constant force vs block and tackle

A place to talk about the Window Industry
Message
Author
Wizzy
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#16 Post by Wizzy » Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:00 pm

I personally would say that a constant force balance is easier to replace.... at least the ones i've seen. Its typically one or two screws. That being said, I've never had to replace a B&T balance. Looking at ones that i've sold, it doesn't look hard, but not quite as simple.

Just my opinion....

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 4426
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#17 Post by Windows on Washington » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Same thing.

One or two screws and you are done. Faster in the cases where you need to use a jamb expanders to get the balancers out.

samantha77
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:44 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#18 Post by samantha77 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:56 pm

I agree with WoW and the others that while many constant force balances aren't horrible products the block and tackle is a better system. It lasts longer, operates quieter and allows for easier/smoother operation. When we do high end historic work the windows all come with block and tackle and when we do low end replacement in a rental property the windows at that price point all use constant force (sometimes by a different name). I think that is a decent indicator of the quality. We do use both, and when properly manufactured they both work fine, but they're not the same.

User avatar
HomeSealed
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:14 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Madison areas
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#19 Post by HomeSealed » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:41 pm

Im not sure what thread you are reading Samantha, but I did not see any of that posted previously. Constant force and block and tackle are both very good, proven systems with very, very minor differences in operation. I personally could not care less which system is used as I've had great success with both, and I'd venture to day that is the experience of most other pros as well, (at least those of us who do not attempt to exploit a non-factor for the benefit of a sales pitch) :wink:

samantha77
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:44 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#20 Post by samantha77 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:50 am

I hope everyone enjoyed the great weather yesterday! HomeSealed, I was referring to this thread. If you look back all the way to page 1 you'll see on February 8th 2008 (this is clearly a long lasting thread!) Tru_Blue said that block and tackle balances lasted "several times longer" than constant force, and Windows on Washington appeared to agree. Then a few posts later someone else said that block and tackle balance are much quieter. I was just agreeing with both of them. I mentioned that we do offer windows with both types and they both tend to work fine, but to say they are equal would not be accurate.

I hope you wouldn't try to minimize factual differences because you sell windows with the constant force balance :wink:

randy
Posts: 1017
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:27 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#21 Post by randy » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:03 pm

I personally could not care less which system is used as I've had great success with both, and I'd venture to day that is the experience of most other pros as well, (at least those of us who do not attempt to exploit a non-factor for the benefit of a sales pitch)
I agree with Homesealed - both systems are great, and homeowners shouldn't be sidetracked by salespeople who promote one over the other.

User avatar
HomeSealed
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:14 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Madison areas
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#22 Post by HomeSealed » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:26 pm

samantha77 wrote:I hope everyone enjoyed the great weather yesterday! HomeSealed, I was referring to this thread. If you look back all the way to page 1 you'll see on February 8th 2008 (this is clearly a long lasting thread!) Tru_Blue said that block and tackle balances lasted "several times longer" than constant force, and Windows on Washington appeared to agree. Then a few posts later someone else said that block and tackle balance are much quieter. I was just agreeing with both of them. I mentioned that we do offer windows with both types and they both tend to work fine, but to say they are equal would not be accurate.

I hope you wouldn't try to minimize factual differences because you sell windows with the constant force balance :wink:
There are excellent windows made with both systems and the overwhelming consensus among pros is that its pretty much "a-horse-a-piece", with very minor pros and cons to each. I can't speak for others but it seems as though the responses you are referring to were only made to correct an inaccurate statement made before that. Ironically, the only statement made in this entire thread which claims that one system is flat out better than the other is yours. So who's motives are in question here? Nice try though. :lol:

shamu
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:20 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#23 Post by shamu » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:03 pm

Most higher end replacement windows (vinyl) tend to use constant force balances and promote them as being quieter and smoother than other balance systems. I believe wood windows tend to use some form of block and tackle systems due to not having a channel which would accomodate a constant force system. Most new construction windows use block and tackle because a constant force system tends to get junked up with drywall dust and other debris. IMO a block and tackle is much easier to replace than a constant force. As others have said both have their own pros and cons. Even a spiral balance had its advantages as the tension could be adjusted without having change out the balance.

ranger
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#24 Post by ranger » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:12 am

"most higher end replacement windows(vinyl) tend to use constant force"

Not true.. here is a list of some higher end replacement window companies..
Okna windows use block and tackle
Starmark use block and tackle
Sunrise use block and tackle
Park Avenue use block and tackle
Marvin Infiniti fiberglass use block and tackle
Great Lakes UniFrame use block and tackle

shamu
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:20 pm

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#25 Post by shamu » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:36 am

Good to know. Most of those you list have little or know presence in my area.

Skydawggy
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Northern,Virginia
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#26 Post by Skydawggy » Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:25 pm

If I was given a choice of either constant force of block and tackle on the exact same window, I would choose block and tackle. I have all the vinyl shavings that are produced with constant force.

User avatar
HomeSealed
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:14 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Madison areas
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#27 Post by HomeSealed » Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:59 pm

ranger wrote:"most higher end replacement windows(vinyl) tend to use constant force"

Not true.. here is a list of some higher end replacement window companies..
Okna windows use block and tackle
Starmark use block and tackle
Sunrise use block and tackle
Park Avenue use block and tackle
Marvin Infiniti fiberglass use block and tackle
Great Lakes UniFrame use block and tackle
You can remove Park Avenue (TI) from the list of "higher end" windows imo, unless you are meaning "high priced windows" with no regard to quality. Park Ave = Preservation imo... Here's another product that uses block and tackle: Alside Excalibur :oops: .... Now here are some great windows that use constant force: Softlite, Gorell, other lines by Great Lakes, among others... So what is my point? There are excellent and poor examples that use both. Why? Because they just aren't that much different in cost, function, durability, etc. This thread is ridiculous, and confusing to consumers who are already being bombarded by sales guys who use non-factors and bend the truth to get their head-spinning. Are there minor pros and cons to each system? Yes. Is one or the other clearly superior? Nope. Should your choice in windows be made based on CF vs B&T, not in a million years. That's the truth.... Now I'll get off my soapbox. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 4426
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#28 Post by Windows on Washington » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:28 pm

HomeSealed wrote:
ranger wrote:"most higher end replacement windows(vinyl) tend to use constant force"

Not true.. here is a list of some higher end replacement window companies..
Okna windows use block and tackle
Starmark use block and tackle
Sunrise use block and tackle
Park Avenue use block and tackle
Marvin Infiniti fiberglass use block and tackle
Great Lakes UniFrame use block and tackle
You can remove Park Avenue (TI) from the list of "higher end" windows imo, unless you are meaning "high priced windows" with no regard to quality. Park Ave = Preservation imo... Here's another product that uses block and tackle: Alside Excalibur :oops: .... Now here are some great windows that use constant force: Softlite, Gorell, other lines by Great Lakes, among others... So what is my point? There are excellent and poor examples that use both. Why? Because they just aren't that much different in cost, function, durability, etc. This thread is ridiculous, and confusing to consumers who are already being bombarded by sales guys who use non-factors and bend the truth to get their head-spinning. Are there minor pros and cons to each system? Yes. Is one or the other clearly superior? Nope. Should your choice in windows be made based on CF vs B&T, not in a million years. That's the truth.... Now I'll get off my soapbox. :mrgreen:
Excalibur is Constant Force the last time that I saw it but your point about the fact that they are both good is 100% accurate.

I like the sealed and Teflon impregnated version that is in the Soft-Lite window better than the your standard CF system because it is more resistant to stiction and dirt accumulation.

That being said, neither should be a deciding factor in window a selection. There are dozens of other factors that are far more important and pertinent evaluators.

User avatar
HomeSealed
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:14 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Madison areas
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#29 Post by HomeSealed » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:21 pm

Windows on Washington wrote:
HomeSealed wrote:
ranger wrote:"most higher end replacement windows(vinyl) tend to use constant force"

Not true.. here is a list of some higher end replacement window companies..
Okna windows use block and tackle
Starmark use block and tackle
Sunrise use block and tackle
Park Avenue use block and tackle
Marvin Infiniti fiberglass use block and tackle
Great Lakes UniFrame use block and tackle
You can remove Park Avenue (TI) from the list of "higher end" windows imo, unless you are meaning "high priced windows" with no regard to quality. Park Ave = Preservation imo... Here's another product that uses block and tackle: Alside Excalibur :oops: .... Now here are some great windows that use constant force: Softlite, Gorell, other lines by Great Lakes, among others... So what is my point? There are excellent and poor examples that use both. Why? Because they just aren't that much different in cost, function, durability, etc. This thread is ridiculous, and confusing to consumers who are already being bombarded by sales guys who use non-factors and bend the truth to get their head-spinning. Are there minor pros and cons to each system? Yes. Is one or the other clearly superior? Nope. Should your choice in windows be made based on CF vs B&T, not in a million years. That's the truth.... Now I'll get off my soapbox. :mrgreen:
Excalibur is Constant Force the last time that I saw it but your point about the fact that they are both good is 100% accurate.

I like the sealed and Teflon impregnated version that is in the Soft-Lite window better than the your standard CF system because it is more resistant to stiction and dirt accumulation.

That being said, neither should be a deciding factor in window a selection. There are dozens of other factors that are far more important and pertinent evaluators.
I have a Revere Berkshire (Excalibur relabel) hand sample in my back room that has block and tackle.... Perhaps that's the difference between the two. My neighbor had some installed by WW (regrettably right before I moved in :P ), so I'll make sure to check next time I visit. I have to agree though, I've been very impressed with the Softlite's resistance to "stiction". :lol: :mrgreen:

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 4426
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
Contact:

Re: constant force vs block and tackle

#30 Post by Windows on Washington » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:26 pm

HomeSealed wrote: I have to agree though, I've been very impressed with the Softlite's resistance to "stiction". :lol: :mrgreen:
You like that word don't you?

I was using that in a conversation and my buddy bet me $20 it wasn't a real word. Needless to say, I was $20 richer. :lol:

Post Reply