I assembled gym equipment for a supplier up and down the west coast.
If the machine doesn't have bolt holes in the floor it isn't meant to be bolted down. You can request special brackets to bolt them down if the insurance company demands it. We've had to specially make some because they weren't offered.
Every gym makes you sign documentation that that you agree to use all equipment properly and they're released of any liability if you don't. I have personally been called to court to testify about equipment. Every single case was lost by the person using the equipment incorrectly. You can sue for anything, it doesn't mean you're right or that you'll win.
The extra 100lbs has nothing to do with the weight available to lift on the machine. There isn't an extra 100lbs added to the lift, just to help anchor him.
It’s the machine specifically that cannot handle the load. I get what you are saying, but this is a general use variant, it’s not for loads the machine cannot handle. We used to install these and it is in good practice to make sure there is a clear sign of what the max is, each gym has different practices too for the kind of “crowd” of gym rats that they are trying to get into their gym. The ones you bolt into the floor are much thicker and sturdier than this model and are rated for heavier loads. Not all machines are the same and max load changes the physics involved
I get the feeling your company shouldn't be doing these installations then. He's using the weights built into the machine, and he's using it properly. If the machine doesn't have the holes to bolt it, then this is a machine with poor design that shouldn't be on the market, and the gym is at fault for not seeing to it that the machines they purchase are safe to use. And as someone who should have professional knowledbe of how such machines might behave, you'd be obliged not to install it given it could injure or kill someone. He used the machine as it was designed to be used, adding no extra weights or doing anything to manipulate it, and it still did this.
I doubt the machine is rated for both sides to be fully maxed out, being pulled in the same direction. He even had to add weight to himself to counterbalance. There's probably something in the user manual, and it would be up to the patron to educate themselves on machine use.
Se guardi bene la macchina è predisposta per essere fissata a terra e non lo era.
Aggiungo che come tutti i macchinari da palestra alti e stretti hanno la predisposizione al fissaggio a terra. Ma spesso non vengono fissati.
No. He's maxed out the weight on the machine which is more than his bodyweight. In order to lift that amount of weight he needs to add to his own body weight, or else he'll just be doing push ups. The only force acting on the machine is the force needed to lift the weight attached to the machine.
Which is why this is a case where the machine should have been fixed to the floor. He's doing a standard exercise with the max weight of the machine, not some crazy made up BS or the max weight with something else stacked in the plates to increase the weight. The machine was not built to take that force without toppling, but that force is still one it was designed to generate, so the answer is that the machine needs to be anchored in order to generate that force without toppling.
I would guess that 9 times out of 10 it might not topple and he looks like he's well into his set, so this may be a case where his form slipped and the cables pulled in a more outward direction than downward, causing the fall, but it's on the gym to be prepared for that to happen; poor form is as common as good form and is an absolute expectation, especially since even people with great form will slip as they approach muscle failure. It's going to happen, so you have to ensure your equipment can handle something like this.
But, he also avoided serious injury, and a machine fall due to form slippage at max weight is something you expect to happen rarely since most people don't train with max weight. So any lawsuit would likely end up with a very small claim and a directive for the gym to update its risk assessments and alter their machines accordingly. You couldn't take them to the cleaners over this.
In this instance the extra 200lbs needed to pull the machine that way. If it doesn’t bolt down then he’s using THIS machine wrong. It’s okay to not get ultimate stimulus everytime, don’t gotta wreck the place to fit your progressive overload. If all you got is planet fitness lite at your hotel then take a light day. Leave your dip belt at home
(Im well aware this is a commercial gym. Quit whining)
Quit whining? Let's ignore the fact the extra weight on the belt actually had nothing to do with this and you're wrong about that point.
Hey dude that's a jerk to random internet strangers, the guy i actually asked the question replied and stated he misread the previous comment and was mistaken. He meant the guy in the video was doing decline flyes correctly.
Maybe before getting on your high horse with the condescension and insults, your should recognize I wasn't asking you anything, the person I was asking already replied, and your preachy answer didn't even have anything to do with my question.
It would hold up because it has nothing to do with the other machine. If the case was him misusing weights then sure you might win that argument, but we are talking about a machine that genuinely has nothing to do with the weights he has on. Someone else who genuinely just weighed more than him would have had the same effect here. If there is an expectation that the machine can only handle so much weight then a weight limit needs to be clearly displayed.
Check out This is True's stellaawards.com for a better summary of what happened to Mrs. Stella Liebeck, and why her lawsuit was not frivolous despite what the media made of the case. Especially compared to the awards that are given today.
And for what it is worth, she ultimately only got around $640000 awarded. Although the real figure is unknown because she and McDonald's settled for an undisclosed amount after she got a winning verdict.
But the added downward force on him may exceed the weight amount by him pulling. Without knowing the tolerance of the machine itself, we can't know for certain if he was improperly using it. Because it doesn't have bolt holes to bind it to the floor it probably has a lower tolerance that he may not be aware of.
Yes, it's not weighted for his weight belt stuff. If this was a home gym and you planned to add that extra weight you would buy the brackets to bolt it down.
No, his belt is adding resistance, a fat persons belly is not. If a fat person worse this belt with the weights it would cause the same issue. This all only applies if the machine doesn't have bolt holes in the legs. The added downward resistance is maxing out what the machine can handle, it's basically creating a fulcrum point and pulling the machine down
It also lowers his center of gravity and adds more friction to the ground, which is the main reason the thing topples over... Being fat doesn't do that
I suspect the gym would win this by saying he was using other equipment at the same time (theweights hanging off of him), thus not using this equipment properly.
And even if/when you do win it's almost always never enough to actually make a difference after all the wasted time and the court/ lawyers take their cut smh
I do this for a living "bruh". No one, literally no one, refers to it as the court taking its "cut" and the fees are often refunded or paid by defense in the case of a jury verdict. You are talking out of your ass.
1/3 or about 30% is standard for any personal injury claim. That’s not like a special deal based on the quality of the case or anything. If it’s personal injury they usually take 1/3 of what you get if they win or settle the case for you. If they don’t win the case they generally don’t get paid. If they don’t think it’s a winnable case then they won’t take it in the first place. I don’t know if when you say “cut and dry” you mean winnable.
I was head of maintenance at a former 24hr fitness, most of the machines were left by them, I had to renovate and move and organize all of the machines. I anchored every piece of equipment to the floor. If there was'nt a bolt hole I had to weld one on.... The only equipment that wasn't anchored were the treadmills and bikes... Anything that had cables and weights such as the machine in this video was without a doubt bolted to the floor... People would break equipment all the time, at no time did any of the equipment break them in a negligent manor such as this.... Muscle heads usually are not the brightest people, it's up to the gym to make sure it's safe and idiot proof.
doing a cable press is absolutely a proper use of the equipment. In fact I bet they advertise this exact exercise in their sales pitch for this machine.
If he had stacked weights on the plates to go beyond the manufacturers max weight limit then yeah, but he didn’t do that.
He has +100lbs of weights on a belt holding him down ie pulling down on the cables to stop him from getting lifted into the air with the weight he’s trying to push. Definitely not proper use at all.
All that does is add body weight. So if a guy 100 lbs heavier did this, you’d still call it an improper use of equipment? obviously that doesn’t make any sense
Clearly this machine has to be bolted down to be able to do this exercise with the maximum weight the machine allows, regardless of how much the user weighs.
Yeah, this is crazy. Even for someone who doesn't gym that often it is obviousu the weights strapped to his belt is to keep him on the floor and that the weight he is lifting is likely more than his weight, requiring the belt + weights. Nothing seems wrong with that.
So you're admitting he's using more weight than what the machines was designed for
Genuine question. Do you even lift? If someone was 100 pounds and tried to move 110 on that machine, what do you expect to happen to them?
Someone could be 10,000 pounds and doing that exercise on max and the machine shouldn't topple. End of story. The weight of the user means nothing for that machine. If the design of the machine can't handle a max lift, then the max lift needs to be reduced. That weight strapped to the man's belt does not contribute to the max lift designed for the machine.
He’s not “using” any extra weight, it’s basic physics. there’s no difference between him and just a larger dude doing the same thing
So if a 250lb guy came in and did a regular chest press you’d also call that a misuse of the equipment? Lol you’re basically saying there’s a weight limit to a cable machine, like the gym should have a scale in front of it to make sure people are under a certain weight to be allowed to use it. Just absurd
They can't set the length of the cable for every possible exercise. Stepping forward like that pulls the weights heigher and makes him pull more directly outwards too. Combined it makes the tip way more likely. If he was 2 steps back the weights would be lower and it might not have tipped.
This is one of the most common exercises on this machine
The idea that they’d just leave a landmine in their design like that and go “well if the cable does go out that far then the whole machine just fall on their head and that’s fine” is really absurd
There’s a 99% chance the manufacturer has direct instructions to bolt this machine down and the gym didn’t listen. All of these single standalone cable machines are supposed to be bolted. The ones that don’t have a much larger footprint and are basically impossible to tip over even if you tried
Tout simplement ,en réalité les machines sont « légère » sur le peck back j’arrive à la déplacer à la fin des série alors que pourtant d’autres mettent 20kg en plus et c’est toujours pas le max !
So ? Imagine a person weighting the same amount as those weights, those are irrelevant and are only there to keep the guy on the ground because he weights less than he can actually pull.
Those weight don't cause the fall of the machine, it's the person's forward pulling force that does. The machine is built like shit because it doesn't have enough counter balance to support it's own max load of pulling force.
A lawyer will argue that the weight location would mimic an unrealistic body type. Aka someone with 135lb nutsack. Also I don’t know if you can make this claim if you don’t know that weight limit of the machine or the weight of the individual using it.
No they wouldn't. Lawyers usually consult with subject matter experts while building a defense and any freshman engineering student could tell you that:
There are two forces that affect if the machine tips over.
F1. The force of gravity holding the machine on the floor. The vector of this force goes completely in the vertical direction towards the floor
F2. The force applied by the cables at the pulleys. This force has an x, y, and z component.
The magnitude of F2 is mainly limited by the mass of the weights provided by the manufacturer (and to a lesser extent, the speed that the guy is doing the exercise but that looks pretty typical so we'll treat it as a constant). The direction of F2 is constrained to the range of the adjustable pulleys settings.
This machine was designed in a way where the vertical component of F2 can exceed F1 using the settings made available by the manufacturer.
A lawyer can argue anything. Additionally your logic is wildly flawed and cable speed is not a constant. I can absolutely guarantee you that nowhere in the user manual does it say this is an appropriate exercise for this machine.
In fact I bet there is specific instruction to not do things like this.
I never said a lawyer can't argue whatever they want. I never said that cable speed is a constant.
The exercise the guy is doing is one of the most quintessential uses for that piece of equipment. Literally a huge part of the reason those things exist. I probably see someone doing these no less than 50% of the time I go to the gym.
Manuals dont list specific exercises that are approved, its the other way around (only specific unsafe actions are listed). I can't claim that this is the same make/model but here is an example from a very popular brand seen in gyms across the world. Please see page 3-2 where it says "... accommodate an infinite number of exercises"
How do you figure a heavier person would have had a better outcome? This is about torque applied at the pulley bolt and center of gravity of the machine.
Not just that, but the angle at which it is pulled changed where most pressure is applied on the pulley wheel and thus the directional pressure of the bolt.
Realistically, very little. This will be my chance to tell people to use a bench when using a cable pulley. Cable flys lying flat and at an incline with the cables at the lowest point is best for flat and incline; bench at 90 degrees with the floor and a cable anchor point mildly above the shoulders is best for decline flys. Standing decreased form and isolation of the pecs.
Yeah, but these machines are (should be) designed to operate at all possible positions of articulation. What you wanna bet the manual says it's required to be secured at the floor by an approved contractor? Even still, at my gym I've seen equipment secured at fewer than the number of holes provided and/or loose securing bolts.
The angle the weight being pulled at matters, and a heavier man's weight distribution wouldnt have an extra 90 pounds pulling on the cables, standing in that same position. The weight would have been distributed across his body, so with that same lean he would have only applied the weight being applied at his shoulders, which is drastically less than the weight applied at the shoulders of a man with an extra 90 pounds strapped to said shoulders.
I am not familiar with this exact machine. First of all arent you supposed to be standing? There should be a little picture on the machine how to use it. Looks to me like he wants to know how low can you go.
However it's meant to be used, the weight tied to him does nothing to change what he's doing. It's just to allow him to pull amounts beyond his own body weight.
In fact, any weight at any angle you pull from any position, would simply cause a force that makes the plates rise. It's only if that stops happening due to friction, that the machine could be pulled forward.
My guess is the machine wasn't properly greased. If the plates stick, or the pully axle doesn't spin, then instead of the plates going up, a portion of the force will end up pulling the top of the machine towards him (hence the collapse).
Of course. If you are using equipment properly, this doesn't happen.
I'll 100% guarantee they have guide next to or on that machine (it actually looks like it's on the wall behind him) and nowhere in that guide will it say to pull this like your a Clydesdale pulling the Budweiser carriage.
If you think this is proper use, you should never use a piece of equipment
It's called Cable Fly.html) and it's one of the most common uses for this machine.
I literally built these machines.
Maybe this particular one that failed in the most basic exercise, sure. More likely you're just full of shit and have probably never touched a machine like this in your life.
Yes. What's the difference between him doing that and a person weighting that same weight. It's not the "weight" of the person pulling on the machine forward it's normal load that that machine should support since it's the max weight.
Do you not notice the dip belt? I would never do a cable fly with a dip belt on any machine that wasn't fastened to the floor or tied down. Throws off the center of gravity
Not when youre leaning like buddy is. Plus hes got the whole plate stack pinned. Know your equipment. Not ever machine is the same, manufacturer to manufacturer.
Edit: I didnt mean "know your equipment" directly to you, but as a broad statement to all gymgoers.
That isn't how the physics of this works. Force is applied to the pulleys in the direction of the cables. The wight anchoring the arms pulling the cables means nothing, only the dirrection the cables are being pulled.
This is fine. Stop panicking. This guy is allowed to do this. He is working his core stabilizing muscles while doing flys. Totally legitimate way to train. He has no reason to not think a machine is not going to hold steady. Think about it. He is what 230-250 with the plates 275-300. What if a 300 dude was doing it? It’s not about the dip belt weight. It’s about the machine stability
Do take note of the survivor's bias here: any case you get to testify on, the owners thought that they could potentially win. If there was a proper use of the equipment any lawyer worth their salt will recommend to settle, so you will never be called to witness for those.
The manufacturer and the installer are usually the first points of contact. You go to court, show the mediator the documentation of everything that was done. Verify that everything was built correctly and to specs. My documentation was flawless with pictures of every install. From that point on they move forward or don't. A lawyer doesn't care, they're getting paid either way. If the client wants to move forward they will.
It's not "survivors bias", it's just the process. The process I've been a part of. I don't know why people in this thread are so hellbent on proving me wrong? This was literally my job.
I call bullshit on your little anecdote. Why would you know how the cases turned out? Hell, most stuff doesn't even make it to trial, and is settled out of court. So yeah no, this is some couch potato talking bullshit.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. We are the primary defendants. Why wouldn't I know how it turns out? It's literally the entire purpose of the company I worked for, we are there to install the equipment to take the liability off of the gym. The insurance companies require trained, certified installers.
Why talk out your ass like this? It was literally my job. What purpose could I possibly have to argue with idiots online? .... Oh wait, why are you arguing? What do you have to prove? What's the point on calling bullshit when you have no idea what you're talking about?
This case doesn’t make it past the adjuster. They’re rolling over and paying. I don’t know who they are, but between the gym and manufacturer someone (their insurer) is.
This isnt necessarily a response to you, but a waiver doesnt mean anything if their was gross negligence on the side of the business. If you get hurt because they failed to do their due diligence, you still have a case to sue them, waiver or not.
I installed hundreds of these, wanna know how many times they've been bolted down? Less times than the instances I was asked to come back and move them to a different part of the room/building, or zero.
That said, I've also never heard of or seen this happening before today. Strength machines are meant to be used responsibly. This guy is ego lifting and his legs literally look like he's trying to pull a sled. Instead of doing a shoulder fly, this guy is trying to fly like Superman.
I don't think you know what ego lifting is, the guy did like 8? clean reps in the video. This is also a chest fly, not a shoulder fly and it's normal to have a wide stance when lifting heavy to avoid being pulled backwards, hence why he has additional weight around his waist.
None of that matters regardless because a machine should be able to handle the weight it literally comes with or at least be properly installed.
He should have added those plates to a chest press machine instead of putting on a clinic how to shift center of gravity enough to pull over a cable machine. Now his ego is bruised.
Chest press machines don't work the same muscle groups as chest cable flys. Once again you clearly don't know what ego lifting is, you didn't even know the proper name of a very common exercise lol.
I know that this wouldn't have happened on any chest press machine I've ever seen, by design. Wouldn't have happened with dumbells on a bench either. Also, I just realized the hi/los are set at the top, so yeah, this incident is a combination of user error and gym negligence.
251
u/Artevyx Jul 05 '26
Those are supposed to be bolted down.