CU change pricing?

[ban-all-sheds]

All they say is that ferrous metal is "deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material".

But it isn't.

As I wrote yesterday, under those circumstances one cannot really blame manufacturers for not producing any plastic ones,

I can, and I do.

since there is no way that they could be sure as to whether or not they were compliant with the new regulation

Yes there is - if there is an existing standard, valid in the EU, which applies to switchgear etc, and defines a certain performance as (qualified) non-combustible then they could make those, stand together, and dare the BSI & IET to try and enforce a local standard with which no EU/international standard compliant product can comply.

Like many others, I'm also sceptical about the whole concept this new regulation, and wonder if it may not result in more, not less, death/injury, particularly amongst 'DIYers',

I think it very likely.

How long before someone cuts a hole in a CU with a tin-opener, or an old hacksaw, or a cold chisel, and leaves jagged edges which damage cables? All very way to say they shouldn't - people shouldn't cross onto the wrong carriageway of motorways, but we still put Armco in.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed - and I would have imagined that, for example, many thermosetting plastics would probably be satisfactory

Give me a large enough budget and access to experts and specialist facilities and I'll post a video on YouTube of Bakelite burning.


Oh - actually I don't need to

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed - and I would have imagined that, for example, many thermosetting plastics would probably be satisfactory

Give me a large enough budget and access to experts and specialist facilities and I'll post a video on YouTube of Bakelite burning. Oh - actually I don't need to

When I said 'satisfactory', I meant in common sense terms. As you keep on saying (and AFAIAA no-one disagrees with you), nothing is literally "non-combustible" under all circumstances. I'm sure you wouldn't have to look too hard to find a video of ferrous metal 'burning', yet BS7671 deems it to be "an example of a non-combustible material".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

"Non-combustible" is non-achievable, and frankly I am disgusted that a group with a scientific/engineering remit should have written what they did, and for me their entire credibility has taken a massive blow.

I suppose that it's quite an unusual occurrence but, on this occasion, I totally agree with you.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

For those who are required to fit new Consumer Units - they will fit what's available and 'meets the new standard' - if Wylex say its okay then so be it

If one of the manufacturers states that their plastic CU is non-combustible will you believe them?

I must have missed that - which one of the CU manufacturers has said that? And if they did, how are you or I going to challenge them?

I don't have the time or inclination to worry what the definition of combustible is or is not and whether customers will prefer plastic consumer units, metal or even ceramic ones.

Conscientious caring attitude.

So let me get this straight in the future, as a 'conscientious and caring spark', you are not going to fit one of the various manufacturers metal Consumer Units because nobody has defined combustible and because of your previous comment you don't trust the CU manufacturers or is it you don't trust the regulations. Out of curiosity what are you going to fit then?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I must have missed that - which one of the CU manufacturers has said that? And if they did, how are you or I going to challenge them?

Not sure if this qualifies or not. The trouble is neither does anyone else.

Not new, by the way:
Consumer Units
Manufactured in accordance with IEC 60439-3
Moulded self extinguishing ABS (flame retardant material)
Page 3

So let me get this straight in the future, as a 'conscientious and caring spark', you are not going to fit one of the various manufacturers metal Consumer Units because nobody has defined combustible

Do you not think more investigation and clarification is required?

and because of your previous comment you don't trust the CU manufacturers

It is what seems like total capitulation to a single misread sentence which I question.

or is it you don't trust the regulations.

I'm not sure that trust is the right word but they have been misread and do not say what everyone is following.

Out of curiosity what are you going to fit then?

I shall wait and see if more sense prevails.

 

[JohnW2]

So let me get this straight in the future, as a 'conscientious and caring spark', you are not going to fit one of the various manufacturers metal Consumer Units because nobody has defined combustible and because of your previous comment you don't trust the CU manufacturers or is it you don't trust the regulations.

I think you are perhaps missing the point. EFLI (and everyone else) will presumably have no problem in fitting a (ferrous) metal CU - since, despite the lack of a definition, Amd 3 of BS7671 explicitly says (in a note to the reg in question) that ferrous metals "are deemed to be" non-combustible materials - so ferrous metal CUs will be compliant with the reg regardless of whether the manufacturer says they are or not. It is in relation to anything other than ferrous metals that the uncertainty exists - and the lack of clarity in the reg renders it totally impossible for any manufacturer to claim that a CU made out of any material other than ferrous metal is compliant with the reg.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

(in a note to the reg in question) that ferrous metals "are deemed to be" non-combustible materials

I would point out (as you have previously written) that the note says that "ferrous metal is deemed to be AN example of non-combustible material".

Whatever the definition of non-combustible was in their minds, obviously this means there are others.

Had it been their intention that only ferrous CUs were to be allowed, surely that would have been easy(er) to state.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm sure you wouldn't have to look too hard to find a video of ferrous metal 'burning', yet BS7671 deems it to be "an example of a non-combustible material".

Then BS 7671 is clearly wrong on a matter of basic material science.

 

[JohnW2]

(in a note to the reg in question) that ferrous metals "are deemed to be" non-combustible materials

I would point out (as you have previously written) that the note says that "ferrous metal is deemed to be AN example of non-combustible material". Whatever the definition of non-combustible was in their minds, obviously this means there are others. Had it been their intention that only ferrous CUs were to be allowed, surely that would have been easy(er) to state.

Exactly. The reg, as worded, leaves absolutely no doubt that 'they' regard ferrous metal as 'non-combustible' but, as we've both said, the wording also implies that there are probably other materials that 'they' would also regard as 'non-combustible' - yet the wording gives absolutely no clue as to what those other materials might be (unless compliance with BS EN 61439-3 is 'enough' in which case much of the reg is redundant, and confusing).

As things stand, unless clarification comes (and I'm not holding my breath!) any manufacturer who invested appreciable time, effort and money in developing and starting to manufacture what they thought might be (or 'should be') Amd 3-compliant CUs which were not made out of ferrous metal would, IMO (and despite BAS's view), be crazy.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Unless they are a major manufacturer who successfully makes and sells plastic CUs, which comply with EN standards, in the rest of the EU and decide to mount a legal challenge to a local regulation which does not reference an alternative EN standard but which makes their products "illegal".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Anyway - does this mean an end to the good old 800KMF?

 

[JohnW2]

Unless they are a major manufacturer who successfully makes and sells plastic CUs, which comply with EN standards, in the rest of the EU and decide to mount a legal challenge to a local regulation which does not reference an alternative EN standard but which makes their products "illegal".

But what would be the incentive, particularly since metal ones are generally more expensive, hence probably with a greater profit margin? I would have thought that they are probably quite pleased that they can use an abomination of a regulation as a means of increasing their profits!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Anyway - does this mean an end to the good old 800KMF?

I wondered that - but I also wondered whether they might actually be 'compliant' (with whatever definition of non-combustible is meant to be appropriate!), since they look to be made out of some sort of thermosetting plastic. If not, I would imagine that they could probably be 'shrouded' in a metal 'outer' without too much difficulty.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

Anyway - does this mean an end to the good old 800KMF?

In domestic property certainly.

For commercial/industrial, can still be used just as before, as the non-combustible requirement does not apply there.

Untitled

• flameport
• 25 Jan 2015
• 2