I agree it is a pig's ear, but how are customers to be provided with consistency to allow meaningful comparison of tenders without a standard method? (sorry, just opened another can of worms regarding shiny suits!)
why do we want consistency?
what we need is accuracy, not some half baked method that makes it seem as if all systems are equal, there's no way of improving shading performance from one inverter to the next, and that virtually guarantees that customers will end up opting for the cheapest possible system as there are apparently no performance advantages to be gained from the higher priced systems.
all this does is benefit the know nothing shiny suits and disadvantage the rest of us who do know what we're doing, and the customers can only lose from that situation.
MCS should have consulted on this properly, not relied on a pair of experts, both of whom are electrical engineers by training for something that really needs a much broader skillset to produce an accurate methodology that actually works IMO.
This needs changing urgently before it makes a complete mockery of the solar industry - looking at the poll in the installers section, currently there isn't anyone who's stated that they intend to actually use this methodology - while we may not be entirely representative of the industry, that really does seem to indicate the complete lack of support these measures have within the industry.
Put simply, they are unworkable, badly misleading and breach HSE regulations so MCS can take a running jump if they want to try and enforce this 'guidance' as far as I'm concerned.
