Garage door retractor

[Lon Henderson]

I built my own pressure sensor with a digital readout (thought it was awesome!)..

Nice use of all that down time in the winter to build something like that.

Yeah, 150lbs. is a little heavy, that is why I judge what is reasonable down force with my hand.

[Vern Heiler]

I don't think we have gotten to the point were everyone realizes just how totally worthless the manufacturer mandated 2x4 test is.

Entrapment can only happen if the door stops driving down (closed) on its own fruition (end of travel), when the power is removed from the current sensing circuit. The scenario would be something like this: A person is laying under the door and the door travels down and stops just as it reaches the person, power is removed from the current sensing and now no matter how hard the person pushes on the door it will not move. Hence the need to know that the door is still trying to close when less than 1.5" from the floor, which should be less than the thickness of even the scrawniest neck. This distance is controlled by the travel adjustment and we know the travel adjustment brings the door to within 1.5" of the floor when we pull up in the drive to start the inspection because the door is closed, and this is verified every time we use the opener to close the door. No need for a 2x4! The manufacturerers test does not test that the door reverses when it meets reasonable resistance. Through the gathering if empirical data we have all gathered over our lifetimes, we know that a 2x4 provides more than reasonable resistance and the current sensor will reverse the door before the wood is crushed if it is working at all. The only thing the 2x4 test does is verify the door is still trying to close at 1.5" from the floor and the current sensor will reverse the door if the door is stopped prior to reaching the end of travel. If the persons neck or other body part is as resistant to crushing as a 2x4, he is safe.

I am under no obligation to preform the manufactures monthly mandated test of the operator, and if I was I only have a 1 in 30.5 chance of hitting the right date as I have no idea when the door operator was installed. I do have an obligation to meet the SOP of my state, which requires me to test for reversal due to reasonable resistance, which can not be determined by a 2x4.

I will add one thing to Ray Thornburg's post, which I agree with. As HI's we often do not have the remote control to stop a door from destroying itself. As mentioned by Ray, the alignment of the tracks can cause the door to bind and if the force adjustment is not correct the door can turn into space junk falling from the sky, with you ducking for cover. I recommend testing the door when it is much more closed than half way as recommended by the manufacturer. With the door almost closed there is less chance the door panels can twist and bind. (This is some of that "Empirical data" we acquire with life experiences )

[Jerry Peck]

I don't think we have gotten to the point were everyone realizes just how totally worthless the manufacturer mandated 2x4 test is.

It is worth more than trying to catch the door with one's hand and then trying to state that the door does not reverse properly.

The test is actually quite useful and practical in showing FAILURE of the reverse mechanism.

[Vern Heiler]

It is worth more than trying to catch the door with one's hand and then trying to state that the door does not reverse properly.

The test is actually quite useful and practical in showing FAILURE of the reverse mechanism.

I have never seen one fail in this mannor. If it was to fail the result would be the motor running until it was stopped by pressing the opener button or it burned up! Not a test of much value to me as I will know the current sensing works or doesn't work with my hand. If it doesn't work it requires further investigation by an overhead door contractor. I already know it is trying to close the door within 1.5" of the floor because it closed all the way, or if it didn't; it requires further investigation by an overhead door contractor.

[Rick Cantrell]

Vern
You almost have me convinced, now if you can just convince every one of the garage door opener manufacturers and government safety experts that they have been doing it wrong.
READ POST #62

[Vern Heiler]

Vern
You almost have me convinced, now if you can just convince every one of the garage door opener manufacturers and government safety experts that they have been doing it wrong.
READ POST #62

Manufacturers giving misleading or bogus information/direction????

Government without a clue???????

Who would ever think that could happen????

If you can give me detailed information on how this 2x4 test reveals anything other than that the operator is still trying to close at less than or equal to 1.5" and that the door will reverse at some resistance less than the crush pressure of kiln dried pine, I will change my test practice.

[Ian Page]

Use of a 2x4 when manufacturer's instructions often clearly indicate... "an object of 1" (1.5") OR a 2x4 ", is overstated. I choose the former...Neither do instructions mandate a solid object should be used, other by inference that a 2x4 is solid. An an object with some 'give' so that its final compression is within the 1.5" tolerance should be satisfactory for reversal testing. Further, seeing something compressing, when the reverse mechanism is failing, is much more telling than when the door hits a 2x4.

[Rick Cantrell]

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

Automatic garage door openers: hazard for children. [Pediatrics. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

[Vern Heiler]

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

Automatic garage door openers: hazard for children. [Pediatrics. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

Rick, I did not read every incident but every one of the ones I did read would have been preventable with the hand test I use. The incident on page 6, 92/09/18, would not have been detected with the 2x4 test but would have been detected by the hand resistance test.

[Jerry Peck]

It is worth more than trying to catch the door with one's hand and then trying to state that the door does not reverse properly.

The test is actually quite useful and practical in showing FAILURE of the reverse mechanism.

I have never seen one fail in this mannor.

You've never seen one fail on a 2x4 test?

You mean to tell us that every single garage door opener reverses on contact with the 2x4? That the opener does not try to crush the 2x4?

No? That's not what you mean? Oh - then you HAVE seen them fail that test.

If it was to fail the result would be the motor running until it was stopped by pressing the opener button or it burned up!

Nope. They fail when they do not *reverse on contact* with the 2x4.

And, the motors do not burn up as they try to crush the 2x4, at least I've never had one fail as it bowed the track upward to the ceiling trying to push the door down and crush the 2x4.

The problem, as I see it, is that you do not understand what the failure mode is. The failure mode is that the opener does not reverse *ON CONTACT* with the 2x4. It really is that simple ... "on contact" with the 2x4 ... not after 5 minutes of trying to crush the 2x4 ... not after 75 pounds pressure ... not after 50 pounds pressure ... not even after 5 pounds pressure ... "on contact" with the 2x4.

This might be a good test: get a 1/8" piece of stick on foam weather strip and place a piece along each edge of the underside of the 2x4, now place two copper strips cross-wise on the 2x4, one on top of the foam weatherstrip and one underneath the foam weather strip, connect one wire from a lamp cord to one copper strip and the other wire from the lamp cord to the other copper strip, the copper strips are a switch. Test to make sure you can turn the lamp on by placing another 2x4 under the test 2x4 and press the 2x4s together to turn the lamp on. If the lamp turns on, the two copper strips have made contact with each other.

Lay the test 2x4 under the door and close the door. The door will 'make contact with' the 2x4, but the 2x4 is not yet on the floor, when the door presses the 2x4 down to the floor (where the 2x4 would normally be for the test) the lamp will light (the door closed the switch). When the lamp lights, that is indicative that the 2x4 is 'on the floor' where it would normally be and that the door as 'contacted' the 2x4. The lamp should light, and when the lamp lights, the door should reverse, which means the lamp should immediately go off as the door is no longer 'contacting' the 2x4 on the floor. You should see the light go on, then almost immediately go back off as the door reverses "on contact" with the 2x4 on the ground.

That is one way to check for "on contact" with the 2x4.

[Rick Cantrell]

Kinda long and technical but worth the time

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

[Jerry Peck]

Kinda long and technical but worth the time

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

Rick,

Thanks, I see they've made a few minor changes over time - such as 2 seconds:
- § 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.

The 1 inch is still there, but the manufacturer's and everyone state to use a 1x4. As stated by others in posts above, that is because trying to find a 1" thick board is not that easy for most homeowners.

The 2 seconds is a newer requirement, however, I do recall seeing the 2 second before - probably the last time we had this discussion and that link was provided - and wondering how crushed a person gets in 2 seconds ...

[Vern Heiler]

You've never seen one fail on a 2x4 test?

You mean to tell us that every single garage door opener reverses on contact with the 2x4? That the opener does not try to crush the 2x4?

No? That's not what you mean? Oh - then you HAVE seen them fail that test.



Nope. They fail when they do not *reverse on contact* with the 2x4.

And, the motors do not burn up as they try to crush the 2x4, at least I've never had one fail as it bowed the track upward to the ceiling trying to push the door down and crush the 2x4.

The problem, as I see it, is that you do not understand what the failure mode is. The failure mode is that the opener does not reverse *ON CONTACT* with the 2x4. It really is that simple ... "on contact" with the 2x4 ... not after 5 minutes of trying to crush the 2x4 ... not after 75 pounds pressure ... not after 50 pounds pressure ... not even after 5 pounds pressure ... "on contact" with the 2x4.

This might be a good test: get a 1/8" piece of stick on foam weather strip and place a piece along each edge of the underside of the 2x4, now place two copper strips cross-wise on the 2x4, one on top of the foam weatherstrip and one underneath the foam weather strip, connect one wire from a lamp cord to one copper strip and the other wire from the lamp cord to the other copper strip, the copper strips are a switch. Test to make sure you can turn the lamp on by placing another 2x4 under the test 2x4 and press the 2x4s together to turn the lamp on. If the lamp turns on, the two copper strips have made contact with each other.

Lay the test 2x4 under the door and close the door. The door will 'make contact with' the 2x4, but the 2x4 is not yet on the floor, when the door presses the 2x4 down to the floor (where the 2x4 would normally be for the test) the lamp will light (the door closed the switch). When the lamp lights, that is indicative that the 2x4 is 'on the floor' where it would normally be and that the door as 'contacted' the 2x4. The lamp should light, and when the lamp lights, the door should reverse, which means the lamp should immediately go off as the door is no longer 'contacting' the 2x4 on the floor. You should see the light go on, then almost immediately go back off as the door reverses "on contact" with the 2x4 on the ground.

That is one way to check for "on contact" with the 2x4.

Now would that be 4 pound foam weather strip or 80 pound foam weather strip?

The 2x4 test is bogus and does not tell the most important information. The amount of resistance required to reverse.

And no, I have never seen the 2x4 test fail, because I have already seen it fail the hand test if it was going to fail . End of door operator test. No bowed track, no groaning motor, no POed HO!

[Jerry Peck]

And no, I have never seen the 2x4 test fail, because I have already seen it fail the hand test if it was going to fail

Incorrect again.

The "hand test" does not tell you anything with regard to how, or if, the door is going to reverse at the floor on the 2x4.

The most useless test of all is the "hand test".

Go back and review Rick's post to the standard, then my post in response, maybe you will get it then ... or maybe not ...

[Vern Heiler]

Jerry I forgot to ask. If I hit your test jig with a sledge hammer, will the light go on and off indicating everything is ok?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry I forgot to ask. If I hit your test jig with a sledge hammer, will the light go on and off indicating everything is ok?

Now you just might be getting it!

The garage door IS that sledge hammer.

[Vern Heiler]

Incorrect again.

The "hand test" does not tell you anything with regard to how, or if, the door is going to reverse at the floor on the 2x4.

The most useless test of all is the "hand test".

Go back and review Rick's post to the standard, then my post in response, maybe you will get it then ... or maybe not ...

Oh contrar my learned one. The current sensing does not know where the door is in its travel. If it reverses at two feet it will reverse at 1.5".

[Jerry Peck]

Oh contrar my learned one. The current sensing does not know where the door is in its travel. If it reverses at two feet it will reverse at 1.5".

But it may not mean anything as the door has to travel another 4 feet to 5 feet of track and whatever friction and binding up there is, and those sensors have to be set to over that, NOT the 'hitting the 2x4 and reversing' test.

The hand test is useless, unless you just like to tell people that you are not afraid to stand under a moving overhead garage door and try to make it fall off its track by trying to hold it with your hand ... other than that, the hand test tells you nothing.

There IS a approved and mandated test - not sure why some people have resistance about doing an approved and mandated test ...

[Vern Heiler]

Now you just might be getting it!

The garage door IS that sledge hammer.

May I direct you to Rick's link, page 6 incident 92/09/18
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

the door is the sledge hammer????? Really are you kidding???

[Jerry Peck]

May I direct you to Rick's link, page 6 incident 92/09/18
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia97/os/in5.pdf

the door is the sledge hammer????? Really are you kidding???

You are saying that the sledge hammer would not have damaged the metal folding chair?

[Vern Heiler]

But it may not mean anything as the door has to travel another 4 feet to 5 feet of track and whatever friction and binding up there is, and those sensors have to be set to over that, NOT the 'hitting the 2x4 and reversing' test.

The hand test is useless, unless you just like to tell people that you are not afraid to stand under a moving overhead garage door and try to make it fall off its track by trying to hold it with your hand ... other than that, the hand test tells you nothing.

There IS a approved and mandated test - not sure why some people have resistance about doing an approved and mandated test ...

Here is the long and the short of it, #1 this test is not mandated by my licensure board. #2 if the fource adjustment is turned to the max (which is how I often find them) the 2x4 test will not detect it but the hand will. #3 if the wife leaves the beamer with the trunk under the door and the fource adjustment is at the max, dads not going to be happy! (the sledge hammer thing )

[Rick Cantrell]

Oh contrar my learned one. The current sensing does not know where the door is in its travel. If it reverses at two feet it will reverse at 1.5".

Vern, I understand your reluctance to perform a test that you feel may cause damage. Especially when you believe there is an alternate method (hand hold) that will provide the same results without the risk of damage.

Here is the problem
Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5"

Let me (try to) explain
I will just make up the numbers
A door weighs 200 lbs
When the door is fully open the springs have little tension on them, say 50 lbs. When the door is fully open it has no downward weight so the door stays open until force is applied to close it.
When the door is fully closed the springs have more tension on them, lets say 150lbs. Now the door has it's full weight (200lbs) applying a downward force. That is why we have to lift the door. The door weights more than the springs pull.
But when the door is half open the tension on the springs and the weight of the door are equal or nearly so. The door does not move up or down unless a force is being applied.
Since there is more downward weight on a closed door than there is lift from the springs the force sensor has to overcome the additional weight. More force is needed to cause reversal.
But there is no weight on a partly open door. So it takes less force for the reversal to kick in.
So a partly open door takes less force to cause reversal than a fully closed door.

I probably did not do a good at explaining this, but hopefully someone else can.

[Rick Cantrell]

Here is the long and the short of it, #1 this test is not mandated by my licensure board. #2 if the fource adjustment is turned to the max (which is how I often find them) the 2x4 test will not detect it but the hand will. #3 if the wife leaves the beamer with the trunk under the door and the fource adjustment is at the max, dads not going to be happy! (the sledge hammer thing )

I don't recommend doing even a hand hold test if a car is parked under the garage door. Maybe it's just me, but thats one time I draw the line.

[Dan Harris]

Back in the day when I checked the doors mid way by hand, I had a few doors on new homes that would not return by testing by hand, and wrote them up as needing adjustment.
Then I had a garage door contractor, and the builders customer service guy inform me I didn't know how to properly check the doors because some of the doors did return when they tested them with a 2X4 on the floor.

[Garry Sorrells]

Incorrect again.

The "hand test" does not tell you anything with regard to how, or if, the door is going to reverse at the floor on the 2x4.

The most useless test of all is the "hand test".

Go back and review Rick's post to the standard, then my post in response, maybe you will get it then ... or maybe not ...

Jerry,
I can understand that you are afraid to be near the door during its operation. Some people have a fear of the water which I can accept. Others have a fear of electric. Or it may be a physical shortcoming, which I also can understand.

With all of the talk about those that only inspect to the minimum SOP and how they should extend beyond those SOPs, it seems odd that you have taken your position. Something akin to looking for signs of water damage prior to testing a shower pan.

You seem to have taken a bureaucratic mode of rigidity of process.
The testing the door as it closes 1/2 way is only a precautionary task. If the door will not reverse at 1/2 way then there is a concern that it will not reverse at 1" from floor. To complete the testing, provided confidence in not damaging the door, by using a 1" or 2x block is reasonable.

The manufactures determined that the test works at 1" and 1.5" and then it will also work at 6" and so on. Why did they select 1" or 1.5"? Rather simple. If they said that it had to reverse on contact withe the floor, adjusting the motor would be a night mare. The door has a bulb seal on the bottom that takes up 1/2 to 1.5" and allows the door to stop before contacting the floor else it would reverse without any margin of error on travel.

You have to agree that those of who have been door installers seem to have a consensus of opinion on process. Not wanting to damage something, if possible, we end up testing the door prior to doing a 2x on floor test. This is just part of being aware what can happen and experience.

Like most things if you are so adamant in your view, trying to change it may be like changing HG's perception of the world.

To others following the thread;
Please develop an in-depth understand of what is involved in the installation of different types of doors and operators. Then develop a even deeper understand of what happens to them over time as the are used, understanding how and why they fail. By doing so will prevent you from being hurt and will allow you to test a door without causing damaging to the owners property.

Sorry for the wordy responses and comments. I will never be happy with communicating using TXT messaging.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern, I understand your reluctance to perform a test that you feel may cause damage. Especially when you believe there is an alternate method (hand hold) that will provide the same results without the risk of damage.

Here is the problem
Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5"

Let me (try to) explain
I will just make up the numbers
A door weighs 200 lbs
When the door is fully open the springs have little tension on them, say 50 lbs. When the door is fully open it has no downward weight so the door stays open until force is applied to close it.
When the door is fully closed the springs have more tension on them, lets say 150lbs. Now the door has it's full weight (200lbs) applying a downward force. That is why we have to lift the door. The door weights more than the springs pull.
But when the door is half open the tension on the springs and the weight of the door are equal or nearly so. The door does not move up or down unless a force is being applied.
Since there is more downward weight on a closed door than there is lift from the springs the force sensor has to overcome the additional weight. More force is needed to cause reversal.
But there is no weight on a partly open door. So it takes less force for the reversal to kick in.
So a partly open door takes less force to cause reversal than a fully closed door.

I probably did not do a good at explaining this, but hopefully someone else can.

I'm sorry y'all, I really wanted to let this die but this kind of logic can not go un-noticed. To say "Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5", is the same as saying a car that can do 70 mph is not guaranteed to to 5 mph. If the reverse circuit works a partial load it will work at full load, and a block of wood will bring it to full load very quickly.

[Rick Cantrell]

Vern
Since you had a garage door mishap in August 2008 I can understand your reluctance.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...-complete.html

When someone has some sort of mishap, normally they do one of three things

#1 They completely avoid the circumstance that led to the mishad, thereby avoiding a repeat.of the mishap. When they cannot avoid the circumstance they do #2 or #3

#2 Learn what went wrong, why the circumstance resulted in the mishap, and ultimately how to prevent the mishap from occurring again. They do this through education and evaluation of the circumstances that resulted in the mishap.

#3 They deny personal responsibility for the mishap and contribute the cause to factors beyond their control. In denying responsibility they must also justify and defend their actions that may have contributed to the mishap.

Vern, I do not mean to insult or offend you in any way, but my impression is that you are #3.

[Garry Sorrells]

Well I had to do a quick review (not exact) and see who stands where on the testing methods.

Those who appear to support a reversal test at some point above 12 " from floor prior to testing at 1" to 1.5" from floor are :
Garry S, Vern, Dan, Rick, Lon, Ray, Door, Bob, Darrel, Markus

Those that appear to only support testing at the 1" to 1.5" location are:
Jerry, Dan, Gary B, Stuart, Ian, Darren

[Dave Mortensen]

add me to the 1.5" crowd.

[Rick Cantrell]

"Those who appear to support a reversal test at some point above 12 " from floor prior to testing at 1" to 1.5" from floor are :
Garry S, Vern, Dan, Rick, Lon, Ray, Door, Bob, Darrel, Markus

Those that appear to only support testing at the 1" to 1.5" location are:
Jerry, Dan, Gary B, Stuart, Ian, Darren "

Only partly correct
I do not oppose someone use the hand hold method first, if they are more comfortable doing that. But I really do not see it as meaningful, and only slightly if at all reducing the risk of damage.
See Vern's Thread where he was using the hand hold method.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...-complete.html

[Vern Heiler]

Vern
Since you had a garage door mishap in August 2008 I can understand your reluctance.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...-complete.html

When someone has some sort of mishap, normally they do one of three things

#1 They completely avoid the circumstance that led to the mishad, thereby avoiding a repeat.of the mishap. When they cannot avoid the circumstance they do #2 or #3

#2 Learn what went wrong, why the circumstance resulted in the mishap, and ultimately how to prevent the mishap from occurring again. They do this through education and evaluation of the circumstances that resulted in the mishap.

#3 They deny personal responsibility for the mishap and contribute the cause to factors beyond their control. In denying responsibility they must also justify and defend their actions that may have contributed to the mishap.

Vern, I do not mean to insult or offend you in any way, but my impression is that you are #3.

See the last paragraph of post #67.....guess that makes me a #2

[John Kogel]

OK, here's the door. what's it going to be, hand? 2X4? barn cat on a stick?

[Rick Cantrell]

See the last paragraph of post #67.....guess that makes me a #2

I expected you would think that.

[Raymond Wand]

Seems to me I have read somewhere (maybe this site) in the past that a roll of paper towel should be used to test the reverse?

[Rick Cantrell]

OK, here's the door. what's it going to be, hand? 2X4? barn cat on a stick?

John I know you are just having fun. So I'll go along.
First
Inspect the door, hardware (springs,cable, rails,etc...)
(On this door I likely would no go any further)
Release the door from the drive
Open door manually to about 3'
Close door
Observe for balance, smooth movement
Engage door to drive
Operate door opener to full open
Inspect hardware again while door is open
Operate door to full close
Observe for smooth operation and stop point
Open door to mid way then stop
Close door, obstruct photo eye.
Close door
Open door full
Place 2x4 under door path
Close door
Pry out 2x4 so nobody knows it was there
Pick up pieces of door off floor
Enter remarks " door failed"

[Darrel Hood]

If Rick's list implies I will do a test before doing the 2x4 test, count me out. I won't be doing the 2x4 test. Now I will return to being a spectator for a little while.

[Lon Henderson]

So, with my new block of wood in my kit, I am inspecting a seven year old house today.
The electric eyes trigger the door reversal. The opener reverses with the "hand" test with little resistance.

The garage door locks the block down like a vice................and I write it up.

Incidentally, the opener did not continue to pile drive the door down, it just stopped. I hit the control button and the door rolled back up as it should.

I cheerfully concede that you guys who advocate the block test are correct and thanks for convincing me to start using it.

[John Kogel]

John I know you are just having fun. So I'll go along.
First
Inspect the door, hardware (springs,cable, rails,etc...)
(On this door I likely would no go any further)
Release the door from the drive
Open door manually to about 3'
Close door
Observe for balance, smooth movement
Engage door to drive
Operate door opener to full open
Inspect hardware again while door is open
Operate door to full close
Observe for smooth operation and stop point
Open door to mid way then stop
Close door, obstruct photo eye.
Close door
Open door full
Place 2x4 under door path
Close door
Pry out 2x4 so nobody knows it was there
Pick up pieces of door off floor
Enter remarks " door failed"

The home owners are away. You've busted the door, and there's no way to secure the home from thieves. Way to go, you proved the door is crap.

I reported this door as in need of repair for safety and security. That's pretty obvious. The owners were away.
I tried the opener, closed the door and broke the beam. The door reversed nicely for the electric eyes.
I skipped the hand stop this time. The barn cat went crazy, broke the stick and ran off, so I took that to mean the door was crap.

I always tell my clients how I have tested the door and what the results were. I don't go back every 3 months to test the auto-reverse. That is their job.

[Jerry Peck]

#3 if the wife leaves the beamer with the trunk under the door and the fource adjustment is at the max, dads not going to be happy! (the sledge hammer thing )

I don't recommend doing even a hand hold test if a car is parked under the garage door. Maybe it's just me, but thats one time I draw the line.

Jerry,
I can understand that you are afraid to be near the door during its operation. Some people have a fear of the water which I can accept. Others have a fear of electric. Or it may be a physical shortcoming, which I also can understand.

Here is the long ... and short ... of it, and why Rick is correct, and why I readily admit that I am a slow learner - but learner nonetheless.

Shortly after I first started doing inspections I was standing there with the real estate agent, the buyer, the listing agent, and the seller, I pressed the wall mounted button to activate the garage door to close - the door closed, I then pressed the button again to open the door - the door opened, I then pressed the button again and walked up under the closing door and swung my leg forward so my foot tripped the photo cell reverse action (one of the first one with the photo cells, or in that very early time period) - the door reversed, I then pressed the button to close the door - the door closed, then, after talking about something with the buyer briefly, I pressed the button to raise the garage door so we could go out the garage door - the door opened, went to the top of its travel ... and continued to go up and fall off the back of the track.

There were toys laying on the garage floor under where the garage door fell.

The listing agent starts screaming something about who is going to fix the door, the seller starts screaming something about who is going to fix the door, I stand there and say that all *I* did was to push *the* button which operated the garage door - *just like the seller did when we all first arrived* to close the garage door and hide the stuff in the garage.

After a few more minutes of them screaming about who is going to fix the door ... I decided to chime back in and state that the sellers were *VERY LUCKY* that the door *FAILED UNDER TESTING* because that door could very well have fallen on their kids while playing in the garage.

Twas to no avail though, so I repeated that the door *FAILED UNDER TEST* and that the only person I know of who is going to fix that garage door is the garage door person that the seller calls, and that if they wait too much longer to call to get the door fixed that they repair person may not be able to fix it until tomorrow - THAT got their attention as they did not want the garage open the rest of the day, evening or night.

Thus began my "failed under test"/"failed under testing" statement.

But, as I said, I am a slow learner, so a few months later I was at an expensive house in Boca Raton and the door closed as it should, but when the door opened, the door started going up/down/up/down/up and banging against the upper stop ... all the while with a nicely restored Model A Ford under the door ... DUMB THING TO DO ... I said to myself, no more testing door when a car is parked under it.

Alas, the slow learner that I am, a few years later I was in an even more expensive house in Miami Beach, on Sunset Island 2 as I recall, and there I was testing the door again, this time the door went down, and the split track (which was held together by a coupler) spit out the coupling bolts from one side and the track folded downward ... just missing the top of a nice brand spanking new Lexus - the track stopped about 1" above the top of that car.

I found one of the bolts, used my ladder to raise the track back into position, inserted that bolt through a bolt hole, but could not put a nut on it as the thread were all stripped out by coming out of the hole like it did.

I went and got the seller and showed her the loose track, the bolt without the nut, and told her that the next time the door is operated that the track may fall and hit her new car. She immediately went into the house and called a garage door company to fix the track.

*THAT* was *THE LAST TIME* I ever tested a garage door when there as a vehicle under it - see, I do learn things.

Even now, I do not drive into our garage, or out of it, or walk under the garage door in or out of the garage *until the door has stopped moving and is all the way up (or door, still not going to walk under it). I stop my wife from walking under the moving door, I stop our grand daughter from walking under the moving door. A moving door CAN FALL.

Now, what was it you were saying about being afraid of garage doors? Not afraid ... JUST SMART ...

[Rick Cantrell]

So, with my new block of wood in my kit, I am inspecting a seven year old house today.
The electric eyes trigger the door reversal. The opener reverses with the "hand" test with little resistance.

The garage door locks the block down like a vice................and I write it up.

Incidentally, the opener did not continue to pile drive the door down, it just stopped. I hit the control button and the door rolled back up as it should.

I cheerfully concede that you guys who advocate the block test are correct and thanks for convincing me to start using it.

Thanks Lon

Vern, I understand your reluctance to perform a test that you feel may cause damage. Especially when you believe there is an alternate method (hand hold) that will provide the same results without the risk of damage.

Here is the problem
Just because a door will reverse at 30" in no guarantee that the door will reverse at 1.5"

Let me (try to) explain
I will just make up the numbers
A door weighs 200 lbs
When the door is fully open the springs have little tension on them, say 50 lbs. When the door is fully open it has no downward weight so the door stays open until force is applied to close it.
When the door is fully closed the springs have more tension on them, lets say 150lbs. Now the door has it's full weight (200lbs) applying a downward force. That is why we have to lift the door. The door weights more than the springs pull.
But when the door is half open the tension on the springs and the weight of the door are equal or nearly so. The door does not move up or down unless a force is being applied.
Since there is more downward weight on a closed door than there is lift from the springs the force sensor has to overcome the additional weight. More force is needed to cause reversal.
But there is no weight on a partly open door. So it takes less force for the reversal to kick in.
So a partly open door takes less force to cause reversal than a fully closed door.

I probably did not do a good at explaining this, but hopefully someone else can.

[Jerry Peck]

So, with my new block of wood in my kit, I am inspecting a seven year old house today.
The electric eyes trigger the door reversal. The opener reverses with the "hand" test with little resistance.

The garage door locks the block down like a vice................and I write it up.

Incidentally, the opener did not continue to pile drive the door down, it just stopped. I hit the control button and the door rolled back up as it should.

I cheerfully concede that you guys who advocate the block test are correct and thanks for convincing me to start using it.

As Rick said, thanks Lon.

[Vern Heiler]

Lon, if you can post a picture of the door fully closed, without the block of wood under it, and the door (not the weatherstrip) is less than 1.5" above the concrete where the wood was placed, as I have said I will begin to use the 2x4 test.

I know this will sound made up but at todays inspection I tested the single car door by hand and it failed. Thinking I have not tried the 2x4 test I looked around and found a stack of spare tile in the garage. I made a stack 1.25" tall (closest I could get) and placed them under the center of the door, all the while thinking "what have these people talked me into?" I ran the door closed thinking how much could a single car door panel cost anyway? When the door reached the stack of tile the rails bowed up and then the door stopped with a loud bang. No damage, but I think I will not do the 2x4 test if the hand test fails regardless of Lon's response.

[Jerry Peck]

I know this will sound made up but at todays inspection I tested the single car door by hand and it failed. Thinking I have not tried the 2x4 test I looked around and found a stack of spare tile in the garage. I made a stack 1.25" tall (closest I could get) and placed them under the center of the door, all the while thinking "what have these people talked me into?" I ran the door closed thinking how much could a single car door panel cost anyway? When the door reached the stack of tile the rails bowed up and then the door stopped with a loud bang. No damage, but I think I will not do the 2x4 test if the hand test fails regardless of Lon's response.

You did the correct test.

You proved it worked.

And you still refuse to do the test?

I *TOLD YOU* the track would bow up, so what did you expect?

How many tiles broke when you heard that loud bang?

[Rick Cantrell]

Lon, if you can post a picture of the door fully closed, without the block of wood under it, and the door (not the weatherstrip) is less than 1.5" above the concrete where the wood was placed, as I have said I will begin to use the 2x4 test.

I know this will sound made up but at todays inspection I tested the single car door by hand and it failed. Thinking I have not tried the 2x4 test I looked around and found a stack of spare tile in the garage. I made a stack 1.25" tall (closest I could get) and placed them under the center of the door, all the while thinking "what have these people talked me into?" I ran the door closed thinking how much could a single car door panel cost anyway? When the door reached the stack of tile the rails bowed up and then the door stopped with a loud bang. No damage, but I think I will not do the 2x4 test if the hand test fails regardless of Lon's response.

If the reversal feature fails, what you describe is most often what will happen.
The door will close, heavy strain on the door and rails, sometimes a noise as the door pops or jumps against the rails. But not often will there be any damage, sometimes, but not often.

Glad you gave it a try, and thanks for telling us.

[Jerry Peck]

If the reversal feature fails, what you describe is most often what will happen.
The door will close, heavy strain on the door and rails, sometimes a noise as the door pops or jumps against the rails. But not often will there be any damage, sometimes, but not often.

In 17+ years testing garage doors with the 2x4 I never damaged a door because of that test.

Of course, the obvious comes first:
- 1) Look at the top of the door where the arm is attached, if there is not a brace along the top of the door there, and it is a metal door, you will most likely see crimp marks where the top has been flexing due to the operator opening and closing the door - DO NOT test the door, call for a repair, the door is ALREADY damaged. I have tested many metal doors which had those crimp marks, and many which were already split from metal fatigue, I simply added the *did not auto-reverse* to the list of reasons the door needed to be repaired or replaced.
- 2) Look at the bottom of the door where the 2x4 will be placed, make sure that the person who tested the door before you did not bend and damage the bottom of the door, then make sure to place your 2x4 under the center vertical brace the operator arm is attached to - no damage/no more damage will be done to the door.

I have had several doors fall off their tracks because the track ends were too far apart and the tracks would pull the wheels right out of the door axle holders. This was mostly on new houses and I was the first one to open the door after the door installer finished. NEVER trust the brand new installation by a door installer, ALWAYS check it carefully first - the installers seem to just not care about the doors, Git-R-Done and Git-Paid seems to be there motto.

ALL of the doors which fell or were otherwise damaged were not caused by the auto-reverse test. Not even the one in Miami Beach where the track came apart at the joint - the cause was not the test, the cause was the bolts were loose and ready to fall out. The test just found the problems before the door fell on the car or someone else.

I would much rather have the door "fail under testing" than "fail the next time someone pushes the button" to operate the door - they will be calling the inspector as to why the door failed, even when the problem was/is proved to be an installer problem.

That is simply the way this profession is - the home inspector gets blamed for everything which does not work after the inspector walks away, does not matter whether or not the inspector ever touched it - the inspector was on-site and that is enough for them to make the call.

So why not see if it fail while you are there, you can then document what failed and call for repair/replacement.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
You are right
The important thing to do is inspect the door before the test
I recommend to inspect the door before the door is even touched.
Then operate the door a few times before the reversal test.
If you see something wrong, or even questionable, do not operate the door, much less the reversal test.


PS
I find it hard to believe that you would (even in the distant past) operate a garage door with a car parked inside, I won't.

[Rick Cantrell]

I was on an inspection a while back that had a 4 car detached garage.
A car was parked in one side (the car was covered so I don't know what it was). The buyer was with me. I told him I would not open that door.
I do not operate garage doors when a car is parked under the door, ever.

[Vern Heiler]

You did the correct test.

You proved it worked.

And you still refuse to do the test?

I *TOLD YOU* the track would bow up, so what did you expect?

How many tiles broke when you heard that loud bang?

Had the door reversed I would still have had to do the hand test to satisfy the NC SOP. That test had already failed so this was just a lets see what happens test. It makes little sense to stress the door, rails and operator without cause, so it is unlikely I will adopt the 2x4 as a normal part of my testing.

I am fairly confident the door tested by Lon today did not have the travel adjustment correct and the door did not reach the floor where the block was placed, allowing the travel limit to be reached just as the door touched the block. But I wasn't there so I wait to see.

[Rick Cantrell]

...
I am fairly confident the door tested by Lon today did not have the travel adjustment correct and the door did not reach the floor where the block was placed, allowing the travel limit to be reached just as the door touched the block. But I wasn't there so I wait to see.

Yes, that is likely what it was.
But whatever it was, it was not working properly.
Whatever it was, a child could have still been trapped under the door because it did not reverse.

[Ian Page]

I actually performed all three tests at today's inspection.. 'hand test', 2x4 test (just 'cause there was 2x4 just inside the doorframe) and 'photo- eye' test today on a door and opening mechanism installed by the home owner. Amazingly the door reversed and/or failed to open or close, exactly as it should, was perfectly balanced and ran as smooth as silk. Probably the best install in a year or so and quite an accomplishment for a DIYer. Later during the inspection I found out the homeowner was a professional garage door installer.

[Darrel Hood]

I guess if a garage door installer can be a professional, so can a home inspector.

[Lon Henderson]

Sorry, I don't have a photo to the door closed normally. However, the door closed nicely to the slab and appeared to close normally. On my hand test, the door reversed easily. I guesstimate about 10 to 15lbs of pressure reversed it about 28-25" off the floor.

If a door fails my hand test, that will be as far as I go. I'll write it up. If the door is going to stunt the growth of some poor confused toddler, then that is a failure as far as I am concerned and I am moving on.

One caveat will be on wood framed garage doors. About 90% of those have loose hinges and if I see any loose ones; I don't think I'll do the block test. That seems like begging for a disaster. Jerry's comment about passing on doing a full test when a car is in the garage makes a lot of sense too. I like learning from the experiences of others whenever I can.

BTW, that door that I had jump out of the rail years ago was not a disaster. Two wheels mid way jumped out. The door sagged big but hung on. It took about ten minutes to put the door back in the rail and avert any yelling. However, like Jerry, I once had a door come slamming to the ground after opening normally. As the dust billowed around the us, the buyer says, "I'm your witness. All you did was press the button."

[Rick Cantrell]

At any time during your inspection of the garage door you fine something that you feel is worth writing up, stop right there.
No need to proceed any further.
Bent track, loose hinges, missing or badly worn parts, maybe even general poor condition.
Once you see something no need to proceed.
Call for service/ repair.

[Garry Sorrells]

Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. I believe the NC licensure board recognized the side stepping that the door operators lobbyist were able to get put into the warning labels required by law. The 2X4 test does not protect the client, just the door manufacturer.

Vern,
It took a little while after reading your post for it to sink in and then resurface.
When I read your post I wanted to question you about NC SOP and you referring to as required. But was distracted.

"Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. ..."

After going to NC Home Inspection SOP I do not find where they specifically state the above quote from you. What I found was:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineerin...100excerpt.pdf

SECTION .1100 - NC HOME INSPECTOR STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND CODE OF ETHICS

.1107 EXTERIOR
(a) The home inspector shall inspect:
(3) Garage door operators;

(b) The home inspector shall:
(3) Operate garage doors manually or by using permanently installed controls for any garage door operator;
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and
(5) Probe exterior wood components where deterioration is suspected.

Do not take my question wrong. I subscribe to using your hand to test the reverse mechanism first. Then if appropriate place a block on the floor to test the operator at that point operation.

I have found organization and state SOP never to so specific in their wording.

Would you help me out and post a location to find your wording of the SOP required under NC law. I like it, just can not find it.

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,
It took a little while after reading your post for it to sink in and then resurface.
When I read your post I wanted to question you about NC SOP and you referring to as required. But was distracted.

"Grasping the bottom of the door is a listed test and is the test required by my licensure board. ..."

After going to NC Home Inspection SOP I do not find where they specifically state the above quote from you. What I found was:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineerin...100excerpt.pdf

SECTION .1100 - NC HOME INSPECTOR STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND CODE OF ETHICS

.1107 EXTERIOR
(a) The home inspector shall inspect:
(3) Garage door operators;

(b) The home inspector shall:
(3) Operate garage doors manually or by using permanently installed controls for any garage door operator;
(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and
(5) Probe exterior wood components where deterioration is suspected.

Do not take my question wrong. I subscribe to using your hand to test the reverse mechanism first. Then if appropriate place a block on the floor to test the operator at that point operation.

I have found organization and state SOP never to so specific in their wording.

Would you help me out and post a location to find your wording of the SOP required under NC law. I like it, just can not find it.

(4) is the requirement.

the manufacturers test for when and how to adjust the force, is the how.

[Jerry Peck]

"(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and"

(4) is the requirement.

the manufacturers test for when and how to adjust the force, is the how.

That is not a hand test, nor does it state the hand test, nor does it imply the force adjustment test.

That does state "will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance" which is when the door CONTACTS the 2x4 ... that CONTACT is the "reasonable resistance" and door either passes or fails on the 2x4 test.

Plain and simple and as clear as can be - that is referring to the 2x4 test.

[Rick Cantrell]

I think this thread had some very good discussion.
Without name calling and insults it stayed on topic.
A lot was brought out that I think will be a benefit to many.

I also want to say thanks to Lon and Vern. I know it took courage to use the 2x4 after each had of you a garage door give you a scare in the past.
Both of you are to be commended on you willingness to try something you fear.

[Jerry Peck]

I think this thread had some very good discussion.
Without name calling and insults it stayed on topic.
A lot was brought out that I think will be a benefit to many.

I also want to say thanks to Lon and Vern. I know it took courage to use the 2x4 after each had of you a garage door give you a scare in the past.
Both of you are to be commended on you willingness to try something you fear.

I completely agree with Rick on all accounts.

[Vern Heiler]

"(4) Report whether or not any garage door operator will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance during closing; and"



That is not a hand test, nor does it state the hand test, nor does it imply the force adjustment test.

That does state "will automatically reverse or stop when meeting reasonable resistance" which is when the door CONTACTS the 2x4 ... that CONTACT is the "reasonable resistance" and door either passes or fails on the 2x4 test.

Plain and simple and as clear as can be - that is referring to the 2x4 test.

Only someone as stubborn as you would consider a 2x4 to be only reasonable resistance and force is the reciprocal of resistance. I have also shown you the manufactures instructions on how to determine and set the force adjustment with a hand.

[Jerry Peck]

Only someone as stubborn as you would consider a 2x4 to be only reasonable resistance and force is the reciprocal of resistance. I have also shown you the manufactures instructions on how to determine and set the force adjustment with a hand.

Me stubborn? YOU are still trying to justify the hand test for the reasonable force on the 2x4 for the *reversing* test.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

NO 2X4 FOR ME--I use a large paper towel roll

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

NO 2X4 FOR ME--I use a large paper towel roll

cvf

Charlie,

I've heard of a couple of other inspectors who used a large paper towel roll and I asked them this same thing: What does that tell you?

- a) What does it tell you if the door DOES reverse on it?
- b) What does it tell you if the door DOES NOT revers on it?

I am continually amazed at all the ways home inspectors come up with to NOT DO the only test that actually tells something about what is being tested.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

JERRY

i test with my arms first and then the paper towel--again i think we are testing to save small children and pets--they all have bones that will break when crushed by a garage door--a 2x 4 has no bones to crush--maybe inspectors should put their heads under door and see if it works. everyone has their own testing i guess--maybe we should ask our insurance companies what to do--hate the 2 x4 test--no blood or guts to be spewed into garage when failed--just my take

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

JERRY

i test with my arms first and then the paper towel--again i think we are testing to save small children and pets--they all have bones that will break when crushed by a garage door--a 2x 4 has no bones to crush--maybe inspectors should put their heads under door and see if it works. everyone has their own testing i guess--maybe we should ask our insurance companies what to do--hate the 2 x4 test--no blood or guts to be spewed into garage when failed--just my take

cvf

Charlie,

Doing those tests reveals nothing about whether or not the garage door will automatically reverse as it should.

Now that you brought up "save small children and pets--they all have bones that will break when crushed by a garage door", if you do not fail a door which reverses under the tests you do, and the above happens, when you stand before the Judge or jury and say that you do those tests because you "hate the 2 x4 test", you will be hanging out on a limb for devising your own test method which does not relate in any way to the actual test method and shows nothing with regard to whether the garage door would, or would not, automatically reverse as it should have at the date and time of your test.

The response I frequently get when I bring up 'the Judge and jury' is that the chances of that happening are between slim and none ... well, if the chances of a home inspector being brought before a judge and jury for a garage door failing to reverse and injuring or killing a child or other person is between slim and none, and given that if that did happen (injuring or killing a child or other person) the home inspector who tested it would surely be named as they did not fail it, then the logical conclusion of the chain of thought that the home inspector would not be brought before the Judge and jury means that there is slim to no chance of the garage door failing, which in turn makes one wonder why the home inspector would even bother to test something which has a slim to no chance of ever happening.

Why even bother to test the garage door as you know that there is a slim to no chance of it failing?

That logic does not play out.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

jerry
i'm going to bed now--it,s 9:30 pm in colorado-- 64 yrs old--why are you up at 11:30 gator time--you must be 80--only kidding

i guess we all need to do what makes us comfortable in our job and to client--there can be millions of approaches--but i always have my client there at inspection and make sure they know the importance of the safety reverse and that is what is important to me anyway--and stated in my report--we can only do so much--i think we should report what we think makes client safe--

cvf