rumor mill: bye - bye 3 tabs

My one supplier told me he could no longer get 3-tabs. Talked to another and they haven't heard a thing; although they did say it probably wouldn't be too far away till its all dimensionals.

Lanny - same here almost all the way through, only I've never heard of Pabco. All our 3-tab selections have been knocked down too. I always tell homeowners about how the dimensionals look on a low slope - like shit....only in nicer words.

Rumor mill is incorrect as per usual. No problem getting 3-tabs at least in the midwest

"they have the laminated piece on the lower half. When stacked it creates an angle lower than the pitch of the roof. "

The thicker the shingle, the worse the bump. Also, zinc-chromate nails are a bust.

Got a call this week for a leaking porch roof (new installation by another roofer). It is a 20x20 section, 2/12 pitch with OC Duration. Installed like 3-tabs off of 2 vertical lines 6" apart. Water is getting trapped behind the seal down strips via the butt joint and running sideways for 6" till it reaches the other butt joint next row down, or one of the nails. (I tried telling OC Reps a few years ago about this potential problem of having the seal-down totally, continuously hooked up to the plastic nail area of the previous row... - might as well talk to a wall!)

Home owners are unrelenting to my suggestion of a rubber roof - they WANT shingles :blink: So I'm going to use Oakridge instead and install them 19.5" apart (vs 6") and probably 4.5" to the weather. - Hopefully the different layers of the laminated part will help provide gaps in the seal-down to prevent water from being trapped behind it.

Also, I never understood reducing the exposure on 3-tabs because your tar strip wouldn't be at the bottom of the shingle above it. Is there something you do for that?

Ya, I never quite understood double'n up on felt but that's the manuf. instructions. Also, I'm not saying that it's completely right or that 3-tab's are great, but I've got a shingle matrix here that says 3-tabs are more suitable for low slope than dimensional.

Either way, the only thing I'll miss about them is seeing other roofer's water lines. I measured up a church this week that has a 8' wide section on low side of valley that is about 35' long. When it gets to the top they had to add 6 rows of shingles to fill in the gap! in ~8 ft!!

TomB Said: 3-tab are no more suitable for low-slope than dimensionals/architectuals....

BTW; The double-coverage of underlayment thingy, evolved from the original UBC codes referring to double-coverage, (2.5 exsposure), of the SHINGLES, which a few on the site are familiar with, Ive noticed. Makes far more sense than doubling up the felt....LOL!

Right on Tom! And it still works too.

3-tab are no more suitable for low-slope than dimensionals/architectuals....

BTW; The "double-coverage" of underlayment thingy, evolved from the original UBC codes referring to double-coverage, (2.5" exsposure), of the SHINGLES, which a few on the site are familiar with, I've noticed. Makes far more sense than doubling up the felt....LOL!

Yes, same thing. 4/12 and under your supposed to double layer the felt or ice & water dam 100% which isn't my favorite thing. The reason they aren't as good for low pitch in comparison to 3-tab is because they have the laminated piece on the lower half. When stacked it creates an angle lower than the pitch of the roof.

That looks like the same thing I use, GAF Liberty. The problem is that running a base and cap sheet, I've got to run $320 - $380 on average, varying on size and difficulty. I sell quite a bit of it. Is this comparable to others prices?

roof_dawg Said: So what do you all do on 2.5 - 3/12 pitches where dimensional arent really suitable, but they still want shingles?

Sure why not! haha - We did about 16sq today, too.

So what do you all do on 2.5 - 3/12 pitches where dimensional aren't really suitable, but they still want shingles?