Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RussDaBuss

Shingles Installed over old shingles

10 posts in this topic

Hello All,

I have a question. We have a smaller Cabin and i need to put new shingles on it. Can I install the new shingles right over the existing ones? We are planning on remodeling with in 10 years so then the whole roof will get redone. As for a quik easy install is it all right to leave the old ones on and go over with the new? If so, anything special I should do? I assume no tar paper?? Long nails i would think??

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were you I would go with metal roofing, it will go right over the old shingles with no problems.

I have never heard of laying another layer of shingles over old ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Minnesota code, you can not shingle over shingles. Every brand of shingle I've worked with also states that shingling over shingles will void the warranty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I was not sure. A few people have mentioned to me to possibly do this for a quik fix for a few years BUT I have no experiance with it either.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We put metal roofing over rolled roofing and it works great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be a fairly common practice. You can figure about a 10 year max life out of them.

I have them on my house right now and this fall they will be replaced. 10 years. I did it for a quick fix but ended up staying here longer than I had planned.

Not fun tearing off a double layer !

tweed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be easier to tear it off now, and tear it off again during the remodel, than it will be to pull two layers.

The code for no two layers is only in the hail zone. I have the counties listed, but I don't want to list them all.

As for the metal. It leaks, trust me, you just don't know it yet. It's a quick fix, but not a long term thing, unless it is just a simple two slope cabin that is rarely used. It will either leak or sweat eventually. I have a finished pole barn and I cringe when it rains because I know sooner or later I'll be ripping it all off and recycling it. Then I can put a real roof on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only not code if your area has accepted new codes and lots of minn. isnt under current new codes but there is most likly a code of some type from the county.So it depends where you are.

It was just a few years ago a 2nd layer was accepted but not a third because of weight.Check county codes and if its OK, go for it.There should'nt be much problem for your short time,I have seen go overs last as long as new installs,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been in favor of that practice. First, it adds too much soft cushion under your top layer. When hail hits it, it has a better chance of doing damage. When you walk on it, the shingles will flex too much and this too can cause issues. I've also heard that even though you use longer nails or staples, they are just not as secure and wind damage is more probable. It might be a quick fix but wait until the day you have to hire a contractor to remove a double layer. The cost can be considerably higher and as already mentioned, you won't save in the long run because the life expectency will drop a lot.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info guys!! I will most likely do it the right way and be down with it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors