My Complete DIY Rewire

[JohnW2]

It is perhaps worth remembering that the 'debate' is not actually about 'radials vs rings', per se, but, rather, about rings in which (per the 'dispensation' in BS7671) the In of the OPD exceeds the Iz of the cable.

If we were comparing a 32A (OPD) 4mm² (Method C) radial with a 32A (OPD) 4mm² (Method C) ring, then the ring would surely 'win', without argument. I can think of no sense in which the radial would 'be safer', but the 'CPC redundancy', and perhaps the lower EFLI, would confer some theoretical safety benefits to the ring.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Perhaps they're unwilling to change what they've done for decades?

Perhaps, but allowing them would not make them compulsory, would it, any more than they are here.

Are they actually forbidden in other countries?

If you'd like to ban rfcs, would you also ban the use of conductors in parallel?

 

[JohnW2]

Are they actually forbidden in other countries?

As I've just written, it's not really 'rings vs, radials', but a matter of cable protection. I imagine that, in any country (as in UK), any circuit (including rings) in which In>Iz is effectively 'banned' (non-compliant) - unless (as in the UK) there is some regulation which contains an explicit and specific 'dispensation' for a defined type of ring final.

I would suspect that no country 'bans' a ring final in which In≤Iz just because it's a ring - i.e. connecting the end of a (compliant) radial back to the CU.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Are they actually forbidden in other countries?

1. I have not looked at the regulations for other countries
   • It would cost me a fortune
   • It would take an impractical amount of time
   • I am insufficiently multilingual
2. Not once have I ever seen a defender of RFCs mention the fact that other countries use them

If you'd like to ban rfcs, would you also ban the use of conductors in parallel?

 

[stillp]

Are they actually forbidden in other countries?

1. I have not looked at the regulations for other countries
   • It would cost me a fortune
   • It would take an impractical amount of time
   • I am insufficiently multilingual
2. Not once have I ever seen a defender of RFCs mention the fact that other countries use them

Oh, you seemed to be suggesting that you had some knowledge of what is permitted in other countries, rather than just guessing.

I'm sure I've seen posts on here from people who want to run an additional cable to 'beef up' their existing shower, another example of an installation in which a fault could lead to the CCC of a cable being exceeded.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh, you seemed to be suggesting that you had some knowledge of what is permitted in other countries, rather than just guessing.

Not once have I ever seen a defender of RFCs mention the fact that other countries use them.

Feel free to prove me and everybody else who is doing what you call "guessing" and what most intelligent people would call "sensibly concluding" wrong by finding another country which does allow them.

I'm sure I've seen posts on here from people who want to run an additional cable to 'beef up' their existing shower, another example of an installation in which a fault could lead to the CCC of a cable being exceeded.

WT*&^"$£%#@ does that have to do with ring final socket circuits?

 

[stillp]

I would not call an assuption made as the result of an absence of evidence a "sensible conclusion". If you have nothing to back up your conclusion then I'm sorry, it's a guess.

I'm sure I've seen posts on here from people who want to run an additional cable to 'beef up' their existing shower, another example of an installation in which a fault could lead to the CCC of a cable being exceeded.

WT*&^"$£%#@ does that have to do with ring final socket circuits?

The two legs of a ring final are effectively unequal (except at the mid-point) conductors in parallel.

Rather than starting a war of words, can you find any evidence that RFCs are the cause of more accidents/incidents than radials?

 

[securespark]

I'm no defender of ring finals, but could the countries using BS1363 accessories be using ring final circuits as well??

If they have adopted one , they may well have adopted the other.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm no defender of ring finals, but could the countries using BS1363 accessories be using ring final circuits as well?? ... If they have adopted one , they may well have adopted the other.

Indeed, but I think that BAS more-or-less conceded that back on page 12...

If rings are so excellent, how come not one other country (apart from those which used to be under our influence in one way or another) has ever adopted them?

Kind Regards, John

 

[skotl]

Can't remember the last time that I saw JohnW2 lose his patience with a poster, but I whole-heartedly agree with everyone's frustrations with this OP.

On the subject of the mods, has anyone been pressing the "Alert" button? I'm just wondering how much, since mod11's half-assed and pretty pointless contribution, the mods are paying attention to this thread.

Is the Alert button the only avenue open to us mere users?

 

[JohnW2]

Can't remember the last time that I saw JohnW2 lose his patience with a poster, but I whole-heartedly agree with everyone's frustrations with this OP.

I wouldn't say that I had 'lost my patience', but I did reach the point at which it became apparent that any attempts by us to help would be essentially futile. I often get criticised, particularly by BAS, for taking the pragmatic view that it is better to try to help someone with something they clearly shouldn't be doing than to do nothing, if it's clear that they are going to go ahead regardless of whether we assist or not. However, that assumes that our advice will be heeded - if not, even that 'pragmatic' approach is futile.

On the subject of the mods, has anyone been pressing the "Alert" button? I'm just wondering how much, since mod11's half-assed and pretty pointless contribution, the mods are paying attention to this thread.

Yes. Mod 11's not-very-helpful contribution was a response to my having pressed the 'Alert' button to bring the mods attention to what I had just posted.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The two legs of a ring final are effectively unequal (except at the mid-point) conductors in parallel.

Yes, but the requirements for circuits with conductors in parallel are very different from those for ring final socket circuits. The latter are specifically exempted from the rules which would otherwise apply to parallel conductors.

A RF is very much not a circuit with parallel conductors in terms of how the Wiring Regulations regard them.

Rather than starting a war of words, can you find any evidence that RFCs are the cause of more accidents/incidents than radials?

No, but firstly I don't have access to any evidence of that nature, and secondly that isn't the point anyway - the regulations are full of provisions designed to prevent things which probably would only happen very rarely.

To repeat my oft-used driving analogy, I've been driving for about 40 years, and in all that time I could have done so in cars with no airbags, no seat belts and spears for steering columns and I'd still be here to argue the toss about ring finals. But that doesn't mean that those practices are safe, it does not mean that they should be advised and it does not mean that the next time I get into my car I won't put my seat belt on.

I do believe that all the exemptions from the normal rules of circuit protection, basically saying "well you can do this which all the other regulations would prevent you from doing as long as you ensure X Y Z" indicate that the concept is fundamentally unsound.

I do believe that the explanatory document produced by the IET, which said that they could no longer ignore all the people telling them that the tabulated capacity for 2.5mm² T&E meant it did not comply with the requirements so they had the cable capacities re-tested and then changed the requirements to match the new rating because they were "keen to maintain the use of the UK ring circuit" indicates that they are not using sound engineering judgement.

I do believe that there is no pressing need for rings to continue to be installed which justifies the increased risks.

I do believe that if we'd never had them and someone proposed introducing them they'd be sent away with a flea in their ear.

They were introduced as an expedient solution to particular practical problems which existed at a particular time. Those conditions no longer exist, and I do believe that the time has come to deprecate them, and that that could be regulated for without requiring existing ones to be removed and that one could continue to add sockets and spurs, do repairs etc. We would not need to stop using BS 1363 accessories, MCB manufacturers would soon step up production of 20A and 25A devices so that CUs could be replaced, and life would go on. And who knows - with a bit of tweaking to BS 1362 & 1363 we could give people the ability to plug their new Neff/AEG/Seimens/etc oven in.

 

[JohnW2]

... the regulations are full of provisions designed to prevent things which probably would only happen very rarely. ... To repeat my oft-used driving analogy, I've been driving for about 40 years, and in all that time I could have done so in cars with no airbags, no seat belts and spears for steering columns and I'd still be here to argue the toss about ring finals. But that doesn't mean that those practices are safe, it does not mean that they should be advised and it does not mean that the next time I get into my car I won't put my seat belt on.

All true. However, if, hypothetically, the situation were that (which is obviously not the case), many decades after introduction of compulsory seatbelts, there was absolutely no evidence that it had resulted in any safety benefits, I'm sure that at least some people would be questioning whether it continued to be appropriate to demand fitting and wearing of seatbelts.

I do believe that all the exemptions from the normal rules of circuit protection, basically saying "well you can do this which all the other regulations would prevent you from doing as long as you ensure X Y Z" indicate that the concept is fundamentally unsound.

As a principle, I cannot really disagree with that, other than to point out that probabilistic arguments often result in such situations being regarded as 'acceptable', particularly in the absence of any empirical/in-service evidence that any appreciable harm results.

I do believe that there is no pressing need for rings to continue to be installed which justifies the increased risks. ... I do believe that if we'd never had them and someone proposed introducing them they'd be sent away with a flea in their ear.

Agreed. However, I presume that 'they' (and probably many/most of us) also believe that there is no pressing need (certainly not any evidence-based need of which I am aware) to not allow ring finals to continue to be installed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[skotl]

Can't remember the last time that I saw JohnW2 lose his patience with a poster, but I whole-heartedly agree with everyone's frustrations with this OP.

I wouldn't say that I had 'lost my patience', but I did reach the point at which it became apparent that any attempts by us to help would be essentially futile. I often get criticised, particularly by BAS, for taking the pragmatic view that it is better to try to help someone with something they clearly shouldn't be doing than to do nothing, if it's clear that they are going to go ahead regardless of whether we assist or not. However, that assumes that our advice will be heeded - if not, even that 'pragmatic' approach is futile.
...

Yes indeed - apologies for suggesting otherwise. You've explained the situation far better than I could and what I poorly conveyed was that if even you are stepping back from the pragmatic approach then the original thread is pretty much a lost cause.

Best regards

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Agreed. However, I presume that 'they' (and probably many/most of us) also believe that there is no pressing need (certainly not any evidence-based need of which I am aware) to not allow ring finals to continue to be installed.

If you believe that they would not be allowed were they to be considered as a new invention, subject to sound engineering judgement, then logic and reason should lead you to believe they should be phased out.