"Laminate" shingles
My sister's uninsulated and unheated garage needs new shingles on the roof.
Just about everyone I talk to says that these new "laminate" shingles
are the only way to go. Not only are they less expensive than asphalt
shingles, but they last longer as well. I'm wondering what people in
here have to say about them.
Also, I was told by one contractor here in Winnipeg that I don't need
to tarpaper her roof before shingling because she has a 4:12 slope,
which is supposedly steep enough to keep the wind from blowing water up
under the shingles. However, a different contractor said that you need
to install tar paper if you're installing laminate shingles. Does
anyone know if this is true, and why?
Finally, I think it's a good idea to install drip caps simply to
protect the wood board that runs along the eve from rotting. But, I'm
wondering if this can be done effectively without removing the
evestrough? Would they simply notch the drip cap with tin snips
wherever those long nails (called "ferrels") are and slip it behind the
evestrough and then nail it down to the roof deck? Finally, it seems to
me that the drip cap should go on first, under the tarpaper. Is this
correct?
Can anyone think of any reason NOT to go with laminate shingles?
Everything I've heard people say about them is positive. In fact, one
roofing company in Winnipeg I talked to says that they haven't
installed any ashpalt shingles for over 2 1/2 years now. All they
install is the laminate shingles. The guy told me that laminate
shingles start at 30 year service life, but the price increases steeply
if you want to go with 40, 45, 50 or "lifetime" laminate shingles.
Well, my sister is 56 years old. I figure the 45 year shingles will do
her until she's 101. But, realistically, I expect the 30 year shingles
would actually last longer, say 35 years. That takes us to her 90th
birthday, and by that time neither of us may even be around. So, I'm
thinking of going with the least expensive 30 year laminate shingles.
Anyone have any reason not to do that?
OK, I've done a bit of snooping on the internet, and I think I was confused when I posted.
I was told there was a new kind of shingle called a "laminated"
fiberglass shingle that was both cheaper and longer lasting than
conventional asphalt shingles.
However, I'm finding that there hasn't been any change in the technology at all.
A standard 3 tab shingle IS a fiberglass shingle, and is constructed like this:
Wheras standard asphalt shingles years ago had an ordinary paper core
that was soaked in asphalt to make it water proof, fiberglass shingles
have a fiberglass mat core that is soaked in asphalt to make it water
proof. Both the old standard asphalt shingles and fiberglass shingles
were made by taking the asphalt impregnated paper or fiberglass core,
applying asphalt on both sides and then applying ceramic granules to
the top of the shingle. So the only difference between a standard
asphalt shingle and a fiberglass shingle is the paper versus fiberglass
core.
A "laminated" fiberglass shingle is just 1 1/2 fiberglass shingles, and it's made like this:
That is, it's essentially just a wide fiberglass shingle on top with a narrow fiberglass shingle below. A cut out section in the wider top layer exposes the narrower shingle. Like this:
And the whole idea is to achieve a
different look than a 3 tab shingle. Since only the lower half of each
laminated shingle is exposed, the resulting roof looks like this:
This quote from Cork-Guy's link says that laminated fiberglass shingles
have a thicker fiberglass mat core, which makes them both stiffer and
thicker, and that:
Because of their higher quality construction and
longer warranties, architectural shingles are priced higher than 3-tab
shingles. Typically architectural shingles can cost 20-40% more than
3-tab shingles. In addition, though less complicated then 3-tab shingle
installation, they are more labor intensive due to the fact that more
architectural shingle bundles are required then 3-tab shingles to cover
the same square area. As a result, the overall roofing costs are
considerably higher using architectural shingles. This said, the
benefits associated architectural shingles far outweigh the added
installation cost in most circumstances.
OK, I give up. Why are more architectural shingle bundles required than 3-tab shingle bundles to cover the same area?
Is it because architectural shingles are both thicker and heavier, and
so they put fewer architectural shingles in a bundle than 3-Tab
shingles? If that's the case, why would the overall roofing cost be significantly
higher if the shingles are delivered to the roof top with a conveyor
belt truck? I could see a difference in labour costs if the roofer had
to carry more weight up a ladder onto a roof. But, every roofing
materials supplier in Winnipeg will deliver the shingles right to the
roof top.
(The only way I could see the overall roofing cost being higher would
be if laminated fiberglass shingles were smaller than 3-Tab fiberglass
shingles, and nothing I read said anything about the size being any
different.)
OK, do I have the correct understanding of "laminated" fiberglass
shingles now? And, are the labour costs higher using laminated
fiberglass shingles, and what is the reason for this?
