I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.
I would agree with you if the install including S/Os used outdoors was solely protected by an upfront S-type 100mA RCD(or a 100ma non TD), that is not what me and Des are saying though, I refer you back to the drawings I posted earlier.
I know what you and Des are saying and I'm disagreeing with you lol. If a circuit (any circuit whether that be lights, sockets, heating, cooker etc...) has a maximum permitted disconnection time of 0.2s and its sole means of fault protection is by a 100mA s-type then I would C2 it.
Okay, lol that is fine.
I would say I don't see how you can fail a fully compliant immediately previous edition install that was current until very recently (2008) ?, by all means recommend an improvement to todays standard (C3) but to fail it just does not make sense.
I worked mainly to the 16th until 2008, I am too young for the 15th (wink).
I would say I don't see how you can fail a fully compliant immediately previous edition install that was current until very recently (2008) ?, by all means recommend an improvement to todays standard (C3) but to fail it just does not make sense.
I worked mainly to the 16th until 2008, I am too young for the 15th (wink).
I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated knowing of your interest in the debate
Now the confession
I was blooded in the late 14th Thats just 2 editions later than trev and geordie,tel is obviously of the Charleston era
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 26818
Sorry, didn't mean to be patronising, just wanted to use the correct terminology rather than the mish mosh that had been used so far in the thread.
One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification, is that Electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can go out and conduct PIRs. They further believe that they do not have to take into consideration earlier editions of the Regulations.
This unfortunately results in a number of installations being unnecessarily condemned, and in many cases house holders paying out for unecessecary work.
Sorry, but you are obviously misconstruing the quote from the Regulations, I suggest you re-read it.
What it is saying, is that an installation, should not be considered as being unsafe, just because the Regulations have been changed since the installation was constructed. However the installation may well be unsafe for a host of other reasons, such as : deterioration, damage, non-compliant alterations/additions, etc.
There are many reasons why the Regulations are up-dated.
New technologies, cheaper products, public perceptions regarding safety, and in at least one instance, so as to prevent inspectors condemning installations unnecessarily.
A 'bare' conductor is un-insulated.
Is it a contradiction?
The inspection of an existing installation is referred to as a Periodic Inspection. Conducting such an inspection is known as conducting a PIR. Perhaps some time in the future, it will become known as conducting an EICR, but I doubt it. Then again people refer to PAT testing, and MOT tests, so who knows?
At the end of the day, if you want to go around condemning installations just because they are constructed to earlier editions of the Regulations, good luck to you. I hope it brings in lots of work.
Just don't be too surprised when someone calls you out on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly, that is why I keep older edition reg books to aid in T&I even though I spent longer with the 16th there were a lot of changes in the various amds of that edition, and the fact that you forget things when no longer working to that edition.
The only reason for adding a C2 for the immersion heaters without a thermal cut-out in older edition installs was because a baby got scalded to death, therefore a known dangerous, if not fatal condition.
The second paragraph by spin I have quoted was what I was getting at earlier in the thread where I mentioned "other factors creeping in"
Just because current regs have moved the goal posts doesn't mean that the older install is unsafe for continued use, if that was the case we would be seeing people dropping like flies, Des is right we would be instructed in no uncertain terms to rectify, this is not the case, the newer regs are not retrospective for the most part.
I wonder if part of the problems with incorrect coding are partly due to newer qualified/younger sparks who have only really been taught/trained to 17th standards ?
And no D, that is not a dig at newer sparks before you say. lol (I would have posted a big smiley wink here if I could post smileys) lol
Last edited:
What are you, chief examiner? lol
Who cares? We understand each other.
One of the problems I have discovered with the 2391 qualification is that electricians take and pass the exam, then believe that they can dictate to every other electrician exactly what situation warrants which code without taking into accout that within reason, what I may class as potentially dangerous you may not and vice versa. Although much of what we do is clear cut with regards to inspection and testing, there is still so much out there that is completely subjective.
Just the other day I was discussing on here the application of a C3 for cable run directly on a suspended ceiling. I said that I would not code it as there are no regulations to back up the use of a code whilst others said that they would C3 it. Would I accuse them of being fraudulent and lacking knowledge? No. It is entirely up to them and if they can justify it then that is their call to make.
I do take into consideration earlier regulations, but the extent of which I take these into consideration is up to me and me alone so long as I can justify my decision.
No, I am not misconstruding it, it is clear in what it says and I stand by what I said earlier. "This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use" means exactly what it says. It means that it could be unsafe, but not necessarily.
If it meant that an installation to an earlier edition of the regs 'should not' be considered as unsafe then it would say this, but it doesn't.
Another reason is because what was once safe is now considered unsafe.
Now you're just being pedantic.
Well I'll leave you to your terminology, you can have that. Conducting an EICR/carrying out a PIR... Same thing in my book.
I don't carry out inspections to bring in further work and the insinuation that this is the case is frankly ridiculous and potentially libellous. You have called me out on it and I have defended my position as is my right. If someone else wants to have a pop let them, I am more than comfortable with my stance on this particular issue. Whilst typing this I am also looking quite comfortably at 621.2 which states; "Periodic inspection comprising a detailed examination of the installation shall be carried out . . . to show that the requirements for disconnection times . . . are complied with to provide for the safety of persons and livestock".
That says to me that if disconnection times are not met then the safety of persons and livestock is not provided for, thus making the installation unsafe.
If disconnection times to current regulations cannot be met it is an automatic C2 in my book. End of. You wanna code it differently, that's your call.
Last edited:
A question for Spin, or anyone else for that matter.
When I was getting trained for T&I it was suggested (not written) not to go back more than one or two editions as other problems arise, I will list just a few problems that would not be acceptable now in chronological order backwards obviously missing the 16th as that was the immediate prior edition.
15th ed VOELCBs discontinued in one of the late 15th amds before the 16th, no means of testing now, and deemed an obsolete method now.
14th ed no supp bonding required in bathrooms and no RCD requirement (unless TT)
13th ed, prior to 1966 no CPC requirement at lighting circuits and also the water pipe was permitted to be used as a means of earthing.
(I know there is a "workaround" for the no CPC at lighting problem)
Clearly even if these were permitted at the time they would result in C2s now and therefore a fail now, no ?
The guidance given by the ESC seems to bear out my lecturer's assertion that we should not go back more than an edition or two before some updating becomes necessary would you agree with that assertion or not ?
When I was getting trained for T&I it was suggested (not written) not to go back more than one or two editions as other problems arise, I will list just a few problems that would not be acceptable now in chronological order backwards obviously missing the 16th as that was the immediate prior edition.
15th ed VOELCBs discontinued in one of the late 15th amds before the 16th, no means of testing now, and deemed an obsolete method now.
14th ed no supp bonding required in bathrooms and no RCD requirement (unless TT)
13th ed, prior to 1966 no CPC requirement at lighting circuits and also the water pipe was permitted to be used as a means of earthing.
(I know there is a "workaround" for the no CPC at lighting problem)
Clearly even if these were permitted at the time they would result in C2s now and therefore a fail now, no ?
The guidance given by the ESC seems to bear out my lecturer's assertion that we should not go back more than an edition or two before some updating becomes necessary would you agree with that assertion or not ?
Just for information the specification for a time delayed RCD to BSEN61008 has maximum trip time of 150ms if there is a significant fault current (=>5Idn) so it would meet the disconnection times for a 0.2s (200ms) circuit on a "fault of negligible impedance".
E
Engineer54
Makes me wonder how any of us, (including all those millions of farm animals) ever managed to survive for all these years, what with all those higher disconnection times no RCD's etc, etc, etc!!
Strange how those previous disconnection times reigned as ''safe'' for literally 10's of years, as did Zs values without any of this 80% crap!!
So does all this imply that previous editions of BS7671 and beyond, weren't fit for purpose, and that installations that fully met with those previous editions, have somehow now become in some eye's ...bloody dangerous??? I doubt if you'll ever get the ITE to agree, or go along with those comments!! I wonder what they will say about the regulations you are all working to now in the future?? Do any of you think, that the installations you are installing now, are or could be called actually called dangerous in the future??
Oh and as far as i'm aware, a water pipe can still be used to this day as an installations sole means of earthing in the UK !! Provided it's derived from a private source/well and not from a public utility source!
Training, Experience, Commonsense (none of which seem to be held in any regard these days) should be able to distinguish what is relevant and what isn't, with regards to coding a particular non-compliance with the current 17th edition.
Strange how those previous disconnection times reigned as ''safe'' for literally 10's of years, as did Zs values without any of this 80% crap!!
So does all this imply that previous editions of BS7671 and beyond, weren't fit for purpose, and that installations that fully met with those previous editions, have somehow now become in some eye's ...bloody dangerous??? I doubt if you'll ever get the ITE to agree, or go along with those comments!! I wonder what they will say about the regulations you are all working to now in the future?? Do any of you think, that the installations you are installing now, are or could be called actually called dangerous in the future??
Oh and as far as i'm aware, a water pipe can still be used to this day as an installations sole means of earthing in the UK !! Provided it's derived from a private source/well and not from a public utility source!
Training, Experience, Commonsense (none of which seem to be held in any regard these days) should be able to distinguish what is relevant and what isn't, with regards to coding a particular non-compliance with the current 17th edition.
Yes I know this, but what about on a fault of significant impedance?
Not covered by BS7671
Bloody dangerous is a bit strong isn't it?! lol
Potentially, and if this were the case I wouldn't be bitter about it, I'm happy to move with the times my learned friend
Notice I didn't use the words 'old' or 'stubborn' in my reply to you!
Conventionally, but it has always been my understanding that they are not excluded from BS7671, fault current is fault current at the end of the day. Happy to be corrected and told otherwise however. One thing though, how would you ascertain that the RCD would indeed trip within 150ms when we don't carry out 5x tests on anything higher than 30mA RCDs?
S
stevethesparks
If anyone is going to base whether an installation is safe according to the regs at the time of the installation, they would need to know the date of installation, how often are we blessed with this information? Once upon a time fused neutrals were considered a good idea. Its really up to the individual at the time to make an educated assessment of coding required, many amendments are for the better, some have taken a backward step IMHO. I like to base my decisions on worse case scenarios, can't go far wrong then.
If you have a fault where the resistance is between 7660Ω and 2300Ω then the RCD would (probably) not trip in <0.2 s however it is not required to according to BS7671. This would be a similar situation to MCBs that will not trip in the required time if the fault current is low; similarly how do you know and MCB will trip in the time stated, you do not know, you are relying on the manufacturers making them to standard. It is not (in standard situations) safe to test this compliance.
You are quite right, however we still record the disconnection time on a 100mA at 1x and 1x only. This is the disconnection time at its rated current, which is higher than 200ms, therefore it will not comply.
There is a difference between the requirements to meet disconnection times and the requirements to test if the RCD functions.
The disconnection times would be met so long as the Zs reading complied.
The 100mA time delayed RCD tripping in >130ms<500ms at Idn shows that it is working.
OK I think I am at a loss to explain here.
The disconnection time of 0.2s for a fault of negligible impedance, which is required by the regulations, would be met.
The RCD would not necessarily disconnect in 0.2s under all circumstances but this is not required at all by the regulations.
The disconnection time of 0.2s for a fault of negligible impedance, which is required by the regulations, would be met.
The RCD would not necessarily disconnect in 0.2s under all circumstances but this is not required at all by the regulations.
E
Engineer54
If you were experienced, you would/should be able date an installation to a regulations edition, with some accuracy. Unlike today, Regulations didn't change at anywhere near the regularity they do today... Unfortunately we have 17 day whizz kids and electrical trainee's undertaking/conducting EICR's that haven't got a clue what they are looking at, let alone being remotely able to make an educated assessment. Depends on what you mean by ''worst case'', ..if that means assessing a totally improbable scenario, as being possible, what is that saying?? lol!!
E
Engineer54
So what was actually wrong with the long standing previous 0.4 second disconnection times?? Which i might add, is still the disconnection time value for many countries around the world, as well as TN ADS systems in the UK!!
S
stevethesparks
No matter how experienced one is, you could never always prove that an installation was installed as per requirements at the time.
I've been in this game 42 years this coming June , and I'm still blimim learning!
I like to try and keep up to date, and have many reference books at my side, its great to know they will all be out of date again come next January. You are certainly right about regs not changing like they do today.
I've been in this game 42 years this coming June , and I'm still blimim learning!
I like to try and keep up to date, and have many reference books at my side, its great to know they will all be out of date again come next January. You are certainly right about regs not changing like they do today.
I never said anything was wrong with them, just that where an RCD is used for fault protection on a TT system the maximim permitted disconnection time is now 0.2s. Higher than this is considered unsafe by BS7671:2008
E
Engineer54
Then you should have no problem dating an installation to a reg's edition. lol!! I didn't say you shouldn't test, ....testing is the only way you are going to be sure of any findings you make. Now come on, after 42 years in the game, do you really NEED all those installation by numbers OSG's etc??
E
Engineer54
Do you get ''deaded'' faster with a TT installation than a TN one then?? Or is it more about ensuring that RCD protection is included into all TT installations to prop up their 200 ohm Ra value?? lol!!:wings: Don't take this post too seriously now will you!! lol!!
Haha, no of course not, but when the current regulations deem something unsafe, then I will code it appropriately.
S
stevethesparks
I'm afraid I do.
Once upon a time, I could quote regs numbers, but i seemed to have developed a type of dyslexia to all those numbers now lol. Too many regs referring to other regs for my liking.
When I update with a 17th edition course, I thought I was boy wonder again, but its all gone to mush again since :-(
I reckon I could still kick some arse installing MICC, making trunking sets that have near enough been banned, and bashing in some conduit with some intricate bends, but having spent most of my career on that side of the industry, I am almost enjoying catching up on the other side of things, and apart from my reference books, find many posts here enlightening.
I do believe when I attended college all those years ago insulation resistance and ring continuity with a wind up megger was about the most testing that happened. It could just be my memory though.
Part of the difficulty of dating an installation accurately (unless it is untouched and pristine), is that it is often a mish mash of different editions, for example it may have been originally installed to say the 12th then re-wired to the 15th, then at some point had the CU updated to the 16th etc..etc.
We can only really have an educated guess, unless there is prior paperwork (lol in domestic).
Where I disagree with Damien is that I would not fail a fully compliant 16th ed install, it is when you start going further back is where more and more problems arise, and the recommendations become more C2 than C3
The 0.4 disconnection time in the 16th was only for S/Os or final circuits which supply portable equipment and handheld class 1 equipment, for other fixed final circuits a disconnection time of not more than 5 seconds was permitted.
In my view the 16th edition is adequately safe, with no more than a C3 in respect to coding, going any further back and you start attracting C2s.
We can only really have an educated guess, unless there is prior paperwork (lol in domestic).
Where I disagree with Damien is that I would not fail a fully compliant 16th ed install, it is when you start going further back is where more and more problems arise, and the recommendations become more C2 than C3
The 0.4 disconnection time in the 16th was only for S/Os or final circuits which supply portable equipment and handheld class 1 equipment, for other fixed final circuits a disconnection time of not more than 5 seconds was permitted.
In my view the 16th edition is adequately safe, with no more than a C3 in respect to coding, going any further back and you start attracting C2s.
E
Engineer54
Much of the work i was doing during my training days (industrial manufacturing sector) and after, was testing!! Everything from ELV to MV installations, to systems control, using test equipment that went way way beyond IR and continuity tests.
Like you, i couldn't quote or spurt off Reg numbers, only really ever look at them, if i want a confirmation, or looking at another aspect of what can be done... I know what you mean about memory though!! lol!!
S
stevethesparks
That the bit I was trying to convey, but you have explained it better than I.
B
Badged01
These debates are good as it allows a good exchange of idea/onfo on a topic! I've often questions what the "tecnicalities" of the PIR process is so the thread has made me re-think my position so I thought I'd add my summized interpretation/view to continue the debate on PIR generally .....
Only guidance BS7671 (17th edn) gives on PIR is that it is conducted to determine :
1) If the installation is 'satisfactory' for continued use (note 'safe' not used )
2) That the requirements for disconnection times set out in BS7671(17th edn) are complied with
3) That departures from these regs BS7671 (17th edn) that may give rise to danger are identified.
4) On completion of the PIR an EICR shall be given to ..... showing any non-compliances to BS7671 (17th edn) that may give rise to danger.
And of course we have the caveat at the beginning of BS7671 (17th edn) that states previous installations may not conform with the requirements of BS7671 (17th edn) but that does not mean they are unsafe for continued use (note 'satisfactory' not used)
BS7671 (17th edn) offers an EICR model form along with guidance on codes to be use for observations raised within the EICR :
C1 -- Danger present (defined as risk of injury to persons/livestock)
C2 -- Potentially dangerous
C3 -- Improvement recommended
[Note : 'Observations' is not defined within BS7671 (17th edn) ]
In support of BS7671 (17th edn) we have documentation issued by the ESC on EICR's which is supported by all the major players in the industry (ECA, NICEIC etc ... ) and of course by the IET who 'own' BS7671 (17th edn). The key points it raises are:
1) The EICR provides an assessment against the requirements of the edition of BS7671 current at the time of the inspection, irrespective of the age of the installation.
2) It describes 'observations' as something which would contribute to a significant improvement in safety of the electrical installation and can be supported by one or more regulations in the edition of BS7671 being current at the time. Observations based solely on personal preference or 'custom and practise' should not be included.
3) The guide then advises that it is entirely a matter for the 'competent' person to decide on the classification code to use but gives specific example of where it believes a code should be applied.
My interpretation of the above means that I conduct EICR's using the model form in BS7671 and do it against the current edition of BS767 (17th edn) and any non-conformance to the 17th edn regulations I record as an observation. My view if is that if it wasnt a safety improvement on previous regs it wouldn't have been updated in the 17th edn. I then code that observation using the ESC guidance. If not covered in there then based on my 'experience' I decide if I consider it dangerous or not.
Bottom line is I believe my 'butt' is covered by following BS7671 (17th edn) and the ESC guidance should there questions/prosecution arising from my PIR. But as a 'competant' inspector there is nothing stopping anyone not following any guidance and conducting a PIR as they see fit and then reporting the results of that inspection in any form they want to ---- until something goes wrong and they are asked for justification. Or more importantly perhaps under the EAWR proving innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt!
In the example contained within this thread Im in agreement with Mr Skelton -- if it doesnt meet disconnection times C2. I'm just reporting my findings to the customer against the current BS7671 and its upto him if he wants to ignore them or do something about them. I can't make him do anything if he doesn't want to.
Only guidance BS7671 (17th edn) gives on PIR is that it is conducted to determine :
1) If the installation is 'satisfactory' for continued use (note 'safe' not used )
2) That the requirements for disconnection times set out in BS7671(17th edn) are complied with
3) That departures from these regs BS7671 (17th edn) that may give rise to danger are identified.
4) On completion of the PIR an EICR shall be given to ..... showing any non-compliances to BS7671 (17th edn) that may give rise to danger.
And of course we have the caveat at the beginning of BS7671 (17th edn) that states previous installations may not conform with the requirements of BS7671 (17th edn) but that does not mean they are unsafe for continued use (note 'satisfactory' not used)
BS7671 (17th edn) offers an EICR model form along with guidance on codes to be use for observations raised within the EICR :
C1 -- Danger present (defined as risk of injury to persons/livestock)
C2 -- Potentially dangerous
C3 -- Improvement recommended
[Note : 'Observations' is not defined within BS7671 (17th edn) ]
In support of BS7671 (17th edn) we have documentation issued by the ESC on EICR's which is supported by all the major players in the industry (ECA, NICEIC etc ... ) and of course by the IET who 'own' BS7671 (17th edn). The key points it raises are:
1) The EICR provides an assessment against the requirements of the edition of BS7671 current at the time of the inspection, irrespective of the age of the installation.
2) It describes 'observations' as something which would contribute to a significant improvement in safety of the electrical installation and can be supported by one or more regulations in the edition of BS7671 being current at the time. Observations based solely on personal preference or 'custom and practise' should not be included.
3) The guide then advises that it is entirely a matter for the 'competent' person to decide on the classification code to use but gives specific example of where it believes a code should be applied.
My interpretation of the above means that I conduct EICR's using the model form in BS7671 and do it against the current edition of BS767 (17th edn) and any non-conformance to the 17th edn regulations I record as an observation. My view if is that if it wasnt a safety improvement on previous regs it wouldn't have been updated in the 17th edn. I then code that observation using the ESC guidance. If not covered in there then based on my 'experience' I decide if I consider it dangerous or not.
Bottom line is I believe my 'butt' is covered by following BS7671 (17th edn) and the ESC guidance should there questions/prosecution arising from my PIR. But as a 'competant' inspector there is nothing stopping anyone not following any guidance and conducting a PIR as they see fit and then reporting the results of that inspection in any form they want to ---- until something goes wrong and they are asked for justification. Or more importantly perhaps under the EAWR proving innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt!
In the example contained within this thread Im in agreement with Mr Skelton -- if it doesnt meet disconnection times C2. I'm just reporting my findings to the customer against the current BS7671 and its upto him if he wants to ignore them or do something about them. I can't make him do anything if he doesn't want to.
E
Engineer54
That all fine, but giving a fail code to a circuit or whatever, that has proved to have been adequately suitable (fit for purpose) and in working order and hasn't been changed a jot, since installed. The only change being made being a disconnection time change. I think you would need to be able to substantiate giving that situation a fail code!! Code 3 is fine!!
I'm yet to be convinced, that a 0.2 difference in disconnection times is going to make much if any difference in a situation where RCD's are basically mandatory (TT systems) for compliance with earth fault disconnection times!!!
I'm yet to be convinced, that a 0.2 difference in disconnection times is going to make much if any difference in a situation where RCD's are basically mandatory (TT systems) for compliance with earth fault disconnection times!!!
One last question for those that would C2 a compliant 16th edition install. lol
How are you going to code existing 17th installs once 17th amd3 becomes the new standard with reduced max Zs's and all that this implies ?
Edit: Badged I gave you a like for your very good post, but I don't agree with you wrt 16th, the regs are not retrospective as such, and to fail an immediately previous edition is harsh IMO, I would still C3 it, and make a note that it complied with that previous edition, ie. recommend improvement.
If it was earlier, say 15th with a VOELCB, which are now classed as an ineffective protective measure, then yes a C2 is appropriate.
How are you going to code existing 17th installs once 17th amd3 becomes the new standard with reduced max Zs's and all that this implies ?
Edit: Badged I gave you a like for your very good post, but I don't agree with you wrt 16th, the regs are not retrospective as such, and to fail an immediately previous edition is harsh IMO, I would still C3 it, and make a note that it complied with that previous edition, ie. recommend improvement.
If it was earlier, say 15th with a VOELCB, which are now classed as an ineffective protective measure, then yes a C2 is appropriate.
Last edited:
B
Badged01
Ultimately its down to the inspector if he wants C2 or C3. For me the key question you have to answer is if it doesn't comply with the latest 17th edn regs for a new build would you accept it as being satisfactory and sign off the new build paperwork (the installation is safe to go)? If you wouldn't sign it off why not (old installations to 16th edn meet those disconnection times)? If you wouldn't sign it off for those reasons why do you consider an old installation disconnection times acceptable on an EICR?
Code C2 or C3 is a judgement call, mine is a C2 - potentially dangerous. If the old disconnection times were acceptable why did we change them? In reality you can give either as the only time you would need to justify the code would be should an 'accident' happen and my butt is covered
And yes, there will be further issues with installations now designed to specific disconnection time in the 17th edn which may not now comply with new times in the BYB!! At what point do you draw the line in the sand and say any disconnection time from the XXth edition is acceptable ......
Code C2 or C3 is a judgement call, mine is a C2 - potentially dangerous. If the old disconnection times were acceptable why did we change them? In reality you can give either as the only time you would need to justify the code would be should an 'accident' happen and my butt is covered
And yes, there will be further issues with installations now designed to specific disconnection time in the 17th edn which may not now comply with new times in the BYB!! At what point do you draw the line in the sand and say any disconnection time from the XXth edition is acceptable ......
Similar threads
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Thread Information
- Prefix
- N/A
- Replies
- 101
Advert
Thread statistics
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8