Call for transparency on U values
Sheerline’s CEO, Roger Hartshorn, has called for a tightening of standards and greater transparency and honesty on aluminium system U values.
He adds that Sheerline’s quoted U values are calculated to EN14351 and BFRC standards, are simulated with a realistic combination of profiles and glazing and are backed up with independent verification that is published on the company’s website.
According to Roger, not all aluminium system companies are doing the same, with some ‘fabricating’ their U value reports. He also says that some fabricators are in turn claiming U values based on a spec of product they aren’t actually making.
Roger’s comments, which you can read in full here, echo similar claims made by AluK’s managing director, Russell Yates in the latest Glass Times’ Guide to Energy Efficiency Supplement, that was published alongside the October issue of the magazine.
In his article, Russell says that fabricators who are ‘blindly accepting the U Value claims being made on aluminium sliders and bi-folds could be risking non-compliance with the new Part L’ regulations.
He adds that: “I am convinced that some of the claims being made by certain system companies on their aluminium products are simply not achievable.”
Both Roger and Russell argue that misleading U values could have serious implications for the industry – particularly for fabricators and installers who are found to be fitting products that aren’t compliant – with some window and door companies already being taken to court for reportedly ‘claiming one thing and supplying another.’
And while this puts a spotlight on aluminium system companies, it would seem that they are not alone in trying to game the system on U values.
Asa McGillian, managing director of composite door manufacturer, Apeer, has also claimed that rival brands are making claims about the thermal performance of their products that in his words, ‘simply can’t be true’.
In fact, Asa was so convinced that some competitors were not playing fair, that he arranged for independent testing at TUV Institute Rheinland. The fact that some products performed well below their advertised claims, confirmed those suspicions.
All of which begs the question – how confident are you that your suppliers are providing you with genuine products, and will they stand up to scrutiny?
As Roger says, ‘pleading ignorance just won’t cut it’.