looking for jumper pricing

[SolarPro]

I would think that the bends in the OP's picture would be more of a concern to the connections to the junction box than with the conductors themselves.

Agreed. You really don't want the PV source circuit conductors putting stress on the J-box. The j-box adhesive could fail. The point where the whips exit the j-box could fail. Not right away. But over a long period of time when subject to repeated heat cycling.

 

[jaggedben]

If 334 does not apply "no way no how whatsoever" where do we look for requirements on securing and supporting? Art. 338.10(B)(4)(b) is what I have been using which says, "shall be supported in accordance with 334.30." Should we be looking elsewhere for guidance?

My apologies, you are correct that 334.30 can be applied to USE-2 on arrays. But it says nothing about bend radius. Nor would it apply to PV-Wire.

Where not covered specifically in Code, the default is per manufacturer's instructions, if any.

Agreed. Not that I can recall ever seeing an instruction sheet on a spool of PV wire.<br>

I would think that the bends in the OP's picture would be more of a concern to the connections to the junction box than with the conductors themselves.

Yup.

While I agree that 338 does not technically apply to PV Wire, I don't think the logical extension of that thought is that the Code places no restriction on the bending of PV Wire. ...From an inspector's point of view, it its pretty clear that the Code seeks to place bending radius restrictions on all conductor types. And that makes sense.

I agree about it making sense, but I can't agree that the Code makes it 'pretty clear.' Why is there indeed no general Article 300 section on bending radius?

If an installer pushes back, that AHJ could always fall back on the "neat and workmanlike" clause in 110.12. In the latter case, the bending radius becomes "whatever the AHJ says it should be."

Fair point but I'm not going to just acquiesce to being hit with 'five times' if it happens to be four time and I think that the install is otherwise workmanlike (e.g. no strain on module junction boxes), and there's no manufacturer stipulation. Heck, I think I've seen modules come with the leads tied up by the manufacturer at a tighter radius.

For the record, I agree that the picture posted by the OP presents a problem that should have been headed off before installation. For one thing, I question why there appears to be almost 2 inches space between modules and how much that contributes to the problem as well. Just not sure how I would decide to address it if it was apparently approved by an AHJ and it might cost upwards of 20 grand to fix every instance after the fact.