The reason BiLock isn't UL437 listed

[tballard]

An all-to-common "discussion" in various threads is the lack of UL437 listing for any of the BiLock products. There are a lot of rumors and unsourced statements as to why, but nothing definitive, and that bothered me. So, I decided to do something crazy and just ask the manufacturer. Over the next few days I had a very pleasant email discussion with Tom DiVito, the president and owner of BiLock North America. The following is summary of his response which I asked for permission to share with the community:

BiLock started the UL evaluation process years ago when it was owned by the Australian Lock Company. The evaluation was still in early stages when the BiLock brand was acquired by BiLock North America. The new owners elected to focus their resources on broadening the product line and relaunching the brand, rather than restarting the UL process.

I'll be honest when I say I wasn't expecting BiLock to be as open and responsive as they were, and was pleasantly surprised. I'd encourage others in the community to reach out to manufacturers politely as well if you have questions, and perhaps we can improve the overall relationship between the two parties.

[Schuyler]

Tom's a great guy & has good ties in our community. I never realized they didn't have the UL437, but considering popular opinion on that rating has waned (at least in our community) I can't say I blame them for not perusing it. Really glad you asked him about it.

[globallockytoo]

I hate to say this - but I told you so!

[JK_the_CJer]

I hate to say this - but I told you so!

I have to imagine an infinite number of smileys and "j/k"s after your statement to interpret it as a joke.

[TOWCH]

I still think they should license medeco's Cam lock pins.

[globallockytoo]

I hate to say this - but I told you so!

I have to imagine an infinite number of smileys and "j/k"s after your statement to interpret it as a joke.

What are you talking about?

I have stated this all along.

The fact that UL require about 6 locks to play with combined with the $25,000 fee, is only part of the reasoning. Concentrating on the product rather than BS fee's is better for the industry IMHO. If they want to test it...let them purchase their own product and rate it accordingly. They are only an advisory body anyhow.

Kinda reminds me a little of the CSIRO, who are prosecuting all patent violators of their patent for WIFI. They dont charge companies for testing new innovations, but they give credit where it's due!

[JK_the_CJer]

This is one point that we definitely agree on. UL certification is pretty lame, their testing methods are far from complete, and process is just a cash machine. Luckily, there are some independent researchers and locksmiths that do their own testing. Although, no matter how professional or thorough this outside research is; it will never be held in the same respect as UL437.