http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

On 26/07/2015 20:40, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

As an aside, here's an extract from the justification for the new
requirement:
"The cause of the fires investigated was almost invariably found to be
resistance heating as a result of poor electrical connections due to
poor workmanship or lack of maintenance."

Seems to me it will take a lot of effort to put in place regs to ensure
that *all* parts of any electrical installation are proof against
incompetent installers.

On 26/07/15 21:24, nemo wrote:
On 26/07/2015 20:40, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

As an aside, here's an extract from the justification for the new
requirement:
"The cause of the fires investigated was almost invariably found to be
resistance heating as a result of poor electrical connections due to
poor workmanship or lack of maintenance."

Seems to me it will take a lot of effort to put in place regs to ensure
that *all* parts of any electrical installation are proof against
incompetent installers.


It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared
to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

There is talk of dissimilar metals (creep), cage terminals that cannot
clamp particularly well[1] onto large conductors, and other generally
****e construction.

[1] Hager use cage terminals - I have not had a problem with these. But
some cage terminals are not foolproof and mean you can easily get the
busbar prong the wrong side of the clamp.



So to my mind, the IET have done a knee jerk and solved the wrong
problem - the damn things should not be getting hot, let along catching
fire in the first place.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared
to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/07/2015 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared
to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.


Then they should be using torx screws as they are far more positive than
pozidrive.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 27/07/2015 11:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared
to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.


Then they should be using torx screws as they are far more positive than
pozidrive.

Don't do much in the way of DIY, dennis?

Much easier to locate a PZ in the head than a Torx.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared
to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.

+1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if
using a philips driver.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 7/27/2015 11:13 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap
compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many
people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main
earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.

+1 - you can get massive torque on a well fitted posi screw - but not if
using a philips driver.

Yup. PZ is probably the most common head by far in the UK, but you'll find
lots of Phillips screwdrivers on sale in the sheds. But try buying true
Phillips screws. ;-)

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap compared
to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.

which might be why I saw pozidrivers with integral torque adjustment at the
Tool Fair last year

In article ,
Charles Hope wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
It's not just that - many modern CU components are utter crap
compared to the old stuff. If you go over to the IET forums, many
people want to see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like
main earthing blocks) - with screws you can actually do up (not
posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the
correct screwdriver.

which might be why I saw pozidrivers with integral torque adjustment at
the Tool Fair last year

Odd I'm just a simple DIYer, but manage to tighten terminal screws so they
neither break or come loose.

Torque screwdrivers presumably aimed at Adam's apprentices?

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:

If you go over to the IET forums, many people want to
see proper twin screw brass terminals back (like main earthing blocks) -
with screws you can actually do up (not posidrive).

Pozidriv with the correct screwdriver allows a screw to be tightened
correctly far more easily than a slot type. But not without the correct
screwdriver.

Don't a lot of CUs use combination slot/cross screws anyway?

Seems a bit odd that presumably the CU manufacturers first introduced
them to allow using either a flat driver or Pozi driver, and then the
tool manufacturers introduce a dedicated "PlusMinus" driver

Andy Burns wrote:

Seems a bit odd that presumably the CU manufacturers first introduced
them to allow using either a flat driver or Pozi driver, and then the
tool manufacturers introduce a dedicated "PlusMinus" driver

Sorry hit send while trying to find a better photo than Wera's own

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th/id=OIP.M6dff3f723b20f876650a94678dd78bd0o0&pid=15. 1

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 07:43:31 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

So to my mind, the IET have done a knee jerk and solved the wrong
problem - the damn things should not be getting hot, let along catching
fire in the first place.

+1

Poacher and game keeper to some extent.

--
Cheers
Dave.

nemo writes:

On 26/07/2015 20:40, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

As an aside, here's an extract from the justification for the new
requirement:
"The cause of the fires investigated was almost invariably found to be
resistance heating as a result of poor electrical connections due to
poor workmanship or lack of maintenance."

Seems to me it will take a lot of effort to put in place regs to ensure
that *all* parts of any electrical installation are proof against
incompetent installers.

My limited experience suggests that it may be worthwhile to
periodically check the tightness of *every* wiring connection in a
house. Haven't seen many examples of overheating, but have come across
quite a few connections which seemed to have become less than tight.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

I often wonder while they are busy trying to stop every conceivable
possibility of fire in one place, where 20 other places are waiting to bite
us in the bottom so to speak.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on
non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the
regulation?

I thought the reg. actually requires "non-combustible" material for the
CU or enclosure.

Wiring Matters had:

"There is no published definition for the term 'non combustible' that
aligns with the intent of Regulation 421.1.201. However, as stated in
Note 1 to the regulation, ferrous metal, such as steel, is deemed to be
an example of a non-combustible material.
Steel will no doubt be the material usually employed in the manufacture
of the enclosure or cabinet. Nevertheless, it will be open to
manufacturers to offer enclosures or cabinets made from other types of
material that they claim to be non combustible within the intent of
Regulation 421.1.201. In this case, however, the manufacturer would
have to provide suitable evidence to support the claim of non
combustibility, and it is not presently clear what criteria would be
used to judge the non combustibility of a material other than
non-ferrous metal."


http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

No government department would get away with legislatuni which is so
vague and which AFAICS is backed up by no cost-benefit analysis. But in
privatised regulations the IET gets away with it.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article ,
"Robin" writes:
No government department would get away with legislatuni which is so
vague and which AFAICS is backed up by no cost-benefit analysis. But in
privatised regulations the IET gets away with it.

16th Edition was the last one which wasn't sold out to commercial
interests. 17th Edition had swathes of the industry pushing to get
their own products made mandatory in it.

The non-combustible consumer units was pushed on to them by the Fire
Brigade organisation, having dealt with so many plastic CU fires, which
are doubly lethal as they are oftem positioned in the stairway escape
route, and with flammable products stored next to them. I always thought
plastic CU's (particularly the modern cheap thermosoftening plastic ones)
were a bad idea. I fitted commercial metal ones myself, even though more
expensive, but that's the sort of thing can can easily do if you DIY.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 20:40:37 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

In days of yore, CUs were made of bakelite (or steel) which is non-flammable.
I was surprised when all this modern crap came out made of thermo-plastics.
Someone else has mentioned twin screw terminals which is exactly right.
Back then, fires in CUs were virtually unknown.

Stuff like cooker control units had double screws too.
Never came loose.

These Wago connectors are ****e too.
They will cause trouble too.

On 7/26/2015 8:40 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated" CUs
will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most TT
installs)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated"
CUs will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most
TT installs)


Phenolic resin?

ducks_and_runs
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 27/07/15 15:39, John Rumm wrote:
On 7/26/2015 8:40 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated" CUs
will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most TT
installs)


And even if you put the RCCB in a separate enclosure, technically this
rule applies to that as well!

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
On 7/26/2015 8:40 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?

Another question it raises is the lack of mention of how "insulated" CUs
will be constructed for use with high Ze installations (e.g. most TT
installs)

Double insulated kits have been available for some metal CU's for years.
They basically provide an extra plastic layer to insulate the incomer
cables/connections through to the RCD.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 05/08/15 22:31, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Double insulated kits have been available for some metal CU's for years.
They basically provide an extra plastic layer to insulate the incomer
cables/connections through to the RCD.


Technically the tails are already double insulated. So this would be
"triple insulation"?

But there would be something to be said for a plastic sub enclosure in
all CUs to fully separate the incomer from the final circuits.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?


I would not be surprised if they delayed the introduction of ammendment
again.

But you have a metalcald CU and already meet the new regs.



--
Adam

On 27/07/15 20:36, ARW wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on
non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the regulation?


I would not be surprised if they delayed the introduction of ammendment
again.

But you have a metalcald CU and already meet the new regs.


It's true - but I was wondering...

I will be adding a second CU once the main jobs are done from a 40A
distribution circuit for a few low power outside circuits (non of which
will add up to much, but desirable to split between 2 RCDs and have the
ability to isolate any one). And not crowd the main CU with random crap
of low importance. My current CU (Hager JK Type A) is going obsolete, so
I was considering the options...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/15 20:36, ARW wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-...nits/index.cfm

outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on
non combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Have the NICEIC (or anyone else) offered guidelines on what a non
flammable enclosure means?

eg would use of Euroclass B/C fire resistant plywood meet the
regulation?


I would not be surprised if they delayed the introduction of ammendment
again.

But you have a metalcald CU and already meet the new regs.


It's true - but I was wondering...


Actually I am now not so sure your CU would meet the 3rd amendment regs.


--
Adam

On 01/08/15 15:05, ARW wrote:

Actually I am now not so sure your CU would meet the 3rd amendment regs.



Why's that Adam?

It's not combustible. Granted it will not contain fire (large openings
in the rear, no itumescent seals) - but as far as I can follow from the
IET wibblings none of that is required.

It does not matter because my CU predates next Jan, but I am interested
in your theory as the sub-CU I will add later will need to comply.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/15 15:05, ARW wrote:

Actually I am now not so sure your CU would meet the 3rd amendment regs.



Why's that Adam?

It's not combustible. Granted it will not contain fire (large openings in
the rear, no itumescent seals) - but as far as I can follow from the IET
wibblings none of that is required.

It does not matter because my CU predates next Jan, but I am interested in
your theory as the sub-CU I will add later will need to comply.


ISTR that your CU does not have a metal cover (hinged or other) over the
MCBs.


--
Adam

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 20:40:37 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

How can a British Standard require a 'non flammable' enclosure without defining what that is, either in the Definitions section or by reference to an applicable British Standard?

Anyway, I thought all terminals already had to be in a non-combustible enclosure so any existing combustible CUs (since about 1970something probably) were already unfit for purpose at the time of sale.

Owain

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 20:40:37 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
outlines new requirements from Jan 2016 for either using CUs made on non
combustible material or enclosing in a "non flammable" enclosure.

Is this an alternative means of meeting the requirement?

http://www.electrical-photos.com/dat...ical_funny.jpg

(from electrical contractor forums)

Owain