Do you Wago? (222 lever type)

[Deuce]

In testing and developing automated, reconfigurable control boxes/panels we often use the wago lever connectors here - they're ideal for rapidly swapping components and in general for quick assembly.

I'm curious as to whether in domestic situations you chaps are making use of them these days? I have only seen one example of one of their 222 junction boxes used by a spark in domestic, kinda surprised not to see this more often given that the box and connectors costs about £1 and takes moments to fit.

I would also assume they're a good option for jobs such as new light fittings requiring extension of the existing wires or similar.

Do you have a stash of them in your van for when time is tight or you have fallen out of love with your screwdriver?

 

[Deuce]

• Wagobox (the standard size box) is only for 222 and 773 series connectors
• Wagobox XL is for the 221 and 2273 series connectors
• Wagobox XLA is for the 222 and 773 series connectors (this does not yet appear to be approved for maintenance free use)

So, there is no standard sized box that can take the slimline 221 and 2273 series connectors in a maintenance free mode. You would have to use a Wagobox XL which is nearly twice the price of a standard box.

Edit:- To be clear... the list of connectors above is when using in maintenance free mode. They do have sleeves available that allow you to use 221 and 2273 series connectors in the Wagbox and Wagobox XLA but from their own instructions, these cannot be used in maintenance free mode.

Sorry I read the previous post as you saying there are no wagoboxes suitable for MF and 221's, but yes - the XL is ok for that but also expensive.

 

[Deuce]

• Wagobox (the standard size box) is only for 222 and 773 series connectors
• Wagobox XL is for the 221 and 2273 series connectors
• Wagobox XLA is for the 222 and 773 series connectors (this does not yet appear to be approved for maintenance free use)

So, there is no standard sized box that can take the slimline 221 and 2273 series connectors in a maintenance free mode. You would have to use a Wagobox XL which is nearly twice the price of a standard box.

Edit:- To be clear... the list of connectors above is when using in maintenance free mode. They do have sleeves available that allow you to use 221 and 2273 series connectors in the Wagbox and Wagobox XLA but from their own instructions, these cannot be used in maintenance free mode.

Sorry I read the previous post as you saying there are no wagoboxes suitable for MF and 221's, but yes - the XL is ok for that but also expensive.

 

[Midwest]

I just used someone's link, Wagobox do an adaptor to use 221 & 2273 in a standard wagobox to ensure compliance with BS EN 60670-22.

http://www.wago.ltd.uk/media/wago_ltd_uk/product/enclosures/wagobox_inserts.pdf

 

[littlespark]

Do you think there will come a time when all accessories have Wago type connectors rather than screw?

Sockets would need 3 per conductor connection.... 2 for ring and a possible spur.
Loop in ceiling roses? Maybe moulded plastic to accept the Wagos as they are, not built into the rose... like the din rail mounts?
It would be difficult with switches and roses TBH.... not knowing how many conductors are needed at each terminal.

ps... This is MY idea. If MK, GET or any other manufacturer wants to buy the idea from me, please PM me

 

[Deuce]

For anyone with too much time on their hands to day - this video shows how remarkably robust these things are.

The most fun starts at 4:13, with a wago 222 under ramped up to 5x rated load for over 10 minutes before deterioration! I suppose that any circuit protection with a reaction time of ten minutes or less is suitable then

It does demonstrate that the connection they make is extremely solid. It's very impressive that their clamp design can seat down on solid core soundly enough to carry such currents.

 

[Octopus]

Reading this while in a loft ..... This handy work, not mine caught my eye

Unacceptable imho

 

[telectrix]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. they're just wagos, nbot God's gift. think i'll commit suicide or even worse, watch jeremy kyle.

 

[Deuce]

Do you think there will come a time when all accessories have Wago type connectors rather than screw?

Sockets would need 3 per conductor connection.... 2 for ring and a possible spur.
Loop in ceiling roses? Maybe moulded plastic to accept the Wagos as they are, not built into the rose... like the din rail mounts?
It would be difficult with switches and roses TBH.... not knowing how many conductors are needed at each terminal.

ps... This is MY idea. If MK, GET or any other manufacturer wants to buy the idea from me, please PM me

I think it could easily happen that someone will create a lever sprung equivalent of a traditional ceiling light bases. It would also be useful if there was a standard across light fitting designs, allowing them to screw on to a standard base, in the same way cheap hanging pendants do.

I see this as similar to the transfer to push-fit and away from copper pipe in the plumbing world. There were a couple of decades of nay-sayers, worried the plastic would fail with age and be less durable... But in the end time saving won out, and the fittings themselves have proven unbelievably reliable. So I guess, in time the same could easily happen for screw termination > lever termination.

 

[Deuce]

View attachment 44500 Reading this while in a loft ..... This handy work, not mine caught my eye

Unacceptable imho

Yes, because the inner sheathes are not protected and also those 222's do not provide suitable resistance against movement. Electrically it's sound though, I'm sure if you tested that part of the circuit it would be fine.

 

[DPG]

The ideal solution, and one which I did a few notes about last year is a two part socket. The 1st part fastens into the standard back box, and has front-facing screw terminals or Wago type connections, depending on preference. These connections are visible and are made after the main part of the socket is screwed to the back box. The T&W can then be dressed as required and no undue force is put on the terminations. A cover would clip on over the connections, so that even when the front plate is removed there is no immediate danger.

Once this is done, the front piece is screwed on with two machine screws.

If this was implemented it would be so much easier for installing, and so much safer due due to not having strain on the terminations. Also, anyone wanting to decorate would not need to remove the whole socket and therefore risk creating loose connections. All you would need to do is remove the front plate (after isolating of course).

What do you reckon folks? Assuming the above waffle makes sense. I did do a couple of sketches - I'll try and find them out.

 

[telectrix]

The ideal solution, and one which I did a few notes about last year is a two part socket. The 1st part fastens into the standard back box, and has front-facing screw terminals or Wago type connections, depending on preference. These connections are visible and are made after the main part of the socket is screwed to the back box. The T&W can then be dressed as required and no undue force is put on the terminations. A cover would clip on over the connections, so that even when the front plate is removed there is no immediate danger.

Once this is done, the front piece is screwed on with two machine screws.

If this was implemented it would be so much easier for installing, and so much safer due due to not having strain on the terminations. Also, anyone wanting to decorate would not need to remove the whole socket and therefore risk creating loose connections. All you would need to do is remove the front plate (after isolating of course).

What do you reckon folks? Assuming the above waffle makes sense. I did do a couple of sketches - I'll try and find them out.

whynotgo the whole hog. have a fixed socket in the back box to which you wire the T/E, and then the faceplate plugs in similar to a UFH stat?, then secured with standard 3.5mm pins.

 

[littlespark]

Dragons Den, here we come!

 

[Deuce]

whynotgo the whole hog. have a fixed socket in the back box to which you wire the T/E, and then the faceplate plugs in similar to a UFH stat?, then secured with standard 3.5mm pins.

Same idea as the socket/plug type light fittings. If the plugs were standardised people could swap their light fittings totally safely and never pull the cable around.

It's actually a little bizarre to think that in a trade with reams of legislation and regulation, the simple task of replacing a light fitting generally starts tugging tight fixed lengths of cable around to reach the new terminals - when all that messing around could be replaced by a simple plug/socket. Even if it's a trailing socket that sits loose above the fitting, it could be designed entirely safely.

We use modular lighting cables with male/female plugs in the events & TV industry, I fail to see why this simple solution can't move into residential wiring. The trailing sockets and a collar to accommodate them could go in first fix, reducing second fix to a simple process of plugging in lights and screwing the fitting base into the collar. Same goes for power outlets around the home too, why re-wire when you replace a socket set? Just wire one socket at the start and it's in for life. I'd far rather see this sort of system allowing anyone to safely swap fittings without testing each time. And in return for this freedom and simplicity for the home-owner, bring in periodic testing for all circuits in the house. It would be far safer if circuits were tested periodically rather than as a result of a problem being reported.

Maybe it's because I work in an industry where everything we put in is mobile/temporary, but I see so many benefits. It's a mindset of leaving things flexible and adjustable that seems to have been entirely ignored in residential electrical installation.

 

[DPG]

It needs this sort of thinking to improve things. The difficulty is getting solutions in place without spending lots of money as always. Nobody is going to buy my new sockets if I have to charge £15 each to recoup manufacturing costs!

 

[SparkyChick]

The ideal solution, and one which I did a few notes about last year is a two part socket. The 1st part fastens into the standard back box, and has front-facing screw terminals or Wago type connections, depending on preference. These connections are visible and are made after the main part of the socket is screwed to the back box. The T&W can then be dressed as required and no undue force is put on the terminations. A cover would clip on over the connections, so that even when the front plate is removed there is no immediate danger.

Once this is done, the front piece is screwed on with two machine screws.

If this was implemented it would be so much easier for installing, and so much safer due due to not having strain on the terminations. Also, anyone wanting to decorate would not need to remove the whole socket and therefore risk creating loose connections. All you would need to do is remove the front plate (after isolating of course).

What do you reckon folks? Assuming the above waffle makes sense. I did do a couple of sketches - I'll try and find them out.

In principle it sounds like a great idea, my only concern would be the three additional connections you've just introduced.

Granted they wouldn't be subjected to the same abuse as the humble 3 pin socket outlet, but maintaining a good solid connection is tricky over time without using things like gtold to prevent oxidation of the surfaces which could ultimately lead to localised heating in the contacts under a heavy load, which in turn could lead into the inevitable death spiral we see so often.