Bowflex shatters under load

"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea.TakeThisOut@3web.nettax> wrote in message
news:460444e6.10454114@news.telus.net...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:18:38 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea.TakeThisOut@3web.nettax> wrote in message
>>news:46038080.38007022@news.telus.net...
>
>>>.... The Bowflex PowerPro was not taken out of
>>> circulation. On the contrary, the warranty on all parts other than the
>>> rods was doubled from five to ten years.
>>>
>>> And discontinuing models and replacing them with newer desings is
>>> normal marketing procedure. Hopefully the newer designs are an
>>> improvement, but it certainly doesn't mean the discontinued models are
>>> a failure.
>>
>>Maybe, but discontinuing a model straight directly after a recall of
>>800,000
>>units must tell you something.
>>I know 1.2 million recalled units just rolls of the tongue but think about
>>it - this company in the space of 12 months as recalled 1,200,000 units -
>>can you imagine the expense, the embarassment, the loss of reputation?
>
> No need to imagine. Sony and Mercedes Benz have had similar recalls
> recently. I don't see their brands going down in flames.

The difference is that Sony and MB have delivered excellence over many
years - so an occasional recall will not cause their rep to be damaged
unduly. Bowflex delivers something less than excellence

>
>>An
>>action like that is not taken lightly - total up the cost of freight and
>>whatever they had to do - I can't imagine it would have come under $100
>>per
>>unit as the actual cost of the exercise.
>
>>So Bowflex anted up 120 million dollars to rectify those minor little
>>problems. Is there a message there somewhere?
>
> I'm only aware of the Bowflex PowerPro recalls, so I can't comment
> critically on your total recall numbers. I suspect the $100 per recall
> guesstimate is on the high side though.

Freight alone must average $40-$50. Also what about the return freight - the
recalls would have been fixed and returned presumeably

> Keep in mind that all the
> hardware except for the rods are manufactured abroad. And when you do
> a mass parts replacement, there are no marketing costs, and
> production, warehousing, and shipping costs can be minimized because
> you know how many pieces you need, and where they're going.
>

Huh?? Minimize all you like there is will be a hard cost involved - double
freight, handling, labour cost of repairs, cost of parts - there is the
'marketing' costs of advertising the recall - it is expensive advertising to
do a recall - $100 a unit would be underestimated

> OTOH, these costs go a long way toward explaining the very high
> purchase price of the Bowflex. Marketing, liability, and warranty
> support are huyge costs.
>
> I've been through the same experience with Nordictrack. Thirteen years
> ago, when I bought my Nordictrack ski exerciser, Nordictrack had the
> largest exercise machine sales in North America. They also offered the
> best available warranty - 10 years on all parts. A few years later,
> they reduced their warranty to two years, and then they went bankrupt.
>
So?

>
> Before my ten year warranty had expired, the company was out of
> business and the warranty was worthless. But before that happened,
> they replaced the front frame of my machine three times, the front
> upright twice, and the front pulley system once, partly because of
> poor design, and partly because of inept pre- and post-sales customer
> service (it took me two years and six or seven calls to customer
> service to learn that they had an extended length upright that should
> have been shipped to me initially because of my height).

What does Nordic Trac have to do with the price of rice in China?

>
> So, which is a better deal - a cheaper machine that becomes a
> paperweight when it breaks and the warranty proves worthless, or one
> that costs 20% or 30% more, but has warranty support and retains
> market value?

You are making comparisons that have no relevance to the debate - you are
comparing a toaster with a blender. Why do you say Bowflex retains market
value?? I would be very surprised if the 2nd hand machines sold in ebay are
even approaching half the new price.

>
> I'd say that Bowflex is doing much better than Nordictrack by its
> customers.
>

IMO both machines are garbage - Nordictrac hits your hip flexors not much
different than the discredited air walkers

>
>
> --
>
> Achim
> _____/)
> axethetax

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:49 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Achim Nolcken Lohse" <lohsea RemoveThis @3web.nettax> wrote in message
>news:46044c23.12307078@news.telus.net...
> - Bowflex is
>simply just like a rubber band - starts easy ends hard - that is only
>consistent with rubber band machines which are generally considered garbage

I've never exercised with a "rubber band" machine, so I couldn't say.
But I have seen a number of side-by-side reviews of the Bowflex and
Soloflex. All of them considered the Bowflex significantly superior.
Furthermore, the Bowflex has been favourably reviewed as a home
exercise machine by more than one publication.

....
>>
>> I'd say that your statement "...add 2.5 lbx per week periodically...",
>> while ambiguous, suggests overtraining.
>
>why does adding a small amt of weight periodically suggest overtraining?

Do the math. Add 2.5lbs every week for a year- that's 130 lbs. In two
years it's 260. Are you planning to die or just retire from
weightlifting before you get to year five?
>
....
>>
>
>Anyone who lifts weights or does progressive resistance training is
>critically concerned with incrementation. That is the very definition of
>progressive resistance That is what it is all about - having the capacity to
>add a small quantifiable amount of weight in cycles to your routine

Really! You're saying bragging rights are the primary goal of your
weightlifting activity. To me, this smacks of obsessive behaviour.
....
>No, there is no relevance to the ROM machine to the real world - the only
>reason ROM machine is 'successful' is the perception that money can buy
>fitness. So for people that $15k is small change they will buy that
>abomination because of the perception that it is a time efficient fitness
>machine that brings miraculous results. It won't deliver much more than
>simpler machines at a fraction the money.

And what's your evidence for this conclusion?
>
....

>
>I'm totally lost - tall people, short people, bigger boned. smaller boned .
>. . so what? Whatever their physiology users will gain benefit or not
>depending on many factors - why bring the size of their bones into the
>discussion?

Because you mentioned the resistance limits of the Bowflex. Obviously
it's more capable of providing meaningful resistance to people who are
equipped with smaller muscles. Surely you don't believe that muscle
size can be augmented endlessly?
>
>>>
>> ..
>>>
>>>.... the ski machine is not designed for building muscle -
>>>that machine builds cardio and endurance
>>
>> Now you're being silly.
>
>Huh?
>
>>
>> I assure you that a a ski machine will build muscle, just as cutting
>> sugar cane, loading trucks, or hiking the mountains will build muscle.
>
>All the activities you mention will build muscle very inefficiently compared
>to a lifting program using progressive resistance

Possibly. But an inefficient exercise program that's followed is still
infinitely more effective than an efficient program that's not.

Furthermore, lifting carries a much higher risk of injury and of more
serious injuury, than the Bowflex. Most people would rather be fit and
healthy than ripped but crippled.


>
>> As for "cardio", as the SuperSlow Guild has said for years - that is
>> meaningless bunk. There IS no such thing as cardio. There's not the
>> slightest evidence that you can "build up" your heart muscle.
>
>So what you are saying is that VO2 max is a meaningless value - so a
>sedentary person who has a VO2 max of 25ml of oxygen per Kg of body weight
>per minute of exercise is no different to a highly trained athlete with a
>VO2 of 3 times that?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Just that there's no evidence that
your VO2 max has anything to do with so-called "aerobic" or
"endurance" exercise, as opposed to any other sort of exercise.

And I think the term "sedentary" as you use it is just as much mumbo
jumbo as "cardio" or "aerobic". What exercise ISN'T "cardio" or
"aerobic"? You can only do anaerobic exercise for a few seconds.

Anyway, you keep changing the subject from ordinary people using
resistance apparatus to improve fitness to elite athletes trying to
set records, and then calling the Bowflex and similar home apparatus
"garbage" because they don't suit the needs of such athletes.
>
>> And
>> endurance is just an aspect of strength, fitness, and general health.
>
>So?
>
So - you seem to apply a different standard to ski exercisers, and I
don't see why.

>>
>> I still have my Nordictrack, and thanks to a friendly welder, I have a
>> supply of spare front frames for it. If I thought that spending 30
>> minutes a day with my heart rate in the aerobic "cardio" zone offered
>> any benefit over my Bowflex workouts, I would use it. But I haven't
>> seen a shred of experimental evidence to support this. So I haven't
>> used it in six years.
>
>Bowflex will not allow you to work out aerobically or if it can it will be
>highly inefficient and your perceived effort will go through the roof

Since I work out to skeletomuscular failure while maintaining steady
breathing, my Bowflex workouts are by definition aerobic. I have no
idea what you mean by aerobic "inefficiency", or "perceived effort".


>>
>> My Superslow workouts on the Bowflex last 40 minutes from start to
>> finish, excluding setup and takedown of the equipment. And my average
>> interval between workouts over the past six years has been 10 days,
>> with better results than I got from the NordicTrack in one tenth of
>> the time.
>
>Achim you are pretty green about what various equipment is designed to
>achieve.

And you seem selectively naive. You confuse genuine functionality with
marketing mumbo jumbo when it comes to ski exercisers, but strangely,
show no such weakness when considering the Bowflex.

>Endurance is different from hypertrophy -

Maybe, but what does it have to do with exercising your muscles?

There may be a genetic predisposition to larger muscles or longer
muscles, but my understanding is that all muscles only grow in the
same way.


>you are saying that a
>toaster gave you better results than blender. You got better results from a
>screw driver than a hammer.

Actually, I've simply expounded my reasons for using a Bowflex. While
you keep blustering on about it being a total waste of time and money.


.....

>>
>> There are a number of problems with machines using stack weights:
>>
>> 1. they take up a lot of space, so many people just don't have room
>> for them in their homes
>
>Wrong - the Bowflex may even have a larger footprint than a typical home
>gym - those rods take up a lot of space

Rubbish!
>
>>
>> 2. they're very heavy, so there are floors that would be unable to
>> support them
>
>Wrong - no engineers would rate a floor that can't hold up around 500 kgs
>per sq meter. An entire weight machine will only weight around 130 kgs

More rubbish.
>
>>
>> 3. their bulk and weight make them difficult to transport, which
>> creates special problems for people who live in rural communities
>
>who cares - it still only takes half an hour to take a weights machine apart
>and another half hour to put it together

I care. And so do a lot of other people. And I question your figures.
>
>>
>> The Bowflex (at least the PowerPro model), OTOH, is lightweight,
>> compact, easy to collapse and move around, and has a minimal footprint
>> for storage. Without the lat tower or leg extension attachments it can
>> even be loaded into the back of a station wagon or hatchback without
>> disassembly.
>>
>I am not convinced

Why am I not surprised?
>
>> So, yes, it's certainly a compromise solution, but it's allowed a lot
>> of people to build and maintain fitness in their homes who would
>> otherwise not exercised at all, just as the NordicTrack did before it.
>
>It created more clothes hangers than any other device in the history of
>mankind

Do you have a shred of proof that there are more unused Bowflexes than
unused free weights, or ski exercisers or steppers, for that matter?


Your childish hyperbole shows that your antagonism for the Bowflex
isn't based on reason or reflection but on an unhealthy emotional
identification with your fitness routine.
--

Achim
_____/)
axethetax