Sealtite - Need additional support if < 12"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am on the porch, at the beach, so I do not have my book in front of me.
the fittings may not qualify as a means of support.
so, this could lead an inspector to ask for support.
there was a proposal in the '08 to allow no support.between 2 boxes less than 3ft. it was rejected.
 
Being consequential is a virtue ;)

Being consequential is a virtue ;)

So a sealtite connector isn't considered support... hmm. How about those goofy push in clips they use on the flex between JB and recessed housing? I've had plenty of them pop out on me. Maybe I should strap the flex to something. :grin:
 
Thanks for the info......

Thanks for the info......

I'm going to use the "need for flexibility" exception (for vibration and future motor replacement) if the question every arises.

And to put things in perspective, we have literally hundreds of 12" (and greater) sealtite runs that are unsupported, so what might seem trivial on the surface could become an issue someday.

I'm trying to minimize potential problems, since we do have "bigger fish to fry".

Thanks again!:)
 
masher said:
I'm trying to minimize potential problems, since we do have "bigger fish to fry".

Thanks again!:)
Click to expand...

Please do not take that to heart. I feel that this is one of the most rediculous code sections in the NEC securing a < 12" section of anything. The "Bigger Fish to Fry" was a simple analogy to other problems in the NEC as written. Yours was simply one of them.....:)
 
12" Sealtite Support

12" Sealtite Support

I didn't take the statement about frying fish personally, and I do agree, everyone that lives in the real world has more important issues to deal with than supporting short sections of sealtite.

Thanks for the comments!
 
masher said:
I didn't take the statement about frying fish personally, and I do agree, everyone that lives in the real world has more important issues to deal with than supporting short sections of sealtite.

Thanks for the comments!
Click to expand...


Is it a code violation or not?

I think most of us agree that not properly supporting even short sections of sealtite is a code violation.

Seems to me that it is a code violation, the same way that travelling 56 mph in a 55 mph speed zone is a moving offense.

One of those things that are clearly wrong, but that overlooked by a higher unwritten law.
 
Sealtite

Sealtite

Using a strict interpretation of the code, I believe it is a violation not to support 12" sealtite --- except "where flexibility is necessary after installation".... per Exception #2.

So, unlike the speed limit which has no exceptions, If I can reasonably contend that "flexibility is necessary" in my application, then I don't have to support the sealtite. The problem is, reasonable is not defined, nor could it be.

Does the potential for a future motor replacement mean that flexibility is necessary? Depends on who you talk to - so this section of the code is not black and white.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top