This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

D.M. Procida coughed up some electrons that declared:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

Possibly the stronger exposure to wind, cold and rain and sunlight will make
it harder to get a durable enough finish with paint; and the fact no-one
will be bothered to repaint them often enough? Just a guess. Felted roofs
are the nearest equivalent and even the best done don't have the life of a
tiled roof.

Much the same could be said of boats, but I suspect boat owners are more
fastidious about maintenance than many home owners.

Other views???

Cheers

Tim

D.M. Procida wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

What you describe sounds like the precursor of roofing felt. The roof
was boarded and painted with bitumen. To make it last longer it was
then sprinkled with sand. Yes, it works, but felt is less likely to
leak.

The Bradford stadium that burnt down in the 80s and was built before
WW1 had a bitumen painted tarpaulin as a roof covering.


NT

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'd not fancy having to paint a roof every other year. A well made slate
etc roof can have a life of 100 years or so with little to no maintenance.

And the cost of replacing a roof tends to be mostly labour rather than
materials - so I doubt a wood one would be that much cheaper.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

D.M. Procida wrote:
This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

They do, but they have a comparatively short life compared to the
'traditional' coverings - and glass fibre coverings on a close boarded roof
are generally more expensive and time consuming to lay, particularly on a
'pitched' roof (there may be differing opinions on this BTW).

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a
roof, make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal
where their edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof
paint.

Again they do - but with the same results as above. As a matter of
interest, some roofs are 'timber sheeted' with traditional coverings such as
slate and tile and are called Close Boarded Roofs - and are very expensive.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that
has never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this
isn't done - what is it?

A great deal of exposure to the sunlight and the UV rays tend to destroy the
'painted' coverings over a relatively short period of time (around 10 years
or so).

When you consider that Welsh slate, Belgium slate and stone tiled roofs can
have a life in excess of 100 years (cement slates are less than this) and a
concrete or clay tiled one of around 30 - 100 years, all with a good, long
lasting aesthetic appearance - then a 'painted' or felted roof really is a
no-brainer both cost wise and aesthetically. Again, opinions will differ,
but the test of time has proved which are best to use.

Cash

On Dec 31, 12:17 pm,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

The last two houses that I have seen built around here have a plywood
roof covered in copper sheet or copper tiles. They should not need
painting.

D.M. Procida wrote:
This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

One of the things that really hit me on a visit to Latvia was the number
of painted roofs. Mostly red. But I did not get to see what was under
the paint - maybe galvanised panels? (I think I could see seams on some
of them.) And many others had obvious corrugated sheets.

If the panels could be made full length (from ridge to gutter), it could
make sense. Even better if the sheet edges could be non-flat (like tiles
- with some waviness or shaped edges) so that there isn't a simple
overlap. But even then, one of the biggest problems is expansion and
contraction - over the temperature range of a typical roof I'd guess
that was pretty considerable.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Rod" wrote in message
...
D.M. Procida wrote:
This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

One of the things that really hit me on a visit to Latvia was the number
of painted roofs. Mostly red. But I did not get to see what was under the
paint - maybe galvanised panels? (I think I could see seams on some of
them.) And many others had obvious corrugated sheets.

If the panels could be made full length (from ridge to gutter), it could
make sense. Even better if the sheet edges could be non-flat (like tiles -
with some waviness or shaped edges) so that there isn't a simple overlap.
But even then, one of the biggest problems is expansion and contraction -
over the temperature range of a typical roof I'd guess that was pretty
considerable.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

we seem to be stuck in a methodology which requires all parts of a house to
be handled by hand.

I recently saw a (temporary) structure for a supermarket which was
undergoing development - it was build from foam filled aluminium panels
about 20 feet by 10 feet - and 5 inches thick. Insulation would have been
good.

wrote:
D.M. Procida wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

What you describe sounds like the precursor of roofing felt. The roof
was boarded and painted with bitumen. To make it last longer it was
then sprinkled with sand. Yes, it works, but felt is less likely to
leak.

The Bradford stadium *that burnt down* in the 80s and was built before
WW1 had a bitumen painted tarpaulin as a roof covering.


And that is probably one reason its not standard practice. Fire.



NT

In message , Rod
writes
D.M. Procida wrote:
This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...
I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply,
using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?
It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a
roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.
I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that
has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?
Daniele

One of the things that really hit me on a visit to Latvia was the
number of painted roofs. Mostly red. But I did not get to see what was
under the paint - maybe galvanised panels? (I think I could see seams
on some of them.) And many others had obvious corrugated sheets.

If the panels could be made full length (from ridge to gutter), it
could make sense. Even better if the sheet edges could be non-flat
(like tiles - with some waviness or shaped edges) so that there isn't a
simple overlap. But even then, one of the biggest problems is expansion
and contraction - over the temperature range of a typical roof I'd
guess that was pretty considerable.

You can easily get plastic coated, galvanised, rolled steel sheeting in
a variety of colours and finishes. Pan tile effect, slate etc. Some are
manufactured with a sandwich of insulating material to meet the building
regs. Mostly targeted at industrial or agricultural use and they don't
seem to have solved guttering related to domestic property issues.

There is just the teeny problem of satisfying town planning officers.

I was slightly surprised to find complete *villas* constructed of box
section rolled steel sheet in Tobago but I guess planning rules are a
bit less rigid there.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:14 +0000
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

I remember watching a (Norm Abrams) American program once where they
built an entire house with stressed-skin panels. Each prefab wall and
roof panel was plywood-skinned over a foam core edged with timber. They
were bolted together, and down to the foundations. The panels were
huge, so the constructors used a large mobile crane, but the basic
structure only took a few hours to do.

The roof was pre-covered with felt shingles, IIRC.

I've used light stressed-skin panels in constructions and they are
excellent in all respects. I would think a 12mm plywood skin over a
150mm core will easily carry a couple of guys jumping up and down - and
you get 150mm of foam insulation thrown in.

R.

In article
,
Matty F wrote:
It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a
roof, make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal
where their edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof
paint.

The last two houses that I have seen built around here have a plywood
roof covered in copper sheet or copper tiles. They should not need
painting.

Not convenient or cheap, then?

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John wrote:
I recently saw a (temporary) structure for a supermarket which was
undergoing development - it was build from foam filled aluminium panels
about 20 feet by 10 feet - and 5 inches thick. Insulation would have
been good.

And I'll bet it leaked at the joins in short order. It's near impossible
to cope with the expansion such panels suffer in the sun. A small leak in
a warehouse isn't so important as in a house.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2008-12-30, D.M. Procida
wrote:
This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It is possible. Most American houses have roofs constructed this way. They
last
about 10 years.


--
"Please try to understand, the one you call Messiah is a lie."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

And many American homes have that superb benefit - A basement! Somewhere for
the C/H Boiler - somewhere for hobbies and storage. I would love one. I
think our dirty damp cellars of the Victorian era put us off cellars. They
could work well with decent materials and design.

what's the difference between a cellar and a basement?

The cellar here has lime mortar walls so damp can seep in
even when I've filled in the holes...

How can it be improved?

And many American homes have that superb benefit - A basement! Somewhere for
the C/H Boiler - somewhere for hobbies and storage. I would love one. I
think our dirty damp cellars of the Victorian era put us off cellars. They
could work well with decent materials and design.

John wrote:
"Rod" wrote in message
...
D.M. Procida wrote:
This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele
One of the things that really hit me on a visit to Latvia was the number
of painted roofs. Mostly red. But I did not get to see what was under the
paint - maybe galvanised panels? (I think I could see seams on some of
them.) And many others had obvious corrugated sheets.

If the panels could be made full length (from ridge to gutter), it could
make sense. Even better if the sheet edges could be non-flat (like tiles -
with some waviness or shaped edges) so that there isn't a simple overlap.
But even then, one of the biggest problems is expansion and contraction -
over the temperature range of a typical roof I'd guess that was pretty
considerable.


we seem to be stuck in a methodology which requires all parts of a house to
be handled by hand.

I recently saw a (temporary) structure for a supermarket which was
undergoing development - it was build from foam filled aluminium panels
about 20 feet by 10 feet - and 5 inches thick. Insulation would have been
good.



And I just visited our local Sainsbury store - which is a temporary
structure. From inside it feels as if the roof is actually inflatable.
But the walls are fairly obviously foam filled ali (or similar).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29975757@N06/2802923182/

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"george (dicegeorge)" wrote in message
...
what's the difference between a cellar and a basement?

The cellar here has lime mortar walls so damp can seep in
even when I've filled in the holes...

How can it be improved?

And many American homes have that superb benefit - A basement! Somewhere
for the C/H Boiler - somewhere for hobbies and storage. I would love one.
I think our dirty damp cellars of the Victorian era put us off cellars.
They could work well with decent materials and design.

I don't think you will fix it - but for a new build it should be possible to
properly 'tank' it and have proper ventilation (for the boiler). Perhaps
having it only three quarters below ground also helps.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:14 +0000, D.M. Procida wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

I'd guess almost certainly maintenance and upkeep. A tiled roof will sit
there for decades with little or no maintenance requirement.

My last house had a felted roof on stramit board. Built in the late 60s,
and the stramit was showing signs of water ingress at the apex and around
the chimney. We moved coz I didn't want the expense of putting on a new
roof.


--

The Wanderer

Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool
Than to open it and remove all doubt (Mark Twain)

In article ,
george (dicegeorge) wrote:
what's the difference between a cellar and a basement?

Think a cellar is only for storage - coal, wine, etc.
A basement is habitable. Hopefully.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The. Wanderer wrote:
My last house had a felted roof on stramit board. Built in the late 60s,
and the stramit was showing signs of water ingress at the apex and around
the chimney. We moved coz I didn't want the expense of putting on a new
roof.

Surely moving is far more expensive than a new roof - unless you wanted to
move anyway?

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:14 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity. As others have remarked the
slate or tile roof can last hundreds of years with only little
maintenance. My own home is well over a hundred years old and apart
from a few loose slates after a storm last year has had little
attention. I can't see a wooden roof lasting more than a few years at
most without needing repair.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:14 +0000, D.M. Procida wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Daniele

I believe your idea was fairly popular in the former East Germany. where
they put felt on boards on a pitched roof.





--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

Alang wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:14 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity. As others have remarked the
slate or tile roof can last hundreds of years with only little
maintenance. My own home is well over a hundred years old and apart
from a few loose slates after a storm last year has had little
attention. I can't see a wooden roof lasting more than a few years at
most without needing repair.

Cedar is good on a south facing gable for about 80 years, but abut 60%
of that on a north facing gable.

The worst roof is felt, then thatch, then shingle, then corrugated iron,
then tiles then slates, then lead/copper, as far as I am aware,
longevity wise.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:52:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Alang wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:14 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

This may turn out to be a stupid question, but I have nothing to
prove...

I don't understand why it isn't possible to make roofs cheaply, using
board materials instead of tiles or glass fibre. It's possible to make
boats waterproof, with appropriate sealing materials and pain, so why
not roofs, which have to deal with a lot less water?

It would be convenient and cheap to put large plywood boards on a roof,
make sure that there's some kind of overlap or flexible seal where their
edges meet, and finish them with thoroughly waterproof paint.

I'm assuming that I'm not a genius who has thought of something that has
never occurred to anyone else, and there is a reason why this isn't done
- what is it?

Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity. As others have remarked the
slate or tile roof can last hundreds of years with only little
maintenance. My own home is well over a hundred years old and apart
from a few loose slates after a storm last year has had little
attention. I can't see a wooden roof lasting more than a few years at
most without needing repair.

Cedar is good on a south facing gable for about 80 years, but abut 60%
of that on a north facing gable.

Yes. I've heard of roofs being covered in overlapping wooden splits.
Just didn't know what wood. I've seen oak last untreated over a
century on the south face of a building but that would be an expensive
option

The worst roof is felt, then thatch, then shingle, then corrugated iron,
then tiles then slates, then lead/copper, as far as I am aware,
longevity wise.

There are tiles made from resin and powder to mimic slates. Much
lighter though and as yet no knowledge of their useful life. Our local
buiding control office has warned against using them in some
circumstances. Can't recall what they were though.

In article ,
Alang wrote:
There are tiles made from resin and powder to mimic slates. Much
lighter though and as yet no knowledge of their useful life. Our local
buiding control office has warned against using them in some
circumstances. Can't recall what they were though.

I've got an artificial slate roof here - it's very popular in London. It's
about 20 years old and seems to be holding up pretty well. I dunno where
they'd not be suitable as a replacement (unless a listed building etc) -
they're pretty strong.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:22:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Alang wrote:
There are tiles made from resin and powder to mimic slates. Much
lighter though and as yet no knowledge of their useful life. Our local
buiding control office has warned against using them in some
circumstances. Can't recall what they were though.

I've got an artificial slate roof here - it's very popular in London. It's
about 20 years old and seems to be holding up pretty well. I dunno where
they'd not be suitable as a replacement (unless a listed building etc) -
they're pretty strong.

Something to do with the load bearing properties of the roof timbers
as I recall. You need to get permission to change them anyway
according to the leaflet in the library

The message
from Alang contains these words:


Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity.

20-25 years if your lucky.

The message
from "george (dicegeorge)" contains these words:

what's the difference between a cellar and a basement?

Cellar is completely below ground level

Basement only partially below ground level -- would expect to have
windows above ground level.

In article ,
Alang wrote:
I've got an artificial slate roof here - it's very popular in London.
It's about 20 years old and seems to be holding up pretty well. I dunno
where they'd not be suitable as a replacement (unless a listed building
etc) - they're pretty strong.

Something to do with the load bearing properties of the roof timbers
as I recall. You need to get permission to change them anyway
according to the leaflet in the library

They're lighter than slate - and much lighter than concrete or clay tiles.
The problem used to be where people used cheaper concrete tiles to replace
slate - the roof structure sometimes couldn't take the extra weight.

Of course if the original was, say, clay tiles, you may well need
permission to change the look by going to imitation slate or whatever -
perhaps in a conservation area.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Appin wrote:
The message
from Alang contains these words:

Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity.

20-25 years if your lucky.

No, it's better than that.

Cedar is somewhat anti-fungal, and rooves don't normally stay
consistently wet.

I coudnt fine out how long my shingle roof had been up before I ripped
thehouse down, but it was for sure longer than that.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:32:58 +0000, a certain chimpanzee, TheOldFellow
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I've used light stressed-skin panels in constructions and they are
excellent in all respects. I would think a 12mm plywood skin over a
150mm core will easily carry a couple of guys jumping up and down - and
you get 150mm of foam insulation thrown in.

Like http://www.tek.kingspan.com/uk/index.htm you mean?
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed"?

John wrote:
SNIP

we seem to be stuck in a methodology which requires all parts of a
house to be handled by hand.

I recently saw a (temporary) structure for a supermarket which was
undergoing development - it was build from foam filled aluminium
panels about 20 feet by 10 feet - and 5 inches thick. Insulation
would have been good.

Ever seen a McDonalds being built? I've seen two around here. Groundwork
is finished, huge crane & several lorries turn up and complete finished
walls are lifted into place. Never seen the roof go on, but I'd guess it
was a similar idea.

From groundwork finish to complete building seems to be a matter of days
rather than weeks or months.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:
John wrote:
SNIP

we seem to be stuck in a methodology which requires all parts of a
house to be handled by hand.

I recently saw a (temporary) structure for a supermarket which was
undergoing development - it was build from foam filled aluminium
panels about 20 feet by 10 feet - and 5 inches thick. Insulation
would have been good.

Ever seen a McDonalds being built? I've seen two around here. Groundwork
is finished, huge crane & several lorries turn up and complete finished
walls are lifted into place. Never seen the roof go on, but I'd guess it
was a similar idea.

From groundwork finish to complete building seems to be a matter of days
rather than weeks or months.


I am told it has been done in fourteen days, but they normally allow
four weeks from completion of floor slab to opening, to include a week
of staff training.

The nearest thing I have seen is the assembly of a Huf Haus.

http://www.huf-haus.com/gb/intro.html

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:50:52 +0000
abuse@localhost wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:32:58 +0000, a certain chimpanzee, TheOldFellow
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I've used light stressed-skin panels in constructions and they are
excellent in all respects. I would think a 12mm plywood skin over a
150mm core will easily carry a couple of guys jumping up and down - and
you get 150mm of foam insulation thrown in.

Like http://www.tek.kingspan.com/uk/index.htm you mean?

Yes! I didn't know about those. Thanks.

R.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Appin wrote:
The message
from Alang contains these words:

Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity.

20-25 years if your lucky.

No, it's better than that.

Cedar is somewhat anti-fungal, and rooves don't normally stay
consistently wet.

I coudnt fine out how long my shingle roof had been up before I ripped
thehouse down, but it was for sure longer than that.

We're talking at cross purposes here.

"The general use of "shingles" when referring to a North American roof
is a reference to "asbestos-felt shingles" -- a strip of felt with a
mineral dressing, made to look like three or four slates in a horzonal
row. These strips are stapled and stuck down on the roof. Depending on
the quality they'll have different lengths of warranty, but 20-25 years
for the better ones is par for the course. Very often the next layer is
simply put on on top of the worn-out previous layer.

Wooden shingles generally go on the walls of some very
traditional-looking houses. These are sawn, tapered, slate-like pieces
of (usually) cedar which wouldn't do on a roof at all.

What traditionally went on roofs were shakes which are much more
expensive, much thicker, riven "shakes" which are much more durable.

In article ,
Alang writes:
Looking at American DIY programs on TV I saw quite a few houses being
built using boards for the roof and 'shingles' to cover them. The
shingles taking the place of tiles or slates. The system seems to work
okay but I did wonder about longevity. As others have remarked the
slate or tile roof can last hundreds of years with only little
maintenance. My own home is well over a hundred years old and apart
from a few loose slates after a storm last year has had little
attention. I can't see a wooden roof lasting more than a few years at
most without needing repair.

Traditionally, English homes were built with design lives of 200 years.
They don't all make it by any means for a variety of reasons and they
don't expect to last that long with no maintenance, but that figure
governed the design of the structure and choice of materials.

Many homes in the US (at least the areas I go to) aren't designed to
last anything like that long, perhaps 50 years tops. There's no point
putting a roof lasting 100 years on a home designed to last 50 years.
Tearing down and rebuilding a home on a plot there seems much more
common than it is here, and it's probably much cheaper than it would
be here. Heck, they even get the termites to do the tearing down ;-)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2009-01-04, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Tearing down and rebuilding a home on a plot there seems much more
common than it is here, and it's probably much cheaper than it would
be here.

They're called "scrapers". You buy the house for the plot it's standing
on,
scrape the old house off with a bulldozer and build a new house.

--
"Please try to understand, the one you call Messiah is a lie."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

They seem to be less sentimental about the structure - more concerned with
the inside.

Having seen industrial steel framed building being constructed in few days,
I can't understand why the UK doesn't adopt some of the principles. Steel
frame, Insulated large panels, etc.

Did you see that TV programme recently of estate being built in USA? Started
with a factory at the centre with craneage - houses built inside the factory
and then moved out on bogies to the pre laid footings. No working in the
cold and wet. Houses dry from the outset.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:04:40 -0000, "John"
wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2009-01-04, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Tearing down and rebuilding a home on a plot there seems much more
common than it is here, and it's probably much cheaper than it would
be here.

They're called "scrapers". You buy the house for the plot it's standing
on,
scrape the old house off with a bulldozer and build a new house.

--
"Please try to understand, the one you call Messiah is a lie."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

They seem to be less sentimental about the structure - more concerned with
the inside.

Having seen industrial steel framed building being constructed in few days,
I can't understand why the UK doesn't adopt some of the principles. Steel
frame, Insulated large panels, etc.

Did you see that TV programme recently of estate being built in USA? Started
with a factory at the centre with craneage - houses built inside the factory
and then moved out on bogies to the pre laid footings. No working in the
cold and wet. Houses dry from the outset.


There is an estate of WW2 prefab houses in the area I grew up that are
still standing. The LA housing dept refurbished them a few years ago
instead of knocking them down. Proves prefab building methods can
work.