# ? about wax rings



## 22rifle (Apr 23, 2008)

neolitic said:


> Don't let the cat distract you.
> Click on his signature line.


Hmmm... I guess his code is based on the UPC then? I didn't make that connection.


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

I took a screen capture when viewing it online then uploaded snapshot to here.


----------



## 22rifle (Apr 23, 2008)

Ron The Plumber said:


> I took a screen capture when viewing it online then uploaded snapshot to here.


Yeah, I didn't make the connection between your code and the UPC when i asked that.


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

22rifle said:


> Yeah, I didn't make the connection between your code and the UPC when i asked that.


Yes based on UPC, when the amend the codes for Oregon they call it Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code


----------



## PARA1 (Jul 18, 2007)

I think the Oregon inspectors are focussing on the word [obstruction] not [reduction] . IMO


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

Bleh, Those things were hard to find before the big box stores started popping up everywhere touting how easy it was to do things yourself. 

The problem I tend to find with the users of these things is that they don't have the experience to know when or if one is needed. Its super rare, and with new products on the market, they are no longer needed, IMHO.

They are for under confident or inexperienced folks that don't believe that a simple wax ring will do the job for years trouble free. I don't like them and will correct a problem before trying to use one to "make things work".

The folks in Oregon have it right if you ask me. Just do away with the damned things.


----------



## Herk (Aug 1, 2007)

The horn is not a reduction in flow since the toilet horn's opening is actually smaller.

The reason for not using the wax with horn is because the horn can become a liability - often the wax will squeeze out from the top or bottom of the wax and make it impossible to seal. I've seen a lot of floors destroyed by the horn. When pulling up the toilet, you find that there was not much space between china and flange and the plastic is either against china or against flange with no wax between.

As long as the flange is normal, which is to say, on top of the flooring, then a standard Bol-Wax is all that is necessary.

However, if the space is large because the flange is set lower than it should be, I will use a wax with a horn or even the foam that helps support the wax. Too much wax, such as double-waxing, is easy to blow out with a plunger, particlularly since modern wax is quite soft. Sometimes, it's really worth it to replace the flange and move it to the floor surface where it belongs.


----------



## metx (Aug 2, 2008)

It is against code .due to restriction .but how about a pvc flange that goes in the pipe .


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

metx said:


> It is against code .due to restriction .but how about a pvc flange that goes in the pipe .


What one are you talking about?


----------



## orson (Nov 23, 2007)

The horn is one extra unecessary piece to potentially end up clogging your drain.


----------



## Teetorbilt (Feb 12, 2004)

Here, the plastic 'horn' wax ring was included with an American Standard toilet 'box job'. I'm having a problem with the 'restriction' issue.

The discharge port on the toilet was much smaller than the wax ring and the piping was 4". I don't envision any 'restrictions'.

BTW, the HO (wife) has told me twice how 'wonderful' the new head is and I'm amazed at how little water it uses.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

OK, let's get one thing straight. If you exit a 2" or 2-1/2" opening, from a code approved fixture, to a 4" opening, even for 1/2" of developed length, and then reduce down to 3", you have created a restriction. 

To claim these things are not a restriction based on the outlet of the fixture is to ignore the fact that they are reducing the opening. Otherwise, they would not have a 4-5" diameter, they would have a 3" diameter or less. 

Don't confuse poor design with no place in a professional plumber's arsenal of tricks with a code compliant interface for plumbing fixtures. 

Simply put, they are the first and last resort of the inept. What else is there to say?


----------



## Teetorbilt (Feb 12, 2004)

That must have been missed in one of my many courses in fluid dynamics.


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

Next time your look at a horned wax ring, look real close, does it not taper inward? when there is a taper inward, does that not make it a reduction?

Now tell me it's not a reduction.


----------



## metx (Aug 2, 2008)

*IOUX CHIEF 888-P Inside Fit Closet PVC Flange . 3 to 2.5
*


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

metx said:


> *IOUX CHIEF 888-P Inside Fit Closet PVC Flange . 3 to 2.5
> *



Good question, not sure it is approved.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

Teetorbilt said:


> That must have been missed in one of my many courses in fluid dynamics.


LOL, it was covered in turd dynamics.

Those flanges are not compliant in our area.


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

metx said:


> *IOUX CHIEF 888-P Inside Fit Closet PVC Flange . 3 to 2.5
> *



Going to say no not approved under UPC , min drain size for a toilet is 3", use that, reduces it down to 2.5


----------



## metx (Aug 2, 2008)

how about reducing 4 to 3 .I did many and always passed inspection .Point i making is, restriction 4 to 3 less flow .


----------



## 22rifle (Apr 23, 2008)

metx said:


> how about reducing 4 to 3 .I did many and always passed inspection .Point i making is, restriction 4 to 3 less flow .


Every code I have seen makes that a specific exception.


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

A 4 x 3 closet bend is not considered a reduction in the pipe, this is the only time UPC will allow it.

Hey Metx, if you say your trade in plumber, why do you ask these question? Don't you know what your code is?


----------



## 22rifle (Apr 23, 2008)

Ron The Plumber said:


> A 4 x 3 closet bend is not considered a reduction in the pipe, this is the only time UPC will allow it.
> 
> Hey Metx, if you say your trade in plumber, why do you ask these question? Don't you know what your code is?


Do you realize how many "plumbers" out there do not even own a code book?


----------



## Ron The Plumber (Oct 10, 2006)

22rifle said:


> Do you realize how many "plumbers" out there do not even own a code book?


Yep I know.


----------



## Grumpyplumber (May 6, 2007)

22rifle said:


> Every code I have seen makes that a specific exception.


*Ditto, here the ONLY allowable drain restriction is a 4"x3" closet 90 or flange.*


*...as long as you seal it with silicone.*


----------



## metx (Aug 2, 2008)

I went to the forum in NYC at Russo on the bay last month , about all the new codes . We are talking restriction on flow , and that is not in the book .not asking if, asking why.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

That answer depends on your model code.

The 4x3 exception and the flow restriction rule have been in the model codes for years.

The main reason is to prevent solids build up which can lead to dried solids and a blockage. Now, this isn't likely in the area just below the closet, but its possible. If its possible then it should be avoided. If its avoidable then it should make it to the code.

The other reason for restrictions is air flow. Our code requires not only freedom from water flow restrictions, but also air restrictions. Again, not probable so close to a closet outlet, but possible.


----------

