Ridge vents vs. turbines

[Deleted]

Okay, I need everyone's thoughts on this.  Our roof was destroyed in a hailstorm two weeks ago so it's time again to replace. The 2001 hailstorm and subsequent roof replacement generated a lot of opinions in my 'hood on the issue of turbines (aka whirly birds) vs. ridge vents.  Some say both together are great (more the merrier theory).  Others say one or the other with the idea that the turbines pull heated air out in a limited way before that air can reach the greater area of the ridge vent.  Thoughts?

[tskeeter]

Ridge vents only.  Turbines have moving parts.  If it moves, it wears and needs repair or replacement.  (Turbines must be lubricated or they start to squeak and make noise, all night.)  Ridge vents have no moving parts so they don't require any periodic maintenance.

[Lizard Queen]

Ridge vents don't tend to leave dead spots that are effectively unventilated. All the others do. Doing both seems like an invitation to water infiltration.


ETA:  I should explain the last sentence.  The air comes in through the soffit vents and hot air exits through the vents on top.  If you have too many vents on top, air is going to want to go IN through those, instead of OUT.  The air that is sucked in may be wet--water infiltration---very bad.  

[Deleted]

Thanks everyone for your input.  Unfortunately all arguments are lost on DH who wants both    He's concerned that their attempt to patch the existing holes in the roof decking if they remove the turbines will cause leaks.  And who knows, maybe he's right.  Our decking is original to the house and very unusual in today's world - 1 x 12 tongue and groove lumber.  All the roofers come out and say "oh yeah, we'll replace your plywood decking" and I'm like, "oh no, you won't cause it ain't plywood".  Dear God, dealing with DH and adjusters and contractors will be the death of me!

[973beachbum]

If by turbines you mean a power ventilator we used to have one.  And no it didn't leak.  It also didn't do any harm as far as pulling in air or water no matter how hard it rained.  We actually had both.  Our attic was very warm as the house was in total sun all day.  Before the power ventilator we would have an attic that would top 110 degrees in the middle of the night during the summer.

I will say our vents were on the sides of the attic and the power ventilator was in the middle.  So the cool air went in the side vents and it went out the power ventilator in the middle.  We set ours to 90 degrees maybe.  Without the power ventilator the air just didn't get sucked in to actually circulate enough to actually keep the attic from heating the rest of the house.

I will say it lowered our AC bills by about half. 

[Lizard Queen]

Jan 22, 2016 10:33:03 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

If by turbines you mean a power ventilator we used to have one.  And no it didn't leak.  It also didn't do any harm as far as pulling in air or water no matter how hard it rained.  We actually had both.  Our attic was very warm as the house was in total sun all day.  Before the power ventilator we would have an attic that would top 110 degrees in the middle of the night during the summer.

I will say our vents were on the sides of the attic and the power ventilator was in the middle.  So the cool air went in the side vents and it went out the power ventilator in the middle.  We set ours to 90 degrees maybe.  Without the power ventilator the air just didn't get sucked in to actually circulate enough to actually keep the attic from heating the rest of the house.

I will say it lowered our AC bills by about half. 

The purpose of the vents on the sides or in the soffits is to bring in cold air. (Well, on the sides it could be either/or, but doesn't work great to expel hot air without a fan.)  A ridge vent or turbine is just to expel hot air.  You want the ratio to be such that the push is for the hot air to go out of the top all of the time.  (Cold air comes in the sides or the soffits to replace the hot air that is escaping.) I can't remember what the optimal ratio is.  Someone who is an architect should be able to say.

[alabamagal]

When I lived in south Georgia and had roof replaced ~8 years ago, the roofer put in ridge vents, removed the turbines and patched the roof.  I think it was less money for the ridge vents, so we went with that.  Did not see any noticeable difference in cooling bills.

One time we found a dead squirrel in one of our turbines.  I was glad to get rid of them for that reason.

[mroped]

We replaced our roof a couple years back and I had a friend of mine whom has been a roofer for the last 35 years do the job.
We have an attic fan(turbine) and I wanted a ridge vent on top of it. 
He told me that a ridge vent is much better because it draws evenly but since we had a fan in good working condition it was worth staying with it.
When you change from turbine to ridge vent, alterations need to be made to the sheeting in order to make the ridge vent work properly.
At the end as he explained it to me, either or works. The only advantage the ridge vent has is that there are no moving parts and there is no need for a power source to make it work.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

Jan 22, 2016 0:51:33 GMT -5 @donethat said:

Thanks everyone for your input.  Unfortunately all arguments are lost on DH who wants both    He's concerned that their attempt to patch the existing holes in the roof decking if they remove the turbines will cause leaks.  And who knows, maybe he's right.  Our decking is original to the house and very unusual in today's world - 1 x 12 tongue and groove lumber.  All the roofers come out and say "oh yeah, we'll replace your plywood decking" and I'm like, "oh no, you won't cause it ain't plywood".  Dear God, dealing with DH and adjusters and contractors will be the death of me!

We had the same type of decking until the tree fell on our house.  I am certain the house is still standing in large part due to that decking.  Unfortunately, it is no longer to code (or so I was told) and we now have plywood.