this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
549 points (97.9% liked)

memes

21495 readers
1460 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

As an engineer, what the fuck‽ Who doesn't double check the weights then add a safety margin (20% is traditional for us)‽

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

In event rigging, the standard safety factor is actually 7:1. So if a motor is rated for 1 ton, it can be expected to actually hold 7 tons. The extra safety factor is mostly because of shock loads, where the rig weighs a lot more when it bounces. Like if you’re lifting your entire rig off the ground and stop the motors, it will tend to bounce slightly as the motors all click off at the same time. And that bounce causes the rig to exert a lot more force than a simple static load. Dynamic load probably isn’t a major concern for permanent structures, (probably why you can get away with only 20% as standard) but it’s a big concern for motors and truss that move around a lot.

Especially in indoor events (where wind is a negligible factor), the vast majority of failures are caused by dynamic loads or by one motor being overloaded compared to the rest. When that overloaded motor fails, that can cascade to other motors as they are suddenly holding more weight than expected. Imagine lifting a uniform load using rigid box truss, but one motor on the end of the truss is slightly higher than the rest. That one motor will end up holding a lot more weight than the rest. And if that motor on the end fails, you have just caused a shock load on the next motor, as the rig settles onto it. And if you’re already nearing your weight limits, that single failure can quickly cascade into the entire rig collapsing.

Better rigging systems actually have weight sensors on each motor, so you can know exactly when one motor is overloaded. But the vast majority of event rigging isn’t done using the nice stuff. It’s usually done using the chain motors that have been rebuilt 3 times in the past decade.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Yeah I should note I'm not civil so I'm not sure what safety factor they use. And also our 20% has a tendency to compound itself across estimations. It's very similar to using four significant figures, where it's a nice easy rule of thumb and you should know if you're in a position where you can't assume it. Safety being a situation where you always want to run it by a few other people for sanity checks.

I'll also hazard a guess and say that a civil engineer would combine the dynamic load factor and the standard safety factor, because the standard safety factor is more for unknown variables and general fuckups like this one. Mind you that would leave you at building a rig for 30lb screens, so still not good.

And yeah we also have to deal a lot with cost-benefit analysis. While I'm sure buying more expensive motors isn't cheap, y'all have the ability to say "this building can't safely handle it". Too much safety factor comes with increasing trade offs, especially in cost.