Ring vs Radial

[Adam W]

^^^ exactly, so why run an RFC to say two bedrooms of a small terraced house. You'll be using more cable and no way are they going to ever have problems with a radial, even one rated at 16 amps.

Yes but it's smaller cable. That's where the saving comes in. You don't necessarily have to run both legs the same way.

Just for clarity I don't think we should use the initials 'RFC', at least on this thread, considering it could stand for 'Ring Final Circuit' or Radial Final Circuit.

 

[kingeri]

Running a 4mm radial on a 32a breaker uses less copper than running two 2.5mm for a ring.

 

[kingeri]

But is more limited on installation method.

 

[Adam W]

and at the time of invention it was common practice to just fit 1 ring for the whole house due to the small domestic loads of 1950's.
hardly a reason to still be using them 60 years later.
i can see this thread going on for a loooong time lol.

Neither is it an argument for installing radials. You'd install several rings in the same way as you'd install several radials.
While it might be fair to argue that generally speaking people have more, lower power appliances such as mobile phone and laptop chargers, i would like to consider eventualities such as the heating packing up in the winter and the customer having an electric heater in each room.

 

[Adam W]

Running a 4mm radial on a 32a breaker uses less copper than running two 2.5mm for a ring.

Depends how you run it.

 

[Adam W]

It seems few are in favour of the 'old fashioned' ring; I can see I'm going to have to argue extra hard.

 

[Silly Sausage]

You should have put a poll on this thread.

Was just thinking that!

1 vote for Rings.

 

[Amp David]

Yes but it's smaller cable. That's where the saving comes in. You don't necessarily have to run both legs the same way.

Just for clarity I don't think we should use the initials 'RFC', at least on this thread, considering it could stand for 'Ring Final Circuit' or Radial Final Circuit.

Whats smaller cable? 20/16 amp radial still uses the same as a 32 amp ring.

True regards RFC, good point.

I vote for rings and radials.

Each has their place in todays world

 

[Adam W]

Well yes you could reduce the rating, but for an equivalent circuit, ie 32A radial vs 32A ring, you'd use 2.5mm for a ring, or 4mm for a radial.
You could argue that you'd save cable if you ran 16A rings in 1.5mm.

 

[Amp David]

But then thats just getting crazy!

I'm on the side of thinking that running 2.5mm rings to supply 2 bedrooms is pointless, so instead use a 20/16 amp radial.

 

[Guest55]

we should have a competition , list all the pro's of a radial and all the pro's of a ring.
longest list wins the arguement for all time. ;-)

so no takers on the challenge then ?
i've come up with 9 pro's for radials.

 

[Adam W]

But then thats just getting crazy!

I'm on the side of thinking that running 2.5mm rings to supply 2 bedrooms is pointless, so instead use a 20/16 amp radial.

You need to use common sense then. That's where an electrician has the upper hand over a domestic installer - you could consider running one ring for the kitchen and one for the rest of the house, rather than blindly following this rule of thumb which says 'one circuit upstairs, one downstairs, one for the kitchen. Otherwise like you say, you could end up running a 32A ring for one bedroom and a single socket in the hallway, or a single 16A radial for 5 bedrooms

 

[Guest22]

Does anyone else get slightly frustrated when a customer calls anything that has sockets on it a Ring main? :32:

 

[Silly Sausage]

so no takers on the challenge then ?
i've come up with 9 pro's for radials.

Let us see them then...

 

[Adam W]

Does anyone else get slightly frustrated when a customer calls anything that has sockets on it a Ring main? :32:

... Or people who insist on calling sockets 'plugs'.