"Dennis"> wrote
Indeed. If the budget is tight then you can always install granite later when the coin is right. When trimming costs the last place you want to do so is in the very part of the house that protects all the others, the roof.
Well, I don't know how they are doing things in your part of the country. I live in a town of about 100,000. Since I moved here a few years ago, I have personally supervised 10's of roofs, and have observed probably 100's of reroofs and roofs going on new construction. Every one I have seen gets Ice and water on the eaves and valleys and felt everywhere else. These roofs are working. Why fix what isn't broke? I don't get it. The cost of construction here is out of this world, and adding $1000 to $1500 to the cost of a roof just isn't justified.
$1500? You need to find a new supplier. Just because it didn't *break* in the 'few years' you've been living there means nothing about leaks that may occur eventually. Curious, did you ask the homeowners if their roofs leak, as its hard to tell if a roof is leaking while *observing* it from the curb?
First of all, the stuff ranges from 25 to 50 bucks a square for the material. Last I checked, it isn't climbing the ladder and rolling itself out spontaneously. You're going to have to add some labor for the installation. If you are in an area where it isn't being used typically, a roofer is going to charge a premium for the installation. If you have a big house, it's going to cost you MORE than 1500.
Why do you think the installation instructions don't call for putting it on the whole roof?
At our local Menards, the poly face is $34/sq. (3'x33') and the granular face is $36/sq. (and that's retail). As far as labor, it would be only a little more, considering you would have to roll out and fasten down use 15# underlayment anyway. (At least if your building to code).
If your only installing cheap asphalt shingle roofs (20 year), I would agree that it's use may be questionable as the roof is probably only going to be good for 15 years anyway. But for longer-life products (including 30-40 year asphalt, tile and the like), it's a no-brainier to use it. For a quality home, a roof is not a place to go cheap.
And why aren't manufacturers recommending this? They'd sell more product.
The answer is probably two fold: it has little or no value in practice, and second, ice and water shield is a vapor barrier, and unless your ventilation is good, you could wind up with rotted roof sheathing.
This is not a standard practice. It is not being done in most parts of the country. Go out and look at some roofs, talk to some roofers and contractors.
"Dennis"> wrote
Coincidently I priced it at Menards in Columbus, IN today and they told me $36 for a 3' x 100' roll, granular.
"marson"> wrote
How do you know they aren't? Cause they haven't recommended it to you?
If a person is *building in accordance with codes* he then has proper ventilation, right?
LOL, *most parts*, huh? Man, you cover a lot of territory.LOL
Go out and look at some roofs, talk to some roofers
*Most* contractors are cheapskates. Its best to get advice from people that have no stake in it.
If you think that the roof is important, then you should also consider your plumbing. Although, like placing IWS everywhere, it is not common practice, placing all of your plumbing pipes in PVC can keep that possible leak from becoming a disaster. I have seen many more homes destroyed or damaged by plumbing leaks than roof leaks. And I should know as I am in the insurance repair business (15 years or so).
It is simple (like using IWS everywhere). Simply install 2" PVC pipe everywhere that you need water, then run your copper or PEX through the PVC. Should there be a leak, the PVC contains it.
And hey, what about fire? It would probably be a good idea to encase all of your combustable materials in concrete. That way, there is nothing to catch fire except your personal property and that could be treated with a fire retardant.
Don't forget about these other things and just add ICW. Remember, a little extra goes a long way to protect your quality home. Whats a few extra tens of thousands of dollars when your peace of mind is at stake?
"Robert Allison"> wrote
Ya know, if you tack another $10k to the overall price for the infrastructure and $5k for the schools (do it for the *children*) you'll be close to describing a typical SW Florida home. The kind that no one can afford.
Read the package instructions.
Yep, and my roofer refuses to use the shit from menards because by the time you fix all the tears etc, you would have been better off spending a few more bucks.
LOL, uh, OK, if you say so.
The thing about buying stuff at Menards/Lowes/Home Depot, etc. is that the choosing of products is the sole responsibility of the purchaser. I sort of prefer that myself. Just yesterday I purchased about $400 worth of PT lumber and anchor bolts and various other things for a project I'm building and I *hand selcted* every single component to assure that I received the best they had. If your roofer spent time fixing tears and stuff you should have planted your workboot squarely in his ass for wasting your time and resources. A few minutes spent up front scrutinizing the purchases saves alot of problems on down the line. Quality builders know this, why don't you?
Gotcha there.
Manufacturers are manufacturing this product, like all products they sell to a specific market / end use. This product was designed to comply with a specific code requirement, as an alternate to two layers of underlayment, cemented together. It saves time and labor; money in other words.
However, that's the code, and most prescriptive codes are designed as minimums and are usually exceeded when there is a good reason to do so. The reason that the manufacturers do not state that it is to be used everywhere is simple, whatever they put on the package is considered a requirement, legally binding in court. Any local building official would then be permitted to make a full installation mandatory. As there is no need to overbuild anything, there is no need to make such practice a recommendation.
You're worng on both points. First it has obovious value in offering additional protection to a roof deck. Only a fool would argue that overkill has no value. Second, although it does have a specific requirement of 0.01 perms max. it should never cause a roof deck to rot. (Do you think that standard Type I underlayment overlaid with two thicknesses of asphault shingles wont retard the passage of water vapor?) Ventilations in al attics is a must (and a code requiremtnt). The most likely pace you will every find a rotted deck is low down, near the eaves. Upon investigation we find that there was little or no air circulation, often that the insulation had been blown into the area and in contact with the bottom of the roof deck. Proper ventialltion, and not just the minimums required by the IRC, is an absolute must. (It's also off topic).
As an inspector (my current position is plan reviewer), I have inspected hundreds of installations. I have found that roofers vary in their knowledge, but those highly concerned with doing an outstanding job that they can be proud of, to those who are looking forward to collecting their paycheck and getting drunk that evening. (Like any trade). Some even argues that they didn't need to use underlayment. Many didn't know the proper way to build a valley and a few could not explain what a stepped flashing was or what the requirements for it were.
I do agree that it's not standard practice, as most of the public either has no idea as to what constitutes a good roof verses an outstanding one; and they will always opt for the lowest price. It's use is really for those who are building a higher-end home, usually with permanent clay-tile roofs or long-life asphalt or the like. For the average low-end market, installing ice-shield at the eaves with regular Type-I underlayment over the rest of the roof is the only way to maintain competitively and low price.
This by no means ensures that the owner will be getting the best for his money (for only a modest amount more he could be getting many more years of roof life compared to the minimum materials). You simply quote minimum code to get the job and then offer to upgrade the materials (labor will be pretty much the same in all cases).
The argument isn't whether is costs more or not (it does) or whether is common practice or not (it isn't). The argument is that it makes a better roof (longevity and greater leak resistance, especially in high wind zones) verses one covered with standard Type-I underlayment. (It does).
That's just not true. Some building officials are power-mad bureaucrats.
That's plain silly. "Overkill" needn't always be benign. Look at bolt tortion, for a simple example. Ever heard of "too much of a good thing?"
whatever they put on the package is considered a requirement,
If this is true, then why do they include hips, ridges, and rakes in their instructions? Ice and water shield on ridges and rakes is not code in my state. But you are saying that it is considered a requirement, legally binding in court because GAF puts it on their instructions?
Regarding ventilation, in the case of new construction, you are probably right. But it is highly irresponsible to be recommending ice and water shield over the whole roof to everyone. Lots of old houses have roofs that are marginally ventilated and have marginal vapor barriers, as you must know.
marginal vapor barrier on the warm side of the house insulation to be exact.
Terry is just debating his need for his job. Permits and what not are just another means of revenue. Without people pulling permits he has no job.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.