What is the point of Redheads?

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
celtic said:
All pipe...
Click to expand...

Thank you. However that's a waste of time, using pipe, in my opinion.

I've seen other EC's take a month on a project in which could have been done in a week by running MC. It sure does look pretty, though.
 
WastefulMiser said:
What's an "Antishort for Greenfield"?

The MC connector I refer to is the snap-on type with three prongs inside. Are there different [better?] ones out there?

Romex connectors, eh?
Click to expand...
I've run into a lot of electricians, and contractors, and supply houses that have absolutely no idea what those MC connectors are... so here's a link. I get a chuckle out of the ones "Provided with insulated throat and tinted red inside." Any ones better out there? Not IMO.
 
Smart $ said:
I've run into a lot of electricians, and contractors, and supply houses that have absolutely no idea what those MC connectors are... so here's a link. I get a chuckle out of the ones "Provided with insulated throat and tinted red inside." Any ones better out there? Not IMO.
Click to expand...


I know what a MC connector is; however, I didn't know what they called them in Bucksnort.
 
Bill W said:
The anti-short bushing is crucial to a safe mc installation. IWIRE says,
"Redheads are not required to be used on MC by the NEC."
Those redheads come with the mc and are covered by the code insofar as following the manufacturers instructions.
Click to expand...

No, you are mistaken they are not required by the manufacturer.

You obviously did not follow the link I provided from NEMA. (National Electrical Manufacturers Association)

Here it is again NEMA Bulletin 90

If you take the time to read the one page that link brings you to you will find that both NEMA and the NFPA say the use of red heads with MC is OPTIONAL
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
No, you are mistaken they are not required by the manufacturer.

You obviously did not follow the link I provided from NEMA. (National Electrical Manufacturers Association)

Here it is again NEMA Bulletin 90

If you take the time to read the one page that link brings you to you will find that both NEMA and the NFPA say the use of red heads with MC is OPTIONAL
Click to expand...
I was prepared to stand corrected, but this is not a cut sheet for mc cable, nor is it an article of code. It is only NEMA attempting to make an interpretation of existing code, giving no consideration to the manufactuerer's intention, and trying to tell local authorities how they should read the code.
The page you provided mentions how read heads, by code, are required for AC, and I was reminded that once for three years, the code neglected to include uses for mc in hollow walls. The inspector didn't like my boss at that time and tried to tell him a finished job was no good because the code had changed regarding the use of mc. Of course we were not forced to redo the job. You can bet, had he looked in a box and not seen red heads on the mc termination, he would have said fix it, and he wouldnt have budged an inch no matter what type of connector was used.
 
Bill W said:
It is only NEMA attempting to make an interpretation of existing code, giving no consideration to the manufactuerer's intention, and trying to tell local authorities how they should read the code.
Click to expand...

No it is not just NEMA it is also the NFPA (the folks that produce the NEC)

This part here is a statement from the code making panel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ROP #7-116 from the May 2001 Report on Proposals (ROP) for the 2002 NEC was a proposal seeking to require anti-short bushings on all MC Cable termination installations.

The following is an excerpt from the Panel statement rejecting the proposal:​



NFPA Code Making Panel said:
[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Anti-short bushings are not required for Type MC cable in accordance with the listing for the product. The termination fittings approved for use with Type MC cables are designed such that the wires will not come in contact with the cut edge of the armor; the throat of the fitting is small enough to prevent contact with the armor. Type MC termination fittings perform the same function for Type MC cable as Type AC terminations plus the anti-short bushing do for Type AC cable. [[/FONT]/quote]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------​


Short of getting an official NFPA interpretation that is as official as it gets.

Your claim is that the red head are required by manufactures instruction but the manufactures association says no that is not true.

The NFPA has refused to add a code section requiring redheads with MC cable.

So I say again clearly and plainly Anti shorts are not required by either the NEC or the MC manufactures.

I do use them by choice not by any code.

Of course a local area might make an amendment requiring the use of them but that is a local matter not a national one.
​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I see NECA (national electrical contractors association) and NESI (national electrical standards institute) have published an entire volume on the installation and accessories necessary for safe and workman-like practices when using mc. I have worked in this trade many years, mostly in commercial and industrial installations, and I have worked w/ over a hundred other electricians. I have not met one who didn't use redheads when putting connectors on mc. If I had, I would have told everyone, and such a shoddy practice would have quickly been addressed. NFPA70 ( the official name for NEC) is a minimum standard, and does not address safe, workman-like practices, only requires that they be used.
....I see you're a Flatlander, that explains your position...just kiddin'.
 
Last edited:
Bill W said:
I see NECA (national electrical contractors association) and NESI (national electrical standards institute) have published an entire volume on the installation and accessories necessary for safe and workman-like practices when using mc.
Click to expand...

Yes they have and those standards are voluntary unless linked in the contract specifications.


I have worked in this trade many years, mostly in commercial and industrial installations, and I have worked w/ over a hundred other electricians. I have not met one who didn't use redheads when putting connectors on mc.
Click to expand...

That is great, so have I and I also use redheads.

If I had, I would have told everyone, and such a shoddy practice would have quickly been addressed.
Click to expand...

That is also great, I expect the people working for me to use redheads.

NFPA70 is a minimum standard, and does not necessarily address workman-like practices, only requires that they be used.
Click to expand...

Now we have a problem.

NFPA 70 requires what be used?

Redheads?

Nope NFPA 70 does not require redheads with MC.

Neat and Workmanlike practices?

No not really, yes that is in the NEC but if you take the time to read the NFPA style manual you will find that even the NFPA considers Neat and workmanlike to be unenforceable.

Neat and Workmanlike is subjective, one persons idea of Neat and Workmanlike is another persons idea of a disaster.

The NEC is a safety code nothing more.

If you disagree with the NFPA position you could put in a proposal to require redheads with MC, maybe they won't reject the idea this time.
 
stop it! or i'll post a thread that says iwire doesn't like redheads...only blondes, and brunettes.
NFPA70 is a minimum standard, and does not necessarily address workman-like practices, only requires that they be used.

Now we have a problem.

NFPA 70 requires what be used?

Redheads?

Nope NFPA 70 does not require redheads with MC


There is no implication here that I am talking about redheads. Clearly, workman-like practices are the focus of the above, quoted sentence.
 
Last edited:
Bill W said:
stop it! or i'll post a thread that says iwire doesn't like redheads...only blondes, and brunettes.
Click to expand...

:D

Fair enough. :)

I like to use anti shorts, I want all the people that work for the same company as I do to use anti shorts. The company has a lot of standard policies that exceed the minimum NEC requirements.:cool:


As far as other ECs I have no problem with them skipping the redheads......it makes service work that maybe we will get. ;)
 
Bill W said:
There is no implication here that I am talking about redheads. Clearly, workman-like practices are the focus of the above, quoted sentence.
Click to expand...

Well I did not find it clear or accurate.

You want me to post the section of the style manual that lists the words Neat and Workmanlike (along with many more) as vague and unenforceable?
 
iwire said:
Well I did not find it clear or accurate.

You want me to post the section of the style manual that lists the words Neat and Workmanlike (along with many more) as vague and unenforceable?
Click to expand...
I would like that. I'm not familiar with the style manual.


"As far as other ECs I have no problem with them skipping the redheads......it makes service work that maybe we will get."
...If the building doesn't burn first!
 
Last edited:
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC?)
STYLE MANUAL


Click to expand...

Table 3.2.1 Possibly Unenforceable and Vague Terms​
Acceptable
Adequate
Adjacent
Appreciable
Appropriate
Approximate(ly)
Available
Avoid(ed)
Can
Care
Careful(ly)
Consider(ed)(ation)
Could
Desirable
Easy(ily)
Equivalent(ly)
Familiar
Feasible
Few
Frequent(ly)
Firmly
Generally
Good
Lightly
Likely
Legible(y)
Many
May
Maybe
Might
Most(ly)
Near(ly)
Neat(ly)
Normal(ly)
Note
Periodic(ally)
Practical(ly)
Practices
Prefer(red)
Proper(ly)
Ready(ily)
Reasonable(y)
Safe(ly)(ty)
Satisfactory
Secure(ly)
Several
Significant
Similar
Substantial(ly)
Sufficient(ly)
Suitable
Usual(ly)
Workmanlike​
​
Click to expand...


Yes they say possibly but if it came down to a court decision I am fairly certain how it would go.

There is either a safety issue or not.

If there is a safety issue then there is likely a code section that is enforceable.

If it is not a genuine safety issue it is outside of the NEC stated purpose.

​
​
​
 
Bill W said:
You may have the last word now, if you wish.
Click to expand...

My last word?

Not for a lot of years I hope. :D

Bill it is obvious you care about the work,:cool: believe it or not I do as well.

That said the name of this forum is "Mike Holt's Code Forum" because of that we tend to discuss what the code does and does not require. Many times during those discussions it appears we may not care about quality or workmanship.

IMO workmanship is something in a person that can not be regulated by code.

Most members here, regardless of what they say about the code requirements go well beyond those requirements.

Have a great day, Bob
 
iwire said:
My last word?

Not for a lot of years I hope. :D
Click to expand...

OK, fine. I really was trying to get to the bottom of what NEC requires, by using terms like safe, workman-like, manufacturers instructions, etc. Apparently I have been unsuccessful. However I put it to you that if it is a commonly accepted practice by electricians (to the point of the manufactuer including the redheads w/ the mc) then it is a workman-like manner. Regardless of whether "workman-like" as a subjective term, is enforceable by the AHJ. Here in the North country, when the AHJ wants redheads or mc straps every two feet...you do it...or pay the price by opening box after box for inspection.
 
At our company you SHALL use them,but you don't have to work here,that choice is yours.We are a quality company and not after min.,fast,cheap.As others have said the ones not using them create work for others.I for one have seen the so called bushing in the connector fall out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top