Once again, Giri, you have proven conclusively that I am wrong. Report your victory to your superiors.
✓ Member
Merit of SS Power rack design, the Channel section etc.
Mark, compared to a Rogue half rack, what is the merit of an SS power rack design, except the ability to insert rods at various angles for utilitarian purposes?
The channel section is cheaper per unit weight but is expensive on per unit length basis compared to a 3" x 3" 11 gauge steel tubing.
It has one less plane of symmetry. So, even to make a bolt on rack from channel section, it takes a lot of welding, involves cutting small metal pieces and can be bolted on only to one of the 3 faces. Basically, more the symmetry, better the easier the designability, manufacturability and ease of assembly.
Another feature that adds to expense and cumbersomeness is the plywood platform sitting on the three rails. It needs addition of material that is different (wood) and additional drilling and hardware. Once done, the rack is only good for squat. To bench, one needs one end of the bench to sit on a surface that's flush (or at the least at level) with the rack platform. Getting two different surfaces to be flush is a task in itself, not mention the cost of additional material and labor.
Rogue uses 3" x 3" 11 SWG tubing for every single of its racks and they are proven to work just fine (rated at 1000lbs), thousands of them. The rogue safety arms or the pin-pipe safeties are kinder to the bar knurling compared to the 1.25" dia. solid pins.
You designed the SS rack and shared the CAD for free. And I'm not picking on your generosity. But if one were to argue with/convince someone that the channel based design is superior to a rogue SML-1 half rack, what would be the argument?
TMPHBITEU
Once again, Giri, you have proven conclusively that I am wrong. Report your victory to your superiors.
✓ Member
It's fucking cheap.
TMPHBITEU
A C-channel rack is more expensive. Giri's right, case closed.
✓ Member
Weren't Rip's plans/thoughts were available (for free) before Rogue was even founded?
Member
More durable
one piece safeties, easier to use, few parts
double safeties, can do isometrics
pins double as hooks if need be
safeties can be placed at an angle
More durable
also more durable
Rip's rack is designed for use, not economy of manufacture.
Member
Originally Posted by Giri
You answered your own question, it seems to me. Ain't that a kick in the head!
✓ Member
I was just perusing my local steel supplier, been toying with the idea of building my own for some time now.
To answer your questions;
-The channel is durable as fuck. If you fab it yourself or have a reasonable shop, it's much cheaper than the Rogue. And you will never break it.
-Make yourself a welded rather than bolted rack and save yourself some work and materials.
-It functions fine without the symmetry of square tubing.
-You can customize your rack, build it with no floor like the Rogue. Bolt it to concrete and it will be just as solid.
-If you're worried about the knurling in the snatch grip area use a different bar for those exercises. Or go to McMaster and get UHMW tubing to fit over the 1.25" safety pins, just like pin/pipe.
-You will never safely do rack pulls, shrugs etc in a Rogue SML-1 off the spotter arms. You'll break it.
I've been playing in CAD designing the perfect rack for myself based on Rip's design. Here's one iteration, though I've redesigned it since;
I'm going to build it tall enough to pin press inside it, and am considering 2" hole separation rather 3", which while not entirely necessary, would match the Rogue monster series spacing.
With a little more fabrication flip down safeties can be made, though I don't expect to need them;
And alternate j-hooks;
I think the channel construction is also good for the crappy Northeast climate we have here, if you keep it in your unheated garage you can easily monitor it for corrosion, much harder to do with square tubing.
And somehow WFAC has trained many without Rogue racks, (not putting them down, an RM-3 or RM-4 is being heavily considered for my garage), and I'm 100% sure that even in the context of a heavy lifting commercial gym nobody has ever broken any of Rip's racks.
Member
No they don't, unless you're ignoring anything that's not monster or monster lite.
Why would you want to? The market for racks, specifically Rogue and the knockof... I mean Titan, has exploded since then. At the time, it was a solid design at a decent price. Now there are better alternatives, unless you just want an indestructible tank of a rack. It does have that going for it.
✓ Member
We are the collective, Sir. Our victory was acknowledged by all us equals as it occurred.
It's not a matter of proving myself right or you wrong, Mark. SS rack was the first design I sought when I planned to have my own home gym. I realized these difficulties in manufacturing as I was preparing 3D CAD for a bolt on version. Welding length per member is greater for C-channel (more clumsy for the inner length of the C, deburring inside is a pain, if not impossible) and wherever a 90 deg bolt-on was needed, a separate flat piece of steel has to be cut and welded first.
I do agree that C-channel is cheaper per unit weight (probably because it's hot rolled) but per unit length, the C4 x 5.4 is heavier and more expensive than the 3" x 3" x 3.13mm square (at least by the quotes I've got). This is also anomalous because, for the same area of cross-section, C-Channel should be stiffer in bending (compared to a hollow square section) but here, we are using C-channel and with greater cross-section.
All done, it's still not straightforward to bench with it. Either a platform or a block of wood that's flush with rack is needed. All this is not very convenient for an absolute novice that's just starting to lift barbell weights.
I was hoping to contribute to the scientific process here with productive criticism or if my perspective was wrong, I wanted to know how.
Yes and I did acknowledge the fact with gratitude in the original post.
Agreed. I was pondering if the additional utility is worth the manufacture and the raw material overhead.
But I beg to differ on the point of pin safeties. The SS design had 1.375" holes that are 3" apart to house a 1.25" solid pin. A rogue pin pipe set up has a 1" pin that fits into 1" holes that are 2" apart. That spacing is convenient. Also, the ends of the pins take the shear load while the stiffer-to-bend pipe bears the bending part. The pipe can be of a bigger diameter to preserve the bar knurling better.
Posting Permissions
