Frank wrote:
> <<I used a fiber cement shake>> I think Stuart was quoting Eric?, who,
> mentioned fiber cement concrete shakes had a lot going for them. OK I'll
> bite...are such shakes costly? How much ? Would they be appropriate for a
> rain water collection system? Would they be easy to install/labor
efficient?
> What guarantees/warranties do you get from the manufacturer? you selected ?
> What about cracking...seems like fiber could eliminate that problem but I'm
> not sure.
> I'm planning on a metal roof...but I do like the shake look better if costs
> are similar and if fiber cement can be used without fear for rainwater
> collection. Are there any chemicals, binders etc. that could leach that
might
> prove harmful or difficult to filter ?
Hi, Frank. Based on what I know of your situation, I think you'll prefer
the metal roof. But, for your information, I'll answer the above
questions, so that you can decide.
Cost? I paid $145/square (100s.f.) and thought it was comparable, but you
have to look at the detailing of the metal roof (simple roofs are much
cheaper) and labor.
Rain water collection system? I was told that it is chemically inert.
They are made from roughly 85% wood fiber and 15% cement with some binders
and pigments. They would not divulge company secrets and tell me what the
binders were, but they told me they had done tesing on run off and said
there was no problem. It wouldn't hurt to double check.
Installaton? I did it myself, and it was a lot of work; metal would be
much easier. If you hire it out, metal will be cheaper.
Warranties? James Hardi Company gives a 50 year warranty, and I am told by
building supplier that they have a good reputation.
Problems? The company has shortened the recommended exposure distance on
each shake (now shingle and slate) to avoid curling. If kept wet, they
could support fungii and therefore might become brittle. It is a heavy
material to transport. There has been some debate over how much of the
wood fiber is from "waste". It is mass produced, and probably not locally
for you. Our local codes (high fire danger her in California in the summer
and fall) are very restrictive on roofing materials, so many of the
eco-alternatives were not possible for us.
Pros? It is said not to rot, warp or burn. I guess those assume the
average life time of a house and average conditions. We used scraps as
backing during pipe soldering, and it did not burn, but I'm sure if you got
it hot enough . . . I saw a scrap that was burried in the soil during our
rainy season, and it had fungii growing on it. But, I have not heard
complaints from anyone under normal conditions. I found them easy to work
with (nailing, cutting, dropping, and walking on them), but labor intensive
to install - one by one. A simple gable roof, is not too bad; my wife and
I did our garage roof (16' x 20' @ 9:12 pitch = 5 sqaures?) in about 6 days.
I don't have a big problem recommending them, but there are more
sustainable options if they are permitted in your area and you can deal
with the pros and cons. Metal, over all, is probably about the same as
fiber cement, and they would be my top two recommendations for mass
produced, standard products.
We used the same material, in plank form, as siding. Solid wood siding is
expensive and has all of the negative attributes of using wood. Masonite
type sidings do not last, and therfore cause you to replace (use more
resources) than necessary. Aluminum and vinyl siding, I feel, are too
energy and resoure intensive, and use more questionable materials. Stucco
(plasters, etc.) is a good option, I think. If I had had more time and
courage, I would have done the stucco myself - a lot of work, but we could
not afford to hire it. Our original desgin withh straw bales would have
been stucco.
Eric:
