Dale brings up some interesting points, but there are other points of view,
as well . . .
> Gerald & others:
> This issue of lambasting Rohn for not sharing data that they may have is
> interesting. From my perspective, if I were Rohn Company, or the owner of
> company, I would do exactly what they are doing.
I am sure Rohn considers their publication strategy very carefully and
everything they publish or decide NOT to publish is done deliberately.
>A Couple of points:
> 1. It's not their fault that competition doesn't exist for their
This may be true but it is not obvious with the data we have at our
disposal. Sometimes companies do stuff that makes it incredibly difficult
for other companies to compete with them, such as void any and all
warranties if even a bolt from another source is used in the installation.
I am not saying Rohn does this. I am only saying stuff like this happens
and we can't tell.
> 2. They are not demanding or requiring ANYONE to buy their
Well, that is true of virtually EVERY manufacturer in the world. It still
does not let them off the hook for being responsible for what they sell.
> 3. They do not have a requirement for purchasers to certify their
>intended use of the product before buying it, and they cannot control the use
>of it either. Just like hand-guns.
In 59 years I don't recall ever having to certify my intended use for any
product I ever bought, other than perhaps prescription drugs. So I guess I
miss the point of this statement.
> 3. They do have a solution that will work for booms over 10 feet
forwhich they do have drawings and data. ie: Rohn 25, 45, 55, etc.
This may be true. As a Rohn dealer, I have never seen this information. I
don't believe it is in their catalog. The only other way I know to get it
from them is to buy their engineering services at a price that may well
exceed the cost of the hardware. Pricing it out of range makes it
effectively unavailable, and they know it. I am sure it is part of their
> 4. Even if they DO have calculations within their company for
> longer >than
10 foot booms on HDBX towers, there is no requirement for them to share
>that information with ANYONE if they choose to recommend a different
solution. >Ostensibly those calculations could prove that for 95% of the
cases a TH7DX >could be mounted on an HDBX in 300 MPH winds, but they
certainly are within >their rights to protect themselves for that remaining
5%, or for Marketing >reasons for that matter.
I think this is one of the key issues being discussed. DO they have the
right to keep such information to themselves? What about the "duty to
inform" we have been hearing about here lately?
> 5. In this litigeous, lawyer infested, "too many laws" society
> that >we
live in--in the USA, Rohn is very WISE to not share any information with
>anyone. You can bet you boots that they would get sued if they did
>share information and SOMETHING unpleasant happened because of doing so.
And if there is anything to this "duty to inform" business, they might get
sued if they don't supply information that they have and know darned well
could save a life or prevent serious injury.
> 6. The guys that Stan W7NI referred to who had BX towers buckle
> with >TH6
antennas on them have empirically shown that a TH6 type antenna is
>too big. Rohn recommended AGAINST putting that big a beam on that tower.
>Rohn is clean.....no freaking lawsuits.....GOOD ! The hams with those
>broken tower & antenna installations tried to go forth "on the cheap",
>against guidelines from Rohn. Now, they can abide by Rohn's guidelines
>(and not exceed 10 ft boom lengths), or they can buy a tower that is
>recommended for their installation, or maybe they can get an insurance
>company to replace the crumpled one.
> I'm surprised to see all the negative barbs thrown toward Rohn for protecting
> themselves in a society that circles like buzzards to sue the guy next door.
> Good for Rohn!!
Actually, we have no way of knowing if anyone has sued Rohn for any
particular reason. I have heard some real horror stories about companies
being sued successfully for some very absurd reasons.
> For what it's worth, I have NOTHING to do with Rohn company. I have
> their products in the past though,
> Dale K5MM
Well, as Dale knows, I DO have something to do with the Rohn company. I am
not an employee of theirs, but I am a stocking tower dealer. I will sell BX
tower, but as everyone who has ever talked to me about it knows, I sell them
very reluctantly and I do not stock them.
Dale, K5MM, and I have been close personal friends for several decades now
and we generally agree on most subjects. We actually pretty much agree on
this one, too, but you might not think so on the surface. Like Dale, I
think this society is WAY TOO lawsuit happy and juries are way too generous
in awarding money to people who ignore their own common sense and do really
STUPID stuff. But it is a reality.
I am a great believer in the dissemination of of information, especially if
the information may help somebody put up a safer tower and antenna. I see
red when I hear or believe that someone (or a company) has such information
but they refuse to share it in the name of protecting their financial butt.
It may not be a legal requirement to share such information and you may not
be forced to do it by a competitor, but what about an ethical requirement to
share it? In my book, safety of life and limb is a bit higher on the
priority list than protecting my bank account . . .
This discussion should tell us all a little bit about what is happening to
our society. Looks pretty ugly to me.
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com