - - (2) For operators other than those attached to the door, a solid object is not required to be located in line with the driving point of the operator. The solid object is to be located at points at the center, and within 1 foot of each end of the door.
    - - (3) To test operators for compliance with requirements in paragraphs (a)(3), (f)(3), and (g)(3) of this section, § 1211.10(a)(6)(iii), and § 1211.13(c), a solid rectangular object measuring 4 inches (102 mm) high by 6 inches (152 mm) wide by a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm)long is to be placed on the floor of the test installation to provide a 4-inch (102 mm) high obstruction when operated from a partially open position.
    - (c) An operator is to be tested for compliance with paragraph (a) of this section for 50 open-and-close cycles of operation while the operator is connected to the type of residential garage door with which it is intended to be used or with the doors specified in paragragh (e) of this section. For an operator having a force adjustment on the operator, the force is to be adjusted to the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition. Any accessories having an effect on the intended operation of entrapment protection functions that are intended for use with the operator, are to be attached and the test is to be repeated for one additional cycle.
    - (d) For an operator that is to be adjusted (limit and force) according to instructions supplied with the operator, the operator is to be tested for 10 additional obstruction cycles using the solid object described in paragraph (b) of this section at the maximum setting or at the setting that represents the most severe operating condition.
    - (e) For an operator that is intended to be used with more than one type of door, one sample of the operator is to be tested on a sectional door with a curved track and one sample is to be tested on a one-piece door with jamb hardware and no track. For an operator that is not intended for use on either or both types of doors, a one-piece door with track hardware or a one-piece door with pivot hardware shall be used for the tests. For an operator that is intended for use with a specifically dedicated door or doors, a representative door or doors shall be used for the tests. See the marking requirements at § 1211.16.
    - (f)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that monitors the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position in the event the inherent door operating ‘‘profile’’ of the door differs from the originally set parameters. The entrapment protection system shall monitor the position of the door at increments not greater than 1 inch (25.4 mm).
    - - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel.
    - - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm).
    - (g)(1) An operator, using an inherent entrapment protection system that does not monitor the actual position of the door, shall initiate reversal of the door and shall return the door to and stop the door at the full upmost position, when the lower limiting device is not actuated in 30 seconds or less following the initiation of the close cycle.
    - - (2) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when an inherent entrapment circuit senses an obstruction during the upward travel. When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
    - - (3) The door operator is not required to return the door to, and stop the door at, the full upmost position when a control is actuated to stop the door during the upward travel—but the door can not be moved downward until the operator reverses the door a minimum of 2 inches (50.8 mm). When the door is stopped manually during its descent, the 30 seconds shall be measured from the resumption of the close cycle.
    - (h) To determine compliance with paragraph (f) or (g) of this section, an operator is to be subjected to 10 open-and-close cycles of operation while connected to the door or doors specified in paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section. The cycles are not required to be consecutive. Motor cooling-off periods during the test meet the intent of the requirement. The means supplied to comply with the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section and § 1211.8(a) are to be defeated during the test. An obstructing object is to be used so that the door is not capable of activating a lower limiting device.
    - (i) During the closing cycle, the system providing compliance with §§ 1211.7(a) and 1211.7(f) or 1211.7(a) and 1211.7(g) shall function regardless of a short- or open-circuit anywhere in any low-voltage external wiring, any external entrapment devices, or any other external component.
    [65 FR 70657, Nov. 27, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 54817, Sept. 27, 2007]

    (and I still have more sections to post if you want to start discussing the actual standard, but, for the sake of the others, I will not post the rest of the entrapment sections)"

    So, Rick, do you want to talk CFR standard requirements or the other links above we have been discussing? Your call.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  45. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    I don't recall where I read it.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  46. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    This may be where I saw

    Federal law required manufacturers of residential GDO's to change the way they make their products. Residential
    GDO's manufactured on and after January 1, 1993 must have the following:
    1) A automatic inherent reverse feature, that reverses after 2 seconds upon sensing an obstruction;
    http://www.dasma.com/PDF/Publication...ics/TDS351.pdf

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  47. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    also

    Safety Reversal System Test
    1 Lay a 2 x 4 board fl at on the fl oor where it will be struck
    by the center of the door as it closes.
    2 Verify that the door reverses when it strikes the board.
    The door must reverse within two seconds after
    striking the board

    http://www.linearcorp.com/pdf/manuals/LDCO800_user.pdf

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  48. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell View Post
    I don't recall where I read it.
    Rick,

    Look at the following in the above sections of the standard I posted:
    § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
    - (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.

    I intentionally did not highlight anything as one should not extract that 2 seconds out of the standard and try to apply it without also applying *everything else in the standard*.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  49. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Hi Chris:

    I was a professional garage door installer for seven years and installed hundreds of doors, openers, and did repairs. I'm posting this to give some insight to what to do when inspecting a door and opener prior to testing the door and opener. These are the tihngs I did and what you need to look at. In most cases the door was closed when I arrived on a job unless the door was hit or jamed in the opening or just plain stuck open. Anyway, look at the springs and whether the're extention or torsion. Take note if any are broken. If the're extention, check for a safety cable running through them. Check the cables. Note if there is any fraying or rust especially at the lower corners of the door where they connect to the door reguardless of the type of springs. If tortion springs, check the cables at the cable drums for proper positioning on the drum. they should be in the correct grove and not jumped groves. If extention springs, chect the sheaves on the spring and door track. They should be 90 deg to the bolt securing them. Look at the hinges for loose, bent, rusted or broke. Look at the rollers to be sure there arn't any missing rollers and not that just the roller shaft exists. Look to see if the door appears level in the opening. A level is not necessary. In most cases you will find something wrong with the door but that doesn't necessarly mean the door can't be opperated unless you feel its unsafe to do so. Everything I mentioned so far is hands off inspection unless you want to take the risk of loosing a finger. If there's an opener, pull the disconnect while the door is closed and manually open and close the door. This is the only way you know if the door opperates properly. Now, getting to the opener. Look at the way the opener arm is connected to the door. If it looks shabby, or it isn't mounted with the mount provided by the opener manufacture, then you need to make the call if its good enough. There are also mounts made by third parties which are much better but rarly found on residential doors. Open the door. The garage door opener "rail" is the eight foot metal bar that the arm rides on. If the Rail is three or more inches above the top edge of the door,
    DO NOT DO A SAFETY REVERSE CHECK BY HAND. Why you ask??? The opener arm is pinned to the mount on the door. The opener arm is also pinned to the traveler on the opener rail. Ideally, both these pins should be horizontal to each other when the door is open, but not in reality. The pin on the traveler will always be slightly higher then the one on the door. When you close the door via the opener, the door will be pushed horizontaly with slight pressure vertically on the top edge of the door. The higher the "rail" is above the top edge of the door when closing, the more vertical force will be applied to the top of the door. Simple mechanics. If the rail is say, five inches above the top edge of the door and you do a safety reverse check, you will bow the top of the door to the point of dammage before the opener realizes enough resistance to reverse even if the reverse sensitivity is set low. when the rail is that high your applying leverage to the arm that the opener can't sense. The opener should have safety beams not mounted six inches above the floor. Interupting the beam while the door closes should reverse the door. Any opener without beams shoud be noted as not in compliance and no door company on earth will service it. As for added strength to the top of the door, eight and nine foot wide doors don't usually have them. If the opener is installed by a good door company and they give a darn, they will install a "U" bar to the door. Yes thats what is called, "U" bar. On ten, twelve, sixteen, eighteen, and anything in between, the "U" bar should always be there for added strenght but won't do alot of good if the traveler is to high. As for your current situation I won't make a comment. I don't know what you did prior to the dammage but I hope things work out for you.


  50. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Mike,
    Good stuff, but you didn't mention using the 2X4 block of wood to calibrate the pressure sensor for the opener. Are we to assume that you didn't do this even though it seems to be an industry wide procedure?


  51. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    Mike,
    Good stuff, but you didn't mention using the 2X4 block of wood to calibrate the pressure sensor for the opener. Are we to assume that you didn't do this even though it seems to be an industry wide procedure?

    Lon,
    There is no pressure sensor involved with the typical door opener.
    There are sensors that can be added to a door.

    The industry standard is a result of gov design requirements requiring reversal at a 1" obstruction that are relaxed to testing with a 2x4 (1.5" x 3.5 ") on the flat side to floor.

    There are also reversal requirements for a door that stops moving downward.


  52. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    The pressure sensor is in the opener itself. It senses obstructions before the closed position and should reverse. You can and should adjust the sensor (labeled "Force" on my opener) to reverse on contact with an obstruction.

    Maybe this is just semantics, but it acts as a sensor, i.e., sensitivity to resistance as the door closes. Of course, there is a similar "sensor" on upward movement but the door just stops when that resistance is encountered.


  53. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Hi Lon:

    In reguards to the 2x4 on the floor. I never heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor to test reversability of an opener. Let me put it this way, yes I have heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor but I never understood why. If its an industry standard I would like to know the reasoning behind it, who came up with it and how it became a standard. Its probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. while were talking 2x4's, Common pratice when installing an opener is to lay a 2x4 of at least 8' long on the top edge of the door when the door is open to allow proper clearance between the door and opener rail. I would secure the rail to the header above the door opening, hold the motor end up using a step ladder to rest it on. I would then open the door, slide a 2x4x8 foot on to the top edge of the door running parallel to the top of the door and set the rail of the opener on it. this would hold the motor end in place for me as I secured it to the ceiling or rafter ties. Once done I remove the 2x4 and the result will be about one inch between the door and rail. But getting back to the 2x4 on the floor. Once the top rollers of the door start entering the radius of the track, you know, the part of the track that connects the vertical and horzontal tracks together, the top section starts going from a horzontal position to a vertical position. The door opener arm also starts going more vertical. The more vertical the arm gets, the more pressure is applied to the door and the less sensitive the reversing sensing gets. By the time the door is 1- 1/2 inches off the floor there is hundreds of pounds of pressure being applied to the door before the reversing mechanism senses this. Using this technique of putting a 2x4 on the floor will most likely dammage the door, opener, or both. The proper way of testing the reversing of an opener is to bend your arm 90 deg so your hand is shoulder height. Close the door on to your hand to deturmine the down pressure. Here's the reasoning behind this. Testing the down pressure while the door is at least half open assures the two pinned points of the arm (remember the arm is pinned to the bracket on the door and also pinned to the traveler on the opener) are still as horizontal as possiable. The horizontal push is much greater than the vetical down force on the top edge of the door. This will give the most accurate down pressure test with out dammaging the door or opener. Also resting the door on your hand will relieve any pressure on your back so you don't get injured. If placing a 2x4 on the floor made any sense, wouldn't it be better to use a bathroom scale on the floor. If this technique made any possiable sense, which it doesn't, the scale would certainly give a better reading of the down pressure, which it wont, because of the position of the arm in realtion to the rail. If using a 2x4 on the floor is industry standard, Its stupid, useless, and I'm not dumb enough to even think of doing it. After many law suits and lobbying in congress, the garage door opener industry was forced to adopt light beams to the opener precisly because of the situation. this also why the beams should not be any higher than 6 inches off the floor. Infants are usually thicker than 6 inches and will break the beams. If beams are to high, an infant can crawl under them.


  54. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    Good stuff, but you didn't mention using the 2X4 block of wood to calibrate the pressure sensor for the opener.
    Lon,

    As Garry said, the 2x4 test is a reversing test, it is not used to calibrate anything.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  55. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borchardt View Post
    I was a professional garage door installer for seven years and installed hundreds of doors, openers, and did repairs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borchardt View Post
    In reguards to the 2x4 on the floor. I never heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor to test reversability of an opener. Let me put it this way, yes I have heard of putting a 2x4 on the floor but I never understood why. If its an industry standard I would like to know the reasoning behind it, who came up with it and how it became a standard. Its probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
    Mike,

    The 2x4 test is in every installation instructions for overhead garage doors, and it is in the CFR 1211.6 I posted part of, by the way, "CFR" stands for "Code of Federal Regulations".

    Not trying to come down hard on you, but if you installed overhead garage doors professionally for 7 years and what not aware of, and did not perform, the 2x4 test, then just how did you install garage doors ... if not by their installation instructions?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  56. #121
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Jerry,
    In Mikes defense, even though he does not understand the basis of much of what he did for 7 years. He was probably taught as a see it do it installation method. Instructions are usually the first thing most installers through out. Yet the door installation, as he would install it, would pass the 2x4 obstruction test. His testing of the reversing function and followed with the adjustment of the stopping point of the door in the down position would result in the door being adjusted so that it would reverse with an obstruction on the floor.

    He just never was taught the method and reasoning. In installations it is about getting the job done, it working and move on. I would personally want every installer of garage doors to understand all of the aspects, but that is not going to happen.


  57. #122
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    In Mikes defense, even though he does not understand the basis of much of what he did for 7 years. He was probably taught as a see it do it installation method. Instructions are usually the first thing most installers through out.
    Garry,

    I agree with that assessment.

    Yet the door installation, as he would install it, would pass the 2x4 obstruction test.
    I disagree with that assessment.

    His comments about the bathroom scale show his lack of understanding of the process and reasoning - there is no 'pressure' to measure, the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ... thus no watermelon would be crush (testing with a watermelon makes for a nice visual but does nothing to test the reversing mechanism), not kitty cat would be crushed, no baby would be crushed either.

    Have you read through the part of the standard I posted? If you did, what were the first things you picked up on?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  58. #123
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    I'm glad to see Jerry has read every single garage door opener installation manual ever produced on every opener by every manufacture out there. Thats amazing. Next time I have a question I'll know who to ask. My installations were done with safety as #1. To reverse a door only took a pound or two of pressure, no 2x4 will change that. The light beams were set to the approporate height, no 2x4 will change that. I live in a climate where we swing from 20 below to 90 above. The perimeter weather strip can cause more drag on the door during winter. This alone can cause false reversing. Nutone developed a screw drive opener and the MANUAL instructed the installer to mount the opener one foot from the ceiling. the machine was so high the arm pulled the door shut and the door would stop short.
    Our company was a Nutone dealer and were called to correct the problem. I am not or will not defend the way I did installation. So here I come, mr home inspector. I'm going to test the reverse mechanism on the door opener. I'll open the door, chuck a 2x4 on the floor and close the door. Without ever knowing if the things going to reverse, i'll just let it close and see what happens. And if it doesn't reverse I'll just watch the rail bend straight up an inch and a half provided the arm doesn't bend or the bracket get ripped off the door. If I check the reversing by letting it come down on my hand first, it will give me a good idea what the pressure is. If I can stop the door with little effort, OF COURSE A 2x4 WILL. Why would I do the 2x4 test? Oh and by the way, the installation manual doesn't mention the gear box in the opener is made of PLASTIC and that excisive force can dammage it. but the installation manual does have an address as to where you can buy replacement parts. I've been there, done that, and have seen almost every problem. Dont think for one minute it was a get on and get off the job experence. I take pride in my work and will stand behind it 100 percent. And untill the Einstein's that write the manual actuall get off there fat buts and do some installations, poeple like Jerry will believe everything they read. And not knowing anything about me and the work I do, there sure are the critics out there. I've written all I'm going to on this topic. Take it for what its worth. For those who read my posts with open minds, I hope this helps. And for those who choose to find fault with anything anybody writes, you can't be helped.

    Last edited by Mike Borchardt; 07-31-2012 at 10:33 PM.

  59. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borchardt View Post
    I'm glad to see Jerry has read every single garage door opener installation manual ever produced on every opener by every manufacture out there. ...

    Oh and by the way, the installation manual doesn't mention the gear box in the opener is made of PLASTIC and that excisive force can dammage it.
    And I suppose you have personally dissembled EVERY opener ever made by ALL manufacturers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borchardt View Post
    Thats amazing. Next time I have a question I'll know who to ask. My installations were done with safety as #1. To reverse a door only took a pound or two of pressure, no 2x4 will change that. The light beams were set to the approporate height, no 2x4 will change that. I live in a climate where we swing from 20 below to 90 above. The perimeter weather strip can cause more drag on the door during winter. This alone can cause false reversing. Nutone developed a screw drive opener and the MANUAL instructed the installer to mount the opener one foot from the ceiling. the machine was so high the arm pulled the door shut and the door would stop short.
    Our company was a Nutone dealer and were called to correct the problem. I am not or will not defend the way I did installation. So here I come, mr home inspector. I'm going to test the reverse mechanism on the door opener. I'll open the door, chuck a 2x4 on the floor and close the door. Without ever knowing if the things going to reverse, i'll just let it close and see what happens. And if it doesn't reverse I'll just watch the rail bend straight up an inch and a half provided the arm doesn't bend or the bracket get ripped off the door. If I check the reversing by letting it come down on my hand first, it will give me a good idea what the pressure is. If I can stop the door with little effort, OF COURSE A 2x4 WILL. Why would I do the 2x4 test? Oh and by the way, the installation manual doesn't mention the gear box in the opener is made of PLASTIC and that excisive force can dammage it. but the installation manual does have an address as to where you can buy replacement parts. I've been there, done that, and have seen almost every problem. Dont think for one minute it was a get on and get off the job experence. I take pride in my work and will stand behind it 100 percent. And untill the Einstein's that write the manual actuall get off there fat buts and do some installations, poeple like Jerry will believe everything they read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borchardt View Post
    And not knowing anything about me and the work I do, there sure are the critics out there. .
    Actually we only know what you have told us about yourself.
    In seven years of installing garage door openers you never read the installation manual.
    You never read the manual because you know more than those fat butt Einsteins that designed and built the openers.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  60. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Jerry, ((sorry that this became so long winded))))
    A little while back we had a thread where I posted information on the issue of pressure and the reversal function (anti-entrapment). Where there is no consideration on the amount of pressure exerted on any obstruction by the manufactures, government regs nor the testing labs (UL). I again admit that I thought, during 35+ years on installation experience, there was some PSI rating (gov reg or manufacture). But again, as I found out there is no test/design consideration for the PSI subjected on an obstruction. Which is why I never heard of any testing procedure for PSI of the installed door.

    Openers typically can and are adjusted on-sight. They typically can be adjusted for to respond to an obstruction. But that does not mean that they are adjusted to a set consistent level other than that they will reverse on meeting an obstruction causing a lack of movement of the door.

    You are wrong about not crushing a watermelon or cat.
    If the opener is not adjusted it will exert a tremendous amount of force on the obstruction.
    Sorry you are wrong Jerry when saying:
    """".. the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ... thus no watermelon would be crush (testing with a watermelon makes for a nice visual but does nothing to test the reversing mechanism), not kitty cat would be crushed, no baby would be crushed either....."""
    Watermelon, cat, 2x4, baby; the operator does not know what it is contacting and is not self adjusting.

    As far as:
    """...His comments about the bathroom scale show his lack of understanding of the process and reasoning - there is no 'pressure' to measure, the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ......."""

    It was not until I engaged many resources that I did not understand that there was no PSI rating involved in the obstruction test and reversal function. Though I would as most installers will, determine crudely, the amount of pressure that it takes to cause the reverse function to activate. I say pressure since it is the way I sense the downward force exerted. I never attempted to test the actual PSI. To much bother and time. It was/is a mater of how the door feels in my hand. Which is the practical and most expedient method in adjusting an operator. Which is what Mike has done and what other installers do. Which will cause the door to pass the 2x4 obstruction reversal test. In the manual or not, that is the way it is done in the field. The last thing an installer wants to do is pay for a damaged door. it is called "lunching it" because you have to eat the cost.

    Contact reversal is a mater of time that the door movement has had it movement stopped. Therefore the question is how much force can be exerted during that period of time. and there are no specifications. The practical answer is dependent on how it is adjusted. It can be little or great. Though I do not think it is possible to adjust the operator so as to not damage a watermelon. If it was just a mater of contact an egg would be safe to use.

    The newest doors are being designed with different design in sensing an obstruction/malfunction in the doors movement. But that does apply to the older systems in use. There are modifications, contact sensor, that can be added to the a door which will actually sense an obstruction on contact. But we are not talking about them, nor are the widely used.

    So, though Mike may not know the "why" and may not follow a manual, he in fact installed a door that will reverse on contact with an obstruction. Furthermore he adjusted the operator so as not to damage the door and he further attempts to reduce the potential damage to the obstruction. His reasoning for the height at which he would first test the reversal may be faulty it still works for the initial adjustment of the operator.

    Mike may take umbrage with comments with some of the comments directed toward him. I am sure that he has looked at the manuals along the way, but does not rely on them to apply to each installation. Installers adapt the installation to situation presented to them. Good installers/mechanics adapt and overcome the abnormal every day. Manuals are written for the perfect generic situation. To many engineers and designers work in an insulated environment. Furthermore to many also have no real mechanical ability.

    Mike,
    This forum can be harsh at times. But it is with good intention. Do not take it to personally.


  61. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,248

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells View Post
    You are wrong about not crushing a watermelon or cat.
    If the opener is not adjusted it will exert a tremendous amount of force on the obstruction.
    Sorry you are wrong Jerry when saying:
    """".. the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction ... thus no watermelon would be crush (testing with a watermelon makes for a nice visual but does nothing to test the reversing mechanism), not kitty cat would be crushed, no baby would be crushed either....."""
    Watermelon, cat, 2x4, baby; the operator does not know what it is contacting and is not self adjusting.

    As far as:
    """...His comments about the bathroom scale show his lack of understanding of the process and reasoning - there is no 'pressure' to measure, the door is to reverse *on contact with* the obstruction .......""".
    Garry,

    Sorry, Garry, but you are the one who is wrong.

    Go back and read my post and words again - you will see that a garage door, which is installed and adjusted properly, and which reverses "on contact" with the obstruction ... read that again, and what I wrote in the post you quoted from again ... and you will see that, for a properly installed and adjusted door (something home inspectors do not do, buy our new member Mike did, and, hopefully, did correctly), the door will reverse "on contact" with the obstruction.

    Garry, I asked this in my previous post, you did not answer it:
    "Have you read through the part of the standard I posted? If you did, what were the first things you picked up on?"

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  62. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Borchardt View Post
    I'm glad to see Jerry has read every single garage door opener installation manual ever produced on every opener by every manufacture out there. Thats amazing., ...
    Actually Mike, the manufacturer adjustment and maintenance instructions are the Federal Regulations abbreviated and reworded in a more readable and usable context. They are included in every garage door opener sold in the U.S. Where the individual manufacturer places them in the installation and maintenance instructions may vary.

    The installation package also includes a safety label that is required to be installed adjacent to the the door control switches. The Federal regulations provide explicit specifications regarding the size, color, wording and location of the label. The regulations also specify the minimum height at which the control switches are to be located.

    So you see Mike, neither Jerry, you, nor I have to read every single garage door opener installation manual. But it would behoove you and all installers to read the manuals from time to time. Things do change and it could be your neck on the block if something goes wrong that results in damage or personal injury especially when the point of contention was covered in the instructions.

    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  63. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Stuart,
    Yep, the Federal Regs. gives you the general requirements.
    The specific manuals and installation instructions really just clue you in on specific changes to the product.


  64. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,777

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Garry,

    Sorry, Garry, but you are the one who is wrong.

    Go back and read my post and words again - you will see that a garage door, which is installed and adjusted properly, and which reverses "on contact" with the obstruction ... read that again, and what I wrote in the post you quoted from again ... and you will see that, for a properly installed and adjusted door (something home inspectors do not do, buy our new member Mike did, and, hopefully, did correctly), the door will reverse "on contact" with the obstruction.

    Garry, I asked this in my previous post, you did not answer it:
    "Have you read through the part of the standard I posted? If you did, what were the first things you picked up on?"

    Jerry,
    I have read your posts and your own conflicting comments/interpretations in those postings. I also have read the Fed Regs. and the UL specifications. Along with contacting UL and manufactures. Remember back in April of this year I went on a quest to determine what I was sure had to be specified somewhere in the design and operation specifications of garage door openers. Only finding that a PSI force requirement did not exist. I was wrong. I feel that there should be a PSI force specification dealing with the openers. If there is one being used by the manufactures they are telling.


    Now remember you are not dealing with H.G. and this is not about ego. Definitely not about the ability to cut and past. And not a shouting match.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now back to your posting questions in post # 139 Your questions to me.

    Jerry you stated “…read my post and words again - you will see that a garage door, which is installed and adjusted properly, and which reverses "on contact" with the obstruction …” Well no one should approach a garage door as if it was installed correctly and that the owner has maintained the door and its adjustments. That position is a disaster waiting to happen.


    If you are referring to post #37 , # 41, # 57 or # 122 ?
    I have highlighted parts of your post to make it less confusing for others to follow.
    And listed my responses to your posts as (Garry).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Jerry) Post # 37
    “…2) The garage door *is* supposed to reverse ... ON CONTACT WITH ... yes, that is correct, ON CONTACT WITH ... the 2x4.

    If you stand there watching the door operator force the door downward while the track arches upward and then, finally, the door reverses ... THE AUTO REVERSE FAILED.

    If you place the 2x4 *where the 2x4 is supposed to be placed* and the door makes contact with the 2x4 ... the door is supposed to reverse, right then and right there.

    So many home inspectors think that the door is supposed to partially crush the 2x4 before the door reverses and that there is no way they would want "my child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ... DUH!

    "ON CONTACT WITH" …”

    -----------------------------------------------
    (Garry) Well lets separate things you posted.

    You are trying to redefine the term “on contact with “ , it has to be taken in context with the specifications. You may want it to be instantaneous, but that is not how it is written. Nor was it the intentions of UL nor as written in the Fed Regs.

    The operator can cause “…the tracks to arch upward…” if the operator is out of adjustment and it still may reverse in the prescribed time of 2 seconds. Remember it is not about force, its about movement of the door.

    The door is not required to reverse “ right then and right there “. It has 2 seconds to reverse. Again its about time and movement not force.

    The fact that the 2x4 does not compress is why wood is used other that its dimensions. Its about thickness and non compressibility or lack thereof.

    The specifications have no real concern on “…child having the resistance of a 2X4 to survive" ….”. It is about the child not being trapped under the door, It is not about the damage done to the child.



    =====================================

    (Jerry) Post # 41
    “…..ADJUST
    - - - - • If the door stops on the obstruction, it is not traveling far enough in the down direction. Increase the DOWN limit by turning the DOWN limit adjustment screw counterclockwise 1/4 turn.
    - - - - - NOTE: On a sectional door, make sure limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. See the illustration on page 21.
    - - - - • Repeat the test. …..”
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    (Garry) Installer has to adjust the door on installation.
    Owner has to maintain door and adjustments for its operation

    =========================================

    (Jerry) Post # 57
    “…..Now, I admit that I may be missing it, but I do not see anything about testing the force in those important safety instructions ... “(Garry) The force is not tested other than noting that the “…limit adjustments do not force the door arm beyond a straight up and down position. …” They refer to forcing the door arm, which is not quantitative but an observation of the force exerted by the electric opener.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Garry) If you were to use a hand grasp you could develop a sense of the force exerted by the operator prior to it meeting the floor as its full closed cycle.

    ================================================

    (Jerry) Post # 122


    “…. § 1211.7 Inherent entrapment protection requirements.
    - (a)(1) Other than for the first 1 foot (305mm) of door travel from the full upmost position both with and without any external entrapment protection device functional, the operator of a downward moving residential garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. After reversing the door, the operator shall return the door to, and stop at, the full upmost position. Compliance shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.

    (b)(1) A solid object is to be placed on the floor of the test installation and at various heights under the edge of the door and located in line with the driving point of the operator. When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high. In the test installation, the bottom edge of the door under the driving force of the operator is to be against the floor when the door is fully closed. ….”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    (Garry) SO “… garage door shall initiate reversal of the door within 2 seconds of contact with the obstruction …” . “…Compliance shall be determined…” “…When tested on the floor, the object shall be 1 inch (25.4 mm) high …”

    ==================================================

    Now I question you as to you reading my previous posts and remembering the thread Garage door retractor where we went into depth regarding entrapment protection and pressure exerted by the door prior to reversal.

    Where I was in contact with UL and having a written response from them.

    From Underwriters Lab. 4/21/2012
    “…Residential garage door operators are also required to be provided with inherent entrapment protection (in addition to the external entrapment protection), where the door is required to reverse within 2 s a minimum of 2 in. But there are currently no requirements for the amount of the force that is allowed, just needs to reverse.
    Regards,

    Jim Miller, P.E.
    Senior Project Engineer “”””


    ==================================================
    Jerry, and others;

    Inspection of the of the Inherent entrapment protection requirements.

    It is about what is being done in the field and why. Pratctical experience and knowledge. This is not about SOPs or State regs. It is not about following a myopic interpretation of a manufactures installation instructions. It is about a understanding of a method to inspect a garage door and its electric opener. That understanding of method is about real world application of the inspection. In the real world damage canbe mitigated by process. Written or not, there are accepted procedures that installers go through. A HI is not an installer but should understand the installation process as well as methods to use so potential damage can be mitigated. When a garage door is inspected/operated. It is visually inspected to determine if there is a potential for failure or damage in its operation. The operation of the opener has its own method and process so potential damage is mitigated. Testing the operator for its various functions requires a process to mitigate damage. In testing the operator for its safety features it is wise to approach in a manor as to mitigate potential damage. One aspect of that process involves determining if the door will reverse and the force that is required to trigger that reversal on meeting an obstruction. If the door operator is out of adjustment there is a potential of damage to the door. Therefore it is best to subject the door to a obstruction in a manor that will give the inspector a sense as the potentiality of failure in later operation and testing. There is a method to determine if there is a probable expectation of damage when the door encounters an obstruction on the floor at 1” to 1.5” prior to its complete closed cycle. Which is the function of the opener to prevent entrapment by the door. By checking that the door reverses at a point above the 1” to 1.5” finial travel point it can be determined if the reversal function is operating. By using some method to determine the force that the operator is exerting prior to reversal the inspector can determine if there may be enough force as to cause damage in the finial entrapment test. The method can be as simple as using your hand to restrain the door as it closes. Using the hand grasp has the least potential for injury to the inspector as well as the chance to cause damage to the door. If after training in how to perform the hand grasp test method the inspector determines that there may be reason not to perform the entrapment floor test to protect the door from potential damage. It would be reasonable to discontinue the inspection of the door sighting your concerns. If after using the hand grasp test it is determined that the force to cause reversal is such that it should not cause damage to the door and the subsequent entrapment test causes damage to the door then the door failed due to its own defects and all precautions were taken to mitigate the potential damage. And that is the condensed version. Power point presentation, maybe some day.

    =============================================

    To return to the issue of damage to a door that you are inspecting, if in fact it is being inspected as just operated (run it up then run it down then run away).

    The entrapment test short cut approach that will yield a result is to hit the opener switch, run the door up and down, then place a 2x4 on the floor and take your chances for damage.

    The short cut approach will yield a result. Any failure and damage can be attributed to the owner. As the owner failed to maintain the door and its adjustments for function and operation.

    The longer professional and considerate approach will attempt to mitigate the potential for damage as much as possible by using a hand grasp to determine reversal and the force being exerted prior to reversal.

    Is the longer approach mandated?

    That is a mater of ethics, professionalism, concern for the owners property, State requirements and how you defend your actions if questioned.

    Will you find the longer approach instructions in a owners manual, probably not. They are concerned about liability. They will tell you to obtain the services of an installer who will test with a hand grasp in some manor.

    As with most things is about knowledge and understanding. The Marine Corp Manual tells you everything about being a Marine, but it doesn’t tell you where the Mess Hall is you have to figure that for your self. The entrapment testing may be somewhat like that. You must figure it out for your self and maybe with a little help. You will not find it in the book.


  65. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: Overhead Garage Door Damaged During Testing.

    Residential garage door operators are also required to be provided with inherent entrapment protection (in addition to the external entrapment protection), where the door is required to reverse within 2 s a minimum of 2 in. But there are currently no requirements for the amount of the force that is allowed, just needs to reverse.
    Regards,

    Jim Miller, P.E.
    Senior Project Engineer

    Inherent entrapment protection - door reverses a minimum of 2 inches above within 2 seconds - of contact with the 1" block (or the 2x4" on the flat) of unspecified species, grade, compressive strength, etc..

    That's not 'reversal on contact', nor 'reversal upon contact", neither is it "instantaneous reversal". It most certainly is not a complete stopping of any and all forward (to further close or compress) travel at the moment of first contact.

    That's an accomplishment of a door elevation of 2 inches above the original obstruction surface elevation at 2 seconds after first contacting the original surface elevation of the obstruction. The post-contact compressed surface elevation of the obstruction not addressed in the above.

    Clock starts at first contact - elevation of 2 inches (or more), 2 seconds later - clock stops.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 08-01-2012 at 02:50 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •