Thread: Galvanized pipe

Historically speaking, when was galvanized pipe introduced into residential construction?

Thank you.

Similar Threads:

• ABS Flue Pipe on LP Water Heater
• Condensation On Flue Pipe
• Flue pipe
• vertical pipe on relief line
• Trained Chimpanzees Install Flue Pipe

Steven

All I know is, I have seen it in houses at least 100 years old.

As a dealer in lead pipe, A. P. Pitkin early recognized the perils from lead poisoning, and applied himself to the task of discovering a practical remedy. After much travel and no small difficulty in finding a house that would consent to fit up to do the requisite mechanical work, he succeeded in 1855 in introducing, as a substitute, the first galvanized pipe ever used in cities for the distribution of water, Hartford having led the way in the adoption of the method. It has since come into almost universal use, and millions of feet are made annually.

I'm looking at a 1920's house. Whatever sanitary pipe is visable (stack, main) looks like cast iron. What would be the most likely material to expect to find to the fixtures? Is it safe to assume galvanized?

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I'm looking at a 1920's house. Whatever sanitary pipe is visable (stack, main) looks like cast iron. What would be the most likely material to expect to find to the fixtures? Is it safe to assume galvanized?

ST: Yep.

"I'm looking at a 1920's house. Whatever sanitary pipe is visable (stack, main) looks like cast iron. What would be the most likely material to expect to find to the fixtures? Is it safe to assume galvanized?"

I agree with Aaron, to the extent that, the house likely HAD galv in it when built. However, the original galv pipe is also very likely to have been replaced by now. What is in it now ??? Some galv, part copper, part plastic ???

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"I'm looking at a 1920's house. Whatever sanitary pipe is visable (stack, main) looks like cast iron. What would be the most likely material to expect to find to the fixtures? Is it safe to assume galvanized?"

I agree with Aaron, to the extent that, the house likely HAD galv in it when built. However, the original galv pipe is also very likely to have been replaced by now. What is in it now ??? Some galv, part copper, part plastic ???

RC: In New York, maybe. Now, if it was Philly . . . .

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I'm looking at a 1920's house. Whatever sanitary pipe is visable (stack, main) looks like cast iron. What would be the most likely material to expect to find to the fixtures? Is it safe to assume galvanized?

To assume is the rock you will perish on. Just tell them what you know.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I'm looking at a 1920's house. Whatever sanitary pipe is visable (stack, main) looks like cast iron. What would be the most likely material to expect to find to the fixtures? Is it safe to assume galvanized?

Have you ever looked at the word "Assume"? Ass_u_me Or an Ass out of U and Me!

Never assume anything, if you don't know just say so.

I am not lookintg to declare that there is galvanized present, but I would like to discuss what is likely there, and the possible ramifications. The drain is slow from the second floor bathroom, especially when the sink and tub are draining at the same time.

Further Investigation....

Get someone with a drain camera to scope it.

Or call Mike Holmes....lol

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

The drain is slow from the second floor bathroom, especially when the sink and tub are draining at the same time.

Could be failing cast iron DWV.

Or, could be failing galvanized as galvanized was also used for DWV.

Either way, as suggested above, have a plumbing contractor run a camera down through the pipe and see what is going on.

Galv was used here in the northeast for everything from DWV to supply piping. It came on as a low cost replacement to brass pipe. Threaded brass was used here for heating and dwv. As the types of brass changed from red brass high in copper to yellow brass the galvanized pipe came in at 1/2 the cost and was touted as lasting forever. I actually still find galv pipe gas lines in older homes. Gives me a great chance to sell CSST.

Gives me a great chance to sell CSST

DB: CSST is crap. So then, that makes you what kind of salesman?

A.D., you have made your distain for this piping system well known here. However, as an 'impartial' inspector, does this not pose a conflict for you? I mean, if you find a house with CSST properly installed and bonded, do you still vilify it in your report?
Just curious how you deal with finding CSST.
Bob

Originally Posted by Bob Harper

A.D., you have made your distain for this piping system well known here. However, as an 'impartial' inspector, does this not pose a conflict for you? I mean, if you find a house with CSST properly installed and bonded, do you still vilify it in your report?
Just curious how you deal with finding CSST.
Bob

BH: Too often, maybe even always, the manufacturers of building materials and systems utilize the general home-buying public as an inexpensive test bed for their "new and improved" products. Usually, but not always, these amount to nothing more than materials and systems designed with two purposes in mind: low cost and ease of installation (which also costs less). CSST is one of these.

BH, you have been around for a while, so you know that there is an endless stream of feckless products perennially on the market for builders to use in their houses. Much like physicians do not do the actual research regarding the medicines they prescribe - they rely on the pharmaceutical companies, the Surgeon General, the AMA, et al. for that, the builders do not actually know anything about newly introduced products, but rather rely upon the UL, and other similar agencies for their information. All of these agencies are subject to political pressure from lobbies formed by the companies in each industry. The information often cannot be relied upon.

Only after the body count gets enough attention from the media and the legal profession do the problems with any system actually get addressed. In the interim people are killed and injured by crap products. CSST, in my opinion, is in that category.

Do I think CSST is an inherently defective product like barrier EIFS, residential aluminum wiring, Federal Pacific Electric Stab Lok panels/breakers, et al? The jury is still out, as far as I am concerned. Would I have the product installed in my own house: hell no.

But hey, I am only basing this on my personal experiences. I have been involved in several legal cases where people were sickened and houses burned or exploded due to the presence of CSST. There are people living in these houses we inspect. My allegiance is to them and not to a manufacturer who is catering to the greed of the home builders.

Did I answer your question?

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I am not lookintg to declare that there is galvanized present, but I would like to discuss what is likely there, and the possible ramifications. The drain is slow from the second floor bathroom, especially when the sink and tub are draining at the same time.

If it is not lead (scratch surface) and we all know it is not copper (right)? , then it is safe to assume Steel.

Originally Posted by Bob Elliott

If it is not lead (scratch surface) and we all know it is not copper (right)? , then it is safe to assume Steel.

Rather than assume why not do a magnet test?

Originally Posted by Bruce Breedlove

Rather than assume why not do a magnet test?

You could do that method also,but I often find scratching the surface much more convieniet.

The more you can do with out specialty tools , the better.

Besides , the magnet would stick to both copper and steel.(so scratch away).
Magnet may not be in your pocket , but your screwdriver or keys might be.

Here in Minnesota I'll see galvanized water pipe in pre 1963 houses. However, I'll see original copper pipe in houses as early as the early 1950's

Prior to the mid 60's I'll see cast waste pipes with galvanized vents. In some 1950's and 1960's homes I'll see copper waste and vent pipes also.

Galvanized pipes look similar to the black iron gas pipes, except lighter colored and a rougher finish. Galvanized water pipes will always have threaded connections.

If the water pipes are galvanized they will need to be replaced soon. They rust on the interior and restrict the water flow. Run a shower, sink and flush the toilet to see what I'm talking about. Look for leaks at the threaded connections. The pipes are thinnest in these areas and will start to leak there first. Normally the horizontal runs will leak before the verticals. Some homeowner insurance companies refuse to insure homes with galvanized water pipes.

I decided was wasting my time trying to decide what was hidden in the walls, although it was probably hubbed cast iron pipe and fittings and/or galvanized nipples.

The issue was that it was impeded.

A.D. I sell what I know. I have been around long enough to know CSST. I was trained in installation when it first came on the market and thought much the same way you think now. But through time and using the product correctly I found it to be beneficial to my company to use it. I have not had a callback or mishap or so much as a leak on any of my installs in the last 14 years. Calling something crap on opinion alone leaves one to wonder what other bias you have to reliable products.

Originally Posted by Bob Elliott

The more you can do with out specialty tools , the better.

A magnet is a "specialty tool"?

Wow.

Besides , the magnet would stick to both copper and steel.

A magnet sticks to copper?

New one on me.

In a residence of that vintage 1903 was it? in NY I'd expect a drum trap at the bath which likely is full of hair/crud and impeded and a similar rotted or clogged partition trap at the sink. Wet venting also common. Of that vintage a house trap also likely, and likely clogged with grease.

I'd stick with simply describing the slow drainage with the fixture combo being specific as to the symptoms with the combined load as you experienced; and recommend a plumber evaluate.

There are other materials that may also be present which haven't yet been named, which would also likely be beyond useful life. I doubt the plumbing system is limited to a singular generation. If the bath group was fit 1900-1920 I'd expect copper & brass with possible lead patches to cast main stack.

AD wrote" I have been involved in several legal cases where people were sickened and houses burned or exploded due to the presence of CSST."

Could you explain how people were sickened by the CSST?
How did the house burn or explode due to the presence of CSST?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A magnet sticks to copper? New one on me.

Yep, but only since 2003.

Canadian nickel and silver, long before then.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I decided was wasting my time trying to decide what was hidden in the walls, although it was probably hubbed cast iron pipe and fittings and/or galvanized nipples.

The issue was that it was impeded.

Steven, I had poor flow on three drains on the second floor in the house today. All ABS, built in 2004.

In my case, probably poor housekeeping. Can't always blame the plumbing.
I watch out for galvanized supply pipes in older, pre-70's, because rust affects FLOW volume (not pressure, thanks Mitchel Toelle) in small diameters and they often develop leaks. And because of insurance company bias against them.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A magnet is a "specialty tool"?

Wow.



A magnet sticks to copper?

New one on me.

Yes Jerry it is.
Or are you like that guy on tv McGyver ?

Do you use it for testing a dozen other things ..haha

In attempt to dis credit you lose point of the fact it is much easier to simply scratch the darn thing then run back upstairs and dig for some little magnet in your bag of bells and whistles.

I am detailed enough to not need a dog and pony show.

Materials are often combined and if anything magnetic is there in the mix it will stick.
Even in the paint.

A good home inspector will know just by looking at the pipe. However, if it's been painted the scape test with the outlet tested works great. I've never had a reason to carry a magnet.

Originally Posted by Bob Harper

AD wrote" I have been involved in several legal cases where people were sickened and houses burned or exploded due to the presence of CSST."

Could you explain how people were sickened by the CSST?
How did the house burn or explode due to the presence of CSST?

Inquiring minds want to know.

BH: The installers had installed the piping directly against and within 3" of the roof decking in multiple locations. The house was re-roofed following a hail storm. The roofers, of course, did not go into the attic to verify the gas piping installation's correctness. Why would they?

The roofing nails punctured the tubing in three (3) locations throughout the attic. Each punctured area still had the nails partially blocking the opening, so the gas leaks were very slow. The house has a very steeply pitched roof with multiple roof vents. The air conditioning filters were in filter grills in the ceilings, so the owner had no reason to enter the attic, where he might have noticed the gas leak.

Enough of the gas was able to gradually enter one of the children's bedrooms in an area where the puncture was just above the top plate. Slowly, over a few months period, the child became inexplicably ill. When examined by a physician, the cause was found to be inhalation of natural gas.

The child has recovered. But, for months, the owners of this house and the surrounding houses were in grave peril. And this due to the fact that a CSST manufacturer did not have sufficient knowledge of his own product when it was first released to protect them from harm.

We need a Ralph Nader for this industry.

[quote=A.D. Miller;118100]BH: The installers had installed the piping directly against and within 3" of the roof decking in multiple locations. The house was re-roofed following a hail storm. The roofers, of course, did not go into the attic to verify the gas piping installation's correctness. Why would they?]


How is this the fault of the CSST? The installers are to blame and should be brought to task for a bad install. Had this been a piece of romex and the house burned would it have been the fault of the wire manufacturer?

Quote from John: I watch out for galvanized supply pipes in older, pre-70's, because rust affects pressure in small diameters

Just to clarify John...reduced interior dia. does not cause reductions in pressure. The water pressure should remain at a constant, however, the flow will be reduced.

[quote=David Bell;118102]

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

BH: The installers had installed the piping directly against and within 3" of the roof decking in multiple locations. The house was re-roofed following a hail storm. The roofers, of course, did not go into the attic to verify the gas piping installation's correctness. Why would they?]


How is this the fault of the CSST? The installers are to blame and should be brought to task for a bad install. Had this been a piece of romex and the house burned would it have been the fault of the wire manufacturer?

DB: That is typical (for this forum) faulty logic, and a desperate attempt to buoy your floundering argument. Electrical wiring has always been readily subject to physical damage. Gas piping material has not. You may have noticed that you cannot drive a nail through threaded steel gas pipe.

Yes, the installers are to blame for this particular situation, but so is the manufacturer for supplying them with a product that can be so easily damaged. CSST is not an advancement in gas piping; it is worse than a step backward.

All I can say to you and BH is this: if you like this product, put it your house, recommend it to everyone you meet, buy stock in it, whatever, and be happy. Just don't waste any more of your time trying to sway me to your way of thinking regarding this matter.

DB: That is typical (for this forum) faulty logic, and a desperate attempt to buoy your floundering argument. Electrical wiring has always been readily subject to physical damage. Gas piping material has not. You may have noticed that you cannot drive a nail through threaded steel gas pipe.

AD, So you must think the same about water piping? All modern water pipes are susceptible to damage which can cause flooding, mold, sickness and even death. Are you saying that we should go back to galvanized pipes?

Unfortunately building materials are not perfect and the manufacturers must rely on proper installation to make things safe. If a 2x4 manufactured roof truss is installed 48" on center is that the fault of the manufacturer? Faulty installation and faulty products are two different things.

Please provide example of how CSST is a faulty product when correctly installed. I'd honestly like to know.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

AD, So you must think the same about water piping? All modern water pipes are susceptible to damage which can cause flooding, mold, sickness and even death. Are you saying that we should go back to galvanized pipes?

Unfortunately building materials are not perfect and the manufacturers must rely on proper installation to make things safe. If a 2x4 manufactured roof truss is installed 48" on center is that the fault of the manufacturer? Faulty installation and faulty products are two different things.

Please provide example of how CSST is a faulty product when correctly installed. I'd honestly like to know.

KR: That is just as ridiculous as most of your comments and not surprising at all. Water is not gas, in case you did not notice. Go back and re-read my posts and stop wasting my time with your impertinent commentary.

I recently inspected a early 1900s house in the middle of the home a section of concrete had been cut ot and a connection made to a pipe. The plumber had to go to where the pipe had been in the soil. I looked like lead but also somewhat like galv, when scraped it was still hard to tell. old steel is gray as well as lead, in a dark hole with mud i wished i had magnet.
I called it lead as it apperared to me when i scraped it, the city, 2 plumbers and a relo inspector said galv. the joint stated leaking (prior to close) and when another plumber did the repair it was indeed lead, My client called and said they were pleased with my repor and had the entire line replaced, (4000.00) I now carry a magnet

When the logic used to determine the quality of a product is baised on a incorrect instllation of that product, (csst) I would love to the expert on the side defending the product

A.D. wrote:" BH: The installers had installed the piping directly against and within 3" of the roof decking in multiple locations. The house was re-roofed following a hail storm. The roofers, of course, did not go into the attic to verify the gas piping installation's correctness. Why would they?

The roofing nails punctured the tubing in three (3) locations throughout the attic. Each punctured area still had the nails partially blocking the opening, so the gas leaks were very slow. The house has a very steeply pitched roof with multiple roof vents. The air conditioning filters were in filter grills in the ceilings, so the owner had no reason to enter the attic, where he might have noticed the gas leak.

Enough of the gas was able to gradually enter one of the children's bedrooms in an area where the puncture was just above the top plate. Slowly, over a few months period, the child became inexplicably ill. When examined by a physician, the cause was found to be inhalation of natural gas.

The child has recovered. But, for months, the owners of this house and the surrounding houses were in grave peril. And this due to the fact that a CSST manufacturer did not have sufficient knowledge of his own product when it was first released to protect them from harm."

First of all, you sure seem full of anger A.D..

Second, you described a problem with installation and inspection procedures---not the product itself.

Third. I'm really curious how this child was sickened by inhaling natural gas for two reasons:
First, natural gas is non-toxic except in high enough concentrations, it can to displace oxygen but generally the opposite occurs.
Second, since nautal gas is lighter than air, it tends to rise and dissipate. How did it enter the home from an attic going against stack effect and a normal positive presure state to enter the home, reside there agaisnt natural exfiltration rates long enough to concentrate?
I'd like to see a link to the court case on this.

You also previously mentioned fire and explostion due to the "presence" of CSST yet you failed to demonstrate how this is possible. Are you claiming the presence of CSST acts as a catalyst to trigger some sort of reaction that lead to fire and explosion?

As to the roofing nail situation, have you ever seem soft copper tubing pierced by nails and screws? I have. CSST is designed to be pushed away from nails if properly installed and inspected. Anywhere the tubing has been clamped and there is a risk of nail strike, you must use strke protection.

I'm not trying to waste your time in a vain attempt to sway you over to CSST. You obviously have made up your mind. I am concerned over your demonization of this product category. That's all.
Bob

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

KR: That is just as ridiculous as most of your comments and not surprising at all. Water is not gas, in case you did not notice. Go back and re-read my posts and stop wasting my time with your impertinent commentary.

Really? Water isn't gas? Imagine that. Did you know that copper tubing has been used for years in Minnesota and numerous other states without problems when installed correctly? Did you know it's easier to drive a nail through copper tubing than CSST? Did you know that more people get sick from moisture related problems in their homes than gas leaks?

Instead of replying with personal attacks why not simply enlighten me and the rest of us
by giving an example of how CSST is a faulty product when correctly installed.

When the logic used to determine the quality of a product is baised on a incorrect instllation of that product, (csst) I would love to the expert on the side defending the product

SVH: You would meet an early demise.

Instead of replying with personal attacks why not simply enlighten me

KR: Though I usually don't use this word, that would be impossible.

First of all, you sure seem full of anger A.D..

BH: You do not know me, and are not qualified to make that statement.

Second, you described a problem with installation and inspection procedures---not the product itself.

BH: And, I never stated otherwise.

Third. I'm really curious how this child was sickened by inhaling natural gas for two reasons:
First, natural gas is non-toxic except in high enough concentrations, it can to displace oxygen but generally the opposite occurs.
Second, since nautal gas is lighter than air, it tends to rise and dissipate. How did it enter the home from an attic going against stack effect and a normal positive presure state to enter the home, reside there agaisnt natural exfiltration rates long enough to concentrate?

BH: While I respect your knowledge of all things to do with fireplaces, that awe does not extend to your medical expertise, as you might well imagine.

I'd like to see a link to the court case on this.

BH: The manufacturer and the installer (even the poor roofer who, in my opinion, did not have a dog in this fight) chose to settle - did I mention that the homeowner is an attorney? Due to my agreement with him, I am not at liberty to disclose more than I have.

You also previously mentioned fire and explostion due to the "presence" of CSST yet you failed to demonstrate how this is possible.

BH: Lightning.

As to the roofing nail situation, have you ever seem soft copper tubing pierced by nails and screws? I have. CSST is designed to be pushed away from nails if properly installed and inspected. Anywhere the tubing has been clamped and there is a risk of nail strike, you must use strke protection.

BH: See my comments directed to biker boy-$200K-per-year-500 inspections-per-year-in-the-midst-of-a-depression, KR.

I am concerned over your demonization of this product category. That's all.

BH: "Demonization", huh? Now, there is a truly Bible-Belt term if I ever heard one. But then, you are a Yankee. How did that happen?

AD, it's not a matter of knowing you but reading your tone here. The only qualification that takes is reading.
I know you didn't state those problems were with installation yet that is what they are. Properly installed CSST would not have experienced those nail strikes.
While I appreciate your flattery of me about fireplaces, your comments about my medical expertise does not make sense nor does it address your comments. How did it make the child sick? BTW, I know a little more about medicine than you might imagine.
OK, so now you finally providing a little more info. for a change--you are claiming lightning was related to the fire and explosion. Was this CSST properly installed? Just curious.
OK, so we have anecdotal evidence in this case.
Again, you ASSume too much there scooter. I live in the North because I married a yankee. I think you need to look up that term and understand its meaning and see the context in which I applied it.

AD, I don't wish to fight with you. I am merely interested in intelligent discussion without a bunch of personal feelings interjected. From your posts it, it appears to me you have strong personal views unsubstantiated by the codes and standards that do not warrant your categorical bashing of this particular piping system. If it was a bad as you portray it, don't you think the codes and CPSC would have pulled it? What is the body count up to today?

If a product, system, appliance or material has been proven to present a substantial risk of harm to the those handling it or the end users then by all means it should be corrected or pulled from the market. However, until there is conclusive proof that has undergone peer review and been generally accepted in the industry, I think it is improper for an inspector to show such strong bias. Not only does it undermine your credibility with regards to gas piping systems but your objectivity as an inspector could be called into question. That's all. Hey, you have a right to your opinions. I just think it would help your case if you could back up your assertions with facts.
Have a good day,
Bob

Bob you are a gentelmen, I live in MO, The ShowMe State and as you stated: show me the problem and all you get is BS. Enough said.

AD, it's not a matter of knowing you but reading your tone here. The only qualification that takes is reading.

Dr. Harper: Now you are also a psychologist? I'm impressed!

I know you didn't state those problems were with installation yet that is what they are. Properly installed CSST would not have experienced those nail strikes.

Dr. Harper: Go back and spend some time reading every manual produced by any CSST manufacture, to include all of the technical bulletins published, let us say Gastite just for grins. That will take you back to 1999. Note that even in their latest publication there are several conditions which must ALL be met in order to justify the use of striker plates to protect the piping. I have proved in a video demonstration - which you can see if you pay me for my work product - that a 3" nail driven through roof decking can and will pierce the tubing even if it does not meet all of those criteria.

So I guess your explanation for that is that the product is OK, but the installation directions are at fault.

I know a little more about medicine than you might imagine.

Dr. Harper: Produce a degree for us and I will acquiesce.

OK, so now you finally providing a little more info. for a change--you are claiming lightning was related to the fire and explosion. Was this CSST properly installed? Just curious.

Dr. Harper: Yes, it was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions at the time, just like the other instance where the child became ill.

I live in the North because I married a yankee.

Dr. Harper: From Webster's unabridged: "yankee, n. a native or inhabitant of the northern States, as distinguished from a Southerner."

AD, I don't wish to fight with you. I am merely interested in intelligent discussion

Dr. Harper: As am I.

If it was a bad as you portray it, don't you think the codes and CPSC would have pulled it?

Dr. Harper: Logic is not your strong suit, is it?

If a product, system, appliance or material has been proven to present a substantial risk of harm to the those handling it or the end users then by all means it should be corrected or pulled from the market.

Dr. Harper: On that point we are in agreement.

I think it is improper for an inspector to show such strong bias.

Dr. Harper: One of the purposes of a forum such as this is to open others to new avenues of thought. This can often only be accomplished by stating facts that are not couched in the usual P.C. which accompanies the politically-coerced organizations such as the ICC, UL, CPSC, Surgeon General, et al.

Not only does it undermine your credibility with regards to gas piping systems but your objectivity as an inspector could be called into question.

Dr. Harper: This is not an inspection report, nor is it a meeting of your own personal Glee Club. The last time I took notice, the Bill of Rights was still (mostly) in effect. I have the right to an opinion and the right to speak it.

Hey guys,
Is this thread still about galvanized pipe? Doesn't seem to be!

A.D,I have no issue with you. You on the other hand feel obligated to create these long dissertations on why your way of thinking is the one and only truth that we can have in our unknowing lives. Just a small instance of your own humility would add credence to your posts and people might actually value your opinion more. Probably not though.

Just a small instance of your own humility would add credence to your posts and people might actually value your opinion more.

DB: What form would you like for this to take? Grovelling? How about genuflection? Would crawling through broken glass work for you? Eating crow or humble pie? I am happy to oblige, but require direction in order to insure precise compliance. This is new territory for me . . .

Originally Posted by Charles Guinn

Hey guys,
Is this thread still about galvanized pipe? Doesn't seem to be!

CG: It should have ended at that, but just did not.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

DB: What form would you like for this to take? Grovelling? How about genuflection? Would crawling through broken glass work for you? Eating crow or humble pie? I am happy to oblige, but require direction in order to insure precise compliance. This is new territory for me . . .

All I really ask for is an open mind.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

DB: What form would you like for this to take? Grovelling? How about genuflection? Would crawling through broken glass work for you? Eating crow or humble pie? I am happy to oblige, but require direction in order to insure precise compliance. This is new territory for me . . .

I don't think anything like that would be necessary. Just give one example to support your views. Many people have asked for that example in an attempt to understand your point of view. But, to date, you've only responded with personal attacks. Which I'm pretty sure will happen again when you respond to this.

How can any person here support your theory if you cannot provide an example?

While your at it, please explain why a roofer was using a 3 inch nail. Most shingle applications will use 1" - 1 1/2". A 3" could be used for sheeting but that would penetrate the truss (if properly nailed). So to me it sounds as if the roofer wasn't doing something right.

DB and KW: OK, let's try it this way: you ask unloaded, specific and logical questions, and I will answer them the best way I know how.

We'll start with KW's question, which almost meets the above criteria, concerning why a roofer would use a 3" nail. Perhaps to punish a non-conforming section of sheathing? Who knows? You would have to ask the roofer. The fact that they are used often is self-evident when I enter any attic in my area. Shall I provide you with photos of these each time I encounter them, or can you just take my word for it? If I post the photos will you then attempt to discredit them by requiring witnesses, actual physical addresses, time and date-stamped photos? Where will it end?

So tell me then, you have never seen a 3" nail protruding through roof decking? I guess everything is different up North, huh?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

DB and KW: OK, let's try it this way: you ask unloaded, specific and logical questions, and I will answer them the best way I know how.

We'll start with KW's question, which almost meets the above criteria, concerning why a roofer would use a 3" nail. Perhaps to punish a non-conforming section of sheathing? Who knows? You would have to ask the roofer. The fact that they are used often is self-evident when I enter any attic in my area. Shall I provide you with photos of these each time I encounter them, or can you just take my word for it? If I post the photos will you then attempt to discredit them by requiring witnesses, actual physical addresses, time and date-stamped photos? Where will it end?

So tell me then, you have never seen a 3" nail protruding through roof decking? I guess everything is different up North, huh?

I agree, I've seen it done before also. And it's wrong. Code and manufacturers may not specify maximum length but when doubling the required length their risking damage to other items. IE wiring, gas pipes etc. Therefore I don't see how a punctured gas line isn't the roofer's fault.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

I agree, I've seen it done before also. And it's wrong. Code and manufacturers may not specify maximum length but when doubling the required length their risking damage to other items. IE wiring, gas pipes etc. Therefore I don't see how a punctured gas line isn't the roofer's fault.

KR: I am not totally absolving the roofer. In an ideal world he would have gone into the attic to see what lay in harm's way AND would not have employed 3" nails. However, nail striker plates should have been employed. Ostensibly they were not because the manufacturer did not require them under the circumstances. So technically the installer is not at fault, but the manufacturer is due to publishing instructions that are not up to the task of anticipating common roofer errors.

Again I will say, for the record, I personally believe that producing and selling gas piping that is so prone to damage from nail strikes, et al., is irresponsible. Even if you do not choose to agree with that statement, surely you may entertain the idea of agreeing with this one: the manufacturer of a gas piping product that is prone to nail strike damage should go out of their way to provide the piping with protection that anticipates common construction practices (right or wrong) and should publish installation instructions accordingly.

At the risk of repeating myself, go back and re-read my posts. Nowhere did I say that I believe CSST to be inherently defective. I did say that I have not made that decision as regards my beliefs.

This is my opinion KR. You are certainly welcome to yours no matter how divergent.

DB: CSST is crap. So then, that makes you what kind of salesman?
__________________


who wrote this? Mr hip boots him self

[quote=A.D. Miller;118306]KR: I am not totally absolving the roofer. In an ideal world he would have gone into the attic to see what lay in harm's way AND would not have employed 3" nails. However, nail striker plates should have been employed. Ostensibly they were not because the manufacturer did not require them under the circumstances. So technically the installer is not at fault, but the manufacturer is due to publishing instructions that are not up to the task of anticipating common roofer errors.]

Let me get this straight. The installer of the CSST should have installed nail plates on an existing roof that may or may not be re-roofed in the event than an over zealous roofer employs 3" nails. The logic here eludes me. Honestly there is no logic here. You are grasping at 3 " straws.

To recap on the punctured CSST in the attic:
CSST attached directly to the roof deck and within 3" of the deck. According to the mfr. http://www.gastite.com/include/langu...8_DI_Guide.pdf, pg 51, this is an improper installation because:
constrained without strike protection within 3" of a nail strike hazard. Therefore, I assert again, the problem was not with the product itself but improper installation and a failure of inspection. It would be reasonable to assume at some point in history that roof would get re-roofed. This process uses nails longer than the originals, which could penetrate further than the original construction. This should have been picked up at inspection. If the CSST was penetrated at the time of new construction, it should have been picked up by the original leak test.

It is one thing to bash a product that fails or causes a loss when it is properly installed and used within the mfrs. listed instructions. It is another altogether to bash the product it has been improperly installed or used. That is not a failure of the product but those using it.

Still waiting to hear how NG made that child sick and you don't need an MD or PhD to understand that.

Lawyer:
"Your Honor, My cient the roofer( Having eaten 47 pcs. of chicken at the all you can eat wing night at Hooters) became bound up on the jobsite the next morning. Having no enema bag handy, and being pretty handy guy, he found a scrap piece of CSST on the site and fashioned his own. Having scoured the pages and pages of instruction and warning booklets we could find no specific warning for inserting this product in ones own rectum. It is for this reason we seek damages from the manufacturer of the CSST for excessive bleeding, pain and suffering and the humiliation my client suffered both in the portolet and in the emergency room.

Judge:
I am sorry, but much like your clients newly perforated colon, this case holds no water.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

I agree, I've seen it done before also. And it's wrong. Code and manufacturers may not specify maximum length but when doubling the required length their risking damage to other items. IE wiring, gas pipes etc. Therefore I don't see how a punctured gas line isn't the roofer's fault.

I disagree with most of what you have stated above.

IT IS THE GAS LINE INSTALLERS fault if their piping is penetrated by a nail as they are, after all, REQUIRED BY CODE to PROTECT THEIR PIPE FROM nails where susceptible from puncture or damage from nails.

It is not the roofer's responsibility to go into the attic and make sure that all other trades materials are not where the other materials should not be anyway, or be protected when placed in those areas.

I hold roofers to great responsibilities for many things, but not for the slack work of other trades.

You refer to a 3" nail, when is the last time ... er ... make that THE FIRST TIME ... you have seen a truss top chord or rafter which is smaller than a 2x4 (which happens to be 3-1/2" in depth)? If the wiring/piping/whatever had been supported from the bottom edge of the truss top chord or rafter, even a 4" nail would not be a problem (1/2" roof sheathing + 3-1/2" wood = 4" of distance).

J Peck has this one pegged right, The plumber is at falult, if the descriptions are correct.

AD: I agree with most of what you're saying but don't agree that a product manufacturer can write up installation instructions covering every stupid thing a trades person might do.

Jerry: I think you're missing some of our conversation. I and others were contending improper installation and / or improper roofing techniques while AD was contending a faulty product (CSST) or faulty manufacturers installation instructions.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Jerry: I think you're missing some of our conversation. I and others were contending improper installation and / or improper roofing techniques while AD was contending a faulty product (CSST) or faulty manufacturers installation instructions.

Ken,

It is not I who is missing the point, it is you.

The point is that THE CSST SHOULD NOT BE installed where nails can puncture it, and, when it is IT IS REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED against those nails. It is that plain and simply.

You said: "I and others were contending improper installation and / or improper roofing techniques"

If you are referring to "improper installation " of or related to "roofing", you are incorrect on that part.

If you are referring to "improper installation" of the CSST, you would be correct on that part.

You then proceeded with "and / or improper roofing techniques" and you are wrong on that part. The roofers are working from the top side of the roof, nailing blind into material provided for them for that purpose, it is up to the trades installing the other materials to protect their materials, and, in fact, they are required to do so by the code.

I know you will likely respond with something like 'Well, the roofers CAN go into the attic to see what they are nailing into.' and I will respond with something like 'Huh? Explain to me how the roofers are going to go into the rafter space of a cathedral ceiling and check for anything.', at which point I would hope you would begin to realize that the roofers are doing just what they are supposed to do, work from the top side of the roof sheathing, and that if the other trades did what they were supposed to do, NOTHING would get punctured or damaged with nails.

I know you will likely respond with something like 'Well, the roofers CAN go into the attic to see what they are nailing into.' and I will respond with something like 'Huh? Explain to me how the roofers are going to go into the rafter space of a cathedral ceiling and check for anything.', at which point I would hope you would begin to realize that the roofers are doing just what they are supposed to do, work from the top side of the roof sheathing, and that if the other trades did what they were supposed to do, NOTHING would get punctured or damaged with nails.

Nope. I'm not saying any of that. When I was roofing houses I never went into the attics. But I will say that the roofer should use some common sense and not use a nail 2x longer than what is needed as they are risking damage to other items. Proper penetration through the roof sheeting is at least 1/4 inch. Two inches of penetration through the sheeting is just asking for trouble even though it's technically allowable.

The point is that THE CSST SHOULD NOT BE installed where nails can puncture it, and, when it is IT IS REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED against those nails. It is that plain and simply.

I agree with that statement, as I have several times already. However, AD was stating that CSST was a dangerous product as it can be penetrated by a nail. I've been contending that #1 Properly installed CSST should not be susceptible to nail damage and #2 other trades people should not be doing things that can jeopardize any other part of the building. So no, I haven't been missing the point.

If you are referring to "improper installation " of or related to "roofing", you are incorrect on that part.

If you are referring to "improper installation" of the CSST, you would be correct on that part.

I am referring to improper installation of the CSST.

What I am contending is that if CSST is properly installed and is not abused it should be as or more dependable than copper tubing, which is also allowed in MN. AD thinks the product is defective as it is not as impervious to damage as black iron pipe.

KR, DB, and SVH: You boys certainly take a lot of of liberty in quoting what I have previously written. Therein lies the rub with your argument. You purposely misquote and misinterpret what has been said in order to attempt give a modicum of support to your impromptu industry apologists view which was doomed from the start.

While JP is certainly correct that the plumber's responsibility to protect the piping from future damage is a given, I think the manufacturer bears the responsibility of marketing a product that is reasonably safe when installed according to instructions that he himself has published.

Instead of just posting the Gastite manual, why don't you go back and read it. I have all of them and have read them all several times. Even the latest manual (which one of you posted, but obviously did not read) states this:

Gastite® CSST installed in locations subject to physical damage shall be adequately protected. The tubing shall be protected
at points of support and when passing through structural members such as studs, joists and plates. Where all three of the
following conditions exist mechanical strike protection must be used.
1. Concealed – View is obstructed by walls, and structural members.
2. Constrained – Tubing is not free to move to avoid puncture threats.
3. Within 3 inches of a potential threat – Tubing is routed in locations which are within 3 inches of drills,
screws, or nails.

Note that all three conditions must be met in order to warrant the use of protective plates. I have reproduced several scenarios in which only the last of these three conditions existed and was able to puncture the piping nearly every time. While the author of this may have taken into account hand nailing, it appears that the idea of pneumatic nailers was foreign to him.

Instead of arguing with no particular purpose in mind, why don't you spend <$100, set up your own little experiment in your garage, and see for yourself. Burst your own balloon and save me the trouble.

AD: to refresh your memory,

Only after the body count gets enough attention from the media and the legal profession do the problems with any system actually get addressed. In the interim people are killed and injured by crap products. CSST, in my opinion, is in that category.

Do I think CSST is an inherently defective product like barrier EIFS, residential aluminum wiring, Federal Pacific Electric Stab Lok panels/breakers, et al? The jury is still out, as far as I am concerned. Would I have the product installed in my own house: hell no.

But hey, I am only basing this on my personal experiences. I have been involved in several legal cases where people were sickened and houses burned or exploded due to the presence of CSST. There are people living in these houses we inspect. My allegiance is to them and not to a manufacturer who is catering to the greed of the home builders.

This is one of your original posts on the subject. You don't happen to mention improper installation methods at all.

So what is it, in your opinion? A bad product or is it only bad if improperly installed?

I don't see too much CSST in my area, especially whole house installations. I'm trying to formulate an opinion. Perhaps not of the product in itself, but of it's use in general.

So those of you that run into it regularly, could you give me some feeling as to the percentage of jobs you find areas that are done wrong... or should I say have weak links in the installation (safety wise).

If you tell me that most jobs are done with safety in mind at every twist and turn, then I feel it is an acceptable product. But if you find that most or even many installations have "weak" points that could be potential problems, and the only reason there are not more problems is in the odds of happening to damage that particular spot, well, that doen't impress me.

I have seen hard pipe take quite a lickin' and keep on tickin.