Roofing products typically come with warranty coverage that is “Pro-rated”. A pro-rated warranty is one that diminishes in value over time, and is designed to financially protect a roofing company at the expense of customers. A pro-rated warranty means the cost of roofing failures are reimbursed at a small fraction of the real replacement costs in an amount that declines over the length of the warranty. Customers may find that their 50-year warranty only covers a small fraction of the replacement value of a roof in the event of a failure.
Roofing Tips, Roofing News, Roofing Articles
Archive for the ‘Asphalt Roofing’ Category
Pro-rated Vs. Non Pro-rated Roofing Warranties
Thursday, February 11th, 2010 by Mark VanceTags: Interlock Roofing, Non-Protated Warranty, Rooing Warranty
Posted in Asphalt Roofing, Energy Star®, Roofing Landfill, Solar Roofing | 6 Comments »
Aluminum Interlock Roofing
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 by Mark VanceAluminum is a roofing material that can be used in all climate conditions, and is well suited to applications requiring strength, durability, and a light weight. And, aluminum fits the “cradle-to-cradle” environmental criteria. Simply put, this means that existing aluminum materials can be recycled an indeterminate number of times, thereby reducing the pollution required to manufacture and the landfill space needed for disposal. It is worthwhile to note that studies have shown that composition shingles buried in landfills will take over 300 years to decompose.
Unlike heavy tile and slate roofing, aluminum roofing does not require structural reinforcement. Aluminum is also highly resistant to corrosion, making it suitable for coastal roofing applications. Being malleable, Aluminum also lends itself nicely to intricate and detailed patterns, and can easily be formed to replicate classic profiles such as natural Slate, Clay Tile, or even Wood Shakes. Aluminum Roofing can be designed as Interlock Roofing, meaning it may be locked on all four corners for ultimate durability and protection.
Tags: Aluminum Roofing, Composite Landfill Roofing, Interlock Roofing
Posted in Asphalt Roofing, Interlock Roofing, Metal Slate Roofing, Roofing Landfill | 3 Comments »
Wood Shingles and Shake Roofs | Common Roofing Materials Comparison Pt. 3
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 by Mark Vance
Wood shingles and shakes provide a natural look to your home. They are commonly made out of cedar, red wood or cypress.
Tags: asphalt shingles, cedar shake, Interlock Roofing, metal roofing, roofing problems, shake roof, shingle roof, wood roof
Posted in Asphalt Roofing, Energy Star®, Global Warming, Metal Slate Roofing, cool roofing | 4 Comments »
Asphalt Composition Shingle Roofing | Common Roofing Materials Comparison Pt. 1
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009 by Mark Vance
Composition shingles are the most common roofing material in North America. They are commonly made of either fiberglass or recycled paper based products mixed with asphalt, which is then covered with colored mineral granules. While they have a low installation cost, composition shingles will usually protect your home for about 10-15 years. Some composition roofs require maintenance or repair in as little as 8 years. (more…)
Tags: asphalt, asphalt composition, common roofing materials, shingle, shingle roof, shingle roofing
Posted in Asphalt Roofing, Energy Star®, Global Warming, Uncategorized, cool roofing | 9 Comments »
Roofing Blog
- Interlock Roofing Ltd. Announces new Mission and Vision Statement
- Interlock Roofing Ltd. is pleased to announce that its industry-leading Alunar® coating system is now embedded with TEFLON® surface protector.
- Interlock Industries, Inc. and “Hot Weather” Roofing
- Interlock Industries Inc. Announces Aluminum Metal Slate Roofing System to the New England Market
- Solar Roofing at a glance
- Pro-rated Vs. Non Pro-rated Roofing Warranties
- Aluminum Interlock Roofing
- Aluminum Roofing and the Environment
- Wood Shingles and Shake Roofs | Common Roofing Materials Comparison Pt. 3
- Clay Tile and Slate Roofing | Common Roofing Materials Comparison Pt. 2

