Colorbond cost vs Roof Tiles?

lrhodes1 · Apr 17, 2007 11:53 am

I'm building with a medium project home company in Pennant Hills in Sydney. The standard contract price inculdes tiles from Monier, however I asked if I could have Colorbond.

Is it reasonable that they wish to charge an additional $2920 for Colorbond? Can anyone explain why such a cost would be incurred? (It includes 50mm "Anticon" insulation inlieu of ceiling batts, the RC2 Colorbond ridge capping, XRW valleys, timber battens and matching Colorbond screws.

However, I thought Colorbond was cheaper to buy than tiles. Tiles also weigh 8-10 tonnes on an average roof and require additional wood roof battens to support them. Surely it would be more difficult to transport, store and install tiles than colorbond.

Any thoughts?

PS one of the reasons I switched is becuse the standard included tiles did not include sarking, so if any tiles were broken water would leak directly into my ceiling cavity. Also poses less of abarrier to burgulars who could just lift a few tiles and hop into the ceiling.

perryr · Apr 17, 2007 1:26 pm

Two questions really -

Is it right? I don't think so.
Can they get away with it? Yep. If you want, you pay.

We would like to have colourbond on our home, however PD quoted a rough price of $6k for our place.

Perry

shooey · Apr 17, 2007 2:01 pm

Friends of ours are having colourbond and they are paying more for it, so whilst I dont know if it "should" be more, I know that they have been charged more

vanderlay · Apr 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Colourbond should be a little cheaper than a tiled roof, but with most volume builders having a tiled roof as a standard they have huge contracts/discounts etc with suppliers and will charge extra for a "non-standard" like colourbond.

One of the things you put up with when going with a volume builder I guess. PD wanted $4600 extra to do our roof in colourbond.

brittany · Apr 17, 2007 9:42 pm

We've been quoted $7000 more for colourbond. Apparently the materials for colourbond are far cheaper - but the labour to install is far greater because of guttering work et cetera. I don't know what to believe. I do know that if that is what your builder is charging - if you want it - you end up paying for it. I far prefer the colourbond look but I'm concerned about it fading. Does anyone know about the dark colourbond colours fading?

epiphany · Apr 17, 2007 10:19 pm

brittany

I far prefer the colourbond look but I'm concerned about it fading. Does anyone know about the dark colourbond colours fading?

We had a dark blue Colourbond roof in NZ. We were in that house (& it was brand new when we moved in) for about 7 years & if it did fade over that time, it wasn't noticeable. Tiles seem to noticeably fade far quicker than Colourbond...especially the darker tiles.

lrhodes1 · Apr 18, 2007 9:25 am

Well, I signed the variation. I'm going for the budget house with budget facade but don't want it to look budget, and I think colorbond is the answer.

About the fading, my old place had a nice medium green coloured colorbond roof and I didn't notice any fading over the 14 years we lived there.

Thanks for your responses!

perryr · Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am

Interesting - I went past the Porter Davis Hamilton 34 being built near us, and I noticed that a steel frame was being fixed to the roof trusses.

All I can assume (from the shape of the frame) is that the roof is being prepared for colourbond sheets. Perhaps this additional work explains some of the cost variation?

I was under the impression that the colourbond was screwed directly onto the roof battens, perhaps this isn't the case.

If I can, I'll try and snap a picture and show you all later today.

Cheers
Perry

ShellyC · Apr 19, 2007 9:40 pm

We recently finished building our house and had the same dilemma. We had to pay $5000 extra for colorbond. At the time I thought they had made a mistake and asked if they had remembered to subtract what the cost of the tiled roof would have been from that. Apparantly they had.

I still worry that I got ripped off.

3timesbuilda · Apr 20, 2007 2:25 pm

When we built our last house, the builder messed up and got the wrong roof tiles (style and colour). The building company put us in contact with the tile company. We discussed the options and we chose to keep the existing tiles and get a cheque which was for something like $3800.

I mention this as it give an idea of the high volume cost of the tiles (without laying/delivery charges). They explained that it would cost them around $4500 to return the wrong ones and then bring new ones . I figured what they offered was fair since the wrong tiles were quite nice anyway. They were quite willing to do either way.

We brought a couple of nice splits with the money.

We will be having sarking on our new house as it is a fire requirement. Also since it is double storey, lifting a few tiles to break in would probably be extreem. I think these issues (tile vs metal) are very much a personal choice mixed in with individual circumstances.

3xb

Perth_Euro · Apr 21, 2007 8:59 am

My builder gives the choice of either for no cost differance.

I went the colourbond, simply because my 6 year old unit has tile roof and it has been nothing but problems.

double07 · Apr 23, 2007 5:06 pm

We're with a small custom builder and we were told colourbond is cheaper (both for the materials themselves and installation). But it didn't matter anyway as we have a 45 degree roof pitch and we were told we couldn't have tiles on a roof that steep anyway

lrhodes1 · Apr 24, 2007 10:11 am

So I suppose the lesson is, ask the builders before you choose one if Colorbond is an extra cost as a substitute to tiles.

I'll ask next time!

Perhaps a list of builders who currently offer it as a no cost option would be helpful?

Cheers

ausdesign · Apr 24, 2007 9:46 pm

As an aside a steel roof creates a more thermally efficient roof space than an unsarked tiled roof.

Casa2 · Apr 24, 2007 10:11 pm

ausdesign,

I'm trying to understand how a steel roof creates a more thermally effecient roof space than an unsarked tiled roof. I would have thought that tiles would be a better insulator therefore assisting any insulation on the ceiling.

Any insights would be interesting.

Cheers,
Casa

Vlad76 · Apr 26, 2007 7:15 pm

Casa2

ausdesign,

I'm trying to understand how a steel roof creates a more thermally effecient roof space than an unsarked tiled roof. I would have thought that tiles would be a better insulator therefore assisting any insulation on the ceiling.

Any insights would be interesting.

Cheers,
Casa

I would like to ask the same questions.
I always thought Colorbond was by far the inferior option to tiles.

Helyn · May 30, 2009 12:22 pm

31232, this thread was 2 years old ::surprise::

I notice you have posted several identical posts in several threads - I dont think mods will take too kindly to this ::wornout::

dymonite69 · May 30, 2009 12:39 pm

31231

Tiles are a poor choice for roof as regards cooling properties because they are heavy (have a high thermal mass).

In winter timee there is a lot less energy to be gained during winter months

In short, its better to go for a lighter weight (low thermal mass) roof such as a metal roof over a tile.
Just like an esky, you want the thermal mass INSIDE the insulation (ie inside the house envelope, not outside it).

Your argument is sound. Thermal mass outside the insulation layer has little thermal benefit in temperate climates. However, thick exterior mass is beneficial in hot-arid (desert) climates with significant diurnal variation.

If you have foil underneath the tiles, then the roof temperature won't make much of a difference to your ceiling temperature.

Other eco-issues are complex. Terracotta, concrete and steel all have embodied energy considerations. Tiles can be replaced piecemeal. Steel require whole sheets to be changed. Tiles are heavier and require stronger trusses and more construction material. Both can be recycled in different ways.