Wago alternatives? Cost effective

[JohnW2]

Which of those do you think will have a favourable outcome, and which will end up with you found guilty for gross negligence and liable for the vast costs of the of the damage, death and destruction caused?

Melodramatic statements always make points appear stronger

I acknowledge that legal processes are by no means always 'fair', but one would hope that no-one would be found guilty of causing "damage, death and destruction" as a result of their having used "some unbranded no-name items from some random vendor on ebay, which had no instructions, no manufacturer details, no declaration of conformity or evidence of compliance with any standards for such products" unless it could somehow be proven that the damage, death or destruction had definitely resulted from the use of such products - and in the case of spring-loaded connectors, I would think that it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain such 'proof' (or anything approaching 'proof'), wouldn't it?

 

[morqthana]

Oh yes, car boots are still going strong. I have picked up some lovely tools over the years for not very much money. Knipex, Bahco, RS, Snap on, Lindsstrom, Leica etc

And all legitimately owned and acquired by the sellers, of course.

 

[morqthana]

Quite so. I've seen under the floorboards of countless houses with electrical installations of appreciable age, and I'm not sure that I have seen (m)any that did not have at least some examples of what you describe. So, 'acceptable' or not, I would therefore suspect that there must be very many millions of such things in service in the UK

It's still being done, only now with modern junction boxes with Wago connectors inside

 

[morqthana]

I acknowledge that legal processes are by no means always 'fair', but one would hope that no-one would be found guilty of causing "damage, death and destruction" as a result of their having used "some unbranded no-name items from some random vendor on ebay, which had no instructions, no manufacturer details, no declaration of conformity or evidence of compliance with any standards for such products" unless it could somehow be proven that the damage, death or destruction had definitely resulted from the use of such products - and in the case of spring-loaded connectors, I would think that it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain such 'proof' (or anything approaching 'proof'), wouldn't it?

What if they were obviously counterfeit rather than "unbranded no-name"?

 

[JohnW2]

What if they were obviously counterfeit rather than "unbranded no-name"?

"Counterfeit" is really just an Intellectual Property issue, and doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of quality or reliability etc. In the same fashion I just described, one would hope that no-one would be found guilty of causing damage/death/injury because they used a counterfeit item unless it can be proved that the event was the result of use of that product.

I know a couple of people who have "obviously counterfeit" Rolex watches ('obviously' by virtue of price) - both of which are indistinguishable from the real thing by the eyes of the msn-in-the-street nd both of which have been functioing flawlessly for very many years

 

[JohnW2]

It's still being done, only now with modern junction boxes with Wago connectors inside

It's also still being done with traditional screwed-terminal JBs

 

[morqthana]

"Counterfeit" is really just an Intellectual Property issue, and doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of quality or reliability etc.

So you're OK with counterfeit food, car parts, aircraft parts, medicines....

In the same fashion I just described, one would hope that no-one would be found guilty of causing damage/death/injury because they used a counterfeit item unless it can be proved that the event was the result of use of that product.

I just wondered if where there had been a tragic event that was caused by the item whether the user would be more likely to be in bother if the item was obviously counterfeit rather than simply no-name unbranded.

I know a couple of people who have "obviously counterfeit" Rolex watches ('obviously' by virtue of price) - both of which are indistinguishable from the real thing by the eyes of the msn-in-the-street nd both of which have been functioing flawlessly for very many years

Some of the better fakes these days need to be dismantled and very closely examined at high magnification by experts to be identified.

 

[JohnW2]

So you're OK with counterfeit food, car parts, aircraft parts, medicines....

No. Morally speaking, I'm not "OK" with any sort of counterfeit. I also accept that some counterfeit products are 'inferior,' maybe unsafe/dangerous. However, my point was that (as with Rolex watches below), one should not assume that such is necessarily the case - because sometimes it isn't!

I just wondered if where there had been a tragic event that was caused by the item whether the user would be more likely to be in bother if the item was obviously counterfeit rather than simply no-name unbranded.

IF it can be proven ('beyond a reasonable doubt') that a tragic event resulted from use of an inferior or defective product, then I imagine that a person might be 'in bother' if it were an 'obvious counterfeit' OR 'no-name branded' without a claim to be compliant with the relevant Standards and regulations. However, even if 'no-name unbranded' if it claimed to be compliant then I don't see how, in most cases, a user could be expected to determine that it wasn't.

Some of the better fakes these days need to be dismantled and very closely examined at high magnification by experts to be identified.

Exactly - as I said, being a fake does not necessarily mean that a product is appreciably 'inferior', let alone unsafe/dangerous

 

[Sureitsoff?]

I always thought it odd that the round screwed junction boxes are no longer allowed but terminal strips are OK, yet they both used screwed connections.
Anyhoo - I do find Wago's expensive for the DIY'r as there are not small kits available in Screwfix like the ideal one there is, you have to spend about £30 in order to make off a few assorted connections instead of £13.

We recently had a large control panel build at work where all the terminals (and there was hundreds) were wago lever ones, in one way using them is easier than screw terminals, other ways it's harder as you cannot put double cord end crimps into them.

Either way, I now have a nice little collection so I made myself a box to put them in.
One of the lads at work who has a large collection is going to give me a couple of boxes of Wago's so he too can have a box like this
View attachment 376237View attachment 376238

if that is 3d printed, start selling them quick as it's brilliant

 

[mattylad]

if that is 3d printed, start selling them quick as it's brilliant

Nah, it takes the best part of a day to print.
It's my hobby not a business lol

 

[morqthana]

"Counterfeit" is really just an Intellectual Property issue, and doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of quality or reliability etc.

Well, no, it isn't really "just" an IP issue. And it can mean things up to and including loss of life.

IF it can be proven ('beyond a reasonable doubt') that a tragic event resulted from use of an inferior or defective product, then I imagine that a person might be 'in bother' if it were an 'obvious counterfeit' OR 'no-name branded' without a claim to be compliant with the relevant Standards and regulations. However, even if 'no-name unbranded' if it claimed to be compliant then I don't see how, in most cases, a user could be expected to determine that it wasn't.

IHNI what the "relevant standards" are for electrical connectors (are there any?).

But I do wonder if someone competent might be someone who could reasonably have been expected to know that if the product itself was obviously counterfeit then any claims of standards compliance might be equally dodgy.

In other words "You, Mr. Qualified Electrician, used materials which you must have realised were counterfeit. Would you please tell the court what steps you took to verify that they were safe, and complied with the appropriate standards?"

 

[JohnW2]

Well, no, it isn't really "just" an IP issue. And it can mean things up to and including loss of life.

It's a poor quality product that could "mean things like loss of life" and, as I wrote being counterfeit does nopt necessarily mean poor quality. A genuine (i.e. non-counterfeit) product of poor quality could also "mean things like loss of life".

IHNI what the "relevant standards" are for electrical connectors (are there any?).

Well, nor did I, but a quick look indicates that, for example, Wago write the following:

Tests and Testing Procedures per IEC/EN Standards​

There are specific test specifications for each of our products, from connectors to rail-mount terminal blocks.

The following sections describe the most important tests and are limited to a description of the test procedures and an explanation of the test purpose.

Mechanical Tests
WAGO products are developed and produced to withstand the mechanical loads that arise in the application without suffering damage. This is demonstrated on the one hand by the tests according to following tests, some of which are required by standards:

• Connectability of all conductors indicated in the data sheet
• Pull-out test of the connected conductors (per IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60998-2-2, IEC/EN 60999-1)
• Shock test per IEC/EN 60068-2-27, 60068-2-30; IEC/EN 61373 (railway applications)
• Vibration test (per IEC/EN 60068-2-6; DNV GL (marine applications); LR; EN 61373 (railway applications))

Electrical Tests
WAGO products meet requirements for the following electrical tests:

• Temperature-rise test per IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60947-7-4, IEC/EN 61984
• Current-carrying capacity curve (derating curve) per IEC/EN 60512-5-2
• Voltage drop test per IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60999-1
• Short-time withstand current test (short-circuit withstand capacity) per IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60947-7-4
• Insulation parameters per IEC/EN 60664-1
• Power-frequency withstand voltage test per IEC/EN 60998-1, IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60947-7-4
• Rated impulse withstand voltage test per IEC/EN 60664-1, IEC/EN 60947-7-1
• IP ratings for electrical equipment per IEC/EN 60529

Material Tests
WAGO products meet the requirements of the following material tests:

• Needle flame test per IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60695-11-5
• Glow-wire test per IEC/EN 60998-1, IEC/EN 60695-2-11

Environmental Tests
The following tests show how a product reacts when exposed to an aggressive environment. Climatic chambers simulate standard atmospheres that could impact long-term constancy of clamping units. All WAGO products meet the requirements of the following environmental tests:

• Temperature cycling test per IEC/EN 60947-7-1, IEC/EN 60998-2-2
• Industrial atmospheres per EN ISO 6988, IEC 60068-2-42, IEC/EN 60068-2-60
• Salt spray test per IEC/EN 60068-2-11; DNV GL (marine applications); LR
• Quick change of temperature per IEC/EN 60068-2-14
• Damp heat, cyclic (12 + 12 Hour Cycle) per IEC/EN 60068-2-30, DNV GL, LR (marine applications)

But I do wonder if someone competent might be someone who could reasonably have been expected to know that if the product itself was obviously counterfeit then any claims of standards compliance might be equally dodgy. ... In other words "You, Mr. Qualified Electrician, used materials which you must have realised were counterfeit. Would you please tell the court what steps you took to verify that they were safe, and complied with the appropriate standards?"

I think you are probably putting far too much faith in the implications of 'non-counterfeit'.

'Counterfeits' are obviously 'copies' (and (possibly 'bad copies') of something but,as I thought we had agreed (e.g. in relation to watches) that they can be incredibly good copies - in which case the only problem is monetary loss on the part of the compsny whose product has been 'copied'.

You seem to feel (and think that a Court would feel?) that there is something reassuring about the fact that a (quite probably 'unknown') manufacturer puts their own branding on a product, and make no claim that it is a 'copy' of anything - even though it might be an inferior, and perhaps dangerous, product.

What surely matters is whether a product is 'satisfactory' (per its spec, reliable, 'safe' etc. etc..), not whether or not it is a copy of something.?

 

[robinbanks]

I think that generally a small outfit, producing lower numbers of items that mimic the market leader have to find a cost saving somewhere; they haven't the buying power of the leader to screw the suppliers down on price, so a copy generally uses cheaper or more poorly made components in order to achieve the cost saving to allow them to make a dent in the leader's share

It might not always be that way; some, perhaps many cheapo nasty makes have looked to cast off the early day stigma as they've grown and become well established (remember when LG were Goldstar churning out cheap, unreliable carp?)

I've no problem with using a copy that is of as high quality as the verified market leader.. it just doesn't really happen that often because of economies of scale or desire to rake in large profits ahead of being shut down

 

[JohnW2]

I think that generally a small outfit, producing lower numbers of items that mimic the market leader have to find a cost saving somewhere;

To some extent, but that will often be partially balanced by the fact that they have lower overheads and are looking for smaller profits thn are the 'big outfits'

.... they haven't the buying power of the leader to screw the suppliers down on price, so a copy generally uses cheaper or more poorly made components in order to achieve the cost saving to allow them to make a dent in the leader's share

All potentially true, but see above. Furthermore, the market for, say, fake Rolexes may well be a lot larger than the market for the real thing ...and the same is true of countless generic medicines; I suppose some people must still buy, say, Panadol and Brufen, but ..... !!

It might not always be that way; some, perhaps many cheapo nasty makes have looked to cast off the early day stigma as they've grown and become well established (remember when LG were Goldstar churning out cheap, unreliable carp?)

Indeed - and that's my point - that one shouldn't automatically assume that all fakes and 'me-too products' are necessarily poor products.

I've no problem with using a copy that is of as high quality as the verified market leader.. it just doesn't really happen that often because of economies of scale or desire to rake in large profits ahead of being shut down

Again, see above.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think that generally a small outfit, producing lower numbers of items that mimic the market leader have to find a cost saving somewhere; they haven't the buying power of the leader to screw the suppliers down on price, so a copy generally uses cheaper or more poorly made components in order to achieve the cost saving to allow them to make a dent in the leader's share

Not necessarily - the smaller company will have much lower overheads, less advertising, fewer sales bods, less need for company BMW's, fancy office space.

When I (rarely) buy any medicine, I read the contents, then look around the shelves for the cheaper product with the same active ingredients, often at a fraction of the cost. All have to be approved, to be on sale.