Thx to the forum over the years

[Steve-S]

It's quite well known that especially push fit wagos are better when used with solid core rather than flex.

So the answer is fit ferrules then, Which should be on stranded cable anyhow.

Back to the melting of the Wago type of connector. We need to know the detailed circumstances.

 

[Steve-S]

Have seen them fail with built in connectors on fluorescent light fittings many times over. They are not the solution to every problem.
however they are good and I do use them when the application is suitable.

Obviously the light manufacturers own brand of push in. Avoid cheap fittings I suppose. The Wago and In-Sure have excellent reputations.

 

[mainline]

So the answer is fit ferrules then, Which should be on stranded cable anyhow.

If you're talking about the Wago 221 with levers, the manufacturer's say no ferrules are necessary

If you're talking about the Wago 2273 leaf spring terminals without levers, then these are only compatible with solid core wires. So you can't use stranded wires, even with a ferrule. In the event you manage to stick a wire with ferrule in the wago, you'll probably manage to push it half way in, but the indents left by the crimping tool on the ferrule will catch on the leaf spring and it will stay stuck there forever, can't push it in, can't pull it out. Also a big adantage of wago 2273 is the wires can turn inside the terminal which really helps when squeezing all the wires inside a junction box, and that can't happen with a ferrule. It's definitely not listed for use with stranded wires, no matter what's on the tip, so a definite no

Back to the melting of the Wago type of connector. We need to know the detailed circumstances.

Who's we ? 3kw immersion with long periods of use 2.5mm t&e into wago 221 feeding 2.5 flex to the heater melted the wago and went open circuit.
I crimped it in the end in a junction box, no problems since.

I have seen the video comparing wago, choc box and crimp and if I remember correctly they all went well past the rated current.

Screw type connections are everywhere and like already said have been used and reliable for decades
Lever type connections haven't yet been time proven, especially where moisture is present, I wonder how a wago spring would handle 20yrs in a damp environment.


What connectors did you use on your pair of 4mm down to 2.5mm flex ????

 

[Mike Johnson]

We've had another member, who posted from a couple of different accounts, propose an almost identical installation to your own, with sockets spurred from lever connector joints, minimal number of circuits to reduce afdd cost etc. That member also shunned discussion of their ideas, but it must be understood that this is a discussion forum, where members share opinions, and not an online pulpit toward which no dissent can be directed.

Well said, not a sarcastic comment, but meant.

 

[nicebutdim]

So the answer is fit ferrules then, Which should be on stranded cable anyhow.

Ferrules are intended to protect fine stranded conductors from damage and to marshall them into one single core. Coarse stranded conductors, such as those found in 4mm T&E, do not benefit from use of ferrules.

Obviously the light manufacturers own brand of push in. Avoid cheap fittings I suppose. The Wago and In-Sure have excellent reputations.

Harland & Wolff had a long established reputation as excellent shipbuilders, yet that was of little comfort to those who perished on the Titanic.


Of the Wago connectors commonly sold in the UK, there are clearly printed recommendations on each pack and also available from the manufacturer's website.

773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
2273 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid conductors.
2773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
222 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.
221 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.

Rated current varies between connector type and more than one rating may be printed on individual connectors. For confirmation of rating approved in UK, one needs to check Wago data sheets and be aware of any specific details found therein which may affect this rating.

InSure connectors I know less about and apply a personal current limit of 6A to those I'm trying to use up.

 

[mainline]

Ferrules are intended to protect fine stranded conductors from damage and to marshall them into one single core. Coarse stranded conductors, such as those found in 4mm T&E, do not benefit from use of ferrules.



Harland & Wolff had a long established reputation as excellent shipbuilders, yet that was of little comfort to those who perished on the Titanic.


Of the Wago connectors commonly sold in the UK, there are clearly printed recommendations on each pack and also available from the manufacturer's website.

773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
2273 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid conductors.
2773 push fit connectors are suitable for use with solid and coarse stranded conductors.
222 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.
221 lever connectors are suitable for use with solid, coarse stranded and fine stranded conductors.

Rated current varies between connector type and more than one rating may be printed on individual connectors. For confirmation of rating approved in UK, one needs to check Wago data sheets and be aware of any specific details found therein which may affect this rating.

InSure connectors I know less about and apply a personal current limit of 6A to those I'm trying to use up.

Use of these type of connectors isn't as straight forward as sometimes thought.

For instance, when using some ideal junction boxes they are rated at 16 amps even if you're using 32 amp connectors.

O/P hasn't replied to the question of what make/type of connector he used to make the 4 mm / flex /singles spur, although he was on this morning.

 

[nicebutdim]

Use of these type of connectors isn't as straight forward as sometimes thought.

For instance, when using some ideal junction boxes they are rated at 16 amps even if you're using 32 amp connectors.

O/P hasn't replied to the question of what make/type of connector he used to make the 4 mm / flex /singles spur, although he was on this morning.

That's what I meant by checking data sheet for specific information which may affect rating.

 

[Steve-S]

That's what I meant by checking data sheet for specific information which may affect rating.

Good point. The In-Sure 'blue' junction box is rated at 24 amps according to Screwfix, even if the blue In-Sure Gen 2 Lever 32A connectors are used inside. The similar grey Wago junction box is rated at 41 amps.

I never used any of these boxes. I did use 16A screwless Dboxes for LED downlights on a 3A DP RCBO.

I used Wago connectors. I would be happy using the In-Sure blue lever connectors which going by Youtube, etc, have good rep, appearing to be equally as good, and I believe cheaper than Wago for similar products.

 

[Steve-S]

We've had another member, who posted from a couple of different accounts, propose an almost identical installation to your own, with sockets spurred from lever connector joints, minimal number of circuits to reduce afdd cost etc. That member also shunned discussion of their ideas, but it must be understood that this is a discussion forum, where members share opinions, and not an online pulpit toward which no dissent can be directed.

He, and others, may have been the one who tagged me onto using Wago screwless, although I have seen radials wired that way on the Continent, to avoid heavy current drawing radials current running though socket terminals. I have seen radials in a star formation with each socket's cable running back to a terminal block near the main panel with one cable back to the breaker. Lots of cable but failure points mainly clustered on one easy to get to and test point

If I recall a few here were on about having all sockets as spurs off a ring on this forum. Since a kid I always thought a ring's current must run 'not' through the ring's cable not through the terminals of the socket, for safety reasons I have outlined. But never mind. Others have come up with good nuggets of various info over the past three years or so.

I am on pulpit. Fist I thank those who gave me the info of the latest equipment and regs available. Cannot recall names. I would never have known that a ring is now limited to a 32A breaker. I have seen a few 4mm rings with 40-45A breakers in the past, now they are against regs. I am preaching what I did, and justifying it, not coming for advice. I am a professional. People telling me to add more expensive needless circuits will go in one ear and out the other.

Once again thanks to those positive people in the past (names unknown).

 

[DPG]

He, and others, may have been the one who tagged me onto using Wago screwless, although I have seen radials wired that way on the Continent, to avoid heavy current drawing radials current running though socket terminals. I have seen radials in a star formation with each socket's cable running back to a terminal block near the main panel with one cable back to the breaker. Lots of cable but failure points mainly clustered on one easy to get to and test point

If I recall a few here were on about having all sockets as spurs off a ring on this forum. Since a kid I always thought a ring's current must run 'not' through the ring's cable not through the terminals of the socket, for safety reasons I have outlined. But never mind. Others have come up with good nuggets of various info over the past three years or so.

I am on pulpit. Fist I thank those who gave me the info of the latest equipment and regs available. Cannot recall names. I would never have known that a ring is now limited to a 32A breaker. I have seen a few 4mm rings with 40-45A breakers in the past, now they are against regs. I am preaching what I did, and justifying it, not coming for advice. I am a professional. People telling me to add more expensive needless circuits will go in one ear and out the other.

Once again thanks to those positive people in the past (names unknown).

Not sure there's much point posting on a forum if you don't want to hear alternative views.

But having said that, I would still have two separate lighting circuits. If it's coming down to the cost of one RCBO then things are pretty tight.

 

[nicebutdim]

He, and others, may have been the one who tagged me onto using Wago screwless, although I have seen radials wired that way on the Continent, to avoid heavy current drawing radials current running though socket terminals. I have seen radials in a star formation with each socket's cable running back to a terminal block near the main panel with one cable back to the breaker. Lots of cable but failure points mainly clustered on one easy to get to and test point

If I recall a few here were on about having all sockets as spurs off a ring on this forum. Since a kid I always thought a ring's current must run 'not' through the ring's cable not through the terminals of the socket, for safety reasons I have outlined. But never mind. Others have come up with good nuggets of various info over the past three years or so.

I am on pulpit. Fist I thank those who gave me the info of the latest equipment and regs available. Cannot recall names. I would never have known that a ring is now limited to a 32A breaker. I have seen a few 4mm rings with 40-45A breakers in the past, now they are against regs. I am preaching what I did, and justifying it, not coming for advice. I am a professional. People telling me to add more expensive needless circuits will go in one ear and out the other.

Once again thanks to those positive people in the past (names unknown).

Radial circuits can be wired in various different ways. Of course once it deviates from the traditional linear form, testing and fault finding become less straightforward and its simplicity is lost.

I take your point about full load of a circuit being drawn through socket terminals, but that's what those terminals are designed to carry. Those terminals as acting in the same manner as your Wago junction. I'd much rather pay the extra cost of sockets with lever connectors, than add additional and unnecessary joints.

 

[Steve-S]

I take your point about full load of a circuit being drawn through socket terminals, but that's what those terminals are designed to carry. Those terminals as acting in the same manner as your Wago junction. I'd much rather pay the extra cost of sockets with lever connectors, than add additional and unnecessary joints.

Modern sockets have 'grub' screws that are far from suitable for carrying a ring's near full load under a sustained time period. I saw too many of them scorched. I worked on a few rewires after fires as well. It sharpens the mind. Modern technology, screwless connectors, means the ring's current load can only be in the cable and 'only' the cable.

There is only one lever connection socket on the market to my knowledge, the white MK, which is not cheap. I wanted stainless flatplate, so the MK were out. It is cheaper to use Wagos in a backbox than the MKs. A high current can still run though the socket even with an MK lever connection. I want no current through the socket unless that socket is drawing current. Another reason is that pushing back six stiff solid cables can put stress on the cable and socket terminals, as I have already explained. This stress can force a loose connection and part move cable out of the terminal when pushed back. Seen too many of them loose and too many with scorch marks.

One novel and notable radial I saw was by a guy I worked with who was just out of electricians apprenticeship. He was just married doing up his kitchen and rewiring in his new old house. He was short of money of course.

Each socket in the kitchen had an individual 1.5mm cable to it. 1.5mm takes 14.5A to around 20A, so fine for any 13A socket in the kitchen. All were single sockets. Single backboxes were bolted together with short pieces of conduit to make twins. They all went back to an enclosure near the main panel. Inside was three terminal strips (L, N & E), having got hold of them for nothing. All the conductors of the 1.5mm cables terminated at terminals. He used three busbars from a main panel to link all the Ls, Ns & Es on each of the terminals. A short length of around 12-18 inches of 6mm from the terminal strip to a 32A MCB in the main panel. The 6mm was attached to the three busbars by drilling a hole in the busbars using a brass nut & bolt with shakeproof washers. 6mm had a lug. 6mm cable was left over from the cooker radial. I noticed all the weak points were at one point at the terminal strip, all spread out. No terminal connection would have more than 13 amps run through it. Not one screwed terminal was taking the full radial's current, as all circuits went into the terminals/busbars. I pointed that out, of which he never noticed, being proud of himself when realising it.

He explained that the 1.5mm is about half the price of 2.5mm cable. The length was short enough from the main panel to the kitchen.

At the time the norm was to have expensive fused spurs over worktops with 2.5mm to a socket on the appliances under. He put sockets in adjacent cupboards to appliances, avoiding all the unneeded expensive fuse spurs. His was was buttons to install and better and safer than what was normally done.

He also had a 1.5mm ring for the rest of house with a 20A MCB. He figured no heavy current appliance would ever be on that ring. But a 13A fan heater would work if the need was there. I believe a ring cannot be less that 2.5mm these days, or more than 32A MCB.

All lighting was 1.5mm. All the rewire was 1.5mm except the 6mm cooker supply. Totally safe at the time.

Necessity (being broke) is the mother of invention.

 

[DPG]

Modern sockets have 'grub' screws that are far from suitable for carrying a ring's near full load under a sustained time period. I saw too many of them scorched. I worked on a few rewires after fires as well. It sharpens the mind. Modern technology, screwless connectors, means the ring's current load can only be in the cable and 'only' the cable.

There is only one lever connection socket on the market to my knowledge, the white MK, which is not cheap. I wanted stainless flatplate, so the MK were out. It is cheaper to use Wagos in a backbox than the MKs. A high current can still run though the socket even with an MK lever connection. I want no current through the socket unless that socket is drawing current. Another reason is that pushing back six stiff solid cables can put stress on the cable and socket terminals, as I have already explained. This stress can force a loose connection and part move cable out of the terminal when pushed back. Seen too many of them loose and too many with scorch marks.

One novel and notable radial I saw was by a guy I worked with who was just out of electricians apprenticeship. He was just married doing up his kitchen and rewiring in his new old house. He was short of money of course.

Each socket in the kitchen had an individual 1.5mm cable to it. 1.5mm takes 14.5A to around 20A, so fine for any 13A socket in the kitchen. All were single sockets. Single backboxes were bolted together with short pieces of conduit to make twins. They all went back to an enclosure near the main panel. Inside was three terminal strips (L, N & E), having got hold of them for nothing. All the conductors of the 1.5mm cables terminated at terminals. He used three busbars from a main panel to link all the Ls, Ns & Es on each of the terminals. A short length of around 12-18 inches of 6mm from the terminal strip to a 32A MCB in the main panel. The 6mm was attached to the three busbars by drilling a hole in the busbars using a brass nut & bolt with shakeproof washers. 6mm had a lug. 6mm cable was left over from the cooker radial. I noticed all the weak points were at one point at the terminal strip, all spread out. No terminal connection would have more than 13 amps run through it. Not one screwed terminal was taking the full radial's current, as all circuits went into the terminals/busbars. I pointed that out, of which he never noticed, being proud of himself when realising it.

He explained that the 1.5mm is about half the price of 2.5mm cable. The length was short enough from the main panel to the kitchen.

At the time the norm was to have expensive fused spurs over worktops with 2.5mm to a socket on the appliances under. He put sockets in adjacent cupboards to appliances, avoiding all the unneeded expensive fuse spurs. His was was buttons to install and better and safer than what was normally done.

He also had a 1.5mm ring for the rest of house with a 20A MCB. He figured no heavy current appliance would ever be on that ring. But a 13A fan heater would work if the need was there. I believe a ring cannot be less that 2.5mm these days, or more than 32A MCB.

All lighting was 1.5mm. All the rewire was 1.5mm except the 6mm cooker supply. Totally safe at the time.

Necessity (being broke) is the mother of invention.

No need to use 1.5mm for lighting these days. You've missed a cost saving there.

And no need for an FCU feeding under counter sockets - use a plain 20A switch. Then you don't have two 13A fuses in series, not knowing which will blow first.

Each of the above would save money, but it's not good to put saving money above good practice. Just saying.

 

[nicebutdim]

The fact also remains that full load current never passes through socket terminals, but through connection terminals designed for that very purpose.

OP's approach simply moves that connection back in the box and adds an additional connection at each point.

Regardless of how reliable spring connectors might be, double the number of connections means double the potential points of failure. I don't dislike the theory, but this system (on each occasion a different member has suggested it) seems to result from tunnel vision that shuts out anything which isn't positive. Many spectacular engineering failures have resulted from that sort of thinking.

 

[Steve-S]

No need to use 1.5mm for lighting these days. You've missed a cost saving there.

And no need for an FCU feeding under counter sockets - use a plain 20A switch. Then you don't have two 13A fuses in series, not knowing which will blow first.

Each of the above would save money, but it's not good to put saving money above good practice. Just saying.

I doubt you read the post properly. He used only 1.5mm for all, except the cooker, as it was cheap to buy in large drums. He was near broke spending a lot of money on a house deposit, the mortgage payments and the partial renovation. He did have a 1.5 inch plastic pipe as a big conduit, from near the main panel to the kitchen, so threading in a 2.5mm cable afterwards was easy enough. I described what 'he' did decades ago to save money and yet a had a safe installation. Just another approach that was safe and conformed to the then regs. You suggesting what he should have done is meaningless.

After I Ieft the electricians game I met him about 15 years later. I mentioned in jest his 1.5mm rewire and the terminal box near the main panel which was a 'star' radial. He said it is was still there working well and safe. He had fitted an RCD on the whole house by then, the only addition.

 

[Steve-S]

The fact also remains that full load current never passes through socket terminals, but through connection terminals designed for that very purpose.

The terminals of the rear of a socket 'are' the socket terminals. A full current load ''WILL' pass through the terminals. I have explained the many cons of having solid wire connected into these socket terminals.

In my time as an electrician, and times after, I have lost count of the times I have undone a socket's screws, pulled it out then one or more the conductors popped out of the terminal. Only the pressure of the socket pushing the cables in to the rear of the backbox made a connection, which I am sure created an arc. This connection was taking the full rings load as well.

Connecting largely inflexible 'solid' cables to these terminals in such a restricted space as in a backbox is asking for trouble. The problem is eliminated by ensuring the ring's current only stays in the cable. Screwless connectors make far better connection that will never work loose. They apply the correct torque to the conductor. Avoiding screwed connections must be a prime aim, and was mine.

I assessed this 'tunnel vision' mentioned on this thread, after seeing many scorch marks in electrical installations and doing the odd rewire after electrical fires. I went along with it. Saying that, it was a synch to fit the sockets using flex cable and lever screwless connectors. So quick. No cable will pop out of the rear terminal for sure, as there is no stress on the terninal.

I also assessed the low current drawing induction hobs of 13 amps after guys on this forum mentioned them. I though they all drew about 30 amps. I bought one.

 

[nicebutdim]

The terminals of the rear of a socket 'are' the socket terminals. A full current load ''WILL' pass through the terminals. I have explained the many cons of having solid wire connected into these socket terminals.

In my time as an electrician, and times after, I have lost count of the times I have undone a socket's screws, pulled it out then one or more the conductors popped out of the terminal. Only the pressure of the socket pushing the cables in to the rear of the backbox made a connection, which I am sure created an arc. This connection was taking the full rings load as well.

Connecting largely inflexible 'solid' cables to these terminals in such a restricted space as in a backbox is asking for trouble. The problem is eliminated by ensuring the ring's current only stays in the cable. Screwless connectors make far better connection that will never work loose. They apply the correct torque to the conductor. Avoiding screwed connections must be a prime aim, and was mine.

I assessed this 'tunnel vision' mentioned on this thread, after seeing many scorch marks in electrical installations and doing the odd rewire after electrical fires. I went along with it. Saying that, it was a synch to fit the sockets using flex cable and lever screwless connectors. So quick. No cable will pop out of the rear terminal for sure, as there is no stress on the terninal.

I also assessed the low current drawing induction hobs of 13 amps after guys on this forum mentioned them. I though they all drew about 30 amps. I bought one.

The problems you overcame were problems caused by incompetence, rather than poor design and it seems strange that an electrician would question their own competency in wiring their own home. I don't consider your design to be poor, but you have doubled the number of potential points of failure in the circuit and there is no getting around that fact. I'm also not suggesting that cables will ever fall out of constant tension connectors, but they can (and do) fail on occasion - just as any component can, so I see no good reason for increasing their number unnecessarily.

Getting back to the subject of poorly termiated screw connections; these seem to mostly occur in places where DIYers are likely to tinker. Cables should not be under strain at the back of accessories and as an electrician it shouldn't trouble you to dress cables in a manner which avoids such stress - especially when using 4mm stranded cable which provides a greater degree of flexibility as well as filling terminals well enough to avoid loose connections. I think this is the root of my perplexion - a DIYer may seek a novel means of overcoming the problems you perceived, but an electrician shouldn't be the least bit troubled by them as they shouldn't exist in any installation wired by competent hands.

 

[Steve-S]

No. The problems 'were' POOR DESIGN. Good design means installation is easy, quick, mistakes designed out and safe. Another circular argument, when not getting points made. You sound like someone carping about losing a skill because of deskilling. Sounds like plumbers who whined when copper came along because their lead joint wiping skills were no longer needed.

I always admired the simplicity and economy of rings and all those I knew at the time thought they were superb. They eliminate many radial circuits. We always defended them.

I looked at the bad points of rings and considered how to eliminate them.

1. Ring being broken then splitting into two radials off the one 32A MCB then 2.5mm cable protected by an MCB that is too big creating a fire risk.
Solution?
Up the cable to 4mm.

2. Ring's heavy current not running through the cable, being run through the terminals at the rear of a socket. Potential bad connection at the rear of the socket due to stressed cables. Until 'recently' this was difficult to eliminate.
Solution?
Screwless connectors in backboxes now make it possible to have ring's current not run through socket terminals.

3. Ring out of balance with too much current on one leg, which could be a fire risk using 2.5mm cable.
Solution?
a) Connect leg 1) of ring to sockets 1, 3, 5, etc. Connect leg 2) to sockets 2, 4, 6, etc.
b) Use 4mm cable.

Other points that apply to rings and radials:

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

2. Arcing due to lose screwed terminals.
Solution?
a) Use screwless connectors, as terminals do not work loose.
b) Use an AFDD to isolate circuit if arcing detected.

The ring using screwless connectors, ensuring circuit's current runs through the cable and protected by an AFDD is now near bombproof. All we need is screwless connectors in the rear of sockets (available but limited) and on MCB/RCBO/AFDDs (available on the Continent, but can be imported). Then no many needless expensive circuits.

Note: if you think screwed terminals only loosen after a DIYer had screwed it up, you must not have been around too much.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

No. The problems 'were' POOR DESIGN. Good design means installation is easy and safe. Another circular argument, when not getting points made. You sound like someone carping about losing a skill because of deskilling. Sounds like plumbers who whined when copper came along because their lead joint wiping skills were no longer needed.

I always admired the simplicity and economy of rings and all those I knew at the time thought they were superb. They eliminate many radial circuits. We always defended them.

I looked at the bad points of rings and considered how to eliminate them.

1. Ring being broken then splitting into two radials off the one 32A MCB then 2.5mm cable protected by an MCB that is too big creating a fire risk.
Solution?
Up the cable to 4mm.

2. Ring's heavy current not running through the cable, being run through the terminals at the rear of a socket. Potential bad connection at the rear of the socket due to stressed cables. Until 'recently' this was difficult to eliminate.
Solution?
Screwless connectors in backboxes now make it possible to have ring's current not run through socket terminals.

3. Ring out of balance with too much current on one leg, which could be a fire risk using 2.5mm cable.
Solution?
a) Connect leg 1) of ring to sockets 1, 3, 5, etc. Connect leg 2) to sockets 2, 4, 6, etc.
b) Use 4mm cable.

Other points that apply to rings and radials:

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

2. Arcing due to lose screwed terminals.
Solution?
a) Use screwless connectors, as terminals do not work loose.
b) Use an AFDD to isolate circuit if arcing detected.

The ring using screwless connectors, ensuring circuit's current runs through the cable and protected by an AFDD is now near bombproof. All we need is screwless connectors in the rear of sockets (available but limited) and on MCB/RCBO/AFDDs (available on the Continent, but can be imported). Then no many needless expensive circuits.

Note: if you think screwed terminals only loosen after a DIYer had screwed it up, you must not have been around too much.

If you don't trust yourself to correctly terminate 2 conductors into a screw terminal, what makes you think that you'll manage it with 1?

 

[nicebutdim]

No. The problems 'were' POOR DESIGN. Good design means installation is easy, quick, mistakes designed out and safe. Another circular argument, when not getting points made. You sound like someone carping about losing a skill because of deskilling. Sounds like plumbers who whined when copper came along because their lead joint wiping skills were no longer needed.

Not much 'deskilling' in removing screwed connections at the rear of sockets. Connecting accessories is a necessary, but tedious aspect of the trade which I'd quite happily see the back of and I'm sure many others agree.

I always admired the simplicity and economy of rings and all those I knew at the time thought they were superb. They eliminate many radial circuits. We always defended them.

I looked at the bad points of rings and considered how to eliminate them.

1. Ring being broken then splitting into two radials off the one 32A MCB then 2.5mm cable protected by an MCB that is too big creating a fire risk.
Solution?
Up the cable to 4mm.

A broken ring is unlikely to lead to fire - most especially in modern installations where distribution doesn not rely on a single circuit to serve the whole property. Rings wired in 4mm are quite common outside of domestic installations, where required by design considerations as opposed to perceived risk of fire.

2. Ring's heavy current not running through the cable, being run through the terminals at the rear of a socket. Potential bad connection at the rear of the socket due to stressed cables. Until 'recently' this was difficult to eliminate.
Solution?
Screwless connectors in backboxes now make it possible to have ring's current not run through socket terminals.

Screwless connections now carry this current and twice as many connections as before.

3. Ring out of balance with too much current on one leg, which could be a fire risk using 2.5mm cable.
Solution?
a) Connect leg 1) of ring to sockets 1, 3, 5, etc. Connect leg 2) to sockets 2, 4, 6, etc.
b) Use 4mm cable.

Again these are design considerations which should be applied to every installation. Both of your points are routinely implemented, but other solutions exist and would be considered at the design stage.

Other points that apply to rings and radials:

1. Conductors bunching under stress being forced out of terminals at rear of sockets in packed backboxes.
Solution?
Use lever screwless connectors in backboxes to take the cable's current load, with a flex from the lever screwless connectors to the sockets terminals. No stress on sockets terminal with socket moving into position with ease.

Such stresses result from poor design or installation - the latter most often resulting from incompentent alteration.

2. Arcing due to lose screwed terminals.
Solution?
a) Use screwless connectors, as terminals do not work loose.
b) Use an AFDD to isolate circuit if arcing detected.

You missed 'c)' Competent installation.
Arc fault detection devices detect certain types of arc and can fail. I'd much rather rely on competent installation, possibly backed up by electronic monitoring, than electronic monitoring alone.

The ring using screwless connectors, ensuring circuit's current runs through the cable and protected by an AFDD is now near bombproof. All we need is screwless connectors in the rear of sockets (available but limited) and on MCB/RCBO/AFDDs (available on the Continent, but can be imported). Then no many needless expensive circuits.

I'd like to see more than sockets with screwless connections and overall number of joints limited to those strictly necessary.

Note: if you think screwed terminals only loosen after a DIYer had screwed it up, you must not have been around too much.

If you could take this convincing argument to the IET and press regulatory changes, I'd be very happy to never again connect screw terminations at the back of sockets, although I'm not sure that DIY incompetence in terminating domestic wiring accessories will result in anything other than further regulation barring homeowners from tinkering in matters of which they lack basic understanding.