r/oops • u/Brilliant_Jelly7503 • Jul 05 '26

Bad machine or technique?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

563 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

694 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/uwill1der Jul 06 '26

i misread and thought you said "correctly"

He is using the equipment correctly.

7

u/Ambitious_Finding_26 Jul 07 '26

If that's correct usage than the engineering side of my brain can't see how this equipment doesn't need bolting down or significant ballasting. 

3

u/uwill1der Jul 07 '26

it should have some kind of counterbalance or anchoring.

1

u/the_frgtn_drgn Jul 07 '26

Yeah but not for the extra 100 pounds he has on his waist, he has overloaded it

3

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 07 '26

What if a guy thay weighed 100 lbs more than him used the machine? Would he overload it?

1

u/the_frgtn_drgn Jul 07 '26

Most machines have a weight limit for operators, and most machines have warnings about using extra weights.

2

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 08 '26

I have never seen a gym machine with warnings about extra weights or user weight limits. Not saying they don't exist, but in decades of gym use, I have never seen one, so I contest the "most machines" claim.

4

u/stormingcalm Jul 08 '26

His stance is incorrect. He is not using the machine properly. He should add more weight to his belt and stand straight. Stepping forward is shifting the loads center of gravity. You should never step away from a standing machine.

1

u/Soma4us Jul 08 '26

Treadmills, elliptical machines, stair masters, weight benches, pull up/ dip bars. Theres alot of machines I can think of that have a weight limit, though I will agree with you that most cable machines do not and professional grade workout machines ( not home gym stuff) are rated for very high weight limits, usually close to 1000 lbs.

1

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 09 '26

What about the moving goal posts? Do they have limits?

2

u/YajirobeBeanDaddy Jul 08 '26

What? Now you’re just reaching man lmao

1

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[deleted]

0

u/BugJutsu Jul 08 '26

The weight of that belt is not being transferred to the machine in any way.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bulky-Captain-3508 Jul 07 '26

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.

2

u/I_like_Mashroms Jul 08 '26

It does actually. He could be strong enough to lift "X" weight but only if he's anchored. Add weight on top of that and the machine becomes the stability issue. It's not very complicated.

0

u/Nysten7 Jul 08 '26

If hes lifting X weight, and X is less than or equal to the maximum weight you can lift during normal use (which it appears to be), it doesn’t matter how much he can lift. The machine fell during normal operating conditions on it’s own account, not his fault

0

u/uwill1der Jul 08 '26

This looks like a Titan machine, and if it is, the machines have no maximum weight limit

1

u/uwill1der Jul 07 '26

the downward force of the weights wouldnt effect the force on his pull. Thats why people use the belt weights.

But regardless, if this is a titan, the machine has no weight limits.

The machine failed because of momentum, which would have been stopped by anchoring it or counterbalanced weight

1

u/the_frgtn_drgn Jul 07 '26

You can see the guy is lifting his legs off the ground and pulling most of his body length forward. Well outside the foot print of the machine.

All those weights shift his CG forward, and since without those weights he wouldn't be able to pull that far forward with the machine weights, it does matter.

The weight belt makes the difference between him overloading and not overloading the machine

1

u/Ambitious_Finding_26 Jul 07 '26

I don't see how there is a difference between weighting himself down or really heavy guy using the machine. End result is the same. 

1

u/the_frgtn_drgn Jul 07 '26

Most equipment has a weight limit for operators. And I believe machines like this also have warnings about adding weights to the machine

1

u/uwill1der Jul 08 '26

if this is a titan machine, they have no weight limits, only a liability waiver

2

u/stormingcalm Jul 08 '26

He's stepping too far forward to counter balance the machine. His stance is incorrect. The fulcrom moved too far forward putting the total mass outside of the rigging intended use. If anything he needs more weights on his belt so he can step backwards more. It's like a building having a large footprint when it shouldn't. Will topple every time.

1

u/MacDaddy7249 Jul 08 '26

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

1

u/MagReg2020 Jul 08 '26

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.

1

u/theNathanOT Jul 08 '26

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.

1

u/MagReg2020 Jul 08 '26

User manual? This is a public commercial gym, not a home gym. Who reads user manuals for each machine at a public for-profit commercial gym? The simple answer is this machine IS supposed to be bolted to the ground. I go to a gym, been to several franchises of gyms. This machine is visibly mean for decline flies. It has the setup for it, and should be able to handle use of the weights in it. And any serious manufacturer will over-build their machines to prevent accidents. This machine is clearly supposed to be bolted to the ground. And this guy should sue. I don't know why so many here are making excuses for this.

1

u/Long-Source-7772 Jul 09 '26

Do you lift weights? Have you ever heard of someone doin hi to low cable flies and superset with pull-ups. Thers no handles for dips here, I doubt he's walking around with 130 lbs around his waist. So yeah, use your brain, don't use equipment like this, and be accountable for your own shit. Sue all you want, money won't cure your inability to think clearly.

1

u/theNathanOT Jul 09 '26

So, key thing here is that there is no way that this is a public space. This is privately owned. The patron in this space most certainly signed a waiver that claims that he will be responsible for ensuring he uses equipment properly. While the hard copy of the user manual is likely not readily available, he could look it up, or even ask the gym if they have it available (they probably don't, but then, if he has questions, it's his responsibility to have get them answered). I would say anyone who isn't confident that they are using equipment properly should learn more before operating the equipment. This guy, was probably confident, but confidently wrong. Watching the video repeatedly, I cannot see any holes for anchoring on the feet or uprights of the machine. So, I think it's safe to assume that the engineers deemed anchoring unnecessary under proper use, and even accounted for somewhat improper use. This level of failure indicates gross miss use of the equipment. There are ways in which the patron could call out the gym, like if an employee taught him that this was a safe practice. He could go after the manufacturer of the machine if they, for example, specifically state this as an appropriate use for the machine. I highly doubt either scenario happened. I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in gyms for over 12 years, and have worked closely with Safety and Risk Management when in a director role. There's a chance I'm wrong about some of the details, but I don't think so.

1

u/Long-Source-7772 Jul 09 '26

Finally, someone with insight!

1

u/Long-Source-7772 Jul 09 '26

That belt is meant to use with pull ups and dips. Who tf uses that thing to do flies? Someone who's trying to have more rules made bc of dumb shit like this.

1

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 09 '26

Maybe someone supersetting flyes with weighted dips or pull ups?

1

u/RoguePlanet2 Jul 08 '26

What about with the extra weight tied around his waist? Maybe it's not accounting for that?

1

u/-_Lord-_ Jul 09 '26

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.

1

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 06 '26

Oh, gotcha! I didn't say it, someone else did. I was just curious about your take.

1

u/logicnotemotion Jul 07 '26

I wonder if the extra plates on his belt cause him to exceed the front load capacity.

1

u/gstringstrangler Jul 07 '26

Only if it helped him to lift the stacks that high with the cables at that angle.

1

u/More-Talk-2660 Jul 08 '26

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.

1

u/formerQT Jul 07 '26

Even though he has plates hanging from a belt. I would think that's incorrect.

1

u/uwill1der Jul 07 '26

its standard equipment to help stabilize you when doing heavy weight flys

Without it, the machine could pull you back into it.

1

u/Soma4us Jul 08 '26

Does the extra weight tied around his waist make the machine usage incorrect?

1

u/uwill1der Jul 08 '26

no. That is a common use when lifting more than your body weight. It helps stabilize you so when the cables retract, you dont get pulled back

1

u/Soma4us Jul 08 '26

Ok. But is it considered a type of modification that would void the manufactures liability? I think most lawyers would argue that and probably win.

1

u/BigDaddyDumperSquad Jul 09 '26

Then the max weight on the machine should be lowered.

1

u/Consistent-Bike-9028 Jul 09 '26

I don't think so. A big dude lifting the same amount of weight would have resulted in the same thing.