jinjiudingFrp

 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?