DSK wrote:
"Scotty" scribbled thusly:
Do you know what exactly was wrong with the cylinders? Did
he know beforehand that they were not right?



OzOne wrote:
They weren't strong enough and broke.
I believe they thought they were to spec.


Are they 100% positive the rams weren't up to spec? Is it
also possible that the spec was undershooting for the loads?

But as for the supplier not giving you the right stuff, I'm
sad to say it happens all the time. In most cases it's
because they've been gypped themselves, not because they're
trying to con anyone.

The only way to be sure is to establish your own test lab,
buy 10 of them, test 9 to destruction and draw up a graph,
then install the 10th one with full knowledge of what it
will take.

That's what we do with mission critical stuff. In fact we built our own
test bed to test to destruction wire swages and the like.

That's really really expensive. Not even the America's Cup
guys do it that way. Shucks, even the U.S. Gov't (the worlds
heavyweight champion money spenders) doesn't, except in very
special cases.

Yeah. I'd be interested in knowing just what spec the yacht designer
gave the hydraulics people so they could decide on the ram strength,
and how they knew that the load wasn't exceeded (ie, the failure was
due to inadequate spec rather than inadequate equipment). Personally I
wouldn't trust *anything* done by a racing yacht designer - look at the
failures, they obviously aren't using commercial standards for safe
working margins. Gear I use, the SWL is AT MOST 4X the actual failure
load, often 8X the actual failure load. And by actual failure load, I
mean one that's been determined by testing to destruction a
representative sample.

I suspect this is a case of deep pockets.....

PDW