New MCS Roof Criteria

[SRE]

We have our first in-roof installation, just about to order the roof kit Easy Roof via Baywa.re and discovered it's only been tested for Jinko panels. It's a new build we're installing on so unlikely to be commissioned before the end of June taking it into the new criteria. Apparently it's being tested for LG panels as we speak but there's no knowing how long this will take. The roof kit, panels and inverter DC side will be installed this week which I'd argue was the bulk of the installation and the rest will be done probably around Sept/Oct.

It's going to be a real pain sourcing and quoting for another kit. What do you think - installation in June to inverter = current MCS roof rules??? If Jinko meets the criteria why wouldn't LG??

 

[Gavin A]

apply the common sense test and do what makes sense in the situation would be what I'd do anyway. As long as you can justify your actions if challenged, then nobody sensible is going to push this point, as the entire thing's a dogs dinner anyway.

 

[SibertSolar]

This was supposed to be sorted weeks ago, Easy-Roof were apparently appealing the fact that they can't be testing each and every module for MCS012 compliance. It's stupid if you ask me, common sense should prevail, as Gavin has said. There should be a permitted tolerance/range of physical panel sizes that the system is compliant with, not just the Jinko panels that were originally submitted for compliance testing!

 

[The Solar King]

I love being on holiday but hate posting off my phone, so forgive any typos. Lost the first reply.

There is a lot still to come out in the wash in MCS012. A number of manufacturers think 'product groups' mean everything is covered whether tested or not. This is not the case, especially when it comes to things like raised seam clamps and other fixings for metal roofs.

The MCS012 steering group currently has no chair so may be a little at sea. This is a really important standard that removes from the market a lot of inappropriate equipment that is unsuitable for UK roofs. It is interesting to note Schuco's withdrawal from the UK market.

For legal reasons there is no going back for MCS due to the high level of investment made by those who have gone for the standard (£50k+ for testing). Ironically, more than one product everyone thought would never be accredited is. The one thing accreditation does not tell you is about implementation or how appropriate a product is. You still need to do the sums from the published test data.

Properly installed Easyroof ain't goin' anywhere. The pull out figure is massive. The business over which panel it was tested with is madness, and reflects some of the lack of agreed procedure for testing.

Have a look at GSE Integration as well which is now MCS012 approved. It is a little cheaper, but make sure you factor in the cost of the expanding foam tape which is quite costly. In most installations you are also unlikely to need the additional top flashing, which saves quite a bit.

 

[Gavin A]

it's a complete mess really, it's iike it's an expensive beaurocratic solution looking for a problem to solve.

I genuinely don't understand how clickfit has passed without any restrictions relating to the batten size, maximum span etc. or how plastic roof backing sheets have passed the fire rating requirements.

and if schuco are withdrawing, then that's a terrible indictment of the situation, as schuco were the manufacturer who supplied the best, most user friendly guidance on their installation products in the market (IMO) with their span tables.

 

[SpitfireW'sale]

Schuco will still be making mounting systems but it will be branded and sold through Viessmann - I assume they will get MCS 2012 if not already but don't know for sure.

Schuco have done this almost certainly because there simply isn't the margin in solar equipment any more. Schuco score very well where a technical approach is required, indeed they are renowned for this. We have manuals literally thousands of pages long detailing the installation of their variants for windows, doors and curtain wall. Unfortunately the solar PV industry is some way behind this and work is still predominantly done by who can do it cheapest, with not enough value given to those that can provide the best system. I for one applaud any effort to raise standards in the industry, as long term it encourages development of new standards, products and generally helps protect a downward price spiral.

Unfortunately it seems the standard under discussion here has fallen short of achieving this. Completely agree with Gavin that Schuco's exit is not a good sign.

 

[The Solar King]

You have probably all just received a link to this:

Microgeneration Certification Scheme - Implementation of MCS 012

As I understand, some mardy roof mounting company (I don't know who) complained to the EU Commission on competition grounds or similar. I am pretty certain they will loose as MCS012 is a formalised method of ensuring equipment complies with UK Building Standards and other BS/EN standards.

This may drag on for a while. In my opinion not fitting MCS012 approved kit could leave you exposed as far as Building Standards are concerned.

We only wan't to do the right thing by our customers, so have been using compliant kit since last year. It also removes the issues of fitting to 38mm trusses as the kit has been tested on them. This has been discussed at length elsewhere.

 

[Gavin A]

good, hopefully the entire sorry affair can now quietly get forgotten about.

terrible scheme, terribly implemented that supplies precisely zero useful information to an installer that I can see, and I've looked through a fair few of the test reports with our structural engineer to see if there was anything useful.. but no there wasn't.

We need pull out values, span tables, maximum loading per bracket etc. not just a sodding certificate that says it's passed some test or other.

Only thing is, if it is forgotten about I can see those companies who have got certified then rightly wanting MCS to give them their costs back, so it could get messy.

ps To add spice to this, part of OFgems remit as set by parliament is to reduce the regulatory burden preventing the uptake of renewables. I'd see this falling squarely in that category.

 

[The Solar King]

We need pull out values, span tables, maximum loading per bracket etc. not just a sodding certificate that says it's passed some test or other.

You mean something like this?