At 07:53 AM 9/12/2006, W7CE wrote:
>Tower manufactures like US Tower seem to be behind the times. I've talked
>to them several times and their 130' crankup, which isn't even in the
>catalog, is the only tower they would spec at 80MPH. This towers lists for
>over $40K and they still won't give adequate IBC specs. For their 106' and
>89' models, the highest windspeed that they would spec is 70 MPH. I don't
>mind paying for engineering, but I would like to go into it knowing that the
>manufacturer already believes that the tower is adequate. Those of us who
>live in IBC states need to start pressing the tower manufacturers for specs
>that comply with current laws. I'd like to put up a 100'+ free-standing
>tower that can handle 30 sq ft at 90 MPH, and have just about decided to
>give up on the ham-oriented manufacturers and start talking to the
>commercial manufacturers. At least they understand windspeeds over 70 MPH.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Local authorities are
imposing "commercial grade" kinds of requirements for the permitting
(if only because it's easy, not to mention, it's legally defensible
in a PRB-1 environment), so you need "commercial grade" stuff. Tall
light posts and free standing cell towers have no problems, but are pricey.
This, to my mind, is a far more insidious trend than the HOA CCR
problem. Pretty soon, the only hams who will be able to experiment
with towers will be the ones who own acres of farm land in a lightly
regulated jurisdiction.
Jim, W6RMK
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|