As the standards of standard double glazing get higher and higher, so do the energy ratings. A rated windows on the A-G scale are now very common. It’s odd if an installer isn’t actually able to fit an A rated window! But this has led to manufacturers pushing the boundaries of what double glazing can do and pushing the A ratings even higher.
John Fredericks, who we use, supply and A+8 rated double glazing windows, Evolution get A+13 out of their Storm 2 window. There are some out there even higher than these. So given this leap forward in ratings, is it time to introduce a new energy rating to help installers and customer differentiate between low achieving A rated windows and the ones breaking the glass ceiling?
I think so. This is how I think they should be classified; any A rated window from 0-9 can be called ‘A’ rated as it is now, anything 10+ should be called AA – then the number. Just as with credit ratings agencies, when you get two A’s or more, the better. It would help the customer identify which is an even better A rated window from a standard one. Also, it will help make sure that A rated windows and their numbers don’t start looking stupid. Things will only get better in double glazing, but to start selling windows at A+30 or A+40 is going to look ridiculous!
How the energy ratings certificate would look is another thing. How would it accommodate an extra band at the top? Would it have to? Could an AA rated window just replace the ‘A’ band at the top? These are just questions, but ones that would need to be addressed if there ever was to be an AA rated window.
Should it be called something else? AA is just a suggestion I have seen by a few others online and what I have thought myself. Are there any others options we could have? Comments welcome!
can we call it the RAC window instead ?
cant we just use u values? we all know the lower the u value the better the insulation, rather than all this A *** – its very clear we need to currently achieve 1.6 or below, give people the option of how much lower they can go and price accordingly, on another note the rating is purely the energy rating – is the make and hardware and security of the frame taking into the A rating of the window? – if i was a consumer it might be misleading
Hi Jamie
I understand your point about U-values. From an industry point of view they are far more credible and trustworthy. However, the WER’s were chosen as it was more recognisable to the consumer already thanks to white good and other products like cars coming with a similar certificate. I don’t think hardware is taken into account, but frames are.
Thanks for your comment!
DGB
Why not go back to the ‘u’ values which are immediately understandable and very much more accurate than ratings. I suspect ratings were a system introduced as a follow on from the electrical industry ie A rated fridges etc. Not really relevant.
Hi Peter
Yes, ratings were used I think primarily for familiarity. I agree that U-vales are far more accurate, however, the industry and those that govern it won’t go down that route properly as it requires effort to explain it to people!
Thanks for your comment!
If u-values aren’t understood by the public at large I think the sensible thing would be to take what is currently the best available and rate it a B with everything less than that also downgraded accordingly. At the most give the current best an A+ but expect to revisit the system very soon.
If you can have an A+10 then a B might as well be a K.
U values will have to be used from July 2013 with CE Marking as that is what a company is declaring. WER is a way of showing U Values and compliance only. With this in mind should just stop with A B C ratings, when C does not comply with revised regulations move goalposts and but year in ratings. Simple !