You could argue that - but, as I said, that essentially logical argument does not indicate that there is necessarily a 'pressing need' to phase them out.
Quite. He's effectively said that he doesn't see any point in his making representations about this to JPEL/64 when the next BS7671 DPC comes along, so I really don't see what he thinks will be achieved by his going on about, time after time, it here! Maybe he feels that if he repeats his view enough times here, it will somehow influence 'them'
Not sure I said I won't.
You go on about, time after time, espousing your position. Why?
Of course it does. Logic is all that's necessary. If logic says phase them out then there becomes a pressing need, because the regulations should be based on logic, not on an irrational desire to maintain a practice which has outlived its purpose and which would fail any engineering test were it to be considered as a new invention.
So would you have used that principle to argue against such changes as no longer allowing lighting circuits with no cpc, no longer allowing sockets with no RCD, no longer allowing concealed cables with no RCD, and probably any number of other changes to the regulations which made something installed "yesterday" no longer compliant with "today's" regulations?
As you correctly quote I did not say that you "won't", but rather that you didn't see the point - which is precisely what you've just said again.
That's a very theoretical, almost philosophical, general argument. I would imagine that 'they' would only see a 'pressing need' if they perceived a clear (not just theoretical) safety issue - which I don't think there is.
No - because, as above, all those changed did result from perceived significant safety issues, and therefore were deemed to have 'pressing need', outweighing any considerations of 'inconvenience'.
Indeed - but (playing Devil's Advocate) there is no need for them to allow a situation which carries a finite probability that cables will sometimes be overloaded in a manner that they would not allow in any other situation/context.
Still playing DA, it depends upon what you mean by 'unsafe'. BAS's argument is that in any other context (in which overload protection was required) they would not allow a situation in which current in a cable could exceed its Iz (or, more precisely, if current could exceed more that 1.45Iz for an hour), even if that was only going to be a fairly rare occurrence - presumably on the basis that they consider that to be 'unsafe'.
I think you're getting unnecessarily 'technical' here. Nothing in BS7671 is mandatory - when people talking of 'banning' (ring finals), I think they mean 'making them non-compliant with BS7671', not making them automatically unlawful!
I did not gratuitously raise the topic, every post I have made (apart from the first) has been in response to someone mistakenly claiming that ring finals are good, or should be allowed to carry on.
It's one which relates to what should be a vital foundation of technical regulations.
I wonder what the clear, evidential, safety justification was for the introduction of Cmin?
Be that as it may, chaos did not result when EICRs started recording "does not comply" for features which had complied before.
That was my point.
I'm not suggesting otherwise, but you don't really need to burden yourself with repeating things you've written so many times before - don't you consider simply providing links to previous threads, thereby saving yourself time and effort?
Well, many things which have 'become non-compliant' have been 'compliant' for a long time before that happened. As you know I don't personally believe that our experience of many decades of using ring finals affords any evidence (of which I am aware) of a need to make them non-compliant. However, in some situations, the 'reason' is primarily one of thought/theory, rather than 'evidence'. The requirement for RCDs in some situations first appeared on a 'theoretical' basis, before there was any real actual 'evidence' of a benefit, let alone 'need'. I doubt that the requirement for CPCs on lighting circuits resulted from evidence of people being electrocuted by metal fittings - rather, it was probably introduced on the basis of theory/thought ... etc. etc.
They 'could' obviously do anything they wanted. Assuming you're talking about ring finals, 32A would be silly, because it would effectively remove the need for 433.1.24 at all (other, perhaps, from pointing out that there was no objection to the end of a sockets circuit being returned to the CU). 28A would also essentially kill ring finals as we know them, since they would have to be wired in 4mm² cable, so might just as well be done as 32A radials (maybe saving a bit of cable).
Not really.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
