'Liquid Siding' Products vs Regular Paint for House Exterior
Cheetah
looking at different alternatives, both to cut down maintenance (I hate to
paint) and to provide energy effeciency. One of the products I have been
looking at is the 'Liquid Siding' style of exterior coatings. There appear
to be several variations on the market but they seem to offer basically the
same benefits:
- ceramic impregnated coating impervious to the elements
- seamless coating that effectively 'shrinks wraps' the house
- 20 to 25 year lifespan
- additional insulation equivalent to R-20 or better
- reducted energy cost, 20% or better
- etc, etc, etc
I am curious if anyone has any knowledge or experience with these products
and their advantages/disadvantages. On one hand hey almost sound too good
to be true, on the other hand the potential savings/benefits could be
significant.
Any thoughts, experiences or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
TinMan1332
Most of these coatings/products are not new. What is new is how they are now
being sold and marketed. In other words, heavy on marketing and sales pitches
(high profit margins built into the marketing). Most of the claims are hype and
puffed up way out of realistic preformance and lifespans.
Think of this as the new replacement to the old (and very overpriced, over
hyped) spray textured coating business (once greatly sold and hyped by Sears).
Much to do about near nothing.
Ken Schumm
[...]
> Most of these coatings/products are not new. What is new is how they are now
> being sold and marketed. In other words, heavy on marketing and sales pitches
> (high profit margins built into the marketing). Most of the claims are hype and
> puffed up way out of realistic preformance and lifespans.
>
> Think of this as the new replacement to the old (and very overpriced, over
> hyped) spray textured coating business (once greatly sold and hyped by Sears).
> Much to do about near nothing.
>
I dunno. I grew up in a house that had a white Kenetex (sp?) textured
coating sprayed on in the mid 60's. Every year or so I drive by the
house and it still looks pretty good.
E Bond
> Previously, TinMan1332 wrote in alt.home.repair:
> [...]
> > Most of these coatings/products are not new. What is new is how they are now
> > being sold and marketed. In other words, heavy on marketing and sales pitches
> > (high profit margins built into the marketing). Most of the claims are hype and
> > puffed up way out of realistic preformance and lifespans.
> >
> > Think of this as the new replacement to the old (and very overpriced, over
> > hyped) spray textured coating business (once greatly sold and hyped by Sears).
> > Much to do about near nothing.
> >
>
elements after 10 years or so. Whether it's impregnated with ceramic
chips or not. Paint fades and cracks, vinyl fades warps and cracks,
aluminum siding fades and dents, cedar siding fades. All materials
require some sort of maintenance or another to keep them in perfect
looking condition.
Nothing that is essentially paper thin is going to give you an R-20
value or better. NOTHING you're going to put on your house has a 20 -
25 year life span. Most 30 year roofs need some sort of repair after
20 years or so. Depends on how well the job was done in the first
place and a combination of the sun, ice, wind etc. So after you've had
this miracle stuff on your house for 5 years and it begins to crack
and you don't see a 20% reduction in cost.... They'll tell you the
contractor improperly installed it, your wooden house shifts too much,
you didn't completely remove all underlying paint or dirt, The company
is no longer in business AND there will be no end to those folks who
will tell you, " You actually believed that hype?" "You should have
known better!" (I hate those people!) I like cedar shakes myself, you
just leave em fade. My parents house has had the same shakes on it for
90 years. Only had to do local repairs on areas affected by water
runoff.
TakeThisOut
>elements after 10 years or so.
Brick
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TAKETHISOUT budysbackagain(@)THAT TOO a-oh-ell dot com
Dan Musicant
(TakeThisOut) wrote:
:>Nothing you're going to put on your house will be impervious to the
:>elements after 10 years or so.
:
:Brick
I've got quite a bit of brick on my house, and I wish I could say it's
OK. The house was built in 1910, and whoever put the red brick up may
have used the wrong mortar or maybe standards were different then, but
the mortar has turned to what looks and feels like sand held together
with sugar syrup. You can dislodge it with your finger nails and I think
I could remove that stuff with NO TOOLS! There is a place where you can
see the sub structure due to many of the bricks having simply fallen
out. I haven't made up my mind whether or not I will put brick back up
there - it isn't supporting stuff, and my contractor and engineer have
recommended I use something else - stucco, maybe, or whatever's being
used these days, in the words of the engineer. I think he was slyly
alluding to vinyl siding, but I didn't ask.
The foundation will get done before I grapple with this, or maybe at the
same time, if that's the way it works out.
Dan
Rascalsmom
the brick itself should still be good, and the mortar may have been
fine for 25-30 years - depends on the moisture and soil conditions
around your home. We had a house built ca. 1912 that had the same
problem. The problem with your old house is that nobody bothered to
keep up with the repointing, so all the mortar is failing at once.
You could get the house sandblasted to remove the old mortar (in small
sections if the house is in danger of collapsing) and repoint on a
major scale. Or, you can parge and paint. Good luck. LKM
Dan Musicant <musi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<uqi5vt4pj2gb84gga...@4ax.com>...
Rick
franchisee who is advertising heavily for the product you are looking
at. The contractor's ads claim that NASA and various independent labs
have proven his product is superior to anything else. The newspaper
went to the source for each claim and got the whole story. They
actually went to NASA and to the labs. They also got experts to explain
how some of the claims were misleading.
One claim was that a lab tested the insulating properties of the product
at R-6. The lab told the newspaper that it tested at R-.6 (notice the
decimal point), but that a memo years ago contained a typo and stated
6.0. They showed the newspaper a copy of the letter they sent to the
manufacturer a week later correcting the error. The manufactures
continues to advertise the .6 figure here and says that they "...have it
in writing from an independent lab." True, but not the whole truth.
The NASA claims are also bunk according to NASA. The liquid siding
company quotes insulating properties that apply to ceramics that NASA
tested when it developed the ceramic tiles for the bottom of the space
shuttle. The insulation properties are true when you test the ceramic
material, but not when you grind it into powder and mix it into vinyl
paint. Again, they use a number in their advertising that is from an
actual NASA test, but it does not apply to their product.
The paper went to experts in physics for an explanation of some of the
insulating claims. The liquid siding maker is referring to reflection
of radiant heat when he talks about R-20. Aluminum foil has a much
higher R value than that if you are measuring the reflection of radiant
heat, but it is about R-zero if you wrap your house in it on a cold
night. A house loses most of it's heat through conduction, not
radiation, and the liquid siding has almost zero R value when measured
that way. The experts quoted by the newspaper said the insulating
properties of the liquid siding, in actual use, would be R-.6, the same
as a sheet of paper.
As for durability, the liquid siding people point out that ceramic will
last for decades. The experts point out that liquid siding is powered
ceramic mixed with vinyl paint, and that while the ceramic will last
forever, the vinyl that holds it together will not last any longer than
any other vinyl paint.
Other posters have pointed out the problems of what if it peels and the
contractor is out of business, or claims that the surface he painted it
onto was defective. I doubt you would ever get any remedy if a problem
developed years later.
The conclusion of the investigative reporters here was that the R value
is .6, the moisture barrier properties are the same as for latex paint,
the durability was the same as for premium latex paint, and that it cost
about 5 to10 times what it would cost to have your house painted by a
professional with ordinary paint. Why does it cost so much? Profit and
in the case of our local contractor, tens of thousands of dollars spent
on prime location billboards by the Interstate, radio, and print
advertising.
I'm not a painter, and I have a brick house, so I don't have any
interest one way or another in the claims made by the liquid siding
people. I just wanted you to hear what an impartial investigation here
turned up about the product.
Rick
remove the "NOT" from the e-mail address before replying
"Cheetah" <che...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:wPoH7.32064$S4.28...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Richard J Kinch
john carey
We have been asked on several occasions to develop such a product similar to
the "American" style insulating paints and coatings based on ceramic
microspheres. However all our testing to date shows such products as only
marginally better than conventional coatings particularly when applied in
layers of the thickness of house paint. This is a case of creative
marketing.
John Carey
Rick <sno...@homeNOT.com> wrote in message
news:o_BP7.42125$py4.24...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...