Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

How much will it cost to re-roof a house that is covered in solar collectors? - Page 3

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Eeyore on April 8, 2009, 3:56 am
 


daestrom wrote:


When my house was built 117 yrs ago it was roofed with slate. That lasted around
80+ years. It now has 'concrete' tiles which I'd expect to outlast me for sure.

An extension at the rear uses a synthetic 'felt' tarmac and stone chippings
covering. You're lucky to get > 30 yrs out of that.

Graham


Posted by daestrom on April 10, 2009, 12:58 am
 


Slate / concrete/ tile don't seem very popular around here.  Can't recall
the last time I saw one.  Part of the reason I'm sure is the snow loading.
Put about 50 lbm per sq ft (~240 kg/m^2) on a tile supported only by a few
points and it'll likely shatter.

Many homeowners hire someone to come in once / twice a winter to remove snow
from their roof, so a smooth-ish surface helps a lot with the shoveling.
And flat asphalt shingles aren't likely to be broken by the workmen.

Metal roofs have the advantage that if placed on a steep pitch, the snow
will slide off once in a while.  Of course those who own such roofs learn
not to place anything of consequence under the eaves of such a roof in
winter time.  I saw a car after the 'light, fluffy snow' slid off a roof and
fell two stories onto it.  Broken windshield, collapsed roof and hood.
Wasn't pretty.

daestrom



Posted by Phil Ross on April 11, 2009, 4:47 pm
 

Here in California, you have to be concerned about the weight of the
material because of the earthquake problem. Having a heavy tile or slate
roof swinging around during a quake is likely to tear your house apart
unless the structure is properly reinforced to compensate. (It is also
another reason you don't see a lot of un-reinforced brick or stone
construction). Single story wood frame construction bolted to the
foundation, also with a light roofing material, seems to be the most durable
for the cost (except for the termite issue). Light and flexible is the key.
Wood shake used to be very popular because of the aesthetics, but many folks
find out the hard way what happens when you have a few tons of kindling
sitting on top of your house during the hot dry and windy summer and fall
months. It looks much nicer than asphalt shingles, but you are asking for
trouble during fire season.

Phil



Posted by Russ in San Diego on April 12, 2009, 2:17 am
 
And the weight is actually one excellent reason to use stone-coated
steel roofing.  It's lighter than terracotta tile and concrete.  In
fact, it's MUCH lighter than the wood shake roof after a rainstorm.
And by the way, unless you look closely, you would probably mistake it
for terracotta tile.

Unfortunately, a lot of people get suckered into replacing their shake
roof with terracotta or concrete.  Most homes built for shake or
asphalt are not designed to safely carry the vastly increased load of
terracotta or concrete.  I can look across the street at a neighbor's
home, who was convinced by her roofer to install concrete tile.  If
you look closely at the roof, you can see it sagging inward by at
least 6" in the center of one of the panels.  I wouldn't want to be
inside THAT place when the big one hits!  I wonder how (whether?) the
roofer managed to get a permit from the City of San Diego to perform
that little stunt.

By the way, in Southern California, terracotta is the second most
common roofing material after asphalt.  Then comes concrete, then
stone-coated steel.

Indeed, the steel roof we installed cost around 3 times the price of
asphalt.  It cost only slightly more than terracotta or concrete --
but is far safer in fire or earthquake conditions, due to its
structural integrity (all panels are actually tied together) and
reduced weight load.

Posted by Mike on April 9, 2009, 10:42 am
 On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:54:45 GMT, mauried@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:


Concrete tiles in the UK from at least one major supplier come with a
50 year guarantee, I've seen similar ones fitted in 1960 that are
still perfectly serviceable albeit with a bit of sand shedding from
the surface.  Close by there are many houses with glazed clay tiles
that were built from the 1930's to the early 1950's, other than a few
failed nails the roofs are near perfect.  Those that choose to reroof
to improve insulation or reduce air infiltration, where glazed tiles
are fitted often reuse the original tiles mainly because many
replacement tiles are too heavy for the roof structure.  Public
buildings and Churches have roofs of lead,  copper, and occasionally
cedar shingles that often last *hundreds* of years. One building I am
aware of locally has its original roof from around 1840, with the
continuous history in one family and the records they retain it is
clear that the roof structure remains 'as built' and that no
significant repairs have been needed.

But then again these buildings are brick and block or stone and
therefore designed to last rather than the US combination of
matchsticks, spit and felt.   As a friend in the UK said about his
Florida home purchase a long while ago, it's basically built like a UK
garden shed.  After a Hurricane passed over we asked what state his
home was in, and he replied with one word...Texas :)


--

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread