Service upgrade cost?

Status
Not open for further replies.
220/221 said:
AGAIN....did I endorse, condone or recommend anything? I THOUGHT I simply stated my opinion.
Click to expand...

By saying you do something a certain way is in fact encouraging and condoning doing it that way.

Why not just drop it and we will all move on. :cool:
 
Dennis Alwon said:
In NC it is a very common prectice to install an outdoor panel and use the two 2" knockouts out of the back and put a PVC connector or a PVC coupling with the box adapter.

It is not legal by the NEC, however, I have seen this done all over the place. I have worked here 30 years and I have never seen a problem because of it.
Click to expand...

Dennis, that means what exactly?

That the 'we always do it that way' rule is still the 'law'?

Kind of discouraging.
 
By saying you do something a certain way is in fact encouraging and condoning doing it that way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to even respond to that. Do you know how wrong it is to stay in line and only speak of what is allowed to be spoken? Don't talk about it and it ceases to exist? What the?

I TRIED to open the discussion to they WHY it's illegal but no one seems to have an idea. There HAS to be a reason....right?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
It is not legal by the NEC, however, I have seen this done all over the place. I have worked here 30 years and I have never seen a problem because of it. The biggest problem I see is that there is a lot of space left over in the fitting and it is not sealed. This can cause condensation inside the panel. I have done it many times in my life and will probably do it again but I do try to avoid it.

The problem is when you have to change out a panel that was installed this way it makes it difficult to change things esp. if the wires are not in the crawl space but in the wall that is finished.

I haven't done a new install like this in 15 years or so and I will not do it again in new construction.
Click to expand...

I would not have a problem with usung the 2" bushing for replacement panel. only if were not able the reach the existing Ko's with the cable.

put some duct seal in the chase.

On new installations, use the Ko's provided, no excuses.
 
iwire said:
Dennis, that means what exactly?

That the 'we always do it that way' rule is still the 'law'?

Kind of discouraging.
Click to expand...

Bob we have had this conversation before. When you are stuck with an outdoor panel there is no way you can get 40 wires into the knockouts in the back of a panel. You said you could-- I still say you can't.

Yes that is the way it was done here for years and I admit it does not meet code. As I have said the inspectors have accepted it as the status quo for those installations. What am I to do in replacing an old panel. I would do more damage drilling 20 or so holes in the siding or slotting the siding to get the wires into the panel-- if you could.

No I don't like it but I also don't see it as a major problem. The wires are not going anywhere and if it is sealed with duct seal or something similar then I believe it is safe.

Again-- I do not do this anymore unless it is an existing situation.

We all have done things in the past and the present that is not quite up to snuff but in remodeling we do the best we can for a given situation.

Remember the old argument of the existing 3 wire feed to a main panel that gets upgraded and now the 3 wire panel is a sub. Many inspectors will allow that. I personally have never done that whethr allowed or not. I will not change the service if that is the only option I have.

I am not sure what you want me to say. I am not perfect but I strive for it. We all know if we put a staple 13" from a box it is illegal but we all know that it will probably never cause a problem. Does that mean do it---no.
 
satcom said:
I would not have a problem with usung the 2" bushing for replacement panel. only if were not able the reach the existing Ko's with the cable.

put some duct seal in the chase.

On new installations, use the Ko's provided, no excuses.
Click to expand...


Why not install a trough? I'm just not sure I'm getting the violating part, so we can violate the so called non dangerous codes, but the dangerous ones we do not ignore? And who decides how dangerous one code is vs another code?
 
220/221 said:
I TRIED to open the discussion to they WHY it's illegal but no one seems to have an idea. There HAS to be a reason....right?
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

The 2" bushing is also common practice around here. When I am working with someone who is used to doing it this way and they ask me why I use individual connectors (or why I don't use #14 on switch loops) it would be nice to be able to answer with something other than "because THE CODE says so".

It's hard to teach young guys when you can't answer their "why" questions with good solid reasons. I will never have a good solid reason if these kinds of things aren't discussed on these forums. Or if the only answers here are "it's THE CODE".:-?

That's as bad as a parent telling their kids "Because I said so". (not that I didn't tell my kids that):D but we're not kids.
 
stickboy1375 said:
Why not install a trough? I'm just not sure I'm getting the violating part, so we can violate the so called non dangerous codes, but the dangerous ones we do not ignore? And who decides how dangerous one code is vs another code?
Click to expand...

The probalem with a trough is that would need to make a huge hole in the siding in order to get all the cables with connectors into it. I think that is a more problemsome install. Obviously, if there is a crawl space one could do that. All the wire into a trough then pipe out into the panel.

I really don't know if there is an amendment (I don't think there is) but it has been accepted to install this way. I guess it is no different then when one applies for a variance. The difference is here you don't have to. As I said I don't particularly like it either.
 
Did you just say that every code you dont know why its there you ignore?
Click to expand...


Edit to add: Dude. com pre hen shun. If that's what I meant I would have said "every code I dont know why its there, I ignore" I try really hard to sat exactly what I mean. It's not always easy.



No, of course not. I am not an "every" kind of guy. I am not a black and white kind of guy. I'm just a guy who is not afraid to make simple decisions.

I don't know why it is against code or when it came into effect. I do know that it has been standard practice here forever and I haven't been presented with any evidence that it is unsafe.

My guess is that it was written to address exposed cable installations without regard to something like this an no one has bothered to write an exception.

Respectfully, John
 
Last edited:
220/221 said:
I'm not sure how to even respond to that. Do you know how wrong it is to stay in line and only speak of what is allowed to be spoken? Don't talk about it and it ceases to exist? What the?
Click to expand...

No one has said do not talk about it.

What I have said is we can not ignore the NEC at our job regardless of the reasons.

With that I am telling all the members responding to this thread to tone it down. If it gets to heated it will be closed.
 
Dennis

Violation?

Yes or No?

Should the members of an NEC forum be encouraging new arrivals to the trade to use the "we have always done it that way excuse"?

Yes or No?
 
satcom said:
They are not trashing anyone, just trying to make them aware of the reality in pricing a job. We were all small guys, and many of us are still small shops, that does not mean we do not have much overhead, some of the guys are just not aware of the real cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how much taxable income they have at the end of the year. I would think anyone that netted $4000 per week after parts would probably be doing Ok for himself. Even if you had $2000 a week in overhead you still net $100,000 a year.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
The probalem with a trough is that would need to make a huge hole in the siding in order to get all the cables with connectors into it. I think that is a more problemsome install. Obviously, if there is a crawl space one could do that. All the wire into a trough then pipe out into the panel.
Click to expand...


To me and this is ONLY my opinion, is that the one KO and jamb everything thru is a quick way out and its done that way for one reason only... to speed the job up.... and Get -R- Done mentality... they make the proper products people just refuse to use them.
 
What I have said is we can not ignore the NEC at our job regardless of the reasons.
Click to expand...

If you read the posts you will see that we can and we do.

Pretending that we don't won't solve anything. A 2 1/2 inch snap in connector sure would though :grin:

This discussion doesn't seem heated to me but I'm from AZ where it was 100 plus for 30 plus days last summer.
 
My first post in this thread tried to deal with the OP. It seems now to have taken a left.

I work in one jurisdiction that does not require in use covers. When I work there I do not intstall them. The county does not have a specific amendment to address this, it is what the inspectors in the field have told me and what they are looking for. Should I be expected to install these unsightly bulbous costly monstrositities (hypebole?;) ) when the AHJ doesn't require them.

We are talking about NEC. What about 90.4?
 
220/221 said:
If you read the posts you will see that we can and we do.

Pretending that we don't won't solve anything. A 2 1/2 inch snap in connector sure would though :grin:

This discussion doesn't seem heated to me but I'm from AZ where it was 100 plus for 30 plus days last summer.
Click to expand...

Your making a lot over nothing.
 
ishium 80439 said:
My first post in this thread tried to deal with the OP. It seems now to have taken a left.

I work in one jurisdiction that does not require in use covers. When I work there I do not intstall them. The county does not have a specific amendment to address this, it is what the inspectors in the field have told me and what they are looking for. Should I be expected to install these unsightly bulbous costly monstrositities (hypebole?;) ) when the AHJ doesn't require them.

We are talking about NEC. What about 90.4?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt a inspector is the AHJ...
 
ishium 80439 said:
Should I be expected to install these unsightly bulbous costly monstrositities (hypebole?;) ) when the AHJ doesn't require them.
Click to expand...

Yes, without the amendment it's still a violation.

What is difficult about following the NEC?

Don't people hire licensed ECs with the expectation that this person both knows and follows the codes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top