I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Many thanks,
bob

In alt.home.repair
Seeker wrote:

I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Bob,

It is "acceptable" to reroof over old shingles but not recommended. In no
time it will look lumpy. It will also not last as long and may cost you
more on insurance.

When I bought my home, I had asphalt over cedar shingles. Allstate wanted
a 30% additional premium for it. Others wouldn't even insure it at all.
And, when you replace it again, it will cost more to remove 2 layers. And
you will replace it sooner because the shingles can't dissipate heat as
well. It may also void your warranty.

According to Seeker :
What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

On a house 21 years old, with the existing asphalt shingles in reasonably
good physical shape and no existing damage, there's no particular reason to
_not_ simply lay on another layer of shingles.

You start thinking differently if:

1) if it'd be a third layer (many building codes prohibit three).

2) you have roof leaks, and/or you want/need to upgrade/install
new tar paper or waterproof membranes.

3) A lot of shingles are broken.

4) You have problems with the roof sheathing (ie: rot).

It's a compromise. A tear-off is _clearly_ better - but usually a
lot more costly. For a roof otherwise in just fine condition, a tearoff
might only gain you a year before the next reroof.

If the cost of tear-off is minimal, go for it.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Seeker wrote:

I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the
builder quality shingles used in construction of the house
mean I should be looking at a new roof...soon!

There's something to be said for the old adage: "it it ain't
broke, don't fix it." Having any problems with it?? The 25,
30, ?? year guarantees on shingles are all *relative* indicators
of quality, there is no clock ticking that says your shingles
*must* fall apart when they reach 25 years old. Just food for
thought.

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One
company, check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave
me an estimate for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated
in the same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof
and gave me what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one
saying reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the
old shingles and do a new roof?

The "rule of thumb" is two layers, max. You can tear off every
time, or every other time but never shall ye try to put a third
layer on top. That's mostly derived from the weight factor of
shingles, and a safe estimate of how much weight your framework
will hold.

Some people consider tearing off for every re-roofing the only
way to fly, some consider tear offs a total waste of money
unless you're taking off 2 layers.

I know that didn't really answer your question, but I want you
to see that you may be jumping the gun. Twice!

--
Ha'i D-suhlami
filling in for I-zheet M'drurz
(He's out front raising the gas prices again. Wooohooo!)

tearing up the shingles is a small part of a large job. there are reasons
to just roof over it, and most of them begin with 'if'. and there is a
fundamental assumption that what is under the shingles is in good shape. if
you roof over it you 'may' get a good roof job. if you tear them off, you
'will' get a good roof job. you will find any problem areas right now and
be able to easily fix them. much easier and cheaper than doing a patch job
later.

if you want to do it 'right', tear off the old roof.

or as my dad used to say, if you dont have the time to do it right the first
time around, when are you going to find the time to fix it?

randy

"Seeker" wrote in message
...
I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Many thanks,
bob

When you walk around the roof are there any spongy areas? If so then you
probably want to rip out the old and install new. Just make sure they
replace any damaged areas. If the roof is relatively flat with no leaks or
spongy areas then simply re-roof over the existing roof. I had my roof done
about 9 years ago and it is doing great. It was a second layer.

I recently encountered an insurance company that would not insure a home
with a composition roof over a cedar shake roof. The required that all
roofing be removed first, new particle board or plywood installed and
then the new roofing placed on.

RB

houseslave wrote:
When you walk around the roof are there any spongy areas? If so then you
probably want to rip out the old and install new. Just make sure they
replace any damaged areas. If the roof is relatively flat with no leaks or
spongy areas then simply re-roof over the existing roof. I had my roof done
about 9 years ago and it is doing great. It was a second layer.

"Seeker" wrote in message ...
I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Many thanks,
bob

This is Turtle.

When you have new carpet laid in your house , do you lay new carpet over the old or take the old up and put new ? Your Choice.

A lot of professional don't like to over lay old shingles for it will not be smooth and have high and low places. Also you have the
old felt which helps the shingle last , will become dry and not help the shingles retain the oil of the shingles.

TURTLE


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004

"Seeker"
wrote in message
...
I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Many thanks,
bob

This is Turtle.

When you have new carpet laid in your house , do you lay new carpet over the
old or take the old up and put new ? Your Choice.

A lot of professional don't like to over lay old shingles for it will not be
smooth and have high and low places. Also you have the
old felt which helps the shingle last , will become dry and not help the
shingles retain the oil of the shingles.

TURTLE


---
This is Tom. A re-roof job usually won't last as long as a tear-off job. That
said, how much longer are you planning on living there? And the
dimensional-type shingles look even better (more "woody")when they're overlaid,
IMNSHO. What _about_ carpeting? And the roofing felt has nothing to do with the
shingle's longevity, more so to help keep the tradespeople and their tools dry
during early phases of construction, and as a second line of defense against
ice dams. A good roof _will_ last longer if it's allowed to breathe. A properly
insulated and ventilated roof can get away with NO felt underlayment at all (I
think the building code writers may be in bed with some manufacturers!).
Possibly one of the biggest problems in getting a re-roof done is the
propensity for roofers to try to re-use the old flashings. Don't allow the
re-use of a plumbing vent flashing, or step flashing.Certain counterflashings
may be okay. Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....

In alt.home.repair
DY (Tom) wrote:

This is Tom. A re-roof job usually won't last as long as a tear-off job. That
said, how much longer are you planning on living there?

1. It is chicken**** to screw over the new owner. 2. You will pay for it
anyway when the inspection shows the overlay. You will probably pay more
so may as well quit being a cheapskate and do the job right.

Chicken**** happens.
Someday, it'll all be over....

xrongor wrote:
or as my dad used to say, if you dont have the time to do it right the first
time around, when are you going to find the time to fix it?

That's a good one.

"Tom" wrote in message ...
"Seeker"
wrote in message
...
I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Many thanks,
bob

This is Turtle.

When you have new carpet laid in your house , do you lay new carpet over the
old or take the old up and put new ? Your Choice.

A lot of professional don't like to over lay old shingles for it will not be
smooth and have high and low places. Also you have the
old felt which helps the shingle last , will become dry and not help the
shingles retain the oil of the shingles.

TURTLE


---
This is Tom. A re-roof job usually won't last as long as a tear-off job. That
said, how much longer are you planning on living there? And the
dimensional-type shingles look even better (more "woody")when they're overlaid,
IMNSHO. What _about_ carpeting? And the roofing felt has nothing to do with the
shingle's longevity, more so to help keep the tradespeople and their tools dry
during early phases of construction, and as a second line of defense against
ice dams. A good roof _will_ last longer if it's allowed to breathe. A properly
insulated and ventilated roof can get away with NO felt underlayment at all (I
think the building code writers may be in bed with some manufacturers!).
Possibly one of the biggest problems in getting a re-roof done is the
propensity for roofers to try to re-use the old flashings. Don't allow the
re-use of a plumbing vent flashing, or step flashing.Certain counterflashings
may be okay. Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....

This is Turtle.

I was told by the Roofers around here that felt would be good for a roof but it will not hold up to the wind, sun, and storms. So
they put shingles over the real water proofer to protect the real roofing material. If water gets past the shingles. The felt will
take care of it. I don't know about ice dams for i have not seen snow in 10 years or more here. I think it snow here one time in the
early 1980's.

TURTLE


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/2004

---
This is Tom. A re-roof job usually won't last as long as a tear-off job. That
said, how much longer are you planning on living there? And the


This is just not true. A roof-over will last LONGER than a single
layer roof, but you do have the extra weight on your roof which
increases the liklihood of rafter failures.

Les

Les, how many roofs have you installed? Real question. Tom
Les wrote:This is just not true. A roof-over will last
LONGER than a single
layer roof, but you do have the extra weight on your roof which
increases the liklihood of rafter failures.


Someday, it'll all be over....

According to Bruce :
It is "acceptable" to reroof over old shingles but not recommended. In no
time it will look lumpy. It will also not last as long and may cost you
more on insurance.

When I bought my home, I had asphalt over cedar shingles. Allstate wanted
a 30% additional premium for it. Others wouldn't even insure it at all.

I'm not surprised.

Asphalt over cedar shingles is like carpeting over gravel. It'll look okay
for a little while, and then it'll look awful. If you ever walked on it,
you'd puncture it.

Not to mention making the cedar even drier.

Sounds like California, where they often use the cedar shingles as the
only roof sheathing. You can see through these roofs from the bottom.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Bruce wrote:Allstate wanted
a 30% additional premium for it. Others wouldn't even insure it at all.

And Chris wrote:I'm not surprised.

Asphalt over cedar shingles is like carpeting over gravel. It'll look okay
for a little while, and then it'll look awful. If you ever walked on it,
you'd puncture it.

Not to mention making the cedar even drier.

Sounds like California, where they often use the cedar shingles as the
only roof sheathing. You can see through these roofs from the bottom.
--
Chris Lewis
I think the poster's intent regarding
the insurance prob may have been "fire concern" related. I've torn off a lot of
"asphalt over cedar" roofs, as not too long ago, cedar was relatively
inexpensive.The puncture problem will most likely depend on whether the
original roof is shakes (very rough)or machine-cut shingles(quite smooth). The
cedar was/is applied to scabboards of varying widths, roughly 10 inches on
center for handsplit shakes, and 5 inches for machine cut cedar shingles,
depending on the pitch. They allowed for excellent ventilation, and when done
correctly, the roof would last about twice that (or more) of today's
composition shingles. I miss cedar roofs! Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....

Another consideration is the type of shingles that are already on the
roof. You did not mention the type, and I am assuming they are the
single layer style. We had multilayered "shangles" on our room,
giving it a "3D" sort of look.. When we replaced them after 24 years,
none of the roofers were willing to lay a new roof over the old. From
everything I had read, this was what I expected.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 22:15:51 GMT, Seeker
wrote:

I have a twenty-two year old home. I am assuming that the builder
quality shingles used in construction of the house mean I should be
looking at a new roof...soon!

This will be the first roof I have ever replaced. One company,
check-rated in the local consumer guide, came and gave me an estimate
for reshingling over the old roof.

Another company, with a good reputation but not check-rated in the
same guide, said they would not re-roof over an old roof and gave me
what sounded like reasonable reasons for so arguing.

Leaves me up in the air: two seemingly good companies, one saying
reshingle, the other saying don't.

What's the common wisdom on this? Reshingle or tear up the old
shingles and do a new roof?

Many thanks,
bob

Gary Dyrkacz

Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.attbi.com/~dyrgcmn/

In alt.home.repair
DY (Tom) wrote:

Bruce wrote:Allstate wanted
a 30% additional premium for it. Others wouldn't even insure it at all.

And Chris wrote:I'm not surprised.

Asphalt over cedar shingles is like carpeting over gravel. It'll look okay
for a little while, and then it'll look awful. If you ever walked on it,
you'd puncture it.

Not to mention making the cedar even drier.

Sounds like California, where they often use the cedar shingles as the
only roof sheathing. You can see through these roofs from the bottom.
--
Chris Lewis
I think the poster's intent regarding
the insurance prob may have been "fire concern" related. I've torn off a lot of
"asphalt over cedar" roofs, as not too long ago, cedar was relatively
inexpensive.The puncture problem will most likely depend on whether the
original roof is shakes (very rough)or machine-cut shingles(quite smooth). The
cedar was/is applied to scabboards of varying widths, roughly 10 inches on
center for handsplit shakes, and 5 inches for machine cut cedar shingles,
depending on the pitch. They allowed for excellent ventilation, and when done
correctly, the roof would last about twice that (or more) of today's
composition shingles. I miss cedar roofs! Tom

It was Texas. I thought the excess premium was because of the extra price
of having to deck it when it was torn down.

the house I bought has 5 layers of roofing. Doesnt' leak a bit. The last one
applied was at least 30 years ago.

Comments inserted

"Tom" wrote in message

And the roofing felt has nothing to do with the
shingle's longevity, more so to help keep the tradespeople and their tools
dry
during early phases of construction, and as a second line of defense
against
ice dams.

Wrong. You are apparently not familiar with ice dams at all. Felt does
absolutely ziltch for protection against ice dams, you must use a water &
ice guard which is manufactured under several names.

A good roof _will_ last longer if it's allowed to breathe. A properly
insulated and ventilated roof can get away with NO felt underlayment at
all (I
think the building code writers may be in bed with some manufacturers!).

Yeah, don't use felt if you want the back of the tar strip to stick to the
decking. Felt is layed for a purpose other than a dry in feature as you
suggest.

Much better to tear off the old shingles and tar paper for two good
reasons. One, the roof can be inspected easily for any damage.
Second, there is less weight on the roof (shingles are heavy!).
Consider adding a ridge vent if you do not have one.

Comments inserted as well. Tony wrote:Wrong. You are
apparently not familiar with ice dams at all. Felt does
absolutely ziltch for protection against ice dams, you must use a water &
ice guard which is manufactured under several names.

Sounds like you work for W.R.Grace, a major supplier of bituminous membrane.
Being from Michigan, I'm _very_ familiar with ice dams, and with the latest and
greatest of ice and water shield technology. A double coverage of 30 lb. felt
installed up only 3 feet beyond the inside wall will stop an ice dam from
penetrating the decking perfectly well, and cost less than the modified bitumin
(tar).
Yeah, don't use felt if you want the back of the tar strip to
stick to the
decking. Felt is layed for a purpose other than a dry in feature as you
suggest.

I suggest you look at a shingle to see if there even IS a tar strip on the
backside. Felt is laid just for the reasons I stated. Hope this helps. Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....

"Tom" wrote in message
Sounds like you work for W.R.Grace, a major supplier of bituminous
membrane.
Being from Michigan, I'm _very_ familiar with ice dams, and with the
latest and
greatest of ice and water shield technology. A double coverage of 30 lb.
felt
installed up only 3 feet beyond the inside wall will stop an ice dam from
penetrating the decking perfectly well, and cost less than the modified
bitumin

Grace is garbage, being familiar with the latest technology you should know
this and not bring that name into the subject. You are 100% wrong in
assuming double coverage felt will stop ice from creeping under it. That
statement is laughable even by those that don't know much about roofing,
those with a little common sense would even know that. I take it you're one
of those weekend warriors, since your knowledge is lacking.



I suggest you look at a shingle to see if there even IS a tar strip on the
backside. Felt is laid just for the reasons I stated. Hope this helps. Tom

I suggest you look what is holding the cellophane on the back of shingles,
guess what that substance is? And yes the tar strip melts when heated, and
creeps from under the cellophane, which in turn sticks to the felt or roof
deck if felt is lacking.

If you need any knowledge you want to pass on, so you don't look like such a
fool. Just ask and you shall receive. No charge for roofing 101 course
today.

DY (Tom) wrote in message
Sounds like you work for W.R.Grace, a major supplier of bituminous membrane.
Being from Michigan, I'm _very_ familiar with ice dams, and with the latest and
greatest of ice and water shield technology. A double coverage of 30 lb. felt
installed up only 3 feet beyond the inside wall will stop an ice dam from
penetrating the decking perfectly well, and cost less than the modified bitumin
(tar).

I believe Ralph paid you a compliment calling you a weekend warrior.
Where I'm from we would call you the local hack.

FYI, you left out the most important part of ice and water shield. It
adheres to the deck, where as felt doesn't. I don't care how many
layers of felt you put down, it will not shield decking from ice
backup. Ice & watershield also seals around nail heads, NO felt made
will do this.

You sir are a true hack.



I suggest you look at a shingle to see if there even IS a tar strip on the
backside. Felt is laid just for the reasons I stated. Hope this helps. Tom

Look again Mr. Hack.

Ralph wrote:Grace is garbage, being familiar with the latest technology you
should know
this and not bring that name into the subject. You are 100% wrong in
assuming double coverage felt will stop ice from creeping under it. That
statement is laughable even by those that don't know much about roofing,
those with a little common sense would even know that. I take it you're one
of those weekend warriors, since your knowledge is lacking.



I suggest you look at a shingle to see if there even IS a tar strip on the
backside. Felt is laid just for the reasons I stated. Hope this helps. Tom

I suggest you look what is holding the cellophane on the back of shingles,
guess what that substance is? And yes the tar strip melts when heated, and
creeps from under the cellophane, which in turn sticks to the felt or roof
deck if felt is lacking.

If you need any knowledge you want to pass on, so you don't look like such a
fool. Just ask and you shall receive. No charge for roofing 101 course
today.

Well, enlighten me. Grace was the first stuff I saw come down the pike, and
serviceable but slippery it was. However, I've been out of the business for
about 10 years, so whatever's happened to their reputation is a mystery to me.
That little piece of cellophane on the back is only there to keep shingles from
sticking together in the bundle. and I don't believe it would creep at all when
the roof heats up. Again, I've torn off a few roofs, and might have missed
looking for the "creep", but all that was holding the shingles down were nails
or staples. Unless some fool used tar behind a chimney or something. Perhaps
the words "perfectly well" (referring to felt stopping an ice dam) were the
wrong ones to use, (just how fast will a nail leak through 30 lb.doubled?
(Rhetorical question.)) so I'll say "darned well". But how soon we forget the
ways things used to be done, and done successfully. If the causes of ice
damming are left untreated. the eave shingles will experience something like
"frost heave" over a number of cycles, rapidly accelerating their degradation.
A properly ventilated/insulated attic _needs_ no_ barrier_ at_ all_. Sorry to
have ruffled your feathers, but I've installed machine-cut cedar on pitches as
low as 6/12 with no barrier, and no damming . Perhaps with today's shoddy/cheap
builders, the first roof probably _needs_ a barrier, but by the time you find
out, the damage is done. Damn I'm long-winded. Again, sorry to have ruffled.
Tom

Someday, it'll all be over....

Leo wrote:I believe Ralph paid you a compliment calling you a weekend warrior.
Where I'm from we would call you the local hack.

FYI, you left out the most important part of ice and water shield. It
adheres to the deck, where as felt doesn't. I don't care how many
layers of felt you put down, it will not shield decking from ice
backup. Ice & watershield also seals around nail heads, NO felt made
will do this.

You sir are a true hack.



I suggest you look at a shingle to see if there even IS a tar strip on the
backside. Felt is laid just for the reasons I stated. Hope this helps. Tom

Look again Mr. Hack.
Well, the thick skin helps a little. I guess. Here we go... Whether something
"adheres" to the decking is irrelevant(unless you're trying to tear it off.
Ever tried to tear off the sticky stuff?). The only thing holding your roof on
is nails or staples, and the weight of the entire field stuck together just
under the tabs by the tar strip.(Otherwise, those shingles wouln't be so easy
to cut out and replace!) Of course the membranous stuff will seal up better
around the fastener, isolating the homeowner from interior evidence of the ice
dam. "If it's not leaking, no problem". So they forgo fixing the causes of ice
dams, and when that underlayment starts to see daylight, you've got problems.
Same with felt, also. Doing it right doesn't have to cost too much. I know of
cities where you're _required_ to use the sticky stuff and I wonder about
that. But it's great for when the architect is on something, and designs a
bathtub in at the bottom of a valley. Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....