Wago 221s

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, yeah, but..

£50 minimum (without The Undertaker's pocket money).

Maybe I could get to £50 by the time I add in the push connectors and a few boxes, and the other odds and ends I need to get, and maybe not. But they are on the back foot from the start with the headline price of that 221 selection.

 

[JohnW2]

£50 minimum (without The Undertaker's pocket money). ... Maybe I could get to £50 by the time I add in the push connectors and a few boxes, and the other odds and ends I need to get, and maybe not. But they are on the back foot from the start with the headline price of that 221 selection.

I suppose it depends upon how urgent your need is - I got the impression that it wasn't particularly urgent. Unless I have urgent needs, my approach with most suppliers of most things is to wait until the back of my cigarette packet has accumulated enough scribbles about 'things I need to top up sometime' to get to the threshold for free delivery!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Urgent? No.

If I don't do it while I think of it because then there is a risk that I won't do it before the next instance of "b*gg*r, I wish I had..."? Sadly yes.

And in this case there is no incentive, not even a nugatory one, to wait until the back of my free-range chia seed and quinoa nibbles packet is sufficiently scribbled upon.

 

[JohnW2]

Fairy Nuf.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Same cannot be said for the 2273 series over the 773 series (standard push in) as they don't offer a 32A rated in the 2273 to my knowledge. Only the red 3-way 773 is 32A rated but useful for bigger cables/applications.

Don't forget the (apparent? deduced?) requirement for lower maximum ratings in BS 5733 conformant applications.

Just where is that stillp dilettante when he is needed?

 

[JohnW2]

Just where is that stillp dilettante when he is needed?

Indeed. Some understanding of what BS 5733 actually says is absolutely crucial to these discussions!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can think of no credible reasons why Connexbox would be being untruthful.

 

[JohnW2]

I can think of no credible reasons why Connexbox would be being untruthful.

I don't think anyone is suggesting (any longer) that they are being deliberately untruthful, but there might well be issues of 'interpretation'.

I must say that I still find it rather odd that it is possible to mark an enclosure as 'MF' when it is sold 'empty', as something that could become a component part of a 'junction box'. I suppose that specifying, on the underside of the lid, the connectors which 'may' be used, and what (reduced) ratings they should be regarded as having, may make this more reasonable, but I can't get away from thinking that anyone could put anything inside that box (including screwed connections), and it would still bear an 'MF' marking.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's why I've always been (and still am) uncomfortable with the way that people have to use the right combination of components from different manufacturers, placed inside the enclosure in the right way in order for what they have then assembled to be compliant with a BS.

I started out thinking that that was such a flawed process that whilst a claim that if you did all these things you would be complying with the requirements of BS 5733 would be true, that would not equate to being formally conformant, or certified, or whatever the term is, because of the lack of formal verification. An electrical installation can be done in a way which complies with BS 7671, but formal compliance cannot be claimed without some kind of verification process.

But we are being told that BS 5733 compliance can work that way.

What we have here is the situation where someone can do what the instructions say and simply say "I've made something which complies with BS 5733". It's a very different approach from using, for example, an Ashley J80x. That's an accessory which in and of itself complies with BS 5733 - if you mess up how you use it you may breach BS 7671, you may even contravene a usage requirement of BS 5733, but you will not make the accessory itself non compliant. With a Wagobox etc you do not have anything compliant until you've assembled it. In theory someone inspecting an installation where compliance with 526.3(vi) is a prerequisite for compliance with BS 7671 would have to inspect the Wagobox to verify BS 5733 compliance, which makes a mockery of MF connections not needing to be accessible for inspection.

I don't doubt the sincerity, bona fides, etc of Connexbox, but I am not at all happy that BS 5733 works this way, and statements I made in the past about Wagobox compliance were because I never imagined it could possibly work that way.

You say that people could put anything inside the box, and I strongly agree - I've observed before that one day someone will open up a Wagobox and they will find something other than the right connectors secured in the right way, and I remain fully confident that that is an accurate prediction.

 

[JohnW2]

But we are being told that BS 5733 compliance can work that way.

We are, and I agree with everything you say. That's why I keep saying that we need to know more 'chapter and verse', in order to determine whether BS 5733 is totally and unambiguously clear in saying that "BS 5733 compliance can work that way" or whether that is just one interpretation of what it actually says.

I don't doubt the sincerity, bona fides, etc of Connexbox, but I am not at all happy that BS 5733 works this way, and statements I made in the past about Wagobox compliance were because I never imagined it could possibly work that way.

Exactly the same with me - hence my above comment.

You say that people could put anything inside the box, and I strongly agree - I've observed before that one day someone will open up a Wagobox and they will find something other than the right connectors secured in the right way, and I remain fully confident that that is an accurate prediction.

Again, I totally agree.

However, having said all that, is what we are talking about (and finding very surprising) actually all that different from the situation with ('type tested') CUs? As I understand it, if one buys an 'empty' CU and populates it with devices recommended by the manufacturer, then that assembly does qualify as a 'type-tested DB' (aka CU in BS7671-speak) which satisfies the relevant Standards, despite the fact that one could (and many people do) put any sort of non-recommended devices into them.

KInd Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

True

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Ideal push-in ones are noticeably cheaper than Wagos.

 

[Iggifer]

Hellerman Tyton are also cheaper than wagos. They’re also a bag of steaming turd, which is surprising from HT

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Ideal push-in ones are noticeably cheaper than Wagos.

But only when buying them in boxes of 50 or 100 - it is very hard to find people selling Ideals singly, or even in 10s (apart from the Spliceline).

QVS seems to have the best Wago prices for small quantities, they'll sell as few as 1 of everything, at prices which are not depressingly non-linear - the break point for when 10x is cheaper is between 8x and 9x. Can find lower prices if I want to buy boxes of 100, but I don't.

Selections still make no sense - firstly they contain types I can't see myself ever needing, e.g. 8-port push-in.

Secondly they always seem to cost more than the sum of the parts

vs

£4.54 for a cardboard box? No thanks.

 

[SimonH2]

they contain types I can't see myself ever needing, e.g. 8-port push-in.

You obviously aren't adventurous with lighting I've done 2 lighting JBs with Wagos, and both needed 8ways for the earths.