On Apr 9, 9:20 pm, "Roger Mills" wrote:

SNIP

Some would say that it's too clever by half - and prone to numerous failure
modes.
--
Cheers,
Roger


That's true.

I've always assumed that, when replacing this valve, it's better to
take the simple option and use an identical replacement - if only to
avoid having to hack the pipework to make a different brand fit. Is
this a sensible approach, or are there good alternatives to the
Honeywell valve that are cheaper and/or more reliable?

In these days when we are supposed to be concerned about wasting a
couple of watts by leaving a TV on standby, these valves seem truly
profligate in the way in which they waste power ;-)

The Honeywell unit spends much of it's time being held in its last
selected position when there is no call for heating or hot water,
whereas a more power-conserving design would completely isolate the
unit and allow it to spring back to its resting position. Instead it
stays parked where it was and gets quite hot - presumably consuming
quite a bit more than the average telly on standby.

I should really tidy my system up and convert it from its original Y-
plan to a proper S-plan. Since having a small UFH circuit added a
little while ago its really a bodged Y-plan at the moment - and the
pipework round the valve is a right mess.

But if I don't get round to doing a proper clean-up, what valve would
you use instead of the Honeywell next time it fails?

Thanks,

Mike