Facebook | Double Glazing Jobs | Guest Contributions | Contact | Terms

Renegade Conservatory Guy

Join RenegadeClub and get FREE email updates from me...

Posts Tagged ‘BFRC’

WER scheme still has a long way to go before it can work

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Mark Hickox, Sales Director at Thermoseal Group discusses the requirement for ‘exchangeability’ of products in the Window Energy Rating Scheme (WER) and his view that the WER Scheme still has a way to go before it can work to the advantage of the whole industry.

 

mark hickox thermoseal

The EN1279 Euronorm for IG manufacturers allows for the ‘exchangeability’ of one brand of spacer for another one, so as long as a spacer is proven to provide the same or superior performance to the original test unit spacer, manufacturers can exchange products without the requirement for a re-test. This is the same for other IG unit components including sealant and desiccant.
We currently supply over half of the UK’s spacer requirements in the form of aluminium tube. This tube is sold with full details of its technical composition and proven performance information which means that insulated glass (IG) manufacturers can assess it in line with the current brand of aluminium spacer they are using and exchange the brand for a similar or better performing product.
 
Although we all agree that this system of ‘exchangeability’ must be regulated and controlled effectively to ensure that high standards of double glazing are encouraged and maintained, it ensures that the market remains open for new products. ‘Exchangeability’ will stop the market being dominated by a few organisations with plenty of available cash and big enough budgets to pay for hundreds of brand-specific tests.
 
‘Exchangeability’ also means that new products can be brought to market with the relative criteria proven by test data. This avoids component Manufacturers, IG manufacturers and window installers having to go through masses of red tape to change their products.
 
The Window Energy Rating (WER) scheme doesn’t currently allow for ‘exchangeability’ because simulations are performed based on IG components of which many are stated as brand names rather than a given specification of a technical data and a minimum performance standard.
 
This results in certain brands of WER products becoming successful because they have been included in more simulations than other products of equal or better technical composition and performance ability. This then leads to a crazy situation whereby a window installer cannot chose to install a superior product because it does not conform to his brand-specific WER.
 
Aren’t Window Installers entitled to choose a better performing product for their money?
 
There are many arguments for allowing ‘exchangeability’ of products which should be considered carefully. In particular, we must consider the fact that the financial stability of any suppliers into the IG market is not guaranteed. Over the past two years alone we have seen massive swings in exchange rates and commodity prices which have resulted in many seemingly solid businesses under-performing.   Therefore, it makes sound business sense and encourages a more stable and competitively priced market to allow for some flexibility. Besides, if the marketplace changes very quickly to warm edge as legislation suggests, then no single supplier will have the capacity to meet demand. This will leave IG manufacturers no choice but to use whatever they can get. The public, who will not notice the subtle differences between spacers, will be none the wiser.
 
Currently, WER scheme simulators are encouraged to use the branded products with the best performance figures to ensure that their customers can gain the highest possible Window Energy Ratings. Although the scheme is admirable in that it aims to improve the standards of double glazing in the interests of the homeowner, we’re concerned that it doesn’t seem to be working with IG businesses.
 
Only 38% of IG manufacturers positive about the WER scheme
 
We recently carried out a customer survey across our database of almost 2,000 IG manufacturers across the UK and only 38% of those who completed the survey were positive about the WER scheme. We also asked for their opinion as to whether they support the view that ‘exchangeability’ should be permitted in the WER scheme. Over 70% agreed that it should (the majority of the rest were undecided).
 
Over 70% agreed that product exchangeability should be permitted
 
Like many other suppliers into the UK window market, Thermoseal Group is planning to launch a new spacer tube (Thermobar) and several new products in 2010 which will have proven equal or higher thermal efficiency values than many of those currently available. However, operating under the current BFRC WER scheme guidelines, these products would have to be re-simulated by all users in all pre-registered WERs before they could be used.
 
We suggest that products should be selected by WER scheme simulators based on key performance indicators with relative criteria proven by the technical composition and test data of the product. This will put an element of the decision-making process back into the hands of the IG manufacturer who has the real experience of making sealed units. It will also help to retain a competitive business environment for suppliers.
 
As members of the GGF, we have invested a great deal of time and effort into attending many meetings around the UK so that we can join in the debates that we are assured will shape the future of our industry. So far there seems to be a lot of talking but the action remains to be seen.

Interview with Giles Willson – BFRC

Friday, February 19th, 2010

In response to my previous post about the impending changes to affect the WER scheme, Giles Willson from the BFRC agreed to answer a few questions I put to him as follows:

Can you explain how the impending changes to the compliance with building regulations in October will affect the industry as a whole?

We will not know what the actual requirements for the revision to Approved Document L Conservation of fuel and power & Approved Document F Ventilation until they are published at the beginning of April 2010.

We know from the 2009 consultations that for England and Wales the proposal is WER band C for replacement windows and U value 1.8 for replacement doors. Regarding trickle ventilators within replacement windows these are going to be considered mandatory for all replacements. In addition conservatories are being considered to have the dispensation for compliance under ADL removed; this would mean conservatories would need to meet a thermal performance standard.

Therefore if you supply or fit replacement windows, doors or conservatories you will be effected; the actual details will be known in April – so watch this space.

There seems to be a lot of concern about the real value of solar gain in WER calculations. Wouldn’t we be better just setting tougher U Value requirements as part of the scheme?

The WER calculation takes into account the following:

Whole window U value
Solar gain
Air leakage

We all know that solar gain does make a difference to a building; the averaged constant used by the BFRC method simplifies the situation. Do you really want different window ratings for a North, South, East or West elevation, let alone a North, North East window?

The whole window U value is an element of the BFRC equation, it is important but WER’s reflects the solar gain aspect – a unique feature of glass compared to most other products used on the exterior elevation of homes.

Personally, I’m concerned that having WER’s as the only way of complying with building regulations will stifle innovation, choice and creates problems should any company in the supply chain cease trading. For example, what will an installer do if the company they purchase sealed units from ceases trading? Surely there needs to be a quick way for installers and fabricators to switch to an equivalent product from an equivalent supplier?

The WER Licence specifies the components used in a window; if these are no longer available the approved window is not a viable option, however the question did state that if your unit maker ceases trading what do you do. In these cases another unit maker, who can manufacture to the original specification (exact components etc.) can be used.

Regarding innovation; different components can be modelled within a simulation to check the overall effect on the rating – this is a very cost effective solution therefore we could argue we assist innovation.

I understand there are currently around 300 companies in the UK with an energy rating, but FENSA claim to have over 9000 companies in their scheme. Can the simulators simulate, the IA’s audit and the BFRC register the rest of the industry by October?

The number of companies stated are correct however, we do need to think about the supply chain. Many FENSA installers only undertake a few jobs, they use windows which have been bought in; these installers will buy in a window which is WER registered and install this as compliant with regulations.

You also have companies who fabricate and install – these companies need to get their own Licence or be part of the Authorised Retailer Scheme.

The authorised retailer scheme; this enables companies to use their frame supplier licence and either source their own units or buy from the frame supplier, and have their own BFRC WER Licence.

Therefore the number of additional Licences will increase if WER band C is made mandatory however, not all 9000 FENSA Registered businesses will require their own Licences.

Do you think that these proposed changes will ultimately force many smaller sealed unit manufacturers, PVC-U fabricators and installers out of business?

We do not believe that it is the Governments intention that any company goes out of business due to regulatory changes. However, regardless if the Building Regulations require WER or whole window U values these would need to be calculated for every combination of glass, unit and frame.

With the more demanding specifications, products do require verification; therefore companies who have undertaken the preparation and have data on their products should survive. Companies who have not undertaken a simulation or have data on the whole window U value or WER will be disadvantaged and could result in their failure.

For more information about the BFRC visit http://www.bfrc.org/

Anger and confusion about WER scheme

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

I’ve been reading with interest the lengthening thread on the Thermoseal blog about the Window Energy Scheme and its impact on our industry.

It appears that there are many people concerned that the impending changes to the WER scheme in October will have a devastating effect on many small IGU fabricators, PVCu manufacturers and installers. Many of the comments refer to small businesses being pushed out of business and people being forced onto the dole.

I am becoming increasingly concerned myself that the industry is just not ready to replace U-Values with WERs as the only way to comply with building regulations in such a short time scale.

The whole thing seems badly thought out, and there seems to be a lot of confusion about what the changes will actually mean to individual businesses. There are even people questioning the validity of the science behind the rating system.

Our company has successfully been marketing energy rated windows for some time now, but I’m particularly frustrated with the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy it entails and the lack of flexibility we now have with sealed unit product supply.

So, I’m trying to fix up to have an interview on the website with Giles Wilson of the BFRC, although I’m yet to get a response to my request. I want to ask him for clarity on a couple of questions I need clarifying, but I would also like to hear any constructive questions you might like me to put to him.

Please submit your questions below, and then I’ll compile the best 8 or 10 and send them to him.

Window Energy Ratings? Exchangeability?

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

There’s an interesting blog post on the Thermoseal Group website, asking for opinions about the exchangeability of products deemed as ’similar’ being permitted in the WER scheme, so window companies and sealed unit suppliers are not bound to specific brands of a product.

You can leave your thoughts at:

http://www.thermosealgroup.com/blogs.cfm?theBlogID=B66D9A7F-15C5-F4C0-999A03944C8DBFDE

Smoke and mirrors | BFRC Rating Scheme

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Guest post by Kevin Ahern

In my recent quest to understand the BFRC rating scheme, I seem to have misunderstood a lot of what the scheme is all about so I thought I would try to simplify my current thoughts in the topic.

energy_rated-Window

The BFRC claim that A rated windows are net heat providers of your home. Ref. Giles Willson (at Glassex), Maurice Levitt (consultant and physicist), various correspondence, Graham Hinett (Fensa Times Dec 09) et al, and I am sure, many others, on numerous occasions, yet the BFRC guidance notes explain that the scheme is purely a comparison for windows and NOT an absolute performance measurement.

You see my confusion?

The document that explains the calculation of the formula (that has been peer, industry and academia reviewed) suggests that the sun provides more power in Aberdeen than it does in Plymouth. You see my confusion?

The same document goes into great detail about a Dutch reference house and quotes a number of British and European standards (and uses them negligibly) but does not state the reference source of the solar data that it uses. Calculations from the ASHRAE standards in the US suggest UK solar flux of up to 275 KWhrs/sq mtr (South facing) and 15Kwhrs /sq mtr (North), yet the BFRC manages to arrive at an average of 218.6 Kwhrs in their formula.

You see my confusion?

The scheme has been proposed as the only method of compliance to the 2010 part L regs, yet its administrators do not appear to grasp the issue of whether the WER is an accurate energy assessment or a marketing window comparison tool.

You see my confusion?

We are now being asked to pay lots of money to the BFRC for the privilege of having our products and businesses assessed to this compliance criteria in return for a colourful piece of paper, in which the resultant rating is neither a comparison or a net heat balance figure, or both.

You see my confusion?

Those amongst us who are actively selling A Rated windows to the public as net heaters of their property, could well be actually mis-selling and telling our customers lies (if the BFRC guidance notes 2007 are still valid). Could the customer sue you if your salesmen sold your windows as providing more heat than they lost?

You see my confusion?

Now the easy bit, this scheme has been purportedly government supported and designed to help the general public better understand the products we are selling them, ironically, along the way the BFRC appear to have forgotten the fundamentals of what their rating scheme is!

On the positive side, at least the scheme has the potential to be the only tool for the government to police our domestic replacement window industry, and a further benefit, by a strange coincidence (with the amount of solar gain claimed in the formula), it would also seem to offer an extended shelf life to some of the older generation Low E glasses, that, while not offering the best U values, let just enough more sun in to balance that problem out!

You see my confusion?

I have attempted to address some of these issues with the BFRC, but unfortunately, they give the impression that they are the scientists and therefore know best. The technical responses would appear to be based on the smoke and mirrors approach and actual answers very difficult to get to.

To summarise, I think the scheme has fallen between 2 camps, energy rating and window comparison, but wants to be seen as all things to all people. The problem lies in the application, accuracy and authenticity of the solar data , which for the purpose of windows in this heating dominant climate, is of limited value and should be thus be ignored anyway. The only data on the certificates, should be the window characteristics, (U and G values), and if the government wants to reduce fuel consumption it should insulate and use U values.

Any winter solar benefit (or summer overheating cost) is so dependant on specific site installation criteria (window size, orientation, trees, neighbouring houses and any other shading) that it has little or no place in a national window rating scheme for the installation of product into existing housing stock.

Ask yourself a question. Low iron glass, why ? Is this marvelous UV transparent product such a benefit to our society that we have long neglected it at our cost? Or is it just another gimmick to scrape a few more theoretical numbers on to our colourful pieces of paper?

Are we as an industry doing our bit to help James Strawbridge save the planet? Are we as an industry helping the government with the building regs 2010 Part L implementation?

Or, as some may argue, is the window industry taking the Mick out of Mr Strawbridge, the building regs, you and me, and worst of all, the consumer?

You see my confusion?

Kevin Ahern

Installing new window heaters!

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Guest post by Kevin Ahern

I was a bit tongue in cheek when I asked Matthew to host the poll to assess peoples’ perception of the window energy rating scheme, and although the voting numbers were never going to be argued as definitive, it could possibly be a good snapshot of the way some of the industry folk are feeling.

Currently (at 32 votes total) the most interesting response shows that 34% answered that they did not believe that an A rated window was a net heater of a house.

A Rated Windows

That surely is quite a remarkable figure that shows a lack of faith in the flagship energy appraisal system from the BFRC.

I would expect to see a good response from the believers in the domestic double glazing industry as the rating scheme is after all, sales based and (I’ve heard it said) salesmen are the easiest to sell to, because they believe in the sales methods! But only half of the responses are believers of the window energy rating claims.

I am a pleasantly surprised by the lack of votes for the third category, being cynical of the way a lot of the industry works I expected a few more votes in the ‘extra margin’ box.

So come on, put your clicks where it counts, maybe my cynicism prevented a genuine ‘I haven’t got a clue’ option, but put your thinking caps on and work it out, or just put click for your gut feeling, you never know it might be right!

If you want to, you can use this blog to say which way you voted, and why, or even say if you would have been a genuine undecided.

Remember, your vote counts!

Kevin Ahern

Stepping back in time with English Heritage

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Guest post from Martin Randall – Crystal Direct

As we have come to expect from English Heritage, the article ‘Meet the building regs: Yes we can’ (Bullseye, issue 12) smuggled in a lot of prejudice and opinion as fact. It was like stepping back in time.

I’ll leave the BFRC, systems companies and dedicated sliding sash companies like Masterframe to put English Heritage right on its technical inaccuracies. But the idea that heavy curtains and ugly, space-hogging secondary glazing will improve energy saving enough to match double glazing and achieve a C-rating seems highly improbable. If you have to keep the original windows then yes, you’ll have to use every trick in the book including secondary glazing, roller blinds, heavy curtains and extra seals to paper over the cracks and gaps and cut down on draughts.

And on a good day, maybe you can reduce the whistling of the wind and cut down on heat leakage. But it isn’t much fun living in artificial light behind a barricade of secondary glazing, roller blinds and heavy curtains. It says that a combination of these methods will upgrade most sash windows to meet building regulations. Would that be the equivalent of an A, B or C window energy rating, or is it a G?

I fully support the idea of protecting our heritage and I think wood is great for floors and stairs and furniture. But in British weather it’s not an ideal material for window frames.

Georgian sashes lasted a long time because the timber was seasoned, and they were well made. But, Georgian houses also set the windows back in a rebate so they were protected from the weather. And labour was cheap and plentiful, so they could afford to repaint and repair at frequent intervals.

If not well maintained and protected against the weather, timber rots and degrades quickly, particularly in coastal regions. That’s a fact. The RCG Blog has an excellent set of photographs to remind us, showing what happens to windows that haven’t been maintained. I recommend everyone to visit the site and see what weather does to wood. The same RCG photographs are on the Fighting Back with Facts website.

Many home owners have not experienced life with timber windows. In most very new houses with double glazed timber windows the frames are now built to a higher spec and they will last – provided you maintain them. But anyone who lived in a house with timber windows built between 1980 and 2000 knows that timber doesn’t last. Many failed catastrophically in five to seven years. Yes, you do get badly installed PVC-U windows, and ones with cheap hardware and poor designs to meet a price, but in general PVC-U windows look good and last many years.

Georgian builders used the most modern materials and products that were available at the time. Had modern PVC-U windows been available they would have used them.

Mr Nicholas comments that unlike PVC-U, timber windows ‘can be repaired easily and be made to look brand new again with just a simple coat of paint’. Given their vulnerability to the weather, they have to, although I think he is forgetting the filler, the primer and undercoat and the second coat of gloss if you want them to last. Maintaining timber windows beyond the first few years is a labour of love.

Mr Nicholas refers to energy saving measures as a ‘fad’. I disagree. Surely it pays to avoid waste, in energy as in other things? Saving the energy lost through windows has a far greater impact than switching to energy saving light bulbs and other token gestures. And the idea of renewable energy is not to get us off the hook so we can squander it.

English Heritage does much good, but heavy curtains are not the answer. If they were, would the rest of the world have invested so much money and effort in seeking ways to save expensive energy?

Yours sincerely
Martin Randall
Chairman, Crystal Direct and Founder of Fighting Back With Facts

Glazing Quiz

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Guest post by Kevin Ahern

As the trade press is full of the BFRC and the WER scheme, I thought a little lighthearted quiz was in order to keep everyone up to speed. There are no prizes, there are probably no correct answers, but there is a multiple choice format that helps keep it simple.

Good luck, and have fun!

What does WER stand for?
a) Wobbly Energy Rantings
b) Window Energy Ratings
c) Wonderful Easy Revenue

Why do we need WERs?
a) To help consumers compare window performance
b) To help customers insulate their houses
c) To fudge the window insulation issue, so that glass U-values lose their significance

Why are WERs to be the only method of compliance to the proposed 2010 building regs part L?
a) for the sake of simplicity
b) U-values just aren’t trendy anymore
c) To fudge the window insulation issue, so that glass U-values lose their significance
d) To provide a cash cow for the certificate providers

How can you prove compliance to the proposed building regs part L
a) You can’t, the formulas aren’t public thus you can’t assess your own product
b) purchase the right to supply windows from the BFRC
c) use someone else’s certificate

How does FENSA fit into the WER equation?
a) Oh , err , umm
b) FENSA take the Low E test machine from their inspector’s briefcase
c) FENSA will commission a new printing press and will take subcontract work for all the industry certificates
d) FENSA will now rename to Office for Legal Development, Ratings Or Performance Excluded, so at least we know what we are giving money for

How is the WER applied to assess the window heat flow performance on different orientations?
a) It isn’t, it can’t
b) It doesn’t need to because it simplifies the complicated process of thinking, thus A is better than C, easy
c) It is a marketing tool

What monetary benefits are there by choosing an A rated window over a C rated window?
a) £26.48 per year
b) £80.00 per year
c) If your A rated window faces north, west or east you may be better off fitting a D rated window which could well have a lower U-value (whoops forgot part L)

What orientation is used to calculate the WERs
a) North
b) South
c) East
d) West
e) A thought out combination of all 4 ……………..sorry only joking, there is no option e

How much Solar gain (in Kwhr/M2) is included in the BFRC calculation?
a) Bucket Loads
b) 5 sunrays per second
c) The sun shining from Messrs Pilkingtons derrier
d) It’s top secret, so we can’t tell you

If DG units are being made with low iron glass and frames are being made with slimmer sightlines, does that mean more sun gets though?
a) Oh yes , lots of free energy
b) Hang on to your furnishings ladies, the patterns will disappear before your very eyes
c) Absolutely, you will be able to sell loads more of those aircon units for the summer, top added value (for the retailer)

How long will it take before a disgruntled householder complains that his A rated windows don’t seem to be heating his house?
a) never, customers believe everything they are told
b) never, because they don’t care
c) 1 good winter, but get fobbed off by the installation company

With the Energy Saving Trust, Building regs, and James Strawbridge all on board, who will be the next organization to sing the virtues of the WER?
a) The Tufty Club
b) Trading Standards
c) Citizens Advice Bureau
d) None of the above, although some may be interested in the claims being made.

If Trading Standards were to ask, “under what conditions will your A rated window be a net heater of a customers house?”, what will the response will be?
a) I have no idea, I just sell what the certificate says
b) It doesn’t matter, these windows are magic, the laws of nature don’t apply
c) Don’t tell anyone, but we have sunshine all year, if the customer can’t store this free summer energy for the winter that’s his problem.
d) Look, it is just a marketing tool, chill out man

After consideration, the verdict, so who has to pay the customer compensation for mis-selling?
a) The installer
b) The certificate holder
c) The certificate issuer

Finally, the BFRC Window Energy Rating scheme is being rolled out so that everyone has enough time to pay their money for some certificates, what would be your overall view of the scheme?
a) A great marketing tool for the proliferated installation end of the window market.
b) A simple and accurate way for the consumer to assess his energy needs.
c) A cynical manipulation of the building regs, by and for, the benefit of the industry big hitters, resulting in the bullying of the vast majority of the industry by a minority that might claim to represent it.

Ok, it is now time to work out your score

Mainly A’s
You are on the marketing bandwagon big time, I guess the scheme has you licking your lips for the added value you can get out of your customers.

Mainly B’s
Get off the fence, and either go for A or C, B is a daft choice of no real value unless you fell on it by accident and the spec is generally what you already offer.

Mainly C’s
I guess you have made the “fall in line” choice. It will enable you to trade and sell a product that will keep a market for big float glass manufacturers who haven’t invested in cutting edge low E technology as yet.

A broad mix of ABCD and E’s
Well you are pretty disgruntled that you are having to sell products that the industry declares are the best, but in reality, may not be for each individual customer. You are probably also a little miffed at having to pay for a certificate that only shows a notional rating in a marketing scheme, that perversely grants you permission to sell these products and thus contributes financially to the whole merry-go-round.

Just a little bit of fun, I hope you enjoyed it!

  • Sponsors

  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
  • image widget
© 2010 Renegade Conservatory Guy