Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

Bands, chains, wraps, straps, racks... are you sure this is training related?

Moderators: mgil, Cody

Post Reply
User avatar
Wilhelm
Little Musk Ox
Posts: 9712
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:58 pm
Location: Living Room
Age: 62

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#441

Post by Wilhelm » Sun May 30, 2021 10:10 am

Hardartery wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 9:55 am
Whatever works for you, I suppose. That doesn't make it a good rack though, any more than continuing to drive a 1971 Ford Maverick suddenly makes it a good car. Just sayin'. Good to see someone still lifting for that many years.
Mavericks so underrated. :lol:


I think the fact that Rippetoe is selling these things for what, $1,200, $1,400?, and claiming they are the best thing available is kind of the basis of this thread.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8464
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#442

Post by mgil » Sun May 30, 2021 1:39 pm

Yeah, it’s twofold:

1. If one is buying a new rack, there are far better options available from several manufacturers.

2. The cost for the SS Rack is literally at least twice what it should be.

User avatar
zappey1
Registered User
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:37 pm
Location: Washington State
Age: 40

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#443

Post by zappey1 » Sun May 30, 2021 7:19 pm

mgil wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 1:39 pm Yeah, it’s twofold:

1. If one is buying a new rack, there are far better options available from several manufacturers.

2. The cost for the SS Rack is literally at least twice what it should be.
I was telling one of my lifters about the SS rack for giggles. He thought I was joking about what I was telling him about the specs and the price. He looked them up and we had a good chuckle at those and the wood benches.

They literally look the same as the racks we had at my HS that the metal shop made! But with a huge mark up of coarse.

Dale
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 29, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#444

Post by Dale » Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:52 pm

Keep in mind the original York racks were designed for Isometric training. In the late 1960-70’s there was very little commercial weigh training equipment available.
Having a power rack of any kind was a luxury, much better than having to clean the bar or use the weight stands of the era to perform squats.

Rip’s SS channel rack is a tribute to the old York isometric rack. No, it not better than many modern racks just an option.

I owed a 1967 427 corvette when new. No, it was not better than many modern performance cars. Most individuals, however, would not be embarrassed to be seen driving a 1966 big block today.

Keep things in perspective, purchase the equipment that meets your needs and have fun training!

hector
Registered User
Posts: 5070
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#445

Post by hector » Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm

Someone was selling their SS rack and their SS Bench on FB market. After a few weeks I guess there were no takers, the price was lowered $200. It was up for a good while.

Not sure if it ever sold or not.

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8464
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#446

Post by mgil » Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:33 pm

Sure, but Rip makes claims that his “old technology” rack (using the above analogy as context) is superior to any modern power rack available. It’s not.

If you wanna wax nostalgic about Doug Young and bench in a tetanus rack while paying a market premium to do so, then that’s your decision to make. But don’t try to convince yourself that it’s better than a modern power rack.

Extending the car analogy above, modern racks offer more overall stability and safety than those old racks and likewise Rip’s racks, just like a 50 year old car lacks the safety provisions a modern car does. There’s other stuff too, like practicality and expandability, where those TSS York rack copies just don’t pass muster.

Considering this is a hobby and you can’t drive your power rack down to the local city park for a show or take it out for a nice weekend cruise, it’s clearly a decision made with narrow reasoning.

And like @hector mentions, no one is putting a value on these things in the secondary market. Often times, on items like these, the secondary market establishes a true notion of market value.

Oldandfat
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#447

Post by Oldandfat » Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:14 am

hector wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm Someone was selling their SS rack and their SS Bench on FB market. After a few weeks I guess there were no takers, the price was lowered $200. It was up for a good while.

Not sure if it ever sold or not.
Do you have a link? I’m not ashamed to admit I actually like the rack. I think it looks cool. Yes, it’s absolutely not the best choice. There are far better choices.

It’d still be my pick. The price is the only thing stopping me, but for 200 bucks I’m in.

The rouge r3 is a workhorse of a rack. Everything you need, nothing you don’t. The SS rack would have to be priced the same as the r3. Actually I’d say priced less due to the limited functionality.

hector
Registered User
Posts: 5070
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#448

Post by hector » Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:53 pm

Oldandfat wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:14 am
hector wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm Someone was selling their SS rack and their SS Bench on FB market. After a few weeks I guess there were no takers, the price was lowered $200. It was up for a good while.

Not sure if it ever sold or not.
Do you have a link? I’m not ashamed to admit I actually like the rack. I think it looks cool. Yes, it’s absolutely not the best choice. There are far better choices.

It’d still be my pick. The price is the only thing stopping me, but for 200 bucks I’m in.

The rouge r3 is a workhorse of a rack. Everything you need, nothing you don’t. The SS rack would have to be priced the same as the r3. Actually I’d say priced less due to the limited functionality.
It didn't cost $200. The price was lowered by $200. I think from $1,500 to $1,300.
That price included the Bench, the actual wood one.

hector
Registered User
Posts: 5070
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#449

Post by hector » Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:00 pm

hector wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:53 pm
Oldandfat wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:14 am
hector wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm Someone was selling their SS rack and their SS Bench on FB market. After a few weeks I guess there were no takers, the price was lowered $200. It was up for a good while.

Not sure if it ever sold or not.
Do you have a link? I’m not ashamed to admit I actually like the rack. I think it looks cool. Yes, it’s absolutely not the best choice. There are far better choices.

It’d still be my pick. The price is the only thing stopping me, but for 200 bucks I’m in.

The rouge r3 is a workhorse of a rack. Everything you need, nothing you don’t. The SS rack would have to be priced the same as the r3. Actually I’d say priced less due to the limited functionality.
It didn't cost $200. The price was lowered by $200. I think from $1,500 to $1,300.
That price included the Bench, the actual wood one.
That said, if you just want a c channel rack and are OK with it not being SS brand, those pop up occasionally on FB market and are not expensive when they do. They're usually not that deep, look like basically the same dimensions as the R3.

Oldandfat
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#450

Post by Oldandfat » Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:03 am

hector wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:53 pm
Oldandfat wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:14 am
hector wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm Someone was selling their SS rack and their SS Bench on FB market. After a few weeks I guess there were no takers, the price was lowered $200. It was up for a good while.

Not sure if it ever sold or not.
Do you have a link? I’m not ashamed to admit I actually like the rack. I think it looks cool. Yes, it’s absolutely not the best choice. There are far better choices.

It’d still be my pick. The price is the only thing stopping me, but for 200 bucks I’m in.

The rouge r3 is a workhorse of a rack. Everything you need, nothing you don’t. The SS rack would have to be priced the same as the r3. Actually I’d say priced less due to the limited functionality.
It didn't cost $200. The price was lowered by $200. I think from $1,500 to $1,300.
That price included the Bench, the actual wood one.
Ahh. Got it. Still way over priced.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#451

Post by mbasic » Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:32 am

mgil wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:33 pm Sure, but Rip makes claims that his “old technology” rack (using the above analogy as context) is superior to any modern power rack available. It’s not.

If you wanna wax nostalgic about Doug Young and bench in a tetanus rack while paying a market premium to do so, then that’s your decision to make. But don’t try to convince yourself that it’s better than a modern power rack.

Extending the car analogy above, modern racks offer more overall stability and safety than those old racks and likewise Rip’s racks, just like a 50 year old car lacks the safety provisions a modern car does. There’s other stuff too, like practicality and expandability, where those TSS York rack copies just don’t pass muster.

Considering this is a hobby and you can’t drive your power rack down to the local city park for a show or take it out for a nice weekend cruise, it’s clearly a decision made with narrow reasoning.

And like @hector mentions, no one is putting a value on these things in the secondary market. Often times, on items like these, the secondary market establishes a true notion of market value.
lolz, its like driving a fully restored ($!) Corvair in the modern day.

Whether not you buy into all of the safety issues (that may not have been an actual thing or not) , or flaws to the quirky / trying-to-be-modern design that were clearly bad ideas ....it still a piece of shit to be spending that kinda money one.

By restoring one and/or driving it around, you are kinda just goofing on the thing in its original form in a sarcastic kinda way by putting it (back) in the limelight or whatever. So I approve under that theme ...

Oldandfat
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#452

Post by Oldandfat » Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:57 am

Getting serious for a minute, what exactly is so bad about the rip rack? (Other than it’s way overpriced).

And just comparing it to other racks, not their ability to use attachments, and not the rip racks ability to use the safety pins “as j cups”, or use them on an angle.

Disclaimer, I’m not an engineer, or metal nerd so as far as I can tell the rip rack,, and r3 are basically 4 posts with a safety “bar” through the uprights so,that the bar doesn’t crush me on a failed bench.

One is c Chanel, one is 11g steel tube. They both do the same thing and I don’t see how one is “better” than the other.

To me the rip rack would be safer because the safeties are 1.25” and look massive. The r3 has little 5/8 pins and a pipe.

I realize the pin pipe is more than enough. Rogue has a you tube video wher they drop 400+ on the pin pipe and the bar just merrily bounces off as the pin pipes laugh.

But in my non engineer mind bigger is better.

And of course the rip rack is a piece of geology. The r3 can’t claim that.

User avatar
mouse
Registered User
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:48 am
Age: 37

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#453

Post by mouse » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:03 am

Oldandfat wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:57 am Getting serious for a minute, what exactly is so bad about the rip rack? (Other than it’s way overpriced).

And just comparing it to other racks, not their ability to use attachments, and not the rip racks ability to use the safety pins “as j cups”, or use them on an angle.

Disclaimer, I’m not an engineer, or metal nerd so as far as I can tell the rip rack,, and r3 are basically 4 posts with a safety “bar” through the uprights so,that the bar doesn’t crush me on a failed bench.

One is c Chanel, one is 11g steel tube. They both do the same thing and I don’t see how one is “better” than the other.

To me the rip rack would be safer because the safeties are 1.25” and look massive. The r3 has little 5/8 pins and a pipe.

I realize the pin pipe is more than enough. Rogue has a you tube video wher they drop 400+ on the pin pipe and the bar just merrily bounces off as the pin pipes laugh.

But in my non engineer mind bigger is better.

And of course the rip rack is a piece of geology. The r3 can’t claim that.
I mean, you kind of answered some of your own questions... they aren't about to make it any cheaper so yeah, why would you pay that much for a 'piece of geology' (which it isn't... just because its an old outdated design doesn't mean it wasn't manufactured yesterday) when for the same price or less you get a much better product with more functionality?

Also... watch anyone rack a decent amount of Rip's POS and marvel as the ripquake begins...

Unless you're a fabricator who happens to have the material and can build one yourself... that design is probably best left in the past.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#454

Post by Hardartery » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:22 am

Oldandfat wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:57 am Getting serious for a minute, what exactly is so bad about the rip rack? (Other than it’s way overpriced).

And just comparing it to other racks, not their ability to use attachments, and not the rip racks ability to use the safety pins “as j cups”, or use them on an angle.

Disclaimer, I’m not an engineer, or metal nerd so as far as I can tell the rip rack,, and r3 are basically 4 posts with a safety “bar” through the uprights so,that the bar doesn’t crush me on a failed bench.

One is c Chanel, one is 11g steel tube. They both do the same thing and I don’t see how one is “better” than the other.

To me the rip rack would be safer because the safeties are 1.25” and look massive. The r3 has little 5/8 pins and a pipe.

I realize the pin pipe is more than enough. Rogue has a you tube video wher they drop 400+ on the pin pipe and the bar just merrily bounces off as the pin pipes laugh.

But in my non engineer mind bigger is better.

And of course the rip rack is a piece of geology. The r3 can’t claim that.
Up front I want to express that I hate both of these racks in every way and only an imbecile would readily spend money to have one. That said, the Rogue does not have a stupid elevated floor covered in plywood. This is actually, all by itself, enough reason to take it over the Rip. I have used a rack just like the Rip, and it was torture. you would have to build a custom elevated platform to match that stupid floor height, and it would have to match exactly. There is not even close to enough room inside of a 24" rack to do anything other than stand there. Walking out a squat is difficult at best, and next to impossible if you have any size to you. It's very easy to step off of the front or back of that floor with part of your foot, which is really uncool with weight on you. The rack itself MUST be bolted down or it's a bigger roll hazard than a first generation SUV, and you have to have TWO safeties on each side because the design is so bad one isn't good enough to function as a safety on it's own. Locking safeties are kind of automatic, no-brainer elements to a rack that even the cheapest Body Solid junk comes with. There are NO positives that I can see to these, and I have personal experience with that particular design. If you want one to display as ironic art, or as a historical piece, fine. These are easily the worst possible option as far as actual use goes.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#455

Post by mbasic » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:50 am

The 4" wide uprights can be a problem.
I don't know what the exact out to out dimesion is, but its one or other:
- you are either running out of room for your hands (lowbar squat + long arms or inflexi-shoulders/elbows),
OR
- the plates and/or sleeve collars will hit the uprights. You are re-racking into the uprights, not a bladed J-cup or j-hook that juts out a bit from the upright. Or, as Hardartery explains, with only a 24" window, you better setup exactly center front-to-back AND side-to-side (a plate is 18" dia). Plates may hit uprights, etc.

It wobbles like a mofo when you rerack weights. Even light weights.
In videos of people doing chinups .... it starts to wobble.

Screwing and unscrewing the
J-hooks
Bolts is a pain.
Those are every bit of stupid as:
Image

Most all racks now have the fine adjustment hole spacing thru the bench press zone/area.
That's nice to find the exact spot when you are self-performing the bench-press liftoff ...and you can dial in the safeties fairly exact also.
For squats, OHP, rack pulls, etc .... fine adjustment spacing isn't that big of a deal; bench it can be.
"Shim your bench up/down" ... that sux, benching in a power-rack requires a (shitty) portable bench already.
With a 1-1/2" holes (for an 1-1/4" pin) spaced out every so often .... there's no way around this **.
Your spacing can only be so tight.

For bench, the rack does not come with the platform area in front of the rack.
For bench press (where you could make use of the safeties) you are going to have to build-out the deck area infront the rack
so the legs of your bench are at the right elevation. Or use a plate or plinth to shim up the bench a few inches ....
....but then your feet?

For deadlift ... For most normal racks, out of the box, I could deadlift inside of.
Say you were short on room in your garage or something
The integral platform inside of the Rip rack, you would have to (again) buildup up the platform on either side to deadlift inside of it.
I guess most people would do the 8' wide x 4' deep buildout in front of the rack because with the Rip rack you are forced into that
.... but some people do deadlift inside their racks.

It comes fully welded I think, or at least in large units.
Good luck moving it around (old house to new house; shipping costs; etc)

From an Olympic Weightlifting point of view, the Rip rack looks pretty beefy ....so what comes to mind is jerk supports or jerk recoveries.... but the way that internal platform is, I think one would almost have to build up (floor risers) in front of, AND behind .... IOW: I don't think you'd have the room to split front to back in there.

=============

** lolz, could do the staggered holes like a Pioneer belt, but the 4" channel would complicated that (maybe). IDK.

Oldandfat
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#456

Post by Oldandfat » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:52 am

Hardartery wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:22 am
Oldandfat wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:57 am Getting serious for a minute, what exactly is so bad about the rip rack? (Other than it’s way overpriced).

And just comparing it to other racks, not their ability to use attachments, and not the rip racks ability to use the safety pins “as j cups”, or use them on an angle.

Disclaimer, I’m not an engineer, or metal nerd so as far as I can tell the rip rack,, and r3 are basically 4 posts with a safety “bar” through the uprights so,that the bar doesn’t crush me on a failed bench.

One is c Chanel, one is 11g steel tube. They both do the same thing and I don’t see how one is “better” than the other.

To me the rip rack would be safer because the safeties are 1.25” and look massive. The r3 has little 5/8 pins and a pipe.

I realize the pin pipe is more than enough. Rogue has a you tube video wher they drop 400+ on the pin pipe and the bar just merrily bounces off as the pin pipes laugh.

But in my non engineer mind bigger is better.

And of course the rip rack is a piece of geology. The r3 can’t claim that.
Up front I want to express that I hate both of these racks in every way and only an imbecile would readily spend money to have one. That said, the Rogue does not have a stupid elevated floor covered in plywood. This is actually, all by itself, enough reason to take it over the Rip. I have used a rack just like the Rip, and it was torture. you would have to build a custom elevated platform to match that stupid floor height, and it would have to match exactly. There is not even close to enough room inside of a 24" rack to do anything other than stand there. Walking out a squat is difficult at best, and next to impossible if you have any size to you. It's very easy to step off of the front or back of that floor with part of your foot, which is really uncool with weight on you. The rack itself MUST be bolted down or it's a bigger roll hazard than a first generation SUV, and you have to have TWO safeties on each side because the design is so bad one isn't good enough to function as a safety on it's own. Locking safeties are kind of automatic, no-brainer elements to a rack that even the cheapest Body Solid junk comes with. There are NO positives that I can see to these, and I have personal experience with that particular design. If you want one to display as ironic art, or as a historical piece, fine. These are easily the worst possible option as far as actual use goes.
I thought the whole point of the rip rack platform was that it didn’t need to be bolted down? As for “custom” platform isn’t the rip rack platform designed to accommodate a platform thickness of 3” (3 sheets of ply and “nice” wood or rubber top)? A trip to Home Depot and tractor supply, and a few hours and we’re good to go.

Rip rack is now 30” deep.

24” isn’t an issue. My current rack is 22” deep. Plenty of room for a walk out. I bench and squat inside 22” with no issues. My wife is starting out and she was hitting the rear uprights on her walkout but even she is now ok with the 22” depth.

The original rip rack is 19” deep. Now that may or may not be an issue. Never used a rack that shallow so I can’t say.

User avatar
mouse
Registered User
Posts: 4141
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:48 am
Age: 37

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#457

Post by mouse » Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:02 am

Oldandfat wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:52 am I thought the whole point of the rip rack platform was that it didn’t need to be bolted down? As for “custom” platform isn’t the rip rack platform designed to accommodate a platform thickness of 3” (3 sheets of ply and “nice” wood or rubber top)? A trip to Home Depot and tractor supply, and a few hours and we’re good to go.

Rip rack is now 30” deep.

24” isn’t an issue. My current rack is 22” deep. Plenty of room for a walk out. I bench and squat inside 22” with no issues. My wife is starting out and she was hitting the rear uprights on her walkout but even she is now ok with the 22” depth.

The original rip rack is 19” deep. Now that may or may not be an issue. Never used a rack that shallow so I can’t say.
Lol dude just buy one if you want it... no one here will make fun of you...

Ok maybe a little bit...

User avatar
mgil
Shitpostmaster General
Posts: 8464
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: FlabLab©®
Age: 49

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#458

Post by mgil » Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:10 am

If you’re paying $1500 for a Rip rack and a wooden bench, you deserve the insults.

The only thing worth money in that lineup is the barbell selection, and you can get them from Buddy Capps for less money with more options without the “SS” label in the endcap.

Oldandfat
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#459

Post by Oldandfat » Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:11 am

mbasic wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:50 am The 4" wide uprights can be a problem.
I don't know what the exact out to out dimesion is, but its one or other:
- you are either running out of room for your hands (lowbar squat + long arms or inflexi-shoulders/elbows),
OR
- the plates and/or sleeve collars will hit the uprights. You are re-racking into the uprights, not a bladed J-cup or j-hook that juts out a bit from the upright. Or, as Hardartery explains, with only a 24" window, you better setup exactly center front-to-back AND side-to-side (a plate is 18" dia). Plates may hit uprights, etc.

It wobbles like a mofo when you rerack weights. Even light weights.
In videos of people doing chinups .... it starts to wobble.

Screwing and unscrewing the
J-hooks
Bolts is a pain.
Those are every bit of stupid as:
Image

Most all racks now have the fine adjustment hole spacing thru the bench press zone/area.
That's nice to find the exact spot when you are self-performing the bench-press liftoff ...and you can dial in the safeties fairly exact also.
For squats, OHP, rack pulls, etc .... fine adjustment spacing isn't that big of a deal; bench it can be.
"Shim your bench up/down" ... that sux, benching in a power-rack requires a (shitty) portable bench already.
With a 1-1/2" holes (for an 1-1/4" pin) spaced out every so often .... there's no way around this **.
Your spacing can only be so tight.

For bench, the rack does not come with the platform area in front of the rack.
For bench press (where you could make use of the safeties) you are going to have to build-out the deck area infront the rack
so the legs of your bench are at the right elevation. Or use a plate or plinth to shim up the bench a few inches ....
....but then your feet?

For deadlift ... For most normal racks, out of the box, I could deadlift inside of.
Say you were short on room in your garage or something
The integral platform inside of the Rip rack, you would have to (again) buildup up the platform on either side to deadlift inside of it.
I guess most people would do the 8' wide x 4' deep buildout in front of the rack because with the Rip rack you are forced into that
.... but some people do deadlift inside their racks.

It comes fully welded I think, or at least in large units.
Good luck moving it around (old house to new house; shipping costs; etc)

From an Olympic Weightlifting point of view, the Rip rack looks pretty beefy ....so what comes to mind is jerk supports or jerk recoveries.... but the way that internal platform is, I think one would almost have to build up (floor risers) in front of, AND behind .... IOW: I don't think you'd have the room to split front to back in there.

=============

** lolz, could do the staggered holes like a Pioneer belt, but the 4" channel would complicated that (maybe). IDK.
Can’t see how the 4” uprights are a problem?

Rip,rack (RR) is 41” inside aka Sorinex, rep. No one complains. RR has a 49” outside aka rogue and no one complains actually some people do) but I suppose the RR has the “worst of both worlds”.

Personally I have the worst shoulders ever. I’d bet worse than anyones here. I have, and can squat in a body solid rack (40” wide inside”. It can be done but I’m right at the “crush my pinkies “. It’s nerve racking. I need a wide grip for even high bar squats. I am unable to low bar,due to,shoulder construction.

My rack is 2 x 2 and has an inside width of 44-1/2”, that results in an outside width of 48-1/2” outside.

It’s the best of everything. I have no idea why most racks aren’t built from 11g 2 x 2 tubing? There’s a 2 x 2 rack at west side. I’m sure those guys lift way more than I ever will.

“Wobble” I dunno. I see it but don’t know if it’s an actual safety issue?

Bolts as j cups ? Dunno. Never used them so I can’t say.

Hole spacing, my current rack is 2-1/2 apart. Very unique. No one else has it. It works for me. The RR may be better,as it’s “closer” than mine.

Personally my opinion is that where they decide to start making the holes is more important than than the actual spacing. It’s hit or miss.

I conced that the west side spacing allows for the best possibilities.

I don’t know of any power rack that comes with a platform out front. The RR has its own platform.

I also deadlift inside my rack so I’d just ditch the RR platform and bolt the thing to an 8 x 8.

Welded/moving/shipping?

I suppose you can unbolt a rogue r6 and move it. Can’t see the RR being that difficult? Pry, insert golf balls and move (you’re,welcome). My rack hasn’t moved on 18 years,so it’s usually move once cry once?

Shipping well Sorinex (bolt together) is the same as RR shipping. I,have no idea how shipping works and it’s usually buy once cry once.

Still don’t get the 24” issue? Rogue,r3 is 24”. Plenty of them out there. Even my,wife is,much better in only a few weeks. 22” depth.

I’d argue 24” deep,rack keeps your technique in check, and besides apparently the RR is now 30” deep.

Accordingly your arguments of more $ shipping and moving issues would have more starting strength. (Ha).

Oldandfat
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Why Antique York Racks Are Stupid

#460

Post by Oldandfat » Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:12 am

mouse wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:02 am
Oldandfat wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:52 am I thought the whole point of the rip rack platform was that it didn’t need to be bolted down? As for “custom” platform isn’t the rip rack platform designed to accommodate a platform thickness of 3” (3 sheets of ply and “nice” wood or rubber top)? A trip to Home Depot and tractor supply, and a few hours and we’re good to go.

Rip rack is now 30” deep.

24” isn’t an issue. My current rack is 22” deep. Plenty of room for a walk out. I bench and squat inside 22” with no issues. My wife is starting out and she was hitting the rear uprights on her walkout but even she is now ok with the 22” depth.

The original rip rack is 19” deep. Now that may or may not be an issue. Never used a rack that shallow so I can’t say.
Lol dude just buy one if you want it... no one here will make fun of you...

Ok maybe a little bit...
It’s over priced for what it is

Post Reply