Shingle weight

I heard the other day of Timberlines weighing just 219 lbs. per sq. From the MC, IN plant. Anyone checking their weights? LM from Avery BTW was 241>>>

About 3/8>>>

1 centimeter = 0.393700787 inches>>>

:laugh:

How much is 20 centimeters?????? (? for Vaa or Smudge or someone from Ye Olde Country)>>>

Bubbadamus predicts that in ten years, shingles will weigh 23.2 kilos a (metric) square. Most of the weight will consists of multiple seal down strips. They will have a 20 centimeter nail line and the mat will be fabricated from recycled disposable diapers. They will come with a 400 year warranty, the details of which will be contained in a 1500 page document written in Chinese and authored by a Philadelphia attorney.>>>

I thought 1/4" penetration was good enough.

I'd still like to hear about this "improved matting" and how it is relevant. Does it allow more asphalt to "cling"? Or what? Does it add waterpfroofing in place of asphalt?

For now, for the same price, I'll happily sell a 240 lb. shingle for the same price as a 220 lb. shingles.>>>

The following article came from: http://www.usinspect.com/Roof/RoofMaterials.asp

Asphalt composition shingles are the most common type of roofing material used in the country today. They vary in weight, color and design. The weight of a standard asphalt composition shingle before 1973 was 240 pounds per square (of coverage); modern standard shingles weigh approximately 190 pounds, depending on the manufacturer.

The oil embargo of the early 1970s wreaked havoc in the asphalt shingle industry. The shingles, at that time, were composed of an asphalt-saturated cellulose matrix, and slate or stone granules adhered to the matrix to protect it. Due to the fact that asphalt is a petroleum product, the shingle manufacturers were at the mercy of the oil industry and its politics. In an effort to minimize the cost problems, they redesigned their shingles to be less dependent on the oil industry. The plan was to use less asphalt in the shingles without sacrificing strength and durability. The product that evolved had a fiberglass reinforcement mat in the matrix for strength. This also reduced the weight and thickness of the matrix. But the early versions of the fiberglass-reinforced shingle had problems:

* In some cases, the granules did not adhere properly to the matrix, due to temperature problems.

* Due to the thinner matrix and the fiberglass, the shingles could crack when applied in colder weather. The concussion of the hammer would fracture the fiberglass, since it becomes brittle when the shingles get cold. Nailing guns are somewhat less of a problem, however, the shingles still may crack. These cracks are visible at the nails and may extend horizontally from nail to nail to nail, all the way across the roof.

Modern shingles are sold by the length of their warranty (i.e. 20-year, 25-year and 30-year). The differences are the weight and design of the shingles. 30-year shingles generally do not have the joints between the tabs exposed to the weather.

Obviously, there are wide variations in asphalt shingle roofs. But by and large, asphalt shingle roofs have a life expectancy of 15 to 30 years, depending on the weight of the shingles, slope of the roof, exposure to the sun, color, and weather and climate conditions.

In southern climates, such as Florida, it is not unusual for asphalt shingles to fail in 12 to 14 years. In northern climates, such as Massachusetts and New York, higher sloped roofs with an eastern and or northern exposure can last 25 years. These shingles can be expected to deteriorate as the petroleum and composition fiber base, of which the shingle matrix is constructed, begins to dry out. When this occurs, the shingles begin to curl, cup, split and lose their granules. Loss of granules between the shingle tabs is the most conclusive evidence you have for determining the condition of the shingles. This is normally the first place where failures occur. Re shingling can be done, either by applying another layer of shingles over the existing roof (as long as the existing shingles are laying reasonably flat or if there is only one layer of shingles on the roof) or by tearing off the existing roofing and applying new shingles. The concerns with two or more layers of asphalt shingles are:

(1) Weight, which can be considerable. Standard shingles weight approximately 190 pounds per 100 square feet (SF), or approximately 2 pounds per SF. A 15 or 16 square roof with 2 layers of standard shingles will have about 6,000 lbs of shingles. This will have more impact on shallow sloped roofs. Roof framing should be designed at 20 pounds per SF, so there is no danger of collapse, however, snow and wind loads may cause deflection. Heavy weight shingles can be 50% heavier than standard or 20-year shingles.

(2) Longer roofing nails should be used to secure the shingles to the wood sheathing. Nails should penetrate the sheathing a minimum of 3/4 inch.h><script src

Onduline were not worthy were not worthy :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :blush: America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy. - John Updike >>>

The Holy Grail: An asphalt shingle w/ no asphalt>>>

Talked to my supplier about this today. Interesting conversation, as always. He worked at IKO and Certainteed. He sez IKO added weight to the cambridge w/ lead at one point. The end of the organic shingle quality was cause 'cuz they ran the line @ 600 feet per minute instead of 300 fpm, which screwed up the saturant process.

He also stated that the objective for the manufacturers is indeed a lightweight shingle, which requires very little asphalt. And as he stated, that is what drove the them to fiberglass. Much less asphalt in the product. I think he stated the organics were over 50% asphalt.

He too goes w/ the argument that weight is not important. I can agree. 'cept as the weight increases so does the warranty. Ain't they talkin' outta both sides of their mouths???

So in short, it ain't the asphalt driving the cost today.

I don't know. Bs? A man just talking? or are you a true conspritorial theorist?>>>

I had an odd batch of Tamko 50's last summer that weighed an awful lot, but crumbled in your hands. They made good on it though. I remember the matt problems of the seventies. No matter how good it is, bare matt doesn't hold up too well so what's covering it needs to be thick and 'juicy'. I don't want them taking 30 lbs. of anything away; they're dicey enough as it is.>>>

Thehy all have a batch weight that can come from a range from a low weuight to the higher weight but most are at or near the lowest batch weight possible.>>>

too complicated. What's the price dif? Kind of like 5 different landmarks?>>>

twill59 Said: I heard the other day of Timberlines weighing just 219 lbs. per sq. From the MC, IN plant. Anyone checking their weights? LM from Avery BTW was 241

I'm a little behind in these matters lately, but GAF/ELK has an "RP" (Raised Profile) designation on one line of their 30 years dims that are lighter weight than the Prestique/Timberline lines. The RP's also have less of a wind warranty.>>>

Lefty- How does the matting allow for less weight? And does this follow throughout the product line then?>>>

i've carried my share of those bad boys, there 85lbs a pop :S>>>