Are you still fitting plastic CUs......

Lazlo · Jan 19, 2015

or have you begun to install metal re:amendment 3...

PEG · Jan 21, 2015

...My 1/8th copper plate,water-laser profile cut,tig welded DB's will be available,and on sale from March.

They come in two finishes,"polished and lacquered",or for the period property,"verdigris".

Say goodbye to £150 DB swaps,with the best product,Dragons Den have ever seen...:conehead:

ruston · Jan 21, 2015

Ah, thats knacked me up then, I've just knocked a few up out of old fire extinguisher boxes.

ruston · Jan 21, 2015

This is for the ones most at risk.

BathSparks · Feb 16, 2015

JulianC said:
I fit plastic CU's but I cover them in Bakofoil. Like a metal CU then innit. Except they still catch fire. At least they cook through evenly now though.

I strongly suspect manufacturers will come up with a suitable plastic box before 2016.

What about Bakelite? Oh! perhaps not, we've had that before.

Knobhead · Feb 16, 2015

Bakelite is a phenolic plastic, which depending on the fillers used will pass the 960°C hot wire test. (Stinks like hell though.)

Pete999 · Feb 16, 2015

Lazlo said:
or have you begun to install metal re:amendment 3...

Amendment 3 doesn't say we have to fit metal CUs

Leesparkykent · Feb 16, 2015

Misleading information – a redress by BEAMA

However, BEAMA feels that there has been much misinformation about this likely requirement, so is setting the record straight.

Commented BEAMA’s Deputy Director, Installation Sector, Keith Smith: ”Much has already been written, some of it highly speculatively and potentially misleading, about the forthcoming Regulation 421.1.201 that is intended to improve fire safety in domestic premises.

“BEAMA, on behalf of the leading manufacturers of consumer units, has published a Technical Bulletin entitled ‘Enhanced Fire Safety from Consumer Units’ to give industry guidance and bring some clarity to the intended application of Regulation 421.1.201

“The content of this Technical Bulletin is fully supported and endorsed by leading industry bodies, including ECA, Electrical Safety First, IET and SELECT.

“A further point for clarification is that plastic enclosures manufactured from 960 degree glow-wire rated material would not be classified as ‘non-combustible’ in the context of this regulation.

I personally find this new regulation irritating but I cannot see how any one will get away with fitting plastic consumer units in a domestic setting when this regulation comes in to force at the start of 2016 if you are part of a CPS.

Octopus · Feb 16, 2015

Leesparkykent said:
Misleading information – a redress by BEAMA

However, BEAMA feels that there has been much misinformation about this likely requirement, so is setting the record straight.

Commented BEAMA’s Deputy Director, Installation Sector, Keith Smith: ”Much has already been written, some of it highly speculatively and potentially misleading, about the forthcoming Regulation 421.1.201 that is intended to improve fire safety in domestic premises.

“BEAMA, on behalf of the leading manufacturers of consumer units, has published a Technical Bulletin entitled ‘Enhanced Fire Safety from Consumer Units’ to give industry guidance and bring some clarity to the intended application of Regulation 421.1.201

“The content of this Technical Bulletin is fully supported and endorsed by leading industry bodies, including ECA, Electrical Safety First, IET and SELECT.

“A further point for clarification is that plastic enclosures manufactured from 960 degree glow-wire rated material would not be classified as ‘non-combustible’ in the context of this regulation.

I personally find this new regulation irritating but I cannot see how any one will get away with fitting plastic consumer units in a domestic setting when this regulation comes in to force at the start of 2016 if you are part of a CPS.

Its all very well for that muppet to say what he likes BUT they, and I include all those organisations listed, have ALL colaborated to introduce what can only be described as a FARCE of a regulation.

And to cap it off WE, the Professional Sparks will have to justify this to OUR clients - and yes its more cost - and the big sheds will still sell plastic CU's to ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT:

And this on the BEAMA press release:

"“The primary root-cause of fires in consumer units has been clearly identified as resulting from loose connections and this new regulation is intended to provide a level of enhanced fire risk protection in this event."

So instead of addressing poor workmanship they go for metal enclosures

MADNESS

Leesparkykent · Feb 16, 2015

Murdoch said:
Its all very well for that muppet to say what he likes BUT they, and I include all those organisations listed, have ALL colaborated to introduce what can only be described as a FARCE of a regulation.

And to cap it off WE, the Professional Sparks will have to justify this to OUR clients - and yes its more cost - and the big sheds will still sell plastic CU's to ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

100% mate, it is a complete FARCE IMO. I was just pointing out what BEAMA are clarifying on the use of 960 degree glow-wire rated material and that it would not be classified as ‘non-combustible’ in the context of the new regulation.

Octopus · Feb 16, 2015

Leesparkykent said:
100% mate, it is a complete FARCE IMO. I was just pointing out what BEAMA are clarifying on the use of 960 degree glow-wire rated material and that it would not be classified as ‘non-combustible’ in the context of the new regulation.

I've sent Keith an email via the contact address at Beama - be interesting to see if he responds!

Leesparkykent · Feb 16, 2015

Murdoch said:
I've sent Keith an email via the contact address at Beama - be interesting to see if he responds!

Let us know what the outcome is, if any.

Charlie_ · Feb 16, 2015

There seems to be a large number against this new regulation..
Does anybody have any figures as to the number of objections prior to its introduction?
Pethaps it should have never been introduced and also why don't we start a petition to get it scrapped

Leesparkykent · Feb 16, 2015

I'm sure Damian would be interested to know what Keith smith from BEAMA has to say as well if he does email you back.

baldsparkies · Feb 16, 2015

Lazlo said:
or have you begun to install metal re:amendment 3...

We are installing consumer units to BSEN 61439-3

Constructed of Self extinguishing ABS.

Amendment 3 refers to metal as an EXAMPLE of non combustible material not as the ONLY non combustible material.

So until they clearly define exactly what non combustible material is, and what BSEN number we have to follow.

This thread and many others will continue to propagate opinions, speculation, and continued confusion.

The whole scenario is a complete disgrace to the industry, and to those who have to work and comply within it.

Des 56 · Feb 16, 2015

baldsparkies said:
We are installing consumer units to BSEN 61439-3

Constructed of Self extinguishing ABS.

Amendment 3 refers to metal as an EXAMPLE of non combustible material not as the ONLY non combustible material.

So until they clearly define exactly what non combustible material is, and what BSEN number we have to follow.

This thread and many others will continue to propagate opinions, speculation, and continued confusion.

The whole scenario is a complete disgrace to the industry, and to those who have to work and comply within it.

I have to admit,they have brought out a regulation that has been argued about, dissected, scrutinised so much that it would have been worthy of the Supreme court deciding on a contentious law of the land

We need something like the quote above as the heading for a petition to the greater gods at the IET,try and force them to give clear and concise meaning to the intention of the regulation
I vote for a petition to be generated on this forum and sent on to Savoy place