# uponor fitting larger id advantage



## klempner (Mar 4, 2011)

By my measurement, a 1/2" uponor fitting i.d. is 1/32" larger than, say, a zurn or viega press 1/2" fitting. 3/4" uponor fitting is 1/16" larger id than press. 1" uponor fitting is 1/8" bigger i.d. so the larger id becomes more significant, the larger the fitting.

If i were going to comment on the diameter difference between uponor and press, i would say for 1/2", it is "very slightly larger." by the time you get to 1", it is much more significant. which is to say, if i were doing a 1" service line repair, or running a new service line, i would be much more inclined to use uponor than press, but for 1/2 and 3/4, probably far less motivated by that particular advantage. not saying that 1/32" isn't worth something, but not sure it would be the driving force behind deciding to use uponor over the overs. Have always been very impressed with viega's bronze fittings, and have never had a leak. but the thing that had always lurked in the back of my mind was the uponor i.d. thing. fwiw. may set up some sort of test one of these days.


----------



## wyrickmech (Mar 16, 2013)

klempner said:


> By my measurement, a 1/2" uponor fitting i.d. is 1/32" larger than, say, a zurn or viega press 1/2" fitting. 3/4" uponor fitting is 1/16" larger id than press. 1" uponor fitting is 1/8" bigger i.d. so the larger id becomes more significant, the larger the fitting. If i were going to comment on the diameter difference between uponor and press, i would say for 1/2", it is "very slightly larger." by the time you get to 1", it is much more significant. which is to say, if i were doing a 1" service line repair, or running a new service line, i would be much more inclined to use uponor than press, but for 1/2 and 3/4, probably far less motivated by that particular advantage. not saying that 1/32" isn't worth something, but not sure it would be the driving force behind deciding to use uponor over the overs. Have always been very impressed with viega's bronze fittings, and have never had a leak. but the thing that had always lurked in the back of my mind was the uponor i.d. thing. fwiw. may set up some sort of test one of these days.


 think at it this way,as the pipe gets smaller the difference in od gets smaller to. The percentage is the same in the difference of the od. And the flow difference is a considerable amount even with the small difference in size.


----------



## klempner (Mar 4, 2011)

put a 1/2" brass nipple right next to a 1/2" pex press fitting. now theres a sight to behold. perhaps 5x the capacity.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

Friction Loss is an interesting topic...
Especially if you rely on what someone tells you vs understanding it...:whistling2:

Why not familiarize yourself with either the Darcy-Weisbach Equation or, the Hazen-Williams Equation, then come back and tell me exactly how much 2" of fitting that is a 32nd or, 16th bigger or smaller will affect the flow and pressure...

We'll talk then...:thumbup:


----------



## nhmaster3015 (Aug 5, 2008)

All crimp pex systems are by definition of the code, ILLEGAL. Note where the code says " fittings shall not have ledges, ridges or obstruction to flow" and they all do. Check the ID of view fittings compared to the ID of the pipe


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

nhmaster3015 said:


> All crimp pex systems are by definition of the code, ILLEGAL. Note where the code says " fittings shall not have ledges, ridges or obstruction to flow" and they all do. Check the ID of view fittings compared to the ID of the pipe


While that may seem to make crimp PEX fittings illegal, you leave out the exclusionary line that precedes it...



> IPC 2006
> 605.5 Fittings. *Pipe fittings shall be approved For installation with the piping material installed and shall conform to the respective pipe standards or one of the standards listed in Table 605.5.* All pipe fittings utilized in water supply systems shall also conform to NSF 61. The fittings shall not have ledges. shoulders or reductions capable of retarding or obstructing flow in the piping. Ductile and gray iron pipe fittings shall be cement mortar lined in accordance with AWWA C104.
> 
> The standards listed for PEX in Table 605.5 are: ASTM F 876, ASTM F 877, CSA B137.5.


Would you care to share where in ASTM F 876, ASTM F 877, CSA B137.5 they are illegal as I don't have those standards readily available to me and I'm not going to pay for them. I just accept the manufacturers statement that the fittings are:


> • Manufactured in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials
> (ASTM International) F877 and F1807
> • Listed by the NSF International to NSF Standards 14 and 61 for use in potable water systems
> • Listed by NSF International to be in compliant to the Uniform Plumbing Code
> • Labeled B137.5 which indicates that it is compliant to the CSA Standards B137.5


I'm sure that more powerful legal minds than ours have already gone through these arguments...


----------



## Dpeckplb (Sep 20, 2013)

Uponor fittings also, have a .6 gpm advantage over crimp style. They are both better than copper which for cold has 2.6 and hot 1.8 gpm.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

Dpeckplb said:


> Uponor fittings also, have a .6 gpm advantage over crimp style. They are both better than copper which for cold has 2.6 and hot 1.8 gpm.


Uhhh I see...

How many fittings on the line, what size, what type, etc...

Nice to hear another claim without supporting data....:thumbup:


----------



## Dpeckplb (Sep 20, 2013)

Redwood said:


> Uhhh I see...
> 
> How many fittings on the line, what size, what type, etc...
> 
> Nice to hear another claim without supporting data....:thumbup:


It is right in the new ontario plumbing code book. I will post a picture after work.


----------



## nhmaster3015 (Aug 5, 2008)

Redwood said:


> While that may seem to make crimp PEX fittings illegal, you leave out the exclusionary line that precedes it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed and they are approved which leads me to wonder how many samolians passed palms to get that certification :laughing:


----------



## plbgbiz (Aug 27, 2010)

nhmaster3015 said:


> Indeed and they are approved which leads me to wonder how many samolians passed palms to get that certification :laughing:


Agreed. 

"Code approved" and "good plumbing" are not automatically synonymous.


----------



## klempner (Mar 4, 2011)

Hey Redwood, i will try to go make sense of the two formulas, and let you know if i can make anything out of it. all i'm finding so far are the formulas without any discussion as to implications. i don't mind scientific articles, but i do like conclusions and implications--not just formulas. sort of like my customers--they want me to know what i'm talking about, but they want it boiled down to the basic ten second version of pros and cons, or whatever it is ultimately that i recommend.

Dpekplbg: i'm looking forward to seeing the stuff from your new codebook on this. thanks.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

klempner said:


> Hey Redwood, i will try to go make sense of the two formulas, and let you know if i can make anything out of it. all i'm finding so far are the formulas without any discussion as to implications. i don't mind scientific articles, but i do like conclusions and implications--not just formulas. sort of like my customers--they want me to know what i'm talking about, but they want it boiled down to the basic ten second version of pros and cons, or whatever it is ultimately that i recommend.


Once you start number crunching numbers with the formulas and realize the implications that 2" of restriction have, it will make you pause and say hmmmm... :whistling2::laughing:


----------



## klempner (Mar 4, 2011)

Hey Redwood, sorry but not making sense of the formulas. perhaps you could give me your read on it, and/or refer me to a good article on it that discusses implications for pex. thanks.


----------



## nhmaster3015 (Aug 5, 2008)

Lets not forget that the PEX manufacturers get around all this by claiming that less fittings are being used and hopefully, they are right but I have seen an awful lot of pex jobs done where the installer used just as many elbows and tees as if it were a copper job and guess what? There's nothing in the codes that says how many fittings you can and can't use.


----------



## Redwood (Sep 8, 2008)

klempner said:


> Hey Redwood, sorry but not making sense of the formulas. perhaps you could give me your read on it, and/or refer me to a good article on it that discusses implications for pex. thanks.


I'd suggest perhaps trying one of the on-line calculators to come up with the numbers for 100' of 3/4" PEX then input the numbers for the couple of inches of reduced diameter fitting and see what spits out...

To keep it simple don't worry about the roughness constant...
Not enough there to worry your head about...
Just worry about the diameter & length...
You'll see what I'm talking about...


----------



## Will (Jun 6, 2010)

This ledges in PEX not meeting code statements is a load of crap. Galvanized gas ledges, so does copper, PVC or CPVC.


----------



## nhmaster3015 (Aug 5, 2008)

Nope, nope, nope and, nope. Cut them all apart and see.


----------



## Dpeckplb (Sep 20, 2013)

I can't seem to get the image to load.


----------



## Dpeckplb (Sep 20, 2013)

Here it is


----------

