constant force vs block and tackle

A place to talk about the Window Industry
Message
Author
USNAT1NC1RET
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: CHICAGOLAND

constant force vs block and tackle

#1 Post by USNAT1NC1RET » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:31 pm

which is a better balance system?

buddy110
Posts: 938
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Lower Hudson Valley NY
Contact:

#2 Post by buddy110 » Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:47 pm

I'll get arguments with this but I prefer constant force foir vinyl windows.

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 4409
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#3 Post by Windows on Washington » Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:29 pm

USNAT1NC1RET wrote:which is a better balance system?
Most vinyl companies use constant force but there are some fairly premium lines that utilize block and tackle.

All are better than previous models and should live a long time worry free.

Block and tackle is more preferable in new construction applications because it is less sensitive to construction debris.

clear choice usa of dc

#4 Post by clear choice usa of dc » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:33 pm

constant force is far better and some brands can be adjusted

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 4409
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
Contact:

#5 Post by Windows on Washington » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:25 am

clear choice usa of dc wrote:constant force is far better and some brands can be adjusted
Far better...?

You are posting up on a bunch of threads spouting off things that you obviously don't know.

why don't you tell me which system is better for new construction of which system has tested to more cycles of use.

User avatar
Window4U (IL)
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Sales and Installation in Chicagoland and Central Illinois

#6 Post by Window4U (IL) » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:39 am

In the real world, either is good and most companies warranty them for life in their warranty
Like WoW said, either is vastly preferable to the spiral balances of the past.

Counterbalances have gone from being my most prevalent service issue in my first 20 years in this business to being an almost non-existent service issue over the last 10 years.

ANOTHER WINDOW GUY
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: WISCONSIN

#7 Post by ANOTHER WINDOW GUY » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:06 am

After thinking about it, the last service call I had on a balancer was about 10 years ago and the factory sent me a new one for a very large double hung that needed a stronger unit. Window4U is right it has become a non issue. The constant force is best for longivity, and the block and tackle maybe shines a little for a dh over a kitchen sink and is replaced easier but in 99% of the windows out there both solved the longivity issue and are miles ahead of the old spiral system.

Tru_blue
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:21 pm

CF vs. B&T

#8 Post by Tru_blue » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:49 am

Windows on Washington wrote: why don't you tell me which system is better for new construction of which system has tested to more cycles of use.
From what I've heard the block and tackle system tests several times longer for cycles of use. I would say the block and tackle is better for longevity. Go figure. Like the other posts have stated, however, both types are much more problem free than balance systems from 20 years ago. I'm actually fine with either one.

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 4409
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
Contact:

Re: CF vs. B&T

#9 Post by Windows on Washington » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:38 pm

Tru_blue wrote:
Windows on Washington wrote: why don't you tell me which system is better for new construction of which system has tested to more cycles of use.
From what I've heard the block and tackle system tests several times longer for cycles of use. I would say the block and tackle is better for longevity. Go figure. Like the other posts have stated, however, both types are much more problem free than balance systems from 20 years ago. I'm actually fine with either one.
I was just quizzing him. Don't give away all the answers.

Tru_blue
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:21 pm

Only

#10 Post by Tru_blue » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:52 pm

Hey I only gave away one answer . . .

prosteelheader
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#11 Post by prosteelheader » Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:22 pm

block and tackle is a lot quieter. constant force balances tend to be noisy as the coils are stretched and retracted on the rollers that are inside their keepers.

User avatar
HomeSealed
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:14 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Madison areas
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#12 Post by HomeSealed » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:58 pm

I don't know that I've heard either on make much noise??? Here's my take: Constant Force= more even and effortless operation, Block and tackle: better for new construction, last longer. Either way: they are both decent, unlikely to have issues, and cheap to replace if they do.

prosteelheader
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#13 Post by prosteelheader » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:15 am

i build both for a living. block and tackle are much quieter!

Door&WindowPlus
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:41 pm
Location: South El Monte, CA

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#14 Post by Door&WindowPlus » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:09 pm

I sell windows with both. Seems like most people like the constant force window better.

SuperiorW&D
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:25 pm
Location: Medford, OR

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#15 Post by SuperiorW&D » Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:28 pm

Thanks for the above info.

I would add this one thing:
I feel that it's a lot easier to replace block and tackle balances when they do go bad.

Post Reply