Light whip bends

Status
Not open for further replies.
infinity said:
Although the armored portion may be FMC this is not being used as a raceway it's a factory wiring assembly so no 360° limit. Why would someone call this out for a whip in the first place? :slaphead:
Click to expand...
I agree, I was very skeptical when the inspector said that, hence this discussion. Problem is though is that we'll just do what he wants, take the loop out and then it will look terrible with the whip just hanging up there. My boss didn't want to argue it with him. Oh well...

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
hbeery10 said:
I agree, I was very skeptical when the inspector said that, hence this discussion. Problem is though is that we'll just do what he wants, take the loop out and then it will look terrible with the whip just hanging up there. My boss didn't want to argue it with him. Oh well...

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is the dilemma we all deal with every day. At a minimum, your boss could send an email asking for a code section that requires a UL listed wiring assembly to comply with whatever NEC rules he is saying requires you to install it differently. Then if he comes back with a bogus FMC rule, let it drop.
 
I said I'd post a pic of the whip. Fairly basic install.
a0e021f7fe206b63932668ba7cd84d26.jpg


Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
ptonsparky said:
Be happy it’s the whips, I think he could have asked for the conduit to be spaced further from the deck. Those roofing screws would fall under 358.12(1)

Dang pictures...
Click to expand...

Good catch, isn't it odd that the inspector dwells on something inane, while an actual important code violation hits him in the face.
 
ptonsparky said:
Be happy it’s the whips, I think he could have asked for the conduit to be spaced further from the deck. Those roofing screws would fall under 358.12(1)

Dang pictures...
Click to expand...
Never thought of that. Would that still be considered a potential for physical damage since the pipe was run after the roof was finished?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
hbeery10 said:
Never thought of that. Would that still be considered a potential for physical damage since the pipe was run after the roof was finished?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The roof will probably be replaced at some point.
Code says "Where, during installation or afterward, it will be subject
to severe physical damage."
 
ptonsparky said:
Be happy it’s the whips, I think he could have asked for the conduit to be spaced further from the deck. Those roofing screws would fall under 358.12(1)

Dang pictures...
Click to expand...

hbeery10 said:
Never thought of that. Would that still be considered a potential for physical damage since the pipe was run after the roof was finished?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Look at 300.4(E). It is a bit more specific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top