On May 30, 9:04 pm, "Don" wrote:
"Dennis" wrote

At our local Menards, the poly face is $34/sq. (3'x33') and the granular
face is $36/sq. (and that's retail).

Coincidently I priced it at Menards in Columbus, IN today and they told me
$36 for a 3' x 100' roll, granular.

Yep, and my roofer refuses to use the **** from menards because by the
time you fix all the tears etc, you would have been better off
spending a few more bucks.

"marson" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 30, 9:08 pm, "Don" wrote:
"marson" wrote

And why aren't manufacturers recommending this? They'd sell more
product.

How do you know they aren't?
Cause they haven't recommended it to you?

Read the package instructions.

LOL, uh, OK, if you say so.

"marson" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 30, 9:04 pm, "Don" wrote:
"Dennis" wrote

At our local Menards, the poly face is $34/sq. (3'x33') and the
granular
face is $36/sq. (and that's retail).

Coincidently I priced it at Menards in Columbus, IN today and they told
me
$36 for a 3' x 100' roll, granular.

Yep, and my roofer refuses to use the **** from menards because by the
time you fix all the tears etc, you would have been better off
spending a few more bucks.

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?

On May 31, 8:34 am, "Don" wrote:
"marson" wrote in message

oups.com...

On May 30, 9:08 pm, "Don" wrote:
"marson" wrote

And why aren't manufacturers recommending this? They'd sell more
product.

How do you know they aren't?
Cause they haven't recommended it to you?

Read the package instructions.

LOL, uh, OK, if you say so.

Gotcha there. http://www.gaf.com/Content/Documents/20002.pdf .

And why aren't manufacturers recommending this? They'd sell more
product.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

"Dennis" wrote in message
news:_ZV7i.4$fX4.2@trndny03...
And why aren't manufacturers recommending this? They'd sell more
product.

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.

That's just not true. Some building officials are power-mad bureaucrats.

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.

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.

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,
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.



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.

On Jun 1, 4:33 pm, marson wrote:
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.

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.

What size stock flashing would you recommend?


"marson" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 20, 11:34 am, "Bgreer5050" wrote:
Please take a look at the elevation below. Should the entire porch have
IWS? Should I flash the siding to roof with IWS? Thanks.

http://mropartner.com/frontelevation.htm

IMO, ice and water in this location is unnecessary. I would flash the
siding with coil stock/step flashings. Ice and water doesn't really
work because none of it can be exposed. If you expect extreme wind
driven rain, you might consider it as an insurance layer under your
flashing (lapped up under your building paper). I would use ice and
water on eaves in valleys in climates with snow, and under asphalt
shingles applied to a pitch less than 3/12.

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.