PVC days limited?

I'd regret seeing this thread disintegrate because I'm finding information in it that is valuable even though I don't do singleply systems myself. Here's a quote from Tom:

"I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another..."

That would be marketing at work, or, translated, allowing marketing goals to supercede ethical considerations. I could say asphalt shingles are a good thing and keep my fingers crossed while avoiding thinking about the fact they don't come from a renewable source and have to be changed out every twenty or thirty years. I could say cedar shingles are a good thing and keep my fingers crossed while avoiding thinking about all the clear-cut slopes that aren't producing new healthy forest ecosystems anytime soon. I love cedar shakes and shingles. I could keep my fingers crossed while trying not to think of how they, too, have to be changed out every generation.

I always find it better to tell the truth to clients and others, even if it means that a clear answer is problemmatic. "Marketing" as I interpret it here means saying whatever you think will put you in a better light and increase sales, offering mutually exclusive opinions in different markets, or having no belief whatsoever and pretending to one or more of them as need dictates.

In everyday language that would be called hypocrisy or speaking with a forked tongue. Marketing in my opinion isn't inherently bad, but it's a little dangerous. Actually, anytime we manipulate the truth we're taking a moral risk. "Nice contradiction between fact and fact will make the whole read human and exact."

I'm enjoying the discussion from the sidelines, though. Don't quit now.

clvr83 Said:

Mike H Said:with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

I was referring to TPO vs PVC labor, because Ive done a bunch of TPO. But thanks for the reply. I already expect this is a change that Ill wish Id done sooner.

Sorry, didn't catch that. No difference. Some guys like welding TPO, some like PVC. It's not that one's harder than the other, just a little different. TPO tends to have a narrower welding window but also welds at a little lower temps. On the other hand a high KEE sheet has a pretty narrow window and is susceptible to false welds if guys don't take their probing seriously.

Then there's Sarnafil, which has to be taken to smoking temps in order to weld right, and to TomB's point, that black, foul smelling, ,chlorine laden smoke probably aint too good for anyone.

But, once you're onto any one of them, there's no difference.

TomB,

I really don't understand the attitude in your replies to me?

It's not at all about fun, fighting, defending or whatever you think is going on here. Nor from my end is it about big business, small business, progressives or capitalists. We're all in business to survive financially, one way or another.

You asked a question that's being discussed. You made a statement I wanted to know more about. When I try to make it a discussion instead of an opinion-statement, you sound more like a dog backed into a corner than a guy that wants to have a legitimate conversation about roofing materials. I suspect that ISO and darn near every product we use on a roof is bad for our environment. Are they better or worse than PVC? Fact is,... I don't know know. I hoped you did.

If you don't want to discuss it, then why ask the question and why throw out statements you don't want to delve into?

I could say Coloradoans are all pot smoking, gun hating, enviro-whacko, flaming liberals that don't want to face facts, but it wouldn't make it true just because I said it. With a lot of family on the front range, and a few good friends on the back side, I know a few that fit that bill, and I know more than a few that don't. Met a few in Ohio too.

I just wanted to know why you thought KEE, or whatever it was you were referring to, was nothing more than a marketing ploy and if it was a statement you were applying to Carlisle only or the entire pvc roofing industry as a whole? Really. It was as simple as that. I'm a curious guy, and I wanted to discuss it. I find it a lot more interesting than shingles.

If we could eliminate plastics altogether, it might not be a bad thing. I don't know if a "good" plastic exists, but we'd give up an awful lot in the process getting rid of them.

While I much prefer the feel of metals and leather and natural fabrics, which is worse, the air pollution and landscape destruction that goes with steel and aluminum production, or putting plastic in our landfills and littering our waters and landscapes? I dunno, honestly. We were destroying the environment long before polymer science took off.

If we were to really dig deep into the heart of the question, when a person considers that almost all of our polymers are oil derivatives, and the asphalt of our forefathers is a thing of past due to the vast improvements in refinery capability to separate out the chemicals used in these polymers... could it be that the old asphalt grandpa used, and the asphalt we pave our roads with, is just as bad for our environment as PVC? Maybe.!? How much more green house gas and damage would we do if we only used glass bottles, returned them all, washed them before using again? How much more would they cost? Maybe we should use cowhide water bags rubbed with seal blubber. How much more methane would be produced from the additional cows, and how many more trees would be cut to open the fields for hay and grain to feed them?

Maybe in an effort to support the growing human population, plastics offer the lesser of all available evils when looking at the big picture. ? . ? Again, I dunno.

The truth is that I don't know all of the "We all know's..." in your last post, and I don't know if you get your info from PETA, the NFIB, the FFA, the NRA or Grandmammies Anonymous. But I was willing to listen.

Mike H Said:

TomB Said:

The bottom line, is that the 20 yr. old debate on PVC continues. There are always two sides to an opposition. Undoubtedly, PVC is not a healthy material. However, PVC is everywhere, in everything & has huge supporters, (primarily big biz - those that profit from it).

Many countries, major cities & fortune 500 companies have banned or instilled policies in attempts to phase-out pvc. Europe has adopted a uPVC classification/category which stands for un-plasticized PVC, in attempts to curtail the frenzy, so-to-speak.

I read where 10-12 yrs ago, Firestone had committed to phase-out PVCs, (referencing particularly roofing materials). It appears theyve held to their promise.

I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another. My personal affiliation has demonstrated, same company has drastically different marketing approaches in different regions of the USA, as well.

Companies have HUGE investments in product production/marketing programs/client loyalty/image, etc.

How can it NOT be about marketing? I dont get it.

Not sure I completely understand, as I thought you were saying Carlisles new material push all about the marketing. But if I understand what youre saying, unplasticized PVC aint so bad? Phthalate is bad stuff. No doubt about it, so I would tend to agree that pvcs that use it arent all that good either. ie: durolast.

But Fibertite, using virgin pvc and KEE (KEE is not migratory and a solid at ambient temperatures, and very non-reactive) has not phthalate to my knowledge, and any product using KEE in lower percentages would also have to use less phthalate.

In 97 or 98 I was golfing with then Firestone BP division Pres. Paul Mineart. We did a fair amount of Ultraply 78 at the time but Fibertite was still the bulk of our pvc. When he wanted to know what they could do to get a bigger chunk of that business I told him, Stop buying from Cooley and start making your own. I hate using private labelled products because I dont like being in a situation where finger pointing can occur.

He said then, Mike, we are committed to a KEE sheet. Its just better, but KEE is very hard to formulate and we have not been successful formulating the product. Until we can get it right, well continue with the Cooley sheet.

It was very shortly thereafter that FBPco stopped offering that product.

Maybe the clorine represents a long term hazard in the landfill, but KEE sheets are proven to leach slower, deteriorate slower and just make a better product, so Id still contend that the push toward KEE is not a marketing ploy, but a legitimate effort to make and promote a better product. Even DL, as I was told from a highly involved individual is trying to formulate elvaloy into their product.

Mike, Ok - Fun is fun, but enough is enough. I don't have a dog in this fight. One could blather-on defensively/offensively on the merits/pitfalls of PVC's forever.

Bottom line; We all know PVC works well as a roofing material, is overall superior economically, (best bang for the buck), - Makes manufactures, suppliers, contractors lot's of money. We also know PVC's aren't healthy. Will the godless progressives or heartless capitalists win-out?

TomB Said:

The bottom line, is that the 20 yr. old debate on PVC continues. There are always two sides to an opposition. Undoubtedly, PVC is not a healthy material. However, PVC is everywhere, in everything & has huge supporters, (primarily big biz - those that profit from it).

Many countries, major cities & fortune 500 companies have banned or instilled policies in attempts to phase-out pvc. Europe has adopted a uPVC classification/category which stands for un-plasticized PVC, in attempts to curtail the frenzy, so-to-speak.

I read where 10-12 yrs ago, Firestone had committed to phase-out PVCs, (referencing particularly roofing materials). It appears theyve held to their promise.

I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another. My personal affiliation has demonstrated, same company has drastically different marketing approaches in different regions of the USA, as well.

Companies have HUGE investments in product production/marketing programs/client loyalty/image, etc.

How can it NOT be about marketing? I dont get it.

Not sure I completely understand, as I thought you were saying Carlisle's new material push "all about the marketing". But if I understand what you're saying, unplasticized PVC ain't so bad? Phthalate is bad stuff. No doubt about it, so I would tend to agree that pvc's that use it aren't all that good either. ie: durolast.

But Fibertite, using virgin pvc and KEE (KEE is not migratory and a solid at ambient temperatures, and very non-reactive) has not phthalate to my knowledge, and any product using KEE in lower percentages would also have to use less phthalate.

In '97 or '98 I was golfing with then Firestone BP division Pres. Paul Mineart. We did a fair amount of Ultraply 78 at the time but Fibertite was still the bulk of our "pvc". When he wanted to know what they could do to get a bigger chunk of that business I told him, "Stop buying from Cooley and start making your own. I hate using private labelled products because I don't like being in a situation where finger pointing can occur.

He said then, "Mike, we are committed to a KEE sheet. It's just better, but KEE is very hard to formulate and we have not been successful formulating the product. Until we can get it right, we'll continue with the Cooley sheet."

It was very shortly thereafter that FBPco stopped offering that product.

Maybe the clorine represents a long term hazard in the landfill, but KEE sheets are proven to leach slower, deteriorate slower and just make a better product, so I'd still contend that the push toward KEE is not a marketing ploy, but a legitimate effort to make and promote a better product. Even DL, as I was told from a highly involved individual is trying to formulate elvaloy into their product.

Mike H Said:

TomB Said:

Oops! Sorry for the whimsical retort. Didnt mean any harm.

I couldnt find where you answered a question of mine(?). To reiterate-Let me re-phrase: My question would be if anyone had an opinion as to the viability of the notion of PVCs demise due to the global tree-hugger mentality.

From page 1 TPO from what I understand has been mftd in Europe for years, and has indeed performed very well. The problem isnt so much TPO, but rather the fact that its been manufactured to be the LOW COST leader in the US. When made to higher standards, a standard that is unsupported by the US market price point, it can be a good product.

Plus I thought the other writings at least contributed to the spirit of the question.

I dont think PVC is going anywhere soon. Its been too good for too long. A very strong case is made for a PVC thats 30+ years old, of which I have many, vs. a TPO that is proving to fail in as few as 8 years. The simple question is: Whats cleaner and greener, the roof that stays on the roof, or the roof that goes in the landfill?

Why do you think its all about marketing?

The bottom line, is that the 20 yr. old debate on PVC continues. There are always two sides to an opposition. Undoubtedly, PVC is not a healthy material. However, PVC is everywhere, in everything & has huge supporters, (primarily big biz - those that profit from it).

Many countries, major cities & fortune 500 companies have banned or instilled policies in attempts to phase-out pvc. Europe has adopted a uPVC classification/category which stands for un-plasticized PVC, in attempts to curtail the frenzy, so-to-speak.

I read where 10-12 yrs ago, Firestone had committed to phase-out PVC's, (referencing particularly roofing materials). It appears they've held to their promise.

I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another. My personal affiliation has demonstrated, same company has drastically different marketing approaches in different regions of the USA, as well.

Companies have HUGE investments in product production/marketing programs/client loyalty/image, etc.

How can it NOT be about marketing? I don't get it.

Mike H Said:with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

I was referring to TPO vs PVC labor, because I've done a bunch of TPO. But thanks for the reply. I already expect this is a change that I'll wish I'd done sooner.

TomB Said:

Oops! Sorry for the whimsical retort. Didnt mean any harm.

I couldnt find where you answered a question of mine(?). To reiterate-Let me re-phrase: My question would be if anyone had an opinion as to the viability of the notion of PVCs demise due to the global tree-hugger mentality.

From page 1 "TPO from what I understand has been mft'd in Europe for years, and has indeed performed very well. The problem isn't so much TPO, but rather the fact that it's been manufactured to be the LOW COST leader in the US. When made to higher standards, a standard that is unsupported by the US market price point, it can be a good product."

Plus I thought the other writings at least contributed to the spirit of the question.

I don't think PVC is going anywhere soon. It's been too good for too long. A very strong case is made for a PVC that's 30+ years old, of which I have many, vs. a TPO that is proving to fail in as few as 8 years. The simple question is: What's cleaner and "greener", the roof that stays on the roof, or the roof that goes in the landfill?

Why do you think it's all about marketing?

Mike H Said:

TomB Said:

Mike H Said:

TomB Said: Mike,

Agreed - Except for the fact it is indeed all about marketing

Why do you feel that way?

Oh - I forgot; Its for world peace. ;)

I took the time to answer your question. Dont know why mine deserves such a snide effort in return. ???

Oops! Sorry for the whimsical retort. Didn't mean any harm.

I couldn't find where you "answered" a question of mine(?). To reiterate-Let me re-phrase: My "question" would be if anyone had an opinion as to the viability of the notion of PVC's demise due to the global tree-hugger mentality.

Mike H Said:

clvr83 Said: Definitely less labor with PVC? If so, thats surprising considering basic 60mil PVC isnt much more.

Yes. No priming. no rolling, no taping... just running a heat welder down the seam. You have to probe the seam, which could correlate to the rolling, but it goes quicker and takes much less effort... ie: no carpal tunnel WC claims. Plus the cost of tape, glues, and all the other accessories that goes with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

A lot more pleasant to work with too !!

clvr83 Said: Definitely less labor with PVC? If so, thats surprising considering basic 60mil PVC isnt much more.

Yes. No priming. no rolling, no taping... just running a heat welder down the seam. You have to probe the seam, which could correlate to the rolling, but it goes quicker and takes much less effort... ie: no carpal tunnel WC claims. Plus the cost of tape, glues, and all the other accessories that goes with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

TomB Said:

Mike H Said:

TomB Said: Mike,

Agreed - Except for the fact it is indeed all about marketing

Why do you feel that way?

Oh - I forgot; Its for world peace. ;)

I took the time to answer your question. Don't know why mine deserves such a snide effort in return. ???

Mike H Said:

TomB Said: Mike,

Agreed - Except for the fact it is indeed all about marketing

Why do you feel that way?

Oh - I forgot; It's for world peace. ;)

Definitely less labor with PVC? If so, that's surprising considering basic 60mil PVC isn't much more.

clvr83 Said: Ive finally had enough and tracked down pricing on Carlisle PVC. None of the locals can get it, so I finally got an distributor from a couple hours away. Its really not much more!

Could you guys tell me if the labor is comparable? Im a fully adhered type of guy, but most of the installs I see online are MA. Any comments?

I actually prefer a MA in PVC just because I don't have a lot of long term faith in the adhesives.

Labor is definitely less.