zinco panels
- Thread starter nicknorth
- Start date
- Status
luke warmwater
Senior Member
luke warmwater
Senior Member
Re: zinco panels
Are you maybe thinking of Federal Pacific (FPE)??
Are you maybe thinking of Federal Pacific (FPE)??
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
luke warmwater
Senior Member
Re: zinco panels
Wayne,
Some good photos there.
I actually have some of those Zinsco breakers as in the pics that have the pressure terminals instead of screw terminals.
Wayne,
Some good photos there.
I actually have some of those Zinsco breakers as in the pics that have the pressure terminals instead of screw terminals.
Re: zinco panels
"that" fire hazard are actually several hazards all in one. The bars are zinc coated aluminum. The breakers rely on spring pressure. many breakers use a slip/clip connection. The breakers using screws use very small hard to tighten screws. Many of the panels seemed very undersized for wire capacity.
Numerous problems that all lead to overheating, failed parts, and fires.
paul
"that" fire hazard are actually several hazards all in one. The bars are zinc coated aluminum. The breakers rely on spring pressure. many breakers use a slip/clip connection. The breakers using screws use very small hard to tighten screws. Many of the panels seemed very undersized for wire capacity.
Numerous problems that all lead to overheating, failed parts, and fires.
paul
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: zinco panels
Actually, I believe Zinsco was taken over by Sylvania after going belly up. Sylvania continued making the Zinsco circuit breakers but made no other Zinsco equipment. I am shooting from the lip so I am ready for corrections also.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: zinco panels
At one time the equip was labeled
"GTE Sylvania Zinsco"
This was from a single phase multi meter center. Probably during the takeover.
Later replacement parts were labeled Sylvania, such as fusible switches.
Whenever we needed buss kits to mount breakers we would get it through Sylvania.
The large switchboards with the vertical T-Slot busses were the biggest pieces of worm ridden filth I ever worked on.
At one time the equip was labeled
"GTE Sylvania Zinsco"
This was from a single phase multi meter center. Probably during the takeover.
Later replacement parts were labeled Sylvania, such as fusible switches.
Whenever we needed buss kits to mount breakers we would get it through Sylvania.
The large switchboards with the vertical T-Slot busses were the biggest pieces of worm ridden filth I ever worked on.
Re: zinco panels
Just ran into Zinco panelboards, transformers and switchboard at a due diligence I performed at a hotel constructed in 76. From all that I have read am I to understand the same issues that plaque the old FPE's are also relevant to Zinco and I should recommend replacement of the Zinco equipment?
Just ran into Zinco panelboards, transformers and switchboard at a due diligence I performed at a hotel constructed in 76. From all that I have read am I to understand the same issues that plaque the old FPE's are also relevant to Zinco and I should recommend replacement of the Zinco equipment?
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: zinco panels
I think if they are your customers you owe it to them to warn them.The choice is theres
I think if they are your customers you owe it to them to warn them.The choice is theres
tryinghard
Senior Member
- Location
- California
Re: zinco panels
One of the first projects I did as a journeyman was a 50 home subdivision in 1980. We used Zinsco panels and I really did not like them even at that time mainly because of wire space but also because of their design. I later spent a few years in service work and changed Zinsco/Sylvania panels often.
I will say the subdivision is now 25 years old and as far as I know is electrically healthy. I think/know the load matters, and if a home is wired correctly to code there really isn't any substantial load on circuits anymore and so it is my contention that the Zinsco design failed mainly due to incorrect application by either wan-a-be electricians or handyman who swears he knows what he is doing. In other words this Zinsco design failed because it really cannot handle an 80% load but it can handle a 30% +/- load.
One of the first projects I did as a journeyman was a 50 home subdivision in 1980. We used Zinsco panels and I really did not like them even at that time mainly because of wire space but also because of their design. I later spent a few years in service work and changed Zinsco/Sylvania panels often.
I will say the subdivision is now 25 years old and as far as I know is electrically healthy. I think/know the load matters, and if a home is wired correctly to code there really isn't any substantial load on circuits anymore and so it is my contention that the Zinsco design failed mainly due to incorrect application by either wan-a-be electricians or handyman who swears he knows what he is doing. In other words this Zinsco design failed because it really cannot handle an 80% load but it can handle a 30% +/- load.
coppertreeelectric
Senior Member
Re: zinco panels
I just completed a project in an apartment complex. We had to change out 120 ML Zinsco panels and 13 600Amp Federal Pacific services.
The insurance company demanded that the apartment complex change out all of the Zinsco and FP equipment. I know there is a fire hazard and think they should have been changed, but since the UL still lists them both I don?t think it?s the insurance companies right to make that decision. But I guess they make the rules.
I just completed a project in an apartment complex. We had to change out 120 ML Zinsco panels and 13 600Amp Federal Pacific services.
The insurance company demanded that the apartment complex change out all of the Zinsco and FP equipment. I know there is a fire hazard and think they should have been changed, but since the UL still lists them both I don?t think it?s the insurance companies right to make that decision. But I guess they make the rules.
Re: zinco panels
Check this link:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
...and this link, to a class action lawsuit against FPE:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEnotice12-05.htm
The lawsuit notice indicates that:
FPE LIED and CHEATED to get that UL label.
Check this link:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
...and this link, to a class action lawsuit against FPE:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEnotice12-05.htm
The lawsuit notice indicates that:
coppertreeelectric
Senior Member
Re: zinco panels
My point more or less is that we all rely on UL. UL is the final say so with the equipment we install. I do believe its wrong for UL to still underwrite the FP panels.
I will stop myself here and agree that it was right for the insurance company to require the upgrade, and also say it?s wrong for UL to still list FP products.
I in no way disagree. I think FP panels and equipment are crap. I think the executives should all be shot or electrocuted by one of their own panels, not really nut it might be fun to watch.
My point more or less is that we all rely on UL. UL is the final say so with the equipment we install. I do believe its wrong for UL to still underwrite the FP panels.
I will stop myself here and agree that it was right for the insurance company to require the upgrade, and also say it?s wrong for UL to still list FP products.
Re: zinco panels
I just had an "inspection" done on a FPE panel swap-out...I say "inspection" because while the AHJ was inspecting one of the three inspections I needed today, he asked: "Is that an FPE swap?" I replied "yes", his reply "There's nothing wrong with FPE.." .
I'm sure we can all agree that not every FPE CB will fail...and not every FPE failure will create a loss of life or property...but it can happen and that is why FPE is getting slapped with a suit (and for cheating on the UL listing).
In one of the links at the inspect-ny site, they give a couple of reasons as to why the FPE design is poor. When comparing the contact point of an FPE CB vs.,say , a Murray CB, the contact area is quite apparent. The FPE area is minute compared to the Murray - what the standard is, I don't know. Maybe this is the key point of the "cheating" issue? ? ? Is is also noted that a type "F" cb could fit into a type "E" buss...if I recall, the "F" is the thin CB - reducing the surface contact area when jammed into a type "E" buss.
If you read ALL the pages linked at inspect-ny, you will have a better understanding than I could relate here - mainly, because I forgot most of the content...I just hand customers a few "fact" sheets and let them decide for themselves....based on their own pocketbooks without me yelling "FIRE" in their ear.
No need to stop...
I just had an "inspection" done on a FPE panel swap-out...I say "inspection" because while the AHJ was inspecting one of the three inspections I needed today, he asked: "Is that an FPE swap?" I replied "yes", his reply "There's nothing wrong with FPE.." .
I'm sure we can all agree that not every FPE CB will fail...and not every FPE failure will create a loss of life or property...but it can happen and that is why FPE is getting slapped with a suit (and for cheating on the UL listing).
In one of the links at the inspect-ny site, they give a couple of reasons as to why the FPE design is poor. When comparing the contact point of an FPE CB vs.,say , a Murray CB, the contact area is quite apparent. The FPE area is minute compared to the Murray - what the standard is, I don't know. Maybe this is the key point of the "cheating" issue? ? ? Is is also noted that a type "F" cb could fit into a type "E" buss...if I recall, the "F" is the thin CB - reducing the surface contact area when jammed into a type "E" buss.
If you read ALL the pages linked at inspect-ny, you will have a better understanding than I could relate here - mainly, because I forgot most of the content...I just hand customers a few "fact" sheets and let them decide for themselves....based on their own pocketbooks without me yelling "FIRE" in their ear.
- Status