Building Regulations and Standards: New Approved Document L

121 to 128 of 128

- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2010
It's a big "if" there, Tom.

You're preaching to the converted here. My argument has ALWAYS been - as evidenced by my numerous posts on the subject - the issue of proving compliance which, if following both the spirit and the letter of the law, will/would be expensive, in some cases prohibitively so.

Apart from those windows and doors made to the spec demanded by LBC, every window and door I made complied with the old version of the Regs, and some (probably) even with the new Regs when customers could be persuaded to go that extra few quid for gas-filled!
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2010
Are you quite sure that
Posted By: Joinerthe spirit and the letter of the law
really does demand expensive testing-to-death of every window type/size variant? Are we sure that BCO acceptance of e.g. Window5 calcs isn't actually allowed by the Reg, but is just a cludge that may or may not become the de facto?
- CommentAuthorJoiner
- CommentTimeOct 10th 2010
We'll know by this time next year!
- CommentAuthorbiffvernon
- CommentTimeOct 11th 2010
If I make a double (or triple ) glazed oak window with, say, 10mm thick timbers for the frame instead of my usual 40 or 50+ mm it would score better on the silly software. Would I be able to say to customers that it was a good window that will last a couple of centuries. No.

(Not sure that I've ever made two identical windows.)
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2010
What are you saying Biff - 'silly' because it doesn't make the constructional decisions for you?
- CommentAuthorcountryman
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2010
No, Biffs' point is that oak windows made with a frame of only 10mm width won't be structurally sound. They might pass the heat calculation software but will collapse within months!!

Just off the phone to my double-glazing unit supplier who is rather switched on about all this even to the point of lobbying his MP to try and get some of the more lunatic aspects changed but to little avail. He said that 'they' (whoever 'they' are..he mentioned Fensa, BCO's) were refusing to accept the 1.2 u-centre value rating...various things Fensa were saying "only compliant if it is in frames 70mm deep".....only intended for metal frame windows...etc etc.

I pointed out that if one was not registered with Fensa then what Fensa thought or said was irrelevant. That the regs were quite clear and made no reference to frame thickness nor metal windows.

It seems to me that the powers-that-be have suddenly woken up to what we have all been saying since this Part L nonsense started...namely that by leaving in the 1.2 centre value (which as a small joiner I approve of!) then everything else in Part L is wasted paper. You can forget WER...forget jobs for the boys....forget all that ISO rubbish...and being audited...and the expense. Ho hum...
- CommentAuthorbiffvernon
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2010 edited
Posted By: countrymanNo, Biffs' point is that oak windows made with a frame of only 10mm width won't be structurally sound. They might pass the heat calculation software but will collapse within months!!

Exactly so.

"only compliant if it is in frames 70mm deep" I can't remember ever making a frame that flimsy :)
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeOct 14th 2010
Obviously - do both
a) make windows that "pass the heat calculation software"
b) make windows that are "structurally sound".
Don't ask a) to do b) for you.
Don't describe a) as "silly" because it doesn't do b) - is that what you're saying, biff?

121 to 128 of 128

Add your comments



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

Building Regulations and Standards: New Approved Document L

Username	Password