roof question

[tonysi21]

Hi All,

I live in NYC and I am considering a new shingle roof over the existing roof. The current roof is the original and is 15 years old made of composite shingle (contractor grade 20 year life). The roof is

2,400 square feet and has a 6/12 pitch, nothing fancy. The roof is in just ok shape, but it's getting old fast.

A roofing contractor quoted me a price of $1.75 sq foot to install timberline 30 shingles or Certain Teed woodscape 30 shingles, rounded to $4,000. Is that a fair price? Assuming that is a fair price, does it make sense to upgrade to a better shingle say certain teed landmark

50 shingles? Is the same amount of labor required to install a 50 year shingle as compared to a 30 year shingle? Thanks in advance for your advise.

[Nancy Young]

wrote

For what it's worth, here is my experience. I've had my roof done a couple of times, so I've seen the cost of the shingles. The cost of doing your roof is in the labor. I would not skimp on the shingles because why go through a reroof more often than necessary? They still just nail down each shingle, doesn't matter how good it is.

Would I go for a 50 year shingle? I don't know. I wouldn't touch a 20 year shingle. But, as I recall, if the job was $3500, the shingles themselves were only a few hundred.

I'm sorry I don't know where I saw it, maybe someone here knows one, there is some online estimator for what you can expect to pay for installation. Check out the website of the brand you're considering using. The one I used even listed the name of the local installer.

nancy

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Price sounds reasonable. Upgrading to a 50 year would have a slight labor upgrade. Most 30 year are 4 bundles per square, the 40 and 50 year are 3 bundles so a little more handling labor is needed. Worth it? If you care about the long term, certainly. If you are moving out in two years, probably not.

[trader4]

Before I spent more money on shingles, I'd spend it on having the previous shingles taken off, so you get a superior install.

[Lawrence]

Agreed. The tear-off is the most important part of the job in my experience. I was on a roofing crew and we always did a tear-off so I assumed we would not consider anything else.

Here's what I learned. There is often water damage to the deck underneath that needs repair. Also, even if the deck is OK you will almost always find areas that are wet. Tear-off give you a chance to dry it out before re-roofing.

Having said that: Tear off can be a tremendous amount of work. The crew I was on had between 8 and 11 men and we would work on the biggest roofs. Everyone on the crew including the foreman would work exclusively on the tear-off and clean-up until the roof was totally clean. Then the crew would be split between men on the roof and men on the ground, continuing the clean up.

So, it would have to add a lot of expense to the project when you are hiring ten men. Some of the roofs I worked on had as many as four layers including the original wooden shakes!! We filled so many dumpsters we lost count. Do not put yourself in that situation.

So buy the good shingles but don't skimp on the tear-off. Some roofers won't give any warranty without one.

[mm]

Will it dry out even if they start putting the tar paper on ten minutes later, and the shingles as sooon as the tar paper is on?

That's how they did mine.

[Bob M.]

It's a bad idea to reroof over the old stuff. It's just delaying the inevitable expense, that's all. It also helps in trapping heat in the attic, and the new shingles won't lay down properly.

Do it right - pay the $ to have the old shingles taken off. I wish the previous owner did the same at my house - at the ridge, there's 1.5" of shingles, which is 2 or 3 layers. The local roof guy estimated 11,000 pounds of shingles & tar paper on the roof, and that it will cost more to remove that than to install new shingles.

[Lawrence]

Ten minutes of drying out is better than none I suppose. It's possible your deck was dry and intact. It's also possible on a large house to work on the dry side of the roof while the wet side can dry a bit. It's also very possible that your crew didn't care what the deck looked like and just wanted to get the job over with. In any case, there is no opportunity to inspect or repair the deck if no tear-off is done. That is my point.

On the crew I was on we did many repairs where large sections of the deck had to be replaced with new wood. In other cases where the deck was just wet, we would work on the dry side of the house or do clean- up on until it had a chance to dry out.

It may not even be something you as a homeowner would notice. The foreman would not necessarily take the time to find the homeowner to explain those details since he don't like to waste any time while the roof is off. I get the impression that the homowners have the same attitude. Once you start tearing off their roof they are very careful to stay out of your way and not bother the foreman with any questions.

So, unless you actually go up there yourself to look at the deck there is no way for you to really know, eh? You can't really tell that much from the ground. I never once saw a homeowner come up on the roof so it is really up to the the judgment and integrity of the foreman in the end. I'm fairly certain that the contract would have something to say about structural repairs and how they are to be paid for.