Weird SQ D Non CTL thing

[electrofelon]

Been seeing on the box of QO panels where they say something like: " 20 spaces, 24 circuits*"

And then the asterix says: expandable to 24 circuits using non-ctl breakers.

So the manufacturer is saying to use non-ctl breakers to get more circuits? This seems odd

 

[infinity]

I think the non-CTL versus CTL is pretty much over. If you look at Eaton panels you would use non-CTL breakers in a panel that was listed as say 40/80. The NEC needs to be reworded to reflect this.

 

[James L]

Been seeing on the box of QO panels where they say something like: " 20 spaces, 24 circuits*"

And then the asterix says: expandable to 24 circuits using non-ctl breakers.

The odd thing is that it would be expandable to 40 with non-CTL

24 seems like a very arbitrary number.

So the manufacturer is saying to use non-ctl breakers to get more circuits? This seems odd

I'm not sure why that seems odd, because either one would allow someone to have more circuits in the right panel

 

[electrofelon]

But why make us use the expensive non CTL breakers? And it doesn't make sense to me cuz it's not always double the number of circuits as spaces, like they are saying you can only put SOME in, in some cases. Like they are still trying to micromanage what we can do.

 

[electrofelon]

Here s an example. In this case the space and circuit number are the same so I dont know what the point of saying 'expandable to" is, but ITs the only pic I could find quickly. Most I see the circuit number is larger, but not always double.

 

[infinity]

But why make us use the expensive non CTL breakers? And it doesn't make sense to me cuz it's not always double the number of circuits as spaces, like they are saying you can only put SOME in, in some cases. Like they are still trying to micromanage what we can do.

I know there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it but there must be something. Gutter space? The real question is why are non-CTL breakers more expensive? And once the 42 circuit limit went away this all seems to be nonsense.

 

[James L]

I don't know why a non-CTL breaker is more expensive anyway.

The CTL is always made with more parts

 

[James L]

...there must be something. Gutter space?

That's something I would have never considered.

 

[infinity]

I don't know why a non-CTL breaker is more expensive anyway.

The CTL is always made with more parts

If it costs a dime more to manufacturer them that's a lot so the huge price difference isn't justified by any means.

 

[kwired]

I know there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it but there must be something. Gutter space? The real question is why are non-CTL breakers more expensive? And once the 42 circuit limit went away this all seems to be nonsense.

My thoughts

They sell and have been selling many more the CTL units. To make a production run of non CTL might mean resetting the production line for whatever is different for a more limited run of product than normal. There probably isn't as much demand for this product so both Schneider as well as supply places aren't going to carry as big of a stock of said product either.

LED lighting has mostly taken over fluorescent tubes, but we had same thing there. Remember how much more expensive tubes that were 2,3,5,6,7 feet in nominal length were compared to 4 and 8 foot tubes? The 4 and 8 footers were manufactured and sold in much higher quantities even though they might have taken more raw materials than some the others.

I think the information on label that prompted OP to ask about is likely just an error, maybe even by people that do not read/write the English language very well. with the 24/24 example they don't even need some of what is on there but is apparently a boiler plate type of thing where they only plug in information that does change from one product to another.

 

[Little Bill]

If it costs a dime more to manufacturer them that's a lot so the huge price difference isn't justified by any means.

Did you mean "not" a lot?

 

[jim dungar]

...there must be something. Gutter space?

Not likely. The cross sectional gutter space in these loadcenter is the same regardless of whether it is a 18 circuit or a 84 circuit.

 

[infinity]

Did you mean "not" a lot?

No I meant it's likely costs less than a dime.

 

[electrofelon]

Maybe number of neutral spaces?

 

[infinity]

Maybe number of neutral spaces?

Could be, would that be a UL requirement? X number of holes per single pole slots?

 

[jaggedben]

But why make us use the expensive non CTL breakers? ...

Isn't it obvious?

 

[electrofelon]

Isn't it obvious?

. But I'm still not following what's going on here. So SQ D is making panels that are not required to be circuit limiting /use CTL breakers, but are coming up with their own honor system rule saying you can use a certain number of non-ctl breakers?

 

[infinity]

. But I'm still not following what's going on here. So SQ D is making panels that are not required to be circuit limiting /use CTL breakers, but are coming up with their own honor system rule saying you can use a certain number of non-ctl breakers?

The whole concept needs to be trashed and rewritten. For any new panel get rid of the CTL and non-CTL. Non-CTL should cost the same as CTL and CTL which would only be used in old panels.

 

[electrofelon]

The whole concept needs to be trashed and rewritten. For any new panel get rid of the CTL and non-CTL. Non-CTL should cost the same as CTL and CTL which would only be used in old panels.

Yeah, I think the whole CTL thing was just a total disaster that never accomplished anything whatsoever

 

[infinity]

Yeah, I think the whole CTL thing was just a total disaster that never accomplished anything whatsoever

Especially when a major manufacturer like Eaton has just decided to abandon it. I look at my new Eaton PON 40/80 panel it doesn't appear to be any different than the 40 circuit Siemens panel that it replaced. The PON panels pretty much eliminate an issue with not having enough neutral holes.