Hi Louis,
Having been subject to wallet deprivation pain syndrome all my life, I
painfully identify with the almost overwhelming urge to go with the
low-cost solution.
But here's my equally painful flip side to low-cost.
1)
The first time it goes down, with the usual collateral damage if it's
close to the house, you have now transformed it into the "high-cost
plus" solution.
Does paying for punctured roof, and possibly interior water damage
give you the proper level of gut-lurch? Remember that insurance
*never* pays for everything, and the huge inconvenience, and the huge
loss of honey-do points will be hard to make up.
If that's not enough, the amount of station hard work lost should make
you cry.
After this experience, you will have lots of emotionally-based
incentive to get it up properly sized. If you were lucky enough to
have insurance that actually covered most of the ham-related loss, and
they didn't bail out of reimbursement because you undersized
everything, they *won't* pay for the difference to put up a heftier
setup.
Best case cost summary?
Cost of original low-cost + difference between low-cost & hefty = cost
of hefty to start with. Plus cost of collateral damage not covered by
insurance. Plus loss of honey-do points. Plus loss of use of station.
If no insurance on the ham stuff? Even if you put up the low-cost
again, you doubled your cost. Probably more than the hefty to start
with. If you learn and put up the hefty, it's more than double the
low-cost, approaching double the hefty.
2)
Neighbors may get very strange once they see the damage and insist on
things later that they never thought of before. This may make it very
hard to get it back up.
3)
The possible effect on permit people is hard to guage. Your accident
could cause them to tighten up requirements, or make procedures
harder.
4)
You will always, sooner or later, want to put more on the tower than
you are thinking about now. If the low-cost isn't overloaded now, it
will be then.
...
Painfulful corollary to LXC prime directive: cheaper spends more,
quicker finishes last, short-cuts are long-cuts in tights.
I suppose you figured out I voted for the Trylon...
Best of luck on it in any event & 73,
Guy
-------------------------------------------
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:09:04 -0600, "Louis Sica, Jr." <ac0x@qsl.net>
wrote:
>Thanks to all for their help with tower advice. The Trylon seems like it will
>definitely do the job. I sent a catalog order to Champion Radio for more
>information.
>
>But, isn't the Trylon somewhat overkill for a 18' boom 8 lb. windload antenna?
>I know better overkill than too little, but after seeing pictures of Trylons
>with 30' boom Force 12's with a VHF yagi or two (or three) on top, I'm
>wondering if I could still do well by going smaller.
>
>Anyone have any experience with aluminum towers, such as Universal Mfg.'s?
>
>Thanks again to all
>
>---
>Lou Sica AC0X
>ac0x@qsl.net
Guy L. Olinger
k2av@qsl.net
Apex, NC, USA
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|