As our society has become so very much more litigious and jury awards
have risen toward enormous, the potential cost per failure has risen
precipitously. Tower base specs above and beyond any reasonable
requirement tend to remove the tower company from liability. If an
installation fails it will be clear that is was not the fault of the
tower MFG as their design is easily seen to be more than adequate.
Same reason why medical costs are often much more a product of
malpractice insurance rates than the actual cost of the goods and
services. Anything goes wrong and there is likely going to be a law
suite, expensive lawyers, and perhaps huge awards.
In the medical instance a reasonable response is expensive high limit
malpractice insurance. In the tower arena specifying ultra conservative
bases and guys, where appropriate, is part of the self defense
preparations of the MFG. Undoubtedly some of the increase in tower
prices reflects the MFG's rising cost of liability insurance.
These days if anything bad happens, someone has to be at fault so they
are identified and sued.
Patrick NJ5G
On 5/15/2017 4:54 AM, Ken wrote:
On 5/14/17 7:41 PM, Mike Ricketts wrote:
Looking at the plans, the foundation (5x5x6) calls for only the 3 base
legs, and no rebar is specified.
In 1972, I put up a used Heights 64' tower. All their specs at the
time required was 4'x4'x4' of concrete, no rebar. Actually I put it
up at two different locations. It is amazing to me how the base
requirements have increased over the years. But no one remembers any
of the old bases failing. Now that same tower requires twice as much
concrete plus rebar.
Ken WA8JXM
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|