Had a client last year who insisted on felt because it was “good enough.” First big storm, half of it peeled back and water got in. Ended up costing way more in repairs than if they’d just gone synthetic from the start. Sometimes “good enough” just isn’t.
Sometimes “good enough” just isn’t.
That hits home. Had a similar call last spring—homeowner went with basic felt to save a few bucks, but after one of those sideways rainstorms, it was a mess. Ended up pulling up half the roof to fix the water damage. It’s tough when folks have to learn the hard way, but I get wanting to save money upfront. Still, I always say: a little extra now can save a lot of headaches later.
a little extra now can save a lot of headaches later.
Couldn’t agree more, but I get the hesitation. Folks see that price jump and think, “How bad could it be?” Until the wind finds every shortcut. Seen basic felt fail way too often in heavy storms—especially if there’s even a tiny install mistake. Sometimes “good enough” just isn’t, like you said. Hang in there, it’s tough convincing people until they’ve seen the damage firsthand.
I hear you on the “good enough” thing. I’ve watched a couple jobs where folks went with the cheaper underlayment, and yeah, it looked fine at first. But after a couple of those nasty spring storms, you could see where the wind just peeled it back. I get why people hesitate, though—money’s tight for a lot of folks. Curious, has anyone here actually had luck with the basic felt holding up long-term, or is it just a gamble every time?
I’ve inspected a fair number of roofs where basic felt was used, and honestly, results are mixed. In milder climates, it sometimes holds up for years, but in areas with frequent high winds or heavy rain, I’ve seen premature failures. Has anyone here compared how synthetic underlayment fares versus felt after a few seasons? I’m curious if the extra cost is justified in real-world conditions or just marketing hype.