On a recent inspection, I got a call from the listing agent saying that there was a concern from the buyer (my client) about the “electrical panel” and they backed out of the deal. It was a 1950’s build and there were few grounding conductors anywhere, two-prong receptacles, and a couple of cloth-insulated conductors added in for good measure (that I knew were all concerns for my client that have two teenage boys and a ton of sensitive electronics). The listing agent asked specifically had the panel been “updated” that led me down the path of researching the history of Challenger panels. Challenger only started business in the 1970’s, so the immediate answer was “Yes,” the panel was an upgrade/replacement for whatever was installed originally in 1958.
However, during my research, I went through the previous forum threads here about the controversy about whether to call out Challenger panels as being problematic to see if there was a conclusion. Seemed like our community has been divided on the subject. Then I asked ChatGPT and here was its response (that you would presume pretty-well summarizes what it finds on the Internet):
The main electrical panel is a Challenger brand, which was commonly installed in homes during the 1980s and early 1990s. Challenger panels have a known history of performance and safety concerns, including reports of breakers failing to trip under overcurrent conditions, potential overheating, and compatibility issues with replacement breakers. Some breakers were manufactured by or associated with Federal Pacific, another brand with a widely documented history of failure.
While not all Challenger panels pose an immediate danger, their documented issues raise concerns about long-term reliability and safety. Due to these concerns and the age of the equipment, further evaluation by a licensed electrician is recommended. Upgrading the panel may be advised as a proactive safety measure.
Seems pretty dire… Has anyone’s opinion changed recently. Any new evidence that HI’s should indeed be calling Challenger panels out as safety concerns?
If I do not observe any faults, I do advise my client that most insurance carriers down here will not write coverage… except for the last chance
State run carrier Citizens of Florida. I also let them know that the insurers here could change their minds back & forth at any time.
This goes in my report
Circuit breaker panel is Challenger brand which some insurance companies consider to be obsolete. Recommend checking with your insurance agent or carrier.
Morning, Brian. Hope to find you well and in good spirits today.
I am very surprised you posted this thread.
Challenger panels. For us old timers, and inspectors with many years under their belts, Challenger service panel are synonyms for…Red-flagging. Why? Potential dangers that include, breaker - OCPD malfunctions, over-heating, fires, out dated safety standards.
On top of that, kick in few ungrounded grounding conductors, two-prong receptacles which typically/normally/usually indicates the lack of/for grounding lighting circuits. Add to that several circuits with cloth-insulated conductors would be a negotiating tool for purchasers still interested.
Brian, why would anyone change their mind unless the past has been wiped clean?
IMO, these are dangerous panels. Red Flag them.
I yellow-flagged the panel, missing-grounds, two-prong receptacles, cloth insulation. Then, the first-time skittish home buyers backed off the deal. So, I just wanted to make absolutely sure I was on solid ground. Btw, I red-flag Zinscos, Pushmatics, Wadsworth and Federal Pacifics. The only red-flag for sure about Challenger has been the single pole GFCI breakers that were recalled (Jeff’s reference). So, absent any GFCI single-pole breakers and no signs of any other over-heating problems, I am weighing whether Challenger is really in the same category as Federal Pacific, for instance. You are voting, Yes, which has some import to it, old timer - Thanks.
The reason for my reply, Brian is I consider you one of us Old Timers.
No hesitation when we write. Talk soft, Write hard!
“Then, the first-time skittish home buyers backed off the deal.” Good for them. I do not consider them skittish. With everything thought-out after your great explanation they backed away from the purchase. Next…
Challenger bus bars can overheat and circuit breakers can fail. The Challenger brand of panelsare no longer manufactured, OBSOLETE, and have a poor reputation within the electrical industry. Challenger panels were commonly installed in the 80’s and 90’s.
Tin plating on the copper prevents corrosion from the rubber insulation. If I am not mistaken, referred to as TCCW.
May not be suitable for todays power demands of modern appliances, potentially leading to safety hazards like overloaded circuits, overheating, and even fire.
The ChatGPT response appears to have originated from an inspectors’ narrative, likely from some sample report. AI has known plagiarism issues.
FL insurance companies have their underwear in a bunch over these panels. I do not call them out just because they are Challenger. Also, I generally separate branch wiring from panel issues unless it is visible inside the panel.
I also do not call them out just because of the name plate. But I do caution the buyer that these panels are obsolete and that some insurers have refused to write a policy for a home with a Challenger panel.
Just to clarify. My understanding is that 100% of the copper is there, meaning it should be fine for load-carrying. The tin was applied to reduce oxidation and also make soldering easier, back in the day when electricians did that. The problems are related to the degradation of the rubber insulation and cloth jackets over time.
Yes the old conductors are copper and for ampacity purposes you would use the copper portion of the ampacity table to determine the maximum current value. The old rubber insulated conductors had a lower ampacity due to their type of insulation but they were still a 60° C conductor same as the rating of modern NM cable. So there is no difference in ampacity (or capacity) if the insulation is not compromised.
