MYTH: “It is unsafe to interchange the Concrete Lifting system components of different suppliers.”

This myth is usually touted by companies with a dominant market share and its purpose is to restrain trade and lessen competition – under the guise of “protecting safety”.

The facts are that it is permissable to interchange components which have been designed, manufactured, tested and warranted to be compatible (as defined by AS3850) with complying products made by others.

The purpose of performance standards (like AS3850) is to ensure conformity and permit interchangeability of compatible products providing that publicly available performance requirements are maintained, even between “proprietary” products of the same and different suppliers.

AS3850 (rightly) makes no stipulation that all components must be supplied by the same supplier but requires that all lifting system components be compatible (regardless of supplier).

Compatibility is defined by a performance requirement not as a feature imparted by belonging to a particular proprietary system as it is known (and the standard recognises) that engineering products may be compatible in function but not necessarily identical in all features.

AS3850 Definitions: 1.3.3 Compatible: The coordinated use of two (or more) separate components without compromise to the working load limit (WLL) or utility of either component.

On the other hand it is potentially unsafe is to use components from any supplier including those supplied as “genuine products” which have not been designed and tested for every strength limit state to meet the requirements of AS3850.

It is not always true that manufacturers with a dominant market share provide products which offer the best performance or are the “safest” in their class. Sadly, monopolists often rely upon their market power, scaremongering, to discourage users from adopting superior technologies offered by new market entrants.

Anti-competitive behaviour dressed up as “concern for safety” uses the notion of proprietary information to hide the truth, suppress innovation and stifle competition. Starved of the benefit of public review, over time, safety can be expected to wither.

Consider a situation where lifting clutches complying with AS3850 (Design factor=5) are used with Anchors complying with AS3850 (Design factor=2.5) supplied by a different supplier.
If it is claimed by the supplier of the clutch that use of these anchors “compromises system safety” one must ask ....why?
How can the stronger clutch be failed by a weaker anchor?
Clutch failure cannot be caused by the anchor and so “system safety” is not compromised! To suggest otherwise is plainly dishonest. If the anchor fails there is a clear path of liability if it is shown that the failure resulted from a defect or non-compliance with AS3850, rather than an overload.