Ring main,going going gone

[cliffed]

My tutors told me to use this as a rule of thumb and you shouldn't go wrong, for a ring final circuit "1 roll of 100m cable = 1 ring final circuit", if that's wrong I stand corrected, but my tutors swore by this rule of thumb.
Found this remark on another forum,using 100m, that ring main ain’t gonna go far.
I usually have 2 rolls on the go.

 

[Octopus]

Wilko, it's not something I would do, and I agree it's not a detailed departure from 7671, do you not think this interesting article, is a case of ELECSA interpreting things for their own interests? just saying. Would love to hear your educated comments please, it's just that I have very little trust in what the Schemes have to say, Spin Doctors, spring to mind.

Don't take this the wrong way but if you were still working and Mrs Jones is having a nice shiny kitchen and needs more sockets where the cooker used to be, and the CU is on the far side of the house, common sense says that considering a lollipop makes perfect sense ........ the other option, utilising the redundant 6mm cable would be to extend the circuit in 4mm and have a longer radial .............

 

[Ian1981]

Nobody has yet come up with a good reason or a good reg against such a circuit.

Because there’s nothing to prohibit it.

 

[Octopus]

Because there’s nothing to prohibit it.

Except muppet assessors who go around misleading people ........

 

[Ian1981]

Except muppet assessors who go around misleading people ........

I’m not sure anybody’s willing to challenge them on what they come out with to be honest.
If I install such a circuit and it’s then deemed unacceptable then I’d require the relevant regulation number(s) to back the claim.
If I’m in the wrong then I can’t complain about it really.
I’ve been to an Niceic tech talk recently and I definitely did not agree with everything said and I had my area assessors head in bits haha

 

[Pete999]

Why would this type of circuit arrangement benefit any of the schemes for their own interest?

Yes of course it would.

 

[Ian1981]

Yes of course it would.

Why?

 

[Pete999]

Don't take this the wrong way but if you were still working and Mrs Jones is having a nice shiny kitchen and needs more sockets where the cooker used to be, and the CU is on the far side of the house, common sense says that considering a lollipop makes perfect sense ........ the other option, utilising the redundant 6mm cable would be to extend the circuit in 4mm and have a longer radial .............

Not on my watch.

 

[telectrix]

Nobody has yet come up with a good reason or a good reg against such a circuit.

that's because there ain't one.

 

[Octopus]

Not on my watch.

So your option would be to suggest unnecessary "surgery" on a clients house ............................ madness.

 

[telectrix]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socketoutlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

 

[Ian1981]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socketoutlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

Initially no because it just sounds lazy.
Other factors and influences may require it tho but I can’t think of any at the moment
We talking twin and earth cables?

 

[telectrix]

Initially no because it just sounds lazy.
Other factors and influences may require it tho but I can’t think of any at the moment

an example would be on a rewire, where the cable drops were in small dia.conduit/tube, only large enough to accommodate 1 x 2.5mm T/E.
using this method or chasing out expensive decor, what would you do?

 

[Octopus]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socket outlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

Personally no .......... because it would mean lots of inaccessible MF joints but this style of "ring" was used a lot in the 1960's and 1970's

The older houses on my estate have this but the "connections" are at the sockets, so 3 x imperial cable rammed into sockets ..... the fun starts when DIYers start replacing the sockets with ones sourced in big sheds that can't accommodate 3 x imperial cables

 

[Pete999]

to take this a step further.... a 2.5mm ring final, run under the upstairs floor, with single 2.5mm drops to each socket (connections suitably terminated in M/F enclosures), so each socketoutlet would be a single point spur, no reg. to prevent this. would you do it?

Yep see nothing wrong with that Tel.

 

[Ian1981]

an example would be on a rewire, where the cable drops were in small dia.conduit/tube, only large enough to accommodate 1 x 2.5mm T/E.
using this method or chasing out expensive decor, what would you do?

I’d imagine that the client must be aware that surface damage to decor is more than likely to occur and if they where that picky about damage I’d probably not do the job as it sounds more hassle than it’s worth.
This is theoretical right?