Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 38 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3258 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

BS7671 or Wiring Regulations?

UKPN
There is a guy on here asking "what is the point of the wiring regulations?" He hasnt explained his question, so I would like to expand a little.

If you pass the City and Guilds exam, you are awarded a certificate titled "BS7671 Requirements for Electrical Installations" The term "Wiring Regulations" is not on the sheet.

However, I note that most job requirements ask for 2391/2396/18th Wiring Regulations. Virtually no one talks in the context of " BS7671"

I am wondering if members can give me an idea how the two terms are related, who makes the decisions on "regulations" and who is accountable for those decisions. I have noted errors/confusion on various posts these last few days caused by ambiguity in those regulations and it seems the person who should be protected by these regulations (the customer) is the last to be considered.

Ever the cynic, is the term "wiring regulations" retained  for sentimental reasons or just to sell the book?

Thanks in advance.


Regards, UKPNZap


Parents
  • 0
    so we have two pieces of legislation that are otherwise incompatible

    Indeed - a point I attempted to raise in my submission on the recent DPC.


    Mostly it's not a huge problem - since most changes to the regulations are "improvements" so implementing to the latest version will generally satisfy the requirements of earlier versions ... but not always. Omitting supp bonding in bathrooms is allowed now, but wouldn't satisfy earlier editions. Similarly the proposed AMD2 would have us mark DC PV cables red/white and brown/grey would be a non-conformity; while the current regs are exactly the reverse. Likewise EVSE that utilises PME & L-N voltage monitoring - wouldn't strictly comply with earlier versions.


    It is, I think, possible to produce a design that simultaneously meets two or more different versions of BS 7671 - e.g. mark DC PV cables L+ and L- rather than relying on colour codes, including supplementary bonding as well as RCDs for bathrooms and use a electrode-referenced EVSE with PME (or TT it). But it's non-trivial and requires detailed knowledge of several versions and some possible over-engineering in the resulting installation.


       - Andy.
Reply
  • 0
    so we have two pieces of legislation that are otherwise incompatible

    Indeed - a point I attempted to raise in my submission on the recent DPC.


    Mostly it's not a huge problem - since most changes to the regulations are "improvements" so implementing to the latest version will generally satisfy the requirements of earlier versions ... but not always. Omitting supp bonding in bathrooms is allowed now, but wouldn't satisfy earlier editions. Similarly the proposed AMD2 would have us mark DC PV cables red/white and brown/grey would be a non-conformity; while the current regs are exactly the reverse. Likewise EVSE that utilises PME & L-N voltage monitoring - wouldn't strictly comply with earlier versions.


    It is, I think, possible to produce a design that simultaneously meets two or more different versions of BS 7671 - e.g. mark DC PV cables L+ and L- rather than relying on colour codes, including supplementary bonding as well as RCDs for bathrooms and use a electrode-referenced EVSE with PME (or TT it). But it's non-trivial and requires detailed knowledge of several versions and some possible over-engineering in the resulting installation.


       - Andy.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines