A good thing about camping in NZ - all caravans have to have a Warrant Of
Fitness (WOF) including road worthiness, gas and electrical safety.

You can't get a WOF for a tent, but if you want mains electrical connection
by law you must have a proper RCD device in the power lead.

So far, so good.

However MOST of the power leads have the RCD very close to the plug which
connects to the site mains.
i.e. hanging in mid air outside.

Now I am told (by unreliable sources) that it is considered safest to have
the RCD as close to the mains connection as possible.
Presumably this guards the cable (outside and in) in case of damage as well
as all the appliances connected to the mains inside the tent.
I can see some logic in this - if someone runs a lawn mower over the lead
you want the power to trip and not have a bare live wire lying on the wet
grass.

However the socket is also protected by a trip which looks like the kind you
get in modern fuse boxes (I can't see any obvious lettering like RCD on the
switched unit).

My main thought is that if you have a problem with a device within the tent
which trips the RCD then it will probably be (both Murphy and Sod agree)
pitch black and pouring with rain at the time. Most likely blowing a gale as
well.
In which case my fault finding and diagnosis plan would not include
blundering around in the dark and getting soaking wet resetting the RCD as I
disconnected and reconnected individual appliances.

In the UK devices such as
http://www.completeoutdoors.co.uk/Kampa-Mono-Mains-Supply-Unit seem to be
used which sit inside the tent and (as far as I can tell) use a normal
camping extension lead with the blue plug and socket.
Much like the way a caravan or campervan are wired, I think.
So the UK does not mandate an external RCD.
However the electrical points on the site may be better protected (although
they don't look much different).
And the UK is behind NZ in mandating safety inspections etc.

So what does the team think?
Better to have the RCD as far up the cable as possible or fine to have it in
the tent?

Cheers

Dave R

On 15/01/2011 04:24, David WE Roberts wrote:
A good thing about camping in NZ - all caravans have to have a Warrant
Of Fitness (WOF) including road worthiness, gas and electrical safety.

You can't get a WOF for a tent, but if you want mains electrical
connection by law you must have a proper RCD device in the power lead.

So far, so good.

However MOST of the power leads have the RCD very close to the plug
which connects to the site mains.
i.e. hanging in mid air outside.

Now I am told (by unreliable sources) that it is considered safest to
have the RCD as close to the mains connection as possible.
Presumably this guards the cable (outside and in) in case of damage as
well as all the appliances connected to the mains inside the tent.
I can see some logic in this - if someone runs a lawn mower over the
lead you want the power to trip and not have a bare live wire lying on
the wet grass.

However the socket is also protected by a trip which looks like the kind
you get in modern fuse boxes (I can't see any obvious lettering like RCD
on the switched unit).

My main thought is that if you have a problem with a device within the
tent which trips the RCD then it will probably be (both Murphy and Sod
agree) pitch black and pouring with rain at the time. Most likely
blowing a gale as well.
In which case my fault finding and diagnosis plan would not include
blundering around in the dark and getting soaking wet resetting the RCD
as I disconnected and reconnected individual appliances.

In the UK devices such as
http://www.completeoutdoors.co.uk/Kampa-Mono-Mains-Supply-Unit seem to
be used which sit inside the tent and (as far as I can tell) use a
normal camping extension lead with the blue plug and socket.
Much like the way a caravan or campervan are wired, I think.
So the UK does not mandate an external RCD.
However the electrical points on the site may be better protected
(although they don't look much different).
And the UK is behind NZ in mandating safety inspections etc.

So what does the team think?
Better to have the RCD as far up the cable as possible or fine to have
it in the tent?

If I'm going to be hammering tent pegs in in that same dark windy night,
I don't want to get electrocuted when I put it through a cable. I think
the cable is rather more likely to get damaged than an appliance go
haywire, though that could just be my lack of imagination. I also
wouldn't necessarily trust the electrics provided by the site owner.

(must be a sign of age - I occasionally wonder about lectrics in a tent,
mostly to run laptops.)

David WE Roberts explained on 15/01/2011 :
In the UK devices such as
http://www.completeoutdoors.co.uk/Kampa-Mono-Mains-Supply-Unit seem to be
used which sit inside the tent and (as far as I can tell) use a normal
camping extension lead with the blue plug and socket.
Much like the way a caravan or campervan are wired, I think.
So the UK does not mandate an external RCD.

Yes - there has to be a permanently installed RCD located at the socket
outlet at the pole.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:24:23 +1300, David WE Roberts wrote:

So what does the team think?
Better to have the RCD as far up the cable as possible or fine to have it in
the tent?


At source; no question. Your argument is a bit like suggesting using an
electric mower with the trip mounted on the handle and an unprotected
cable. No, I don't think so!


--
The Wanderer

Whenever I look for something, it's always in the last place I look.

On Jan 15, 9:19*am, The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:24:23 +1300, David WE Roberts wrote:
So what does the team think?
Better to have the RCD as far up the cable as possible or fine to have it in
the tent?

At source; no question. Your argument is a bit like suggesting using an
electric mower with the trip mounted on the handle and an unprotected
cable. No, I don't think so!

--
The Wanderer

Whenever I look for something, it's always in the last place I look.

Electrics in tents? What luxury, but sounds like hassle and bother as
well, especially when it rains! I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

In article ae898291-81e3-4a85-982c-
,
says...
Electrics in tents? What luxury, but sounds like hassle and bother as
well, especially when it rains! I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.


Bah - petrol's horrid stuff to have in a tent. Go for paraffin every
time. We still use it for lighting, though lately we've given in and
have a small calor bottle for the stove - it's lasted three years so far
and doesn't seem even half empty.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Tim Streater wrote:


Tents? Sounds like hassle and bother to me, I'll stick to the B&B.

Caravan. You know they make sense.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"4square" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 9:19 am, The Wanderer wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:24:23 +1300, David WE Roberts wrote:
So what does the team think?
Better to have the RCD as far up the cable as possible or fine to have
it in
the tent?

At source; no question. Your argument is a bit like suggesting using an
electric mower with the trip mounted on the handle and an unprotected
cable. No, I don't think so!

--
The Wanderer

Whenever I look for something, it's always in the last place I look.

Electrics in tents? What luxury, but sounds like hassle and bother as
well, especially when it rains!

I used electric power all the time, even backpacking. Then, I needed it to
run a laptop computer, and lamp.

When driving, I did go a bit over the top, with computer, light, satellite
receiver with dish, TV, and various other gadgets with their chargers. All
inside a smallish tent.

However I tended to unplug the lead in heavy rain...

Main problem I found, was that areas designated for tent camping, often
didn't have power hook-up. In that case, I was also equipped to run some
devices from 12V (computer, lamp and phone chargers). I did play around with
an inverter once, but after a couple of flat batteries, only gave that very
limited use.

I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

Now petrol, in or near a tent, I *would* have an objection to...

--
Bartc

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

Tents? Sounds like hassle and bother to me, I'll stick to the B&B.
Caravan. You know they make sense.

Too much of a faff. How much does it affect your fuel consumption while
towing?

Hitch up, drive, arrive, unhitch. A few minutes later, I'm eating a hot
meal.

It just about doubles the consumption on my vehicle, from 25 mpg to
about 15. Then I get to drive round without the drag in my chosen area,
and don't have to worry about mealtimes at the B&B.

YMMV, of course......

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson ) wibbled on Saturday 15
January 2011 10:33:

Tim Streater wrote:


Tents? Sounds like hassle and bother to me, I'll stick to the B&B.

Caravan. You know they make sense.


Have you seen modern tents - like mansions they are and many are double the
floor space of even a massive caravan.

I have caravanned loads when I was a kid, but a massive tent means a roofbox
or a small trailer (depending how much other crap one needs to take - we are
assuming a family of 4) and I'm very tempted by the idea of camping.

We're going to try Roundhill in the New Forest to break the family in - flat
pitching, reasonably scenic, bogs and showers and loads of adjoining
heathland for the kids.

I really fancy a tent with "3 bedrooms", 2 for actual sleeping, one for
storage, a large uncluttered main area and a porch canopy for cooking with
the petrol stove (won't get me using gas again aftr petrol).

Oddly enough, I have contemplated mains (that site does have hookup) for the
laptops and stuff...)

--
Tim Watts

On Jan 15, 11:33 pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Tents? Sounds like hassle and bother to me, I'll stick to the B&B.

Caravan. You know they make sense.

But I can fit a tent in my kayak and a caravan won't fit!

On 15/01/2011 11:24, BartC wrote:

I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

Now petrol, in or near a tent, I *would* have an objection to...

Decent petrol stoves are good. I can run mine safely in the bell end of
a small tent, although that's reserved for when it's ****ing down.

and Skipweasel

Bah - petrol's horrid stuff to have in a tent. Go for paraffin every
time.

Don't need to prime my stove :-)

I'd probably use neither for a big stove though - gas seems to be the
answer there.

On Jan 15, 12:41*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 15/01/2011 11:24, BartC wrote:

I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

Now petrol, in or near a tent, I *would* have an objection to...

Decent petrol stoves are good. I can run mine safely in the bell end of
a small tent, although that's reserved for when it's ****ing down.

and Skipweasel

* Bah - petrol's horrid stuff to have in a tent. Go for paraffin every
* time.

Don't need to prime my stove :-)

I'd probably use neither for a big stove though - gas seems to be the
answer there.

As a traditional camper for the reason that camping was developed I
regard you lot as a bunch of woosies and poofters.

Electricity, televisions, computers - what a bunch of wasters.

And as for petrol in a tent, that is serious madness - I've seen
several near disaster accidents with petrol and regard it as the spawn
of the devil where stoves are concerned. Gas has it's hazard but at
least it it is contained within a container. And paraffin, bless it's
heart, if the stove is upset, all that happens is a very unpleasant
atmosphere of paraffin vapour and a hole in the groundsheet from the
flame spreader.

Rob

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:24:23 +1300, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:

And the UK is behind NZ in mandating safety inspections etc.

Having safety inspections and having safety often bear no relationship
to one another. "Inspections" tend to be carried out by jobsworths
whose aim is to follow their rules blindly and find deviations from
their inspection schedule , no matter how trivial or irrelevant to
real safety they might be.

That the protocol they follow is flawed and the standard they inspect
to is dangerous is something most would neither understand or be
particularly bothered about.

On Jan 15, 1:19*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In my Dizzle C4 (50mpg):
1500 / 50 * 4.55 = 126.5 litres x 1.3 = £164.31 fuel cost for me
Saving of £427, not bad eh?

Diesel with DPF?

Your saving of £427 would not go far if a DPF failure occurs.
DPF clogs... injector leaks... diesel leaks past injector diluting
oil... oil level starts to rise... incorrect oil used... oil pickup
clogs... turbo fails... intercooler suffers cracking...

DPF require regeneration when soot has built up to a certain level.
DPF soot buildup is highly dependent on fuel, driving style & engine
condition. For example if you do lots of short trips there will be
more buildup, likewise if there are any unattended engine faults which
cause an increase in sooting, blowby etc.
DPF regeneration requires quite some time at high-RPM, essentially a
long motorway trip rather than around town driving. If the car does
not see much long distance driving then regeneration is either
inefficient or incomplete by turning the engine off whilst it is
underway at journey end. Inefficient regeneration due to increased
fuel injected for regeneration to occur can result in faster soot
buildup rather than its removal, and fuel dilution of oil causing oil
pickup problems.

Failures of DPF equipped cars range from turbo failures right through
to DPF replacement and even engine failure. Some systems are better
than others and driving style is likely to be very important - lots of
short cold start trips may actually be very disadvantageous to engine
longevity and bills. So the economics of "high MPG" may be met by
"insanely high repair bills or short vehicle life". Not surprising the
green attack on vehicles is leaving a lot of R&D to be borne by end
users with marque walking away.

On 15/01/2011 22:17, robgraham wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:41 pm, Clive wrote:
On 15/01/2011 11:24, BartC wrote:

I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

Now petrol, in or near a tent, I *would* have an objection to...

Decent petrol stoves are good. I can run mine safely in the bell end of
a small tent, although that's reserved for when it's ****ing down.

and Skipweasel

Bah - petrol's horrid stuff to have in a tent. Go for paraffin every
time.

Don't need to prime my stove :-)

I'd probably use neither for a big stove though - gas seems to be the
answer there.

As a traditional camper for the reason that camping was developed I
regard you lot as a bunch of woosies and poofters.

Electricity, televisions, computers - what a bunch of wasters.

Depends what you're doing. Many round-the-world travellers take
computers with them - I don't think I'd regard somebody who was riding a
bike across eg Siberia to be a woosie, poofter and waster :-) And if
you're near the car, why not? I'd avoid the TV, but the laptop can be
useful, especially in these days of 3G broadband.

And as for petrol in a tent, that is serious madness - I've seen
several near disaster accidents with petrol and regard it as the spawn
of the devil where stoves are concerned. Gas has it's hazard but at
least it it is contained within a container. And paraffin, bless it's
heart, if the stove is upset, all that happens is a very unpleasant
atmosphere of paraffin vapour and a hole in the groundsheet from the
flame spreader.

If you'd said petrol had to be treated with respect, then I'd agree with
you. But it's not madness, serious or even minor, to run a decent stove
in the bell end of a tent, taking appropriate care.

Respect includes things like not refilling the bottle in the tent, but
somewhere away from it, making sure the stove can't be upset (you'd have
to try really quite hard to upset mine anyway), not running it on a
groundsheet, and keeping an eye on the stove while it's running.

The petrol is contained within a well sealed container (*), same as gas.
I do wonder if you're thinking of older stoves - I remember having
amusement with some little ones back in the 80s, but the ones I have now
are rather different.

(* I've seen MSR stoves burning leaking fuel, and ISTR them having a bit
of a crappy design of seal on their bottles, but I prefer the coleman
equivalents anyway - no priming in the same way, can't overpump,
controllable.)

In message , Clive
George writes
On 15/01/2011 11:24, BartC wrote:

I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

Now petrol, in or near a tent, I *would* have an objection to...

Decent petrol stoves are good. I can run mine safely in the bell end of
a small tent, although that's reserved for when it's ****ing down.

and Skipweasel

Bah - petrol's horrid stuff to have in a tent. Go for paraffin every
time.

Don't need to prime my stove :-)

I'd probably use neither for a big stove though - gas seems to be the
answer there.

Nah, our Coleman win burner petrol stove is much better than any of your
normal gas stoves.
--
Chris French

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Tents? Sounds like hassle and bother to me, I'll stick to the B&B.
Caravan. You know they make sense.
Too much of a faff. How much does it affect your fuel consumption
while towing?
Hitch up, drive, arrive, unhitch. A few minutes later, I'm eating a
hot meal.

It just about doubles the consumption on my vehicle, from 25 mpg to
about 15. Then I get to drive round without the drag in my chosen
area, and don't have to worry about mealtimes at the B&B.

You don't *eat* at the B&B (except breakfast of course). And so what
you're saying is that I have to start with a vehicle that has a crap
fuel consumption (25) and then it goes down to something ludicrous. Can
my C4 (54mpg) pull one of those things and what does that do to
consumption?

Let's see - our last big holiday by car - Gite in the South of France.
Round trip 1500 miles (plus using the car for exploring, same as you
would).

1500 / 15 * 4.55 = 455 litres x 1.3 = £591.50 fuel cost for you.

In my Dizzle C4 (50mpg):

1500 / 50 * 4.55 = 126.5 litres x 1.3 = £164.31 fuel cost for me

Saving of £427, not bad eh?

Less the cost of having to eat out rather than cooking your own, the
fact that B&B or gites normally cost more than a local caravan site per
night, especially if there's more than two people involved, and so on.
If you stay in Britain, though, the economics change totally. You only
save maybe £100 in fuel. You do, however, have the freedom of getting up
whenever you like and getting back whenever you like, as long as you're
quiet.

I wasn't being totally serious, though. For me, I spend enough on a
holiday that I get what *I* want out of it, I'm not too worried about
the budget.

And if you want a cheap holiday in the South of France, it's cheaper to
fly if there are only two of you travelling and you pre-book.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"js.b1" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 1:19 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In my Dizzle C4 (50mpg):
1500 / 50 * 4.55 = 126.5 litres x 1.3 = £164.31 fuel cost for me
Saving of £427, not bad eh?

Diesel with DPF?

Your saving of £427 would not go far if a DPF failure occurs.
DPF clogs... injector leaks... diesel leaks past injector diluting
oil... oil level starts to rise... incorrect oil used... oil pickup
clogs... turbo fails... intercooler suffers cracking...

snip dribble

Your rant suggests that diesels with DPF will fail with expensive repair
bills every few thousand miles, which simply isn't true.

While I agree that some components of a modern diesel are expensive to
replace, generally their life span is pretty good, even on a crappy French
car. And overall, the saving on fuel costs is considerably more than the
additional servicing and repair costs.

(I currently have one diesel car on 195,000 miles and one petrol car on
136,000 miles. The overall running costs of the diesel are considerably less
than the petrol - mile-for-mile it is *massively* less - the diesel does
lots more miles than the petrol)

On Jan 17, 10:27*am, "AlanD" wrote:
snip dribble
Your rant suggests that diesels with DPF will fail with expensive repair
bills every few thousand miles, which simply isn't true.

No it does not, I am stating that DPF engines are not risk free.

Industry from leasing firms to rebuilders like Ivor Searle are well
aware that DPF engines particularly early implementations are NOT risk
free. The risk can be down to driving style. The bill can range from
£2500-7000.

Consumers doing "shopping & school run" short-trips are often not
aware that driving style can be critical with early systems. Their
experience of risk in the past may be a rare failure such as broken
timing requiring valves & big ends costing £1200. They are unaware
that risk can be down to driving style and the bills considerably
higher.

It is for this reason that Volvo recently added a note to their
website (or user manual) that DPF engines are not suited to only short
journeys. My comments are to point out that headline mpg should be
borne in mind with risk.

Earlier DPF systems are not particularly tolerant.
- DPF generation is poor with short trips, resulting in eventual DPF
failure.
- Fuel contamination of oil can cause oil pickup clog, then turbo
failure, then engine failure.
- Engine failure is not impossible, typically from incorrect diagnosis
& parts replacement.

Recent DPF systems from Ford BMW VAG are very tolerant.
- DPF regeneration is well managed over a *wide range* of driving
styles.
- The criticality of low sulphated ash oil is well understood.
- Injector seal design, oil pickup design and software has improved.

End consumers doing lots of short trips need to be awa
- Check oil level regularly and act if it rises suddenly
- Oil change type & interval matters
- Short trips are not ideal with some implementations
- Do not let dealers replace parts

If you develop an injector leak, and oil level begins to rise, it
matters. Urgently.
Diluted oil clogs the oil pickup, first the turbo is starved of oil
and fails (dealer replaces), the replacement turbo fails (dealer may
replace under warranty), then the engine fails. This exact failure
path has occurred with multi-model Mazda DPF (early) plus some Volvo
and a few Ford (Mondeo, generally reliable). £1200, £1200, £7000.

If the car is driven so as to never enter DPF regen (does not spend
sufficient time above 2000rpm or never completes regen due to short
trips), the DPF can require replacement (£1200-2300).

Later cars *specifically* had better DPF software which resulted in
better DPF regen.

Additionally, to be blunt, I suspect a fair number of dealers used
incorrect oil - sulphated ash does not burn off a DPF filter during
regen, and builds up, forcing more regen (excess fuel injected), which
in turn results in more clogging. Likewise this scenario may have been
a factor in oil dilution (excess fuel ends up oil).

A lot of problems that only occur during repeated short trips were due
to insufficient R&D on software. So if a dealer offers a software
upgrade particularly re DPF regen then have it done. Other recalls
were w.r.t. dieselling.

While I agree that some components of a modern diesel are expensive to
replace, generally their life span is pretty good, even on a crappy French
car. And overall, the saving on fuel costs is considerably more than the
additional servicing and repair costs.

Nothing to do with life span.
Early DPF cars can be very fussy about driving style and this is not
properly understood by end consumers.
The fleet crowd, or anyone doing 150,000 miles in a few years, will
generally a) not find any problem or b) know which systems to avoid.

Some cars are limited to turbo failures - the problem does not develop
into engine failures even in the sub-optimal end user driving scenario
(nurse doing short trips, repeated cold starts). Others conversely can
suffer eventual engine failure from clueless dealers not doing
something as simple as dropping the oil pan to see if the pickup is
clogged with diesel contaminated oil (plenty of those from Ford Mazda
Volvo initially, now most have learnt what to look for).

Key is a seemingly minor problem can quickly escalate into a very
expensive failure. That is what people with DPF do not understand. At
least Volvo (as i recall) now warns people not to just do short
journeys. You could say why would anyone buy a DPF car for such low
mileage and stop-start driving? Well surprisingly many people have,
without knowing there are cars out there which will bite them with
bills.

(I currently have one diesel car on 195,000 miles and one petrol car on
136,000 miles. The overall running costs of the diesel are considerably less
than the petrol - mile-for-mile it is *massively* less - the diesel does
lots more miles than the petrol)

It will do - and mile for mile the savings are why DPF and turbo
diesel "Post PD systems" took off in the last few years. Now on the
used car market some bargains appear, but the history of driving style
is actually quite important on some.

Take the comments as I intend them.

A lot of software R&D was based around mileage, not around continual
short-journey stop-starts and that caught out both marquee and end-
users, with the latter left with the bill. Recent cars are much
better, but check oil level regularly on DPF diesels re it going UP. A
few of the major engine rebuilders believe more frequent oil changes
should be "as severe duty schedule, HDEO oil" if someone is not doing
all motorway mileage. I think there is some truth to that if a
particular model has issues. Mobil likewise in 2005 warned several
marquee that oil could no longer keep up, increasing the risk of
sludge. Recent oils can keep up (229.51), but I still suspect better
information re oil change interval is required for "severe" duty when
end consumers do not realise their driving style is "severe" for a DPF
vehicle.

It is nothing to do with lifespan. It is to do with driving style and
certain DPF implementations. I hope that is clearer.

On Jan 15, 10:17*pm, robgraham wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:41*pm, Clive George wrote:





On 15/01/2011 11:24, BartC wrote:

I shall stick with my Coleman lamp
and Optimus stove, both run on pump petrol, no fuss at all.

Now petrol, in or near a tent, I *would* have an objection to...

Decent petrol stoves are good. I can run mine safely in the bell end of
a small tent, although that's reserved for when it's ****ing down.

and Skipweasel

* Bah - petrol's horrid stuff to have in a tent. Go for paraffin every
* time.

Don't need to prime my stove :-)

I'd probably use neither for a big stove though - gas seems to be the
answer there.

As a traditional camper for the reason that camping was developed I
regard you lot as a bunch of woosies and poofters.

Electricity, televisions, computers - what a bunch of wasters.

And as for petrol in a tent, that is serious madness - I've seen
several near disaster accidents with petrol and regard it as the spawn
of the devil where stoves are concerned. *Gas has it's hazard but at
least it it is contained within a container. *And paraffin, bless it's
heart, if the stove is upset, all that happens is a very unpleasant
atmosphere of paraffin vapour and a hole in the groundsheet from the
flame spreader.

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tents are for poufters. I have slept in the Venezuelan jungle with
just a hammock, mosquito net and plastic sheet. My injun serfs cooked
for me.

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
snip

So what does the team think?
Better to have the RCD as far up the cable as possible or fine to have it
in the tent?

As we are on the road haven't been back here for a while.

Thanks for all the reasonably on-topic responses - diesel injection
technology on recent European cars has no relevance to our NZ holiday :-)

First, the tent:
http://freedomcamping.co.nz/product/tents/canvas-tents/millbrook
Very large and impressive as it is our home for 4 months.

To answer some points:

Caravans - very different in NZ and very expensive compared to the UK.
Potential large loss between buying and selling. The caravans are designed
to go off-road and are built like tanks but seem to have domestic fridges
and cookers strapped to the walls instead of the caravan-specific stuff
found in the UK, and virtually nothing else. No home comforts.

Comparison to lawn mower - RCD for lawn mower should be under cover. My
issue is having the RCD out in the ****ing rain. Understood that it is
better to protect close to the source but the exposure to rain seems a down
side.

WOF - PP's argument that the testing may not be good follows the old
arguments about making seat belts compulsory - not everyone will wear them
etc. If the testing picks up only 30% of dodgy systems then this is an
improvement. No doubt some think that MOT tests are a waste of time as well.
Similar arguments apply.

Electricity - well, this is our home for 4 months not a quick doss at the
weekend. So we need the computer (hey - I'm using it now) plus lights, fan
heater, various chargers. We could manage without but why struggle?

If we had a trailer we could do things the Kiwi way and carry a full size
fridge, a large BBQ, etc. but we manage without by filling the back of the
car up to the level of the front seat headrests. O.K. for 2, but not for
more. Also, trailers are hugely expensive because they are built like tanks
to go off-road.

Still got another month or so to go, then Hawaii and the West Coast of the
US.

Cheers

Dave R

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:00:44 +1300, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:


"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


Comparison to lawn mower - RCD for lawn mower should be under cover. My
issue is having the RCD out in the ****ing rain. Understood that it is
better to protect close to the source but the exposure to rain seems a down
side.

You could try a 10mA rewirable inline RCD such as
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Line-Circuit.../dp/B004714CFC
This is protected to IP55 so can be exposed to heavy rain. From what
you describe the camping outlets in NZ all include RCD protection
which is probably at 30mA .

You could put the 10mA device at the tent end of the cable (not
recommended if the socket _isn't_ rcd protected) . However, wherever
you put it you are likely to need to go out in the rain if there is a
problem.

Using RCDs in series isn't usually recommended (as you can never be
sure which has tripped and may end up working on a live circuit you
think is off) but despite having a lower trip current (10mA) than the
post socket which is _probably_ 30mA) it is still likely that if a
fault occurred, both RCD's would trip. A 10mA breaker could also be
prone to nuisance tripping although if inside the tent this wouldn't
necessarily be a major issue.

In your tent /rainstorm scenario the immutable law of Sod would ensure
the outlet RCD, outside in the rain and dark, would certainly trip
every time.

WOF - PP's argument that the testing may not be good follows the old
arguments about making seat belts compulsory - not everyone will wear them
etc. If the testing picks up only 30% of dodgy systems then this is an
improvement. No doubt some think that MOT tests are a waste of time as well.
Similar arguments apply.

You misunderstood the point which was that more testing and increased
safety are not automatically linked. For example in the UK the "Part
P" building regulations introduced a new and more extensive testing
regime for mains wiring. As a result the number of people killed and
injured by electric faults has _increased_ because the regulation
increased the cost of having minor works done so people use
unregulated and untested rats nests of extension leads rather than go
to the expense of having new sockets fitted.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
news snip
You misunderstood the point which was that more testing and increased
safety are not automatically linked. For example in the UK the "Part
P" building regulations introduced a new and more extensive testing
regime for mains wiring. As a result the number of people killed and
injured by electric faults has _increased_ because the regulation
increased the cost of having minor works done so people use
unregulated and untested rats nests of extension leads rather than go
to the expense of having new sockets fitted.

Can't disagree about Part P.
The thinking DIYer does things in a safe way and waits for Part P to become
history.

However the WOF system seems to be working in NZ; my view is that if it can
be implemented in a sensible and effective manner then it would improve
safety for caravans, campervans, and trailers.

As usual, legislation is no use without the commitment to effective
enforcement.

Cheers

Dave R

In article ,
lid says...
The thinking DIYer does things in a safe way and waits for Part P to become
history.


And FENSA's stranglehold on fitting windows, too.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:11:28 +1300, David WE Roberts wrote:
However the WOF system seems to be working in NZ; my view is that if it
can be implemented in a sensible and effective manner then it would
improve safety for caravans, campervans, and trailers.

Hmm, are WOF tests a bit more strict and like the UK MOT these days? When
I was there (left circa 2001) they were a little odd - e.g. very big on
things like "visible rust", but very few checks done for the actual
soundness of body or chassis components.

A quick dusting over nasty spots on a vehicle with a can of cheap spray
paint the day before the inspection could work wonders, allegedly.

cheers

Jules