The truth is slowly creeping out.
Because the Trylon Titan series may not be classified directly as a
"commercial" tower, that certainly does not make it exempt from TIA/EIA
regulations, which govern all towers, with no exceptions. ASTM-A123 hot-dip
galvanizing (standard hot-dip treatment to steel) is in fact the only
recognised corrosion protection to steel towers - anything less is falling
below the minimum requirements, period. Personally, I like to be sure that
the AN Series towers have the best chance at survival in the real world as
possible before they leave the shop. Again, the offer is still up for anyone
requesting information from the material I quote from.
Acutally, some Trylon towers and AN Series towers offer nearly the same
ratings. For example, the Trylon T-500 72' tower is rated at 45 sf of
loading @ 70 MPH. The AN LD-70 is rated at just 33.9 sf of loading @ 70 MPH
(although the AN HD-70 (heavy duty 70' self supporting tower) is rated at
79.4 sf of loading @ 70 MPH). All examples consider no ice loads present on
Another point I should make is about gross weight. The Trylon Titan T-200,
96' tower weights about 1215 pounds, while the AN HD-100 weighs just shy of
1 ton, yet the windloading values for each tower (at that height only) are
nearly identical - with the T-200 offering 15 sf, and the HD-100 offering
15.8 sf, both at 70 MPH. That weight gain partly comes from the fact that AN
Series towers use the same bracing material at the 100' level, as they do at
ground level, while also using heavier legs. Have we also made it clear that
the Trylon T-200 96' tower actually measures out to about 92' when installed
because of the overlap in the 12 leg joints? An AN HD-100 tower measures a
full 100' from the ground up.
Value equates to getting what you pay for. AN Series towers are more
expensive because they include equipment that is normally sold seperatly. It
would be easy to subtract items, such as step bolts, from an AN Series tower
package to lessen the cost of the tower by a couple hundred dollars, but I
feel that including them is a definate plus, such as the grounding kit we
Fact of the matter is, I'm not bringing up these points totally because of
my position in the tower business. I just feel that others should know what
they're buying, and how very misleading advertising and marketing can be. I
choose to manufacture a quality tower that I'm proud to have my name
As mentioned earlier, I could go on further.
73, Dan KK3AN
AN Wireless Co.
----- Original Message -----
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Trylon and AN towers
> In a message dated 8/31/02 10:02:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > Speaking of Trylon Towers, Steve, I've often wondered why such publicity
> > made in that tower's favor, due to the fact that the "Titan" Tower
> > uses pre-galvanized sheeting thoughout the structure, which is clearly
> > conformant to both ASTM-A123 and ASTM A-153 hot-dip galvanizing
> > specifications for steel communications towers here in the US, as
> > in TIA/EIA-222-F 1996 standards on page 18, in the second paragraph.
> > I quote from Standard 22.214.171.124 of TIA/EIA Standards "Structural
> > shall be galvanized in accordance with ASTM-A123 (hot-dip)". Trylon
> > members are formed from galvanized sheeting, and once the material is
> > all member edges are now no longer galvanized, and wide open to
> > Also, the G-90 precoat material has a much thinner galvanizing coating
> > throughout, versus a true hot-dip application. This is in clear
> > the 1996 coatings standard.
> > I'd be willing to snail mail, or email a copy of this standard to
> > requesting a copy.
> > I could go on with other factors under question, but this should
> > now.
> > Comments?
> Yes. No one ever said that Trylon towers were completely compliant to
> of the above commercial specs.
> In my posts vis-a-vis ANY towers, I present information helpful to the
> questions asked (as anyone who reads TowerTalk will recognize). Yes - I
> a bias towards guyed and self-supporting steel towers.
> I've said several times that Trylon towers are light to medium duty
> that AN Towers are medium to heavy duty so comparing them is a little like
> comparing apples and oranges.
> The "publicity" as you call it has to do with the fact that for the
> money, there is no better VALUE than the Trylon Titan towers.
> Are coatings important? Sure - to some extent. Is hot-dipped
> the only acceptable one? Not always. Are a zinc coating and exposed edges
> fatal to tower relaibility? Absolutely not.
> But not everyone NEEDS or wants to pay for a commercial grade tower
> the AN.
> And let's not confuse a thoughtful discourse with your very one-sided
> view of things.
> Steve K7LXC
> Champion Radio Products