 I use one pole on my daily pooch round at the moment cos I've got an old knee injury thats flared up. This is only about 4 miles with no hills to speak of so I don't usually use poles at all, I find if I use two I just end up going quicker and the bad knee still gets sore, just using one to favour the injured pin works fine. Now if only the dog would get it into his thick skull that I'm not going to throw it for him.....
|
 |
 > but as Black Diamond poles are sold in pairs I've occasionally used two. This requires a different technique and while it's useful on snow I still think it's a bit of a 'poser' thing. It's not a 'poser' thing at all. If you use just one pole, and you use it 'properly', i.e. to add power to your stride, then you'll be putting an uneven stress on your back, trying to resist the turning moment that using the pole imparts. With two poles, you alternate this loading, so you don't end up with a twisted back. I used one pole for a couple of years, and then bought a second. It makes life a lot easier, and the poles far more useful.
|
|
"If you use just one pole, and you use it 'properly', i.e. to add power to your stride, then you'll be putting an uneven stress on your back, trying to resist the turning moment that using the pole imparts. With two poles, you alternate this loading, so you don't end up with a twisted back."
As a dedicated pole user for 30+ years - and a stick user before that - I can't say I've ever had a twinge in my back from pole use, let alone a twist. With one pole, I find I change hands frequently depending on the terrain, when i need to blow my nose etc. Two just get in the way. I can see two would help if you have an injury, though.
The old cynic in me says that pole companies attempt to create a market for pairs by implying "two poles good - one pole bad". That doesn't really work as people like me who have to buy our fave poles in pairs (as per Black Diamond) just get twice as much use, or give one to their partner.
|
|
 it's whatever you prefer and often what you expect or what you're used to. a pacer pole is where you point your arm. a straight pole is where you point your arm and angle your wrist. pushing with a pacer pole is easier (straight line force) than with a straight pole (no straight line) - unless you're good at press ups from that position. i find it's about comfort and ease of use (and yes i can use a straight pole properly just as i can use a pacer pole properly) it's easy tp dream up all sorts of scenarios where one is better than the other just as it for anything else whilst ignoring the actual likelihood of it actually happening.
|
|
 pushing with a pacer pole is easier (straight line force) than with a straight pole (no straight line) - unless you're good at press ups from that position. But with a straight pole, if you use the strap then you've got a very large collection of continuous angles you can push from. You push down on the strap and the angle alters as you push. The pole moves and your wrist doesn't have to move very much because there's a flexible joint where the strap and pole meet it's easy tp dream up all sorts of scenarios where one is better than the other just as it for anything else whilst ignoring the actual likelihood of it actually happening. Fair comment. I don't think there's actually too much argument amongst those who've tried them that the Pacer handle is nicer in use. The real question isn't whether it has practical drawbacks as much as "are you prepeared to pay this much more for them?" If I habitually used poles as a default, rather than an occasional Big Slope on a Big Day, and if I was less concerned with reliability when skiing, I'd be more inclined to. Other folk will have their lines in different places, of course. Pete.
|
|
 Yes a good idea not to forget the long, long history of useful use of single poles/sticks. Even if you're using a pair you surely don't get anything like the same amount of thrust from both arms? I certainly wouldn't expect to.
|
|
Martin Carpenter wrote ( see) Even if you're using a pair you surely don't get anything like the same amount of thrust from both arms? I certainly wouldn't expect to.
Does that matter? I find using two poles is more about having your arms working in rhythm with your legs rather than getting the same amount of thrust with each pole, as you say I wouldn't expect to. That's not to say that I don't see the point of using a single pole (incidentally that's where the asymetric handles of the pacers lose out....unless you want to be using the same hand all day that is)
|
|
> With one pole, I find I change hands frequently depending on the terrain, when i need to blow my nose etc. Unless you change hands with every stride, I can't see how you can get a decent benefit out of one pole. Two poles certainly makes it much easier to apply power with every stride, and to maintain a rhythm. If you're happy with one pole, that's fine. It was the 'poser' comment that I thought was groundless and unnecessary, since I see two poles as a simple practical benefit.
|
|
agreed about the variable angl;es peter but it's still an angle. as weight goes on, the angle changes as you say and therefore the force tries to change direction. it's just what you get used to. as you use poles rather a lot it would be daft for you to change to pacers for example. however, for someone who hasn't used poles before or has had very little use of poles then there is a benefit. i think they're worth the extra and they're not that much more than a decent set of straight poles anyway. anyone starting i stick by my recommendation of buy a pair of the cheapest poles you can find to see if you are going to like them. if they suit then fine. if they don't is it the pole or the concept. it may be that pacers will suit you to a tee. or no poles at all. also pacers have a different technique so the two aren't directly comparable anyway. as with all friction lock poles, if you pay attention to them they tend not to collapse. i've never had a pole slip because i tighten them as the day progresses just as i adjust everything else that is variable during the day. cold in the morning, the day warms up, poles expand, then you must tighten your poles or they will collapse. it's not that difficult a concept. the best way to tighten poles is to warm the section where the friction lock will tighten.
|
|
but it's still an angle. as weight goes on, the angle changes as you say and therefore the force tries to change direction. Not sure I'm with you. If I push down on the strap when the strap is coming off the pole horizontally (or near to it, say when I'm pushing up on a pole left behind me) then the force is down. If I push down on the strap while the strap is lying down the pole (say, reaching up well above me) then the force is still down, along the pole and into the ground. also pacers have a different technique so the two aren't directly comparable anyway. Up to a point, Lord Copper. At the end of the day sticks is sticks is sticks. I just use what I've got and in practice find that the basic underpinning techniques (that is, push down with your arms and your knees will take less flak, or 2-4 points of balance in a river is better than 1-2, or weight distributed over 4 contact points means less sinking into bogs etc.) is completely independent of the handle. You could similarly argue that getting a recumbent bike up a hill uses completely different techniques to a "normal" bike, and folk do argue that, but personally I just get on either and push on the pedals and get on with it and it works. as with all friction lock poles, if you pay attention to them they tend not to collapse. That's a bit like writing automatic gearboxes because "if you pay attention to what gear you should be in then the engine will tend to be in the correct rev range". The point of a better locking system is the user shouldn't have to pay attention. If you're going to argue on the one hand that it's worth having Pacers particularly because you have to do far less worrying about developing technique (and I think it's a very valid argument for them) then it seems strange to turn around and say that the locking mechs are fine if you pay them lots of attention that other folk don't need to bother with... "Difficult concept" or not, I'd much rather set them and forget about them and get on with enjoying my walk/ski, and if I do need to do some maintenance on the locking mech then I don't want it buried inside a tube where I can't get at it. Pete.
|
|
I've found that the twistlocks on my CF pacers are really good and don't need much in the way of special care, no jamming or slipping (unlike my aluminium lekis), Is that common to all CF poles? I recall another pole thread where it was suggested that the best pole would be one with the Pacer handle and BD flicklocks.
|
|
 One of the lower sections on my carbon pacers slips when it gets cold. Annoying. Yes, I'm definintely in the 'pacers with flicklocks' camp!
|
|
I must have just got lucky with my pair. Wonder how hard it would be to prise off a pacer handle and fit it too a BD pole? maybe if I break one of my Pacers one day I'll try it.
|
| Edited: 23/03/10 14:30 |
I hate to tell you this but My BD flicklock poles managed to slip when I last used it. It was fortunate that I packed my big, heavy cyber tool I don't normally take it with me. I was able to adjust the tightness of the flicklock. I hadn't changed or tinkered with it but it still slipped. I don't know what happened or how it happened but it goes to show there is nothing definite out there. All things can happen. Even the best (as has been often argued) lockin mech can fail. Just so you know it was when I stuck the point in the ground while pitching my tarp. I pushed down on it and it gave. At the end of the day it doesn't matter one bit about which pole offers the better performance. What does matter is it gives the user the performance that user needs. Whether that is one or two poles, flicklocks or twistlocks, ergonomic handles or simple foam handles. If it works it works. What are we really talking about here? a 5% or a 10% performance difference? I'm only spitting out numbers there but how can you really tell in the field whether your poles are a matter of a few percentage points of improved performance over another brand. I'm sure that or any difference will be taken up by people's preference colouring their judgement. Kind of like a placebo effect if you like. Sorry to rain on your arguments but it doesn't really matter which is best so long as it works. Which is why I'm gonna be using a BD flicklock on one hand and a MK supertrekker on the other. Both good brands, both will do the same job and both will no doubt fail on me some time in the future to be replaced by some other pole that will also work.
|
|
Wonder how hard it would be to prise off a pacer handle and fit it too a BD pole? Most typical is to glue on with a cold-cured adhesive, so to get off your typical ski pole grip dip it in boiling water for a minute and then ease it off. To replace, use something similar (like a DIY glue gun). Pete.
|
|
Thanks for that Pete, I don't think I'll try it until I have nothing to lose mind.
|
|
 I find 1 pole enough, I don't always use it but my right knee aches a bit and using the pole in my right hand does help, nice to have at least 1 hand free i feel.
|
|
I've got a trick knee at the moment as well, an old injury that's flared up, bloody thing. Conventional advice is to use a single pole on the opposite side to the limb you need to favour so you might find it more effective if you use the pole in your left hand.
|
| Edited: 23/03/10 17:04 |
|
|
|
They're mentioned earlier in the thread, Ed H uses them I think.
|
|
