In a message dated 3/17/01 11:36:38 AM, MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com writes:
<< If you have a problem with the lack of information from ACI and others on=
the subject of ACI 355.2 then I think that you should look to ITW
Ramset/Redhead who have created an atmosphere of fear as a result of thei=
use of litigation to influence the standards writting process.
If the manufacturers of mechanical fasteners wish to influence our opinio=
they should provide unbiased technical information in a easilly accessibl=
form. So far I have seen little basic data from either side.
I believe he intention of the lawsuit was, as Dennis mentioned, to slow down
the adoption of the standard. The general membership of ACI and other
practicing engineers should be given time to evaluate the information and
form an opinion, not have it rammed down their throat. One of the points
that ITW made in that lawsuit is that the normal time schedules have been
Personally, I have only been involved with this issue for about a month. I
am not even close to being a spokesperson for all of the others who oppose
this. Apparently, this standard has been in the works for 10 years. There
are members of the ACI Committee 355 that are part of this list server, such
as Mr. Klingner, who have many years of experience with this issue. I had
hoped that he or anyone else would provide some type of argument in support
of the standard. I also hoped, as you did, that some one more involved with
the details would be able to provide a better argument against the standard.
Hopefully we can get some good technical discussion going back and forth.
I will call one of the engineers from ITW that has been involved with this
and let him know that the list serve members would like some more detailed
information. However, just looking at the big picture here, why are we
fixing something that isn't broken? I mean, if the original Redhead wedge
anchor has worked for 50 years, why are we going to eliminate it from
applications that it works fine for.