George E. Cawthon wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
kj wrote:

Thank you all very much for your suggestions. After looking at
diagrams of similar recessed lighting housings online I realize
that mine is apparently pretty unusual. I now see that, as a rule,
in recessed lighting fixtures the bulb goes into the socket
vertically; i.e. when one screws the bulb in, the axis of the bulb's
rotation is vertical. But that's not the way it is in my fixture.
The axis of rotation is (nearly) horizontal. (Yes, even under the
best circumstances it takes *forever* to change a lightbulb in
these fixtures.)

I guess builders use such an insanely incovenient design because
by having the bulb horizontal instead of vertical they can save
1-2 vertical inches per story. (Since this is a family ng, I will
not say what I think of such builders.)


Save your acrimony as there is absolutely no validity in your
supposition.

Sure there is if the builder did it. If the
architect picked those, he was just nuts,
appearance over function.

Did what? Architect? Two sentences and at least three assumptions.

There has never been a builder that has determined the depth of the
floor joists by considering the height of a recessed fixture. The
fixture may be dictated by the height of the floor joists which are in
turn based on the design loads.

That's right the builder doesn't do those, but
what he does is fit what the buyer/designer wants
into the space available. You can pick all sorts
of fixtures that won't fit in a specific space
without having to go to some really screwy fixture
design or using a design in a place it is not
intended for.

Please review that last sentence and resubmit. It's unclear what you
are trying to say.

I'm looking at two recessed fixtures right now that are of the same
type that the OP mentions. They're old, have asbestos lining, and they
work. Why are they screwy?

If the structure was sufficient, and the only reason to increase the
height of the floor was those fixtures, each recessed fixture's cost
would be figured in the thousands.

Bull. Increasing the space for the fixture is as
simple as adding wood strips to the bottom of the
joists. Even you go to the extreme of maintaining
ceiling height by increasing the joist height, the
cost increase is negligible. Especially in the
types of ceilings that typically have those
fixtures. It would cost a bit more if you went
from standard stud lengths to a bit longer stud,
but you would be stupid to make each stud longer,
you would just add 2x4 or 2x6 plates to get the
height.

Who said the fixtures were put in when the building was going up? Or
were you assuming that they were added later and the entire ceiling
should have been dropped for a couple of fixtures? You make a lot of
assumptions. The OP gave no information at all on the building, type
of construction, location, nothing at all.

As far as increasing the joist depth and building height for those
fixtures not adding appreciably to the cost, it would affect the
amounts of insulation, wiring, sheathing and siding, drywall,
paint...you get the idea. It would add a boat load of money to the
cost.

By the way, adding that extra plate "solution" would be a hack. _That_
is a bad builder's choice. You'd be adding poorly insulated area to
the building, adding a substantial cost, and increasing the amount of
unnecessary "built-in" settlement. But, realistically, as I mentioned
in my previous post, no builder would do that for some recessed lights.

The builder/electrician chose that fixture for a reason. Whether or
not there were other options available, and whether the right decision
was made at the time, is moot.

Sure he did, profit margin, inability to convince
the designer/home owner of the inappropriateness
of that design, inability to think up a rational
solution, etc.

Again, how do you know that the wrong decision was made in choosing
that fixture? Now you're assuming the builder was greedy, unable to
communicate and incompetent. You really have it in for the guy!

Maybe the fixtures are in a ceiling/attic floor - nothing unusual for
that to have been framed with 2x4s not that long ago and trusses
nowadays. If someone put down some sheathing on that attic floor,
something that wasn't intended to have storage, the joist depth would
be insufficient for the recessed fixture. Who made the mistake there?
The guy who designed the house, the guy who added the sheathing, or the
guy who installed the fixtures that fit? It's impossible to tell if it
was a mistake and whose fault it was as we have no information.

Not sure why you want to defend a mistake by the
builder. Builders make mistakes all the time.

WHAT mistake?! The OP is kvetching about a fixture that he is
unfamiliar with. No other information was given other than his guess
that the builder skimped on the depth of the floor joists. I pointed
out that the logic was skewed.

You're assuming that there was a mistake with no supporting
information. I'm old fashioned - I don't like condemning anyone
without some evidence.

In any event, the OP was asking for help on removing a broken bulb
base, and I think he got the what he was seeking. All's well.

R