) said...

A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better?

I prefer thinset on a concrete-like surface. That includes concrete floors,
wood floors with a mortar base preparation, and concrete tile backer board.

For applying tiles on a drywall surface, I prefer mastic. The only exception
to this is when applying a tile "base board", I will usually use thinset
since I am already using it for the floor.

--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
- Paul Martin - April 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better? If there were a bit of floor flex, wouldn't a plastic
mastic tend not to crack as much as a thinset cement? And with a bit
of mastic coming up between the tiles, wouldn't it keep water from the
plywood (yes, right on the plwood!), rather than continuing to suck it
down as a cement would after going through the grout?
Now the floor was 3/4" diagonal T&G with 5/8" plywood, so perhaps
flexing wasn't all that much a problem (I've forgotten the exact joist
spacing & depth, but 2x10 16" OC seems to stick).
Still, with all the effort needed to remove these tiles, why's
everybody now down on plastic mastic?

wrote in message oups.com...
A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better? If there were a bit of floor flex, wouldn't a plastic
mastic tend not to crack as much as a thinset cement? And with a bit
of mastic coming up between the tiles, wouldn't it keep water from the
plywood (yes, right on the plwood!), rather than continuing to suck it
down as a cement would after going through the grout?
Now the floor was 3/4" diagonal T&G with 5/8" plywood, so perhaps
flexing wasn't all that much a problem (I've forgotten the exact joist
spacing & depth, but 2x10 16" OC seems to stick).
Still, with all the effort needed to remove these tiles, why's
everybody now down on plastic mastic?


I have read that mastic is not to be used where there is significant water presense.

Bob

According to :
A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better? If there were a bit of floor flex, wouldn't a plastic
mastic tend not to crack as much as a thinset cement? And with a bit
of mastic coming up between the tiles, wouldn't it keep water from the
plywood (yes, right on the plwood!), rather than continuing to suck it
down as a cement would after going through the grout?
Now the floor was 3/4" diagonal T&G with 5/8" plywood, so perhaps
flexing wasn't all that much a problem (I've forgotten the exact joist
spacing & depth, but 2x10 16" OC seems to stick).
Still, with all the effort needed to remove these tiles, why's
everybody now down on plastic mastic?

With a sufficiently flexible floor, it doesn't matter what adhesive
you use, you'll be cracking the grout and even the tiles.

With 5/8" ply over 3/4" T&G, flex isn't going to be much of a problem.

However, modern tile installation uses a special plastic underlayment
that permits the _entire_ sheet of tile to float - much like centuries
ago where they floated the mosaic tile on an adhesive, over a layer of
sand. So not even expansion/ contraction of the subfloor will bother it.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article , lid (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) writes:
| ) said...
|
| A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
| of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
| tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
| babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
| entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
| really better?
|
| I prefer thinset on a concrete-like surface. That includes concrete floors,
| wood floors with a mortar base preparation, and concrete tile backer board.
|
| For applying tiles on a drywall surface, I prefer mastic. The only exception
| to this is when applying a tile "base board", I will usually use thinset
| since I am already using it for the floor.

How does the thickness of the layer of thinset compare to that of mastic?

I'm doing some repair work where eventually the edges of the repair have
to line up with the existing tiles. The existing tiles are attached to
a plaster wall with mastic. I can set my backerboard at whatever depth I
want, but obviously it would be nice if the surface could line up with
the plaster.

It's been suggested that I use thinset rather than mastic because this
is a tub surround/shower, but if the thickness of a layer of thinset is
different from that of mastic I think I'll be making my life much more
difficult by using thinset.

A related question: assuming I have a choice, is it better to make the
transition from old work to new in the middle of a tile or at a joint?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Thinset in water areas are the way to go.
Mastic works nice when you work from the
middle and go down. I found that with a thinset
applied the tiles will start sliding down the wall.

There ARE certain mastics that are waterproof, but
a nice thinset (if using the home depot
stuff use the flexbond) worked great for me.

Use the regular mastic on walls that arent going to get
water on it.


wrote:
A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better? If there were a bit of floor flex, wouldn't a plastic
mastic tend not to crack as much as a thinset cement? And with a bit
of mastic coming up between the tiles, wouldn't it keep water from the
plywood (yes, right on the plwood!), rather than continuing to suck it
down as a cement would after going through the grout?
Now the floor was 3/4" diagonal T&G with 5/8" plywood, so perhaps
flexing wasn't all that much a problem (I've forgotten the exact joist
spacing & depth, but 2x10 16" OC seems to stick).
Still, with all the effort needed to remove these tiles, why's
everybody now down on plastic mastic?

I don't know what the deal is on mastic. I used mastic (a good $$ grade
from a real tile supply house) directly on
plywood, and not a thing has budged in 23 years. This is a rental unit
that's had over a dozen tenants.
Also used in in the bath area, but a black seal coat was put down first.
Also, no defects. Same groat, no
maintenance at all.

I wonder sometime if the cement board thing is mostly marketing.

Bill

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thinset in water areas are the way to go.
Mastic works nice when you work from the
middle and go down. I found that with a thinset
applied the tiles will start sliding down the wall.

There ARE certain mastics that are waterproof, but
a nice thinset (if using the home depot
stuff use the flexbond) worked great for me.

Use the regular mastic on walls that arent going to get
water on it.


wrote:
A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better? If there were a bit of floor flex, wouldn't a plastic
mastic tend not to crack as much as a thinset cement? And with a bit
of mastic coming up between the tiles, wouldn't it keep water from the
plywood (yes, right on the plwood!), rather than continuing to suck it
down as a cement would after going through the grout?
Now the floor was 3/4" diagonal T&G with 5/8" plywood, so perhaps
flexing wasn't all that much a problem (I've forgotten the exact joist
spacing & depth, but 2x10 16" OC seems to stick).
Still, with all the effort needed to remove these tiles, why's
everybody now down on plastic mastic?

Your experience is more like mine with this bathroom floor. Perhaps
mastic formulations have changed since 1970 or so. This stuff holding
those mosaics on the floor was quite hard, and appervious to any water
treatment.

Oh well.


bill allemann wrote:
I don't know what the deal is on mastic. I used mastic (a good $$ grade
from a real tile supply house) directly on
plywood, and not a thing has budged in 23 years. This is a rental unit
that's had over a dozen tenants.
Also used in in the bath area, but a black seal coat was put down first.
Also, no defects. Same groat, no
maintenance at all.

I wonder sometime if the cement board thing is mostly marketing.

Bill

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thinset in water areas are the way to go.
Mastic works nice when you work from the
middle and go down. I found that with a thinset
applied the tiles will start sliding down the wall.

There ARE certain mastics that are waterproof, but
a nice thinset (if using the home depot
stuff use the flexbond) worked great for me.

Use the regular mastic on walls that arent going to get
water on it.


wrote:
A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
really better? If there were a bit of floor flex, wouldn't a plastic
mastic tend not to crack as much as a thinset cement? And with a bit
of mastic coming up between the tiles, wouldn't it keep water from the
plywood (yes, right on the plwood!), rather than continuing to suck it
down as a cement would after going through the grout?
Now the floor was 3/4" diagonal T&G with 5/8" plywood, so perhaps
flexing wasn't all that much a problem (I've forgotten the exact joist
spacing & depth, but 2x10 16" OC seems to stick).
Still, with all the effort needed to remove these tiles, why's
everybody now down on plastic mastic?