Cable Crossover VS. Functional Trainer (The Sequel)...

[Deep-Voiced-One]

I'm getting close to my decision on one of these pieces (you might remember my Functional Trainers Questions thread), consider this the sequel to the finale of choosing and perhaps this can help others on the board with these same questions and decisions.

A functional trainer with the arms is not an option for me and my basement situation...with that said I found a fabrication site that can build a cable crossover and modify it to any height and width I need it to be with space issues in mind and can arrive in two side panels to fit through the doors. Even though the fabricator said that he doesn't make functional trainers, I guess technically it can become one the narrower the custom width of the crossover is.

My two options are the custom cable crossover (Still on the fence about this cause it's quite expensive, but freight included), or the Inspire FT1.

To the current, or previous cable crossover owners what do you think of the versatility of these pieces compared to functional trainers? (The ones with adjustment points top, middle, bottom).

How many movements can you think of on a cable crossover vs. functional trainer?

How narrow of width can a cable crossover be before it is no longer a cable crossover?

Selectorized, or plate-loaded?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as we get this thread going, but any insight, comparisons and advice is appreciated.

[Tunnelvision420]

Probably won't help much. I have tried out the ft1, ft2 and loved it. But due to my fixed budget and it will be set up out back under the porch, I am going with Yukon plate loaded crossover. Saving up the past few months, should have it by July. If I had the space and room indoor, I would def save up for the ft1. I was also looking at body solid one and x mark ft, not sure if you seen those. They look pretty decent.

[gym62richard]

Having previously had a cable crossover and now owning a Functional Trainer, it's difficult to make a comparison, they're very different units. For me, I think the FT is more versatile, just be careful if you go down the custom route not to end up with a unit that is functionally, neither a cable crossover or a functional trainer.

[Hardgains88]

So you know my 1st choice hands down is FT with arms, best of all worlds! Based on the options I still think the FT with regular columns is better choice then the cable crossover. Even if they both have fully adjustable up and down pulleys on the columns I think the FT just gets used way more. I had a very inexpensive cable crossover for years, it was a plate loaded body solid. I found 80% of the time I used it was just as a single column. Except occasional fly's and delt isolation work, the crossover isn't great at anything dual pulley wise.
The FT is great at arm work, back isolation movements, and core training. The big deciding factor to me comes down to the below Observation:
There is essentially nothing that the crossover dies that couldn't be done at least passably on the FT. Fly and delt movements may be a little better on the crossover, but by either stepping forward or crossing the cables over each other, all the crossover isolation exercises can be performed on the FT. The FT however dies leads of things that the crossover can't, pressing movements, back ISO lateral pulldowns, and with the right attachments tricep and bicep work is awesome on the FT. Yea, there are some weird variants of pulldiwn abd curls theoretically I see done on crossovers but these are odd ball exercises. Using long handles or small chain extensions of colum style FT you get awesome ISO lateral presses and curls ect. It's just so versatile, unless only doing them one arm at a time the crossover ain't doing that!

[Greybird2]

Wonder how these work at only $429?

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Gains and Rich, it's difficult to dispute with what you both said...very helpful about these two pieces.

I was thinking of possibly getting the cable crossover piece on Strength Equipment's site modded into a FT by narrowing it, but the price would probably be much more than what a used Paramount with the arms would cost (Plus the Paramount wouldn't fit my situation due to some space limitations).

Just an observation, but why do some FT's have the columns diagonally placed and some horizontal?

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Greybird, that's a cool add on...if space wasn't such an issue for a rack with tight walls on the side, then that would be an excellent affordable add-on. What company makes that? They should make those in two wall mounted versions with modified heights, then there would be no top horizontal upright that would interfere with low ceiling heights.

[Hardgains88]

Trying to see if I get your question. I have seen the cable columns on some units where the column is set so the highest part of the column is angled forward and the lower part farther back. They set them at an angle to allow some movements that require clearing the column itself, presdiwns work better with this feature. I'm not sure this was your question though

[Greybird2]

Look at Valor Fitness. Amazon has this for $229. Bolts to wall. Dimensions are listed. Maybe get 2? Looks similar to Body Solid quality. Their is a thread going somewhere on here about it.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Trying to see if I get your question. I have seen the cable columns on some units where the column is set so the highest part of the column is angled forward and the lower part farther back. They set them at an angle to allow some movements that require clearing the column itself, presdiwns work better with this feature. I'm not sure this was your question though

I think we're describing the same thing...it's like where the weight stacks are diagonally angled on some systems (example the FT1, Life Fitness, Hoist), but on ones such as the Body-solid and a few others they directly horizontal.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

I guess this next question is a technical one, but out of curiousity how short of a height and narrow of a width would a cable crossover have to be to be no longer considered a cable crossover?

My question also applies to a FT how wide would one have to be before it is rendered useless and is no longer considered a FT?

This is just mainly questions if going the custom made route.

[swimmer32]

Wonder how these work at only $429?

What brand is that crossover attachment?

I have the NewYorkBarbells crossover attachment for my rack. It's only high-low, but it's served me well for a number of years. If it was adjustable for some set-ups in the middle it would be fantastic. I've held onto my rack mainly for the crossover attachment - if I ever find a functional trainer cheap I'll probably get it and then go with a new rack. But my crossover attachment gets used 3-4 times a week for a variety of exercises.

http://newyorkbarbells.com/8515.html

[Greybird2]

Swimmer, its Valor. They have 2 sizes for different size racks on Amazon. The zoom gets pretty close. Quality looks to be OK.

[gym62richard]

Gains and Rich, it's difficult to dispute with what you both said...very helpful about these two pieces.

I was thinking of possibly getting the cable crossover piece on Strength Equipment's site modded into a FT by narrowing it, but the price would probably be much more than what a used Paramount with the arms would cost (Plus the Paramount wouldn't fit my situation due to some space limitations).

Just an observation, but why do some FT's have the columns diagonally placed and some horizontal?

I think most units specifically designed as a functional trainer have the side set at an angle , so the weight stack/pulleys align with the angled frame. I see at least two advantages, firstly if you want to place your FT into a corner, because the back of the unit is narrower, it's going to sit better into a corner, secondly, with the angled design, functionality wise, there's going to be a little more width between the attachment pulley's, also the manufacturers are able to reduce the amount of steel in the frame.

As for the side frames/weight stacks being set at 90 degrees, in Body Solid's case, it looks as if they've just adapted their cable crossover design, the weight stack, frame and cable column used on their cable crossover has been slotted into the tubular framework used on their functional trainers..

[gym62richard]

I guess this next question is a technical one, but out of curiousity how short of a height and narrow of a width would a cable crossover have to be to be no longer considered a cable crossover?

My question also applies to a FT how wide would one have to be before it is rendered useless and is no longer considered a FT?

This is just mainly questions if going the custom made route.

LOL, now, you are getting technical, I guess that's always going to be open to debate, for me anything over 65" is heading into cable crossover territory, but a true crossover would probably exceed 80" between pulleys.

[vtshep1]

I vote for a cable cross over a functional trainer. For me here is why:
-1 Funtional trainers don't allow you to load up very heavy, if they do they cost a fortune. Two-handed tricep pushdown is an example of where you can max the stacks quick!
-2 I am 6 foot 6, funtional trainers absolutely do not cut it for my wingspan
-3 height, I have a ~7 foot tall basement, so I needed custom built. I went plate loaded and strengthequipment.net Terrific build quality!

Good luck!

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Vtshep1, what height did you go with for your custom cross over?

I'm really curious to know this (regardless of whether I go with an FT, or cable cross over)...I want to know the lowest height one of these things can go before it starts messing with it's highest adjustment point.

I'm really on the fence about whether, or not to go with Strength Equipment's custom piece (their stuff looks awesome and I can tell is quality, hence the big expense).

[vtshep1]

Vtshep1, what height did you go with for your custom cross over?

I'm really curious to know this (regardless of whether I go with an FT, or cable cross over)...I want to know the lowest height one of these things can go before it starts messing with it's highest adjustment point.

I'm really on the fence about whether, or not to go with Strength Equipment's custom piece (their stuff looks awesome and I can tell is quality, hence the big expense).

Hello, I will measure tomorrow after work. I had it made to fit between the floor joists.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Ok thanks in return.

[Hardgains88]

I vote for a cable cross over a functional trainer. For me here is why:
-1 Funtional trainers don't allow you to load up very heavy, if they do they cost a fortune. Two-handed tricep pushdown is an example of where you can max the stacks quick!
-2 I am 6 foot 6, funtional trainers absolutely do not cut it for my wingspan
-3 height, I have a ~7 foot tall basement, so I needed custom built. I went plate loaded and strengthequipment.net Terrific build quality!

Good luck!

Not trying to be combative and i totally respect your opinion, my only issue with your reason is that while crossovers usually are 1/1 weight verses FT's generally are 2/1 pulley arrangements, there are olenty of FT's available with stack weight upgrades, you can also join cables together and combine the stacks. I almost assumed if the OP went cistom on either he would do actual adjustable columns so the pulley arrangement has to beb2/1 but could easly be remedied with a bigger stack (or plate loaded set up) so in my thinking the question really was wich arrangement and firm factor is more versatile

[irongrandpa]

Every cross-over or FT I've seen with an adjustable pulley has a 2/1 ratio. A pulley at the top of the weight stack(resulting in 2/1ratio) is needed to allow the pulley to be adjustable.

[gym62richard]

Every cross-over or FT I've seen with an adjustable pulley has a 2/1 ratio. A pulley at the top of the weight stack(resulting in 2/1ratio) is needed to allow the pulley to be adjustable.

^^^ Yes, I agree.

[Hardgains88]

Every cross-over or FT I've seen with an adjustable pulley has a 2/1 ratio. A pulley at the top of the weight stack(resulting in 2/1ratio) is needed to allow the pulley to be adjustable.

That was my point, the weight reduction and therefore liklihood to not usually have enough weight is due to the adjustable height pulley columns, this has become such an essential feature though that most newer designed crossovers also have adjustable columns and so 2/1 weight reduction. If your concerned theres not enough resistance You can just have a heavier stack ordered if custom or if not custom usually theres an available heavy stsck upgrade From the manufacturer on either crossover or FT. What i meant by combining stacks on FT is that the pulleys are close enough that you can either use a attachment with two points for hookup or depending on just how far away, make a joining adapter bar that both weight stack carabiners hook to on one side amd the other side has a single carabiner fir attachmebts. I use one on my FT and dual iso pulldown, tnough i put the arms closer together then most fixed width FT would allow, im sire you could rig something workable. My point is these are characteristics of adjustable columns and crossovers now also have them. He prdeted his with plate loading wich you could also do on the FT and that would akso remove the weight restriction limitations. The question, and op could clarify, seemed to more center on wich was more versatile, closer FT stacks or wider crossover type configuration.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Lots of good info here, I'll see perhaps on going the custom route...I'm contemplating going with plate loaded vs. Selectorized...I dig the convenience of pinning a weight stack, but with plate loaded what fits on the weight horns the only limit, but 4 plates per side on some exercises and then some is quite the collection of plates, plus can be quite the chore (not necessarily a bad thing, but quite inconvenient during those movements).

One thing's for certain, both plate loaded and selectorized cost the same for them to mod and if paying that price (for me anyways) I'd rather have weight come standard with it, so selectorized would be my choice for this particular piece.

When vtshep1 gets back to the boards I'd be interested to hear of how the piece was modded to fit under his ceiling. It appears that my basement ceiling is shorter than 7' (except between the joists...however I gotta avoid it running into some pipes, or wiring.

If I do go custom and if Strength Equipment can mod the columns diagonal to be more of a FT, I might go with an idea similar to Rich's Exigo FT, but with a shorter height up top to fit under my 79" ceiling down there, but perhaps the upper sides fitting between the joists...if all else doesn't work out with this plan, then the Inspire I know will fit and be a bit less than the custom piece.

By the way if anyone knows of any other custom workout equipment people that will make and mod an FT in the U.S. let me know, thanks.

[daniel327]

Every cross-over or FT I've seen with an adjustable pulley has a 2/1 ratio. A pulley at the top of the weight stack(resulting in 2/1ratio) is needed to allow the pulley to be adjustable.

Some functional trainers employ a 4:1 reduction to increase the length of pull of the cables. The ability to achieve enough weight for non-pussification of exercises is significantly decreased.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Next question (This is if I go the custom route) what is the lowest height a FT can be without missing out on the highest adjustment point? I'm 5'8" and the basement ceiling at the joists are about 80", between them it's like 7' max. If I go lower than 80" Will this suffice?

I see the Inspire FT1 fits this pretty well for its compact purpose.

The reason I ask this is because if i go custom, I don't want the piece to be rendered useless (custom FT, or crossover is an expensive investment, so every bit of advice helps lol).

[Greybird2]

I hope you are not disappointed when you actually get a functional trainer. I have had one for years. Don't really find that much use for it to be honest with you. My wife uses it quite a bit. I would rather have a crossover.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Hahaha Greybird, ok I'll vent with you...any plans to get a crossover for yourself? Do you have the space for one?

I really want a crossover station too, but I'm not sure if it will fit, or not downstairs...my only option would be a custom shorter height and more compact width crossover which can possibly be had from Strength Equipment's website.

With that said (if going the custom route) the width might be more in the FT's territory. The thing making me think in favor of a wide FT is to have more variety with using both stacks as well, slightly compact because of space and versatility...Whichever route I attempt to take I know it's not going to be a perfectly distanced commercial gym cable crossover.

The cheapest route possible to try and mimic a crossover is a DIY option, or the Valor wall mounted cable columns (they look to be a good idea, but nothing special for the price of the two).

[Greybird2]

Hahaha Greybird, ok I'll vent with you...any plans to get a crossover for yourself? Do you have the space for one?

I really want a crossover station too, but I'm not sure if it will fit, or not downstairs...my only option would be a custom shorter height and more compact width crossover which can possibly be had from Strength Equipment's website.

With that said (if going the custom route) the width might be more in the FT's territory. The thing making me think in favor of a wide FT is to have more variety with using both stacks as well, slightly compact because of space and versatility...Whichever route I attempt to take I know it's not going to be a perfectly distanced commercial gym cable crossover.

The cheapest route possible to try and mimic a crossover is a DIY option, or the Valor wall mounted cable columns (they look to be a good idea, but nothing special for the price of the two).

This house is full. Doing some re-modeling on our other house. When I am done, I have an 1100 sq ft basement that will have a cable crossover.

[Deep-Voiced-One]

Nice, which cable crossover did you have in mind?