The Ring is dead, long live the Radial!⚡

[Scolmore]

The Ring is dead, long live the Radial!
When wiring socket outlets do you:
1. Use ring final circuits
2. Use radial circuits

 

[LastManOnline]

To be honest I was being a bit provocative/sarcastic. I fully agree there is a place for each of the types of circuit. And the radial is essential in a number of cases. What I rail against is the disposal of the ring final circuit in favour of the radial taking over and dispensing with rfc altogether. I don't think people have thought this through actually. So we have a radial as the preferred household circuit. Branching and branches off of the branches, a kind of fractal growth of additions over the years. Now, it is you job to track down a fault. What would you prefer a nightmare of endless branches or a nice orderly ring with a crossover?

Vortigern. I also think it would be wrong to dispose of the ring (though it looks to me inevitable). As you know I am not a fan, but it has its place and there is clearly a particular affinity among British sparks for it which in my view should certainly be respected.
Could I however comment on your point about radials. I have noticed this concept of radials been presented in several posts as "tree, s" with apparently ever extending "branches" resulting in "faultfinding been a nightmare". But where does this happen? This view does not conform with the situation on the ground in my experience. The radials in use here in socket circuits are very simple "loop in., loop out". No tree, s, no branches and faultfinding is a doddle.
[automerge]1598646521[/automerge]

I can see why they are allowed, as they don't impact on the safety of a ring when done correctly.

But my bone of contention is the same as a badly modified radial circuit - you have far, far, more things that can be done badly where more than one 13A socket has been spurred off, etc. Also it degrades the elegant testability of a ring (the figure-of-8 style) as a higher R at some point might be bad connections/socket, or it could just be a run of cable on a spur.

So to me an installation with spurs is fundamentally a bad starting point (really you could not run the ring to/from that point, or maybe just a radial for that odd load?) and once folk start modifying it you get in to the test/verification nightmare.

But that is not an attribute of ring per se as if you do dumb stuff to a radial (i.e. creating a the Christmas tree circuit) you get exactly the same issues of being able to adequately confirm it is all safe.

By "badly modified radial circuit" could you give some more examples of exactly what you mean?

 

[nicebutdim]

But where does this happen? This view does not conform with the situation on the ground in my experience. The radials in use here in socket circuits are very simple "loop in., loop out". No tree, s, no branches and faultfinding is a doddle.

It may be that in future this becomes more of an issue as general socket radials are spurred off over time in much the same way as rings have been.

I don't imagine that spurs off spurs are often found in homes built in the last few years and it's more of an issue with older installations?

 

[pc1966]

Sometimes, with a physically long ring - e.g. because the circuit is some way from the distribution board (say in a large mansion) - I've found a spur or two can help keep the length of the ring down, and make the difference between a comfortable compliant and perhaps non-compliant circuit.

I'm also a fan of a spur at the origin on an RFC, where appropriate!

That is fair enough, there will be many corner-cases when putting in a spur makes sense technically and economically. But for a long ring then I would say just do it in 4mm - still going to be cheaper than the equivalent radial(s)!
[automerge]1598647197[/automerge]

By "badly modified radial circuit" could you give some more examples of exactly what you mean?

Basically the idea behind a ring is the loads are evenly spread out and there is some diversity - as you use if for general purpose sockets, not large fixed loads like water heaters, cookers, etc., even if they are significantly under the 32A MCB rating.

But the danger of adding a spur is then it is extended from one to to be several sockets and then you have, at the attachment point to the ring, a large lumped load that is not part of the assumption for reasonably safe distribution of loads.

Finally once you have 3 wires in a socket (i.e. ring in/out and the spur) you have a greater chance of them not all being properly clamped and good connections.

Now no decent electrician would do that (add multiple sockets off a spur), but the idea that "adding a socket is fine" might lead to that happening by poor practitioners of the electrical art.

 

[LastManOnline]

It may be that in future this becomes more of an issue as general socket radials are spurred off over time in much the same way as rings have been.

I don't imagine that spurs off spurs are often found in homes built in the last few years and it's more of an issue with older installations?

We don't have any issues with unfused

I think the ring is for the more technical minded. The maths in it are great. Really it is not for amateurs so I can see why dumbing down is the way to go as with so many things today. The ring is dead (as it should be while working on it!) long live the ring! would be the correct use of that paraphrase.

That is fair enough, there will be many corner-cases when putting in a spur makes sense technically and economically. But for a long ring then I would say just do it in 4mm - still going to be cheaper than the equivalent radial(s)!
[automerge]1598647197[/automerge]

Basically the idea behind a ring is the loads are evenly spread out and there is some diversity - as you use if for general purpose sockets, not large fixed loads like water heaters, cookers, etc., even if they are significantly under the 32A MCB rating.

But the danger of adding a spur is then it is extended from one to to be several sockets and then you have, at the attachment point to the ring, a large lumped load that is not part of the assumption for reasonably safe distribution of loads.

Finally once you have 3 wires in a socket (i.e. ring in/out and the spur) you have a greater chance of them not all being properly clamped and good connections.

Now no decent electrician would do that (add multiple sockets off a spur), but the idea that "adding a socket is fine" might lead to that happening by poor practitioners of the electrical art.

OK. Now I see where you are coming from. We don't experience that example of a "badly modified ring". The "danger of adding a spur" is not a danger we have. We don't use unfused spurs as you do.There is no possibility of the circuit been overloaded. There will only ever be a switched fused outlet off a radial for a fixed appliance (usually a gas or oil burner or such like). Loads over 1500 Watts should be on a separate circuit

 

[Grant1987]

It may be that in future this becomes more of an issue as general socket radials are spurred off over time in much the same way as rings have been.

I don't imagine that spurs off spurs are often found in homes built in the last few years and it's more of an issue with older installations?

You are spot on, most cases of spurs off spurs are from older installs and the new installs generally have adequate amount of socket outlets without requiring additional sockets, so the risk of the lazy spark not doing work correctly is reduced by the property already having sufficient amount of outlets.

 

[LastManOnline]

I think the ring is for the more technical minded. The maths in it are great. Really it is not for amateurs so I can see why dumbing down is the way to go as with so many things today. The ring is dead (as it should be while working on it!) long live the ring! would be the correct use of that paraphrase.

Missed this "beauty" earlier..Ring is for "the more technically minded", "not for amateurs". You are spot on. I know who you had in mind when you wrote it and I am grateful you did, nt mention me by name (?)

 

[pc1966]

We don't use unfused spurs as you do. There is no possibility of the circuit been overloaded. There will only ever be a switched fused outlet off a radial for a fixed appliance (usually a gas or oil burner or such like). Loads over 1500 Watts should be on a separate circuit

That is a sane way of doing it.

Basically it is not a spur in the way I see it - you have a FCU on the ring and the remote load is off that (just like a 13A plug but without the plug/socket)?

 

[nicebutdim]

We don't have any issues with unfused

Who is "we"?

The point I was making was in response to your comment about not finding branches off radial circuits, which result in a testing nightmare.

I get that the safety issue is removed with spurs from radials, but as general socket circuits on these islands have traditionally be run as RFCs, I think it's reasonable to make the point that an increase in the use of radial circuits could see as many messy circuits as additions/repairs are effected with the passing of time.

 

[Grant1987]

Who is "we"?

The point I was making was in response to your comment about not finding branches off radial circuits, which result in a testing nightmare.

I get that the safety issue is removed with spurs from radials, but as general socket circuits on these islands have traditionally be run as RFCs, I think it's reasonable to make the point that an increase in the use of radial circuits could see as many messy circuits as additions/repairs are effected with the passing of time.

That’s exactly the point you can install radials rather than rings but it would be no different to having a ring it still has the chance of spurring of multiple times like a ring main. Ring main all day long for me

 

[nicebutdim]

That’s exactly the point you can install radials rather than rings but it would be no different to having a ring it still has the chance of spurring of multiple times like a ring main. Ring main all day long for me

I'm very much the layman in this discussion, and I'll openly admit to having once looked at RFCs as being the devil's work.

Time and information changed that position and I now see both forms of circuit as having equal merit. My previous disparaging thoughts about RFCs were due to being on the wrong end of shoddy workmanship and I now understand that circuits are not the cause of problems - poor design and workmanship cause problems, circuits themselves are generally blameless.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Circuits are always blameless and there seems to be an equal amount of derision for both the FRC and Radial on this thread, but all brought about by someone modifying the original circuit.

 

[Grant1987]

I'm very much the layman in this discussion, and I'll openly admit to having once looked at RFCs as being the devil's work.

Time and information changed that position and I now see both forms of circuit as having equal merit. My previous disparaging thoughts about RFCs were due to being on the wrong end of shoddy workmanship and I now understand that circuits are not the cause of problems - poor design and workmanship cause problems, circuits themselves are generally blameless.

That is my belief aswell I do agree that a radial is suitable in some scenarios but in most cases the ring main pros outweighs the radial pros

 

[nicebutdim]

That is my belief aswell I do agree that a radial is suitable in some scenarios but in most cases the ring main pros outweighs the radial pros

Take each situation as it arises and install what best suits a particular set of circumstances.

 

[Vortigern]

The ring final circuit; is the way things have been done in blighty since the forties. It has an elegance of it's own. Radial circuits are used alongside the rfc as standard also. Think lighting circuits for instance. Radials are commonly used for cookers and high draw equipment often. So rfc and radials are in common use.
I am aware in other countries radials are the standard. France, Ireland and Spain leap to mind. No doubt many others. Fine, if you like radials to the exclusion of rings, better not live in blighty as we do rfc here. How many times have you heard some one championing ring final circuits aggressively over radials? It seems it is a sport for those countries not endowed with the majestic rfc. I feel sure it is some kind of attempt to take away something that is at once foreign, and complex to those not versed in the system. A dumbing down of something that really seems peculiar to UK. The testing is more complex, as attested by those of the radial persuasion and how easy it is, even a "doddle" Personally rfc is fab when you put it in and do the tests, I get a strange warm feeling when the maths work out perfectly. Us English eh!

 

[Grant1987]

The ring final circuit; is the way things have been done in blighty since the forties. It has an elegance of it's own. Radial circuits are used alongside the rfc as standard also. Think lighting circuits for instance. Radials are commonly used for cookers and high draw equipment often. So rfc and radials are in common use.
I am aware in other countries radials are the standard. France, Ireland and Spain leap to mind. No doubt many others. Fine, if you like radials to the exclusion of rings, better not live in blighty as we do rfc here. How many times have you heard some one championing ring final circuits aggressively over radials? It seems it is a sport for those countries not endowed with the majestic rfc. I feel sure it is some kind of attempt to take away something that is at once foreign, and complex to those not versed in the system. A dumbing down of something that really seems peculiar to UK. The testing is more complex, as attested by those of the radial persuasion and how easy it is, even a "doddle" Personally rfc is fab when you put it in and do the tests, I get a strange warm feeling when the maths work out perfectly. Us English eh!

Cough! Cough! British!! I’m welsh so not just the English who like RFC! ??