View Single Post
  #13   Report Post  
John Hines
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Joe) wrote:

(Tom) wrote in message

both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping
and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the
granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform
it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from
making contact with the wood deck.

However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and
granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to
re-roofing.

Comments?

Correct, Joe. Only for the relative safety of the roofer (Which I thought I'd
covered in my original reply to the OP, BTW). The membrane doesn't NEED to be
stuck down to the deck to perform it's function, but only to the drip edge and
any neighboring pieces of i&w shield. You can get away with a 3 inch lap. And
yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield. Tom
Work at your leisure!


My shingles are going up next week (IKO Chateau).

The installer knows I'm concerned about the "peel-and-stick" part of
the membrane installation. I'm probably going to have to replace
quite a bit of the old eave decking as it is (and they charge $$$ for
doing it). It would **** me off to think that the peel-and-stick part
of the membrane will mean the investment in the new decking will be
lost when the wood gets torn up in 20 years when I re-roof.

Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release membrane
ON and nail the membrane down?


No, let them do the job right. IMHO from watching the roofers on
Monday, the peel and stick is more for holding it down during the
install. It was kinda unweildy for them, until it was stuck down, then
it was like part of the decking, as the underlayment and shingles were
installed.

The next re-roof should be another layer of shingles, without a tear
off, so you shouldn't have to tear it off for 30-40 years, at which time
the shield has done its job, and the roof needs to be torn down to the
sheathing, for inspection and repair.