Masters vaulters with ARRP cards listen!

[Bruce Caldwell]

Those who think they can standardize the flex chart do not understand what makes the flex different on other brand poles, but the same weight rating.
If you set up a standard flex chart based on the Gill flex chart you are forcing me to use number I do not feel comfortable with for the rating on my poles.
When you understand what variables are involved then we can look at other methods to use as a test and then standardize that test. But the current butt flex method is an in house test and is proprietary.

If a task force is set up to write an ASTM standard, I will fight it as the task force in the past failed to communicate with the public and has stopped the flow of information. The current task force still does not understand flex numbers and what governs them and what causes them to change. (They are not an independant body)

UNFAIR TO VAULTERS AND COACHES?
It is not fair to the industry, the vaulters, and coaches to impose a standard that they cannot implement or understand. It is unfair for a manufacturer to set a standard for the industry when they don’t even know what the others are doing.
Why would a manufacturer discuss what they are doing with a task force that works or consults for a competitor and does not understand processes used by other manufacturers??????

The best method for selecting poles is the one I use in the XLOGIC SYSTEM.
You can move from one pole to the next without the need of a flex number.
FORGET FLEX NUMBERS!!!

PS yes any pole that is overbending can break???? Not sure where you were going with that?

[rainbowgirl28]

If a task force is set up to write an ASTM standard, I will fight it as the task force in the past failed to communicate with the public and has stopped the flow of information. The current task force still does not understand flex numbers and what governs them and what causes them to change. (They are not an independant body)

I didn't know there was a task force currently working on flex numbers... I thought there was just one for helmets.

It is not fair to the industry, the vaulters, and coaches to impose a standard that they cannot implement or understand. It is unfair for a manufacturer to set a standard for the industry when they don’t even know what the others are doing.
Why would a manufacturer discuss what they are doing with a task force that works or consults for a competitor and does not understand processes used by other manufacturers??????

If there really were going to be an industry-wide standard (which is several years down the road, IF it ever happens), I would assume they would talk to ALL the manufacturers. Maybe I am just naive...

[PVJunkie]

This post IS a little emotional........but i feel justified in retaliating. Enjoy.

Those who think they can standardize the flex chart do not understand what makes the flex different on other brand poles, but the same weight rating.

So you are implying the the largest, oldest most cutting edge company in the world is inept. I would argue that with our resources we have done years worth of research that puts us in the forefront of safty and technology and no one better understands the variables involved. It took over 2 years and literally thousands of poles to develop the FX technology. Not to mention that that testing involved poles from other companies. If you also factor in that the 2nd largest pole co in the world uses the same system (as does the 3rd and 4th) as Gill thats a pretty arrogant statement.

When you understand what variables are involved then we can look at other methods to use as a test and then standardize that test. But the current butt flex method is an in house test and is proprietary.

NO one ever said that the current system is the most accurate nor was it said that it would be the "STANDARD". Reseach is being done to see if there IS a more accurate system that COULD be used as a standard. Need it be mentioned again that there is only ONE co with reseach to support its flex system.

If a task force is set up to write an ASTM standard, I will fight it as the task force in the past failed to communicate with the public and has stopped the flow of information. The current task force still does not understand flex numbers and what governs them and what causes them to change. (They are not an independant body)

Its amazing that the same ASTM task force that wrote the wt limit rule is the one you are so critical of in this issue. They are the same members that you feel did such a great job but now you feel they are incompetant.

UNFAIR TO VAULTERS AND COACHES?
It is not fair to the industry, the vaulters, and coaches to impose a standard that they cannot implement or understand. It is unfair for a manufacturer to set a standard for the industry when they don’t even know what the others are doing.
Why would a manufacturer discuss what they are doing with a task force that works or consults for a competitor and does not understand processes used by other manufacturers??????

I hope its not just me but it sounds as if you feel you are the only person in the industry that understands the system and its good and bad points. Your resistance is bad for the vaulters and coaches in that you must not want to see a better system.

The best method for selecting poles is the one I use in the XLOGIC SYSTEM.
You can move from one pole to the next without the need of a flex number.
FORGET FLEX NUMBERS!!!

As you already know flex #'s can break the wt rating into 1/2 lb increments so whatever your system is it is no more accurate than the current system (at least the way you have described it it most of your posts) you just mark them to the tenth of a lb. instead of 5 lb increments, that is the only differance as I see it. I may be wrong but if you have the end all to end all flexing systems then get in touch with the ASTM and then YOU can "corner" the market.


I sure hope that most of the people on this board are smarter than to be swayed by SLAM everyone to make me look good techniques. I have tried very hard not to post emotional rantings on this board. I have been unbiased in sharing the WEALTH of knowlege that I have access to working for the largest pole maker in the world without SLAMMING anyones product!! I will again do that with this one little slip.

Thanks
Bryan Carrel (vaulter)
Tech Sales
Gill Athletics

[Bruce Caldwell]

So you are implying the the largest, oldest most cutting edge company in the world is inept. I would argue that with our resources we have done years worth of research that puts us in the forefront of safty and technology and no one better understands the variables involved. It took over 2 years and literally thousands of poles to develop the FX technology. Not to mention that that testing involved poles from other companies. If you also factor in that the 2nd largest pole co in the world uses the same system (as does the 3rd and 4th) as Gill thats a pretty arrogant statement.

That is not what I said.
I said that the current flex number used by Gill would not best describe the stiffness of ESSX poles. Even though we measure relativity the same span other criteria is a determining factor of the end flex number.
If you set up a standard flex chart based on the Gill flex chart you are forcing me to use number I do not feel comfortable with for the rating on my poles.

[PVJunkie]

What is being done is to find a better way. No one has ever said that Gills flex system is the law. Its just better than the "LOOKS GOOD TO ME" system that was used proior. As I have said over and over again the current method does not lend itself to a standard. That is why I keep refering to RESEARCH into better ways. The reality is all poles are made of glass (some with carbon mixed in) and put together in a simialr manner. The MAIN difference is the application of the weight rating. SOOO if the wt rating were standard then many of the headaches of pole selection would be solved.

Give me a flex machine and 20 unmarked poles and i could build a series based on stiffness that would not care about the internal differences and I could jump high on that series!!! Sure there may be a pole or 2 in there I dont like for whatever reason but..........as any good vaulter I could find a way around that pole.

[Bruce Caldwell]

Its amazing that the same ASTM task force that wrote the wt limit rule is the one you are so critical of in this issue. They are the same members that you feel did such a great job but now you feel they are incompetant.

WT rule was written by NFHS
The ASTM task force never wrote the wt rating rule?
ASTM task Force on PV landing dimensions
The ASTM Task force did a great job writing the PV landing pit dimensions, based on the input of all the manufacturers. (I even see a lot in the specs that I discussed with the task force)
The task force failed to keep the industry informed and for some reason ??? and stopped the flow of information to the industry.
So now that you brought it up I will mention it.
VERY few people in the industry were aware of the ASTM Standard being voted on approved and was set into place. In fact the NFHS receive a copy of the standard that is different than the current one published and the NFHS, other governing bodies, other manufacturers, and those on the broadcast list who contributed information where not provided a copy of the new ASTM standard that was approved and published in SEP and NOV of 2002.

In Addition the ASTM standard with its credible documentation for its dimensions has added unsubstantiated deceleration specifications to the ASTM Standard F1162-02 that have no documentation or proof.

If anyone wants to see a copy of this standard they must pay $35.00 for a copy online http://www.astm.org

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/F1162.htm?L+mystore+wdlw2842+1052444445

Of course you are an employee of the one company that was privy to this ASTM standard when it was approved back on Sept. 10, 2002

[Bruce Caldwell]

Please highlight the slam of your GILL products and re quote it!!!
There is not slam of anyones product on here.

[Decamouse]

Gee Bruce - if I am correct - I am the one that informed you of this standard - and I became aware of it only after I ask about it and went to the ASTM web side to look it up - we also had copies of the draft proposal - thats kinda helps when looking up to see the status - amazing that this all started from a comment about getting older and slower - I also respect your opinion - "The best method for selecting poles is the one I use in the XLOGIC SYSTEM" - don't have to agree with it - I have played with it - just like other systems - a tool to help guide - I have stated in the past that the industry is not ready for an ASTM std on pole weight/flex/rating - what every you want to call it - just like putting a load cell in the butt end during flexing is just another approximation of the dynamic forces a pole would see during vaulting - now - what inquiring minds want to know is how many poles will actually make it to San Juan - and how many will actually read the labels

[Bruce Caldwell]

Give me a flex machine and 20 unmarked poles and i could build a series based on stiffness that would not care about the internal differences and I could jump high on that series!!! Sure there may be a pole or 2 in there I dont like for whatever reason but..........as any good vaulter I could find a way around that pole.

Bryan I need to take what I said back you mentioned a varible that affects flex numbers in your posting above that would not allow flexes to be equal.

internal differences
designs
concepts of vaulting
positioning of the Internal patterns.
Combinations of hybirds; carbon, Karbonite, "S" Glass, "E" glass, etc.

[Bruce Caldwell]

We need to seperate the principles here

1. The Task force I assume is not GILL?
2. Gill is not the TASK force?
3. The Task force does not represent the ASTM it is only a sub-committee?
4. The ATSM does not police the industry?
5. The ASTM does not do any testing?
6. The ASTM does not have to prove anything the TASK force suggest?

When I talk about the Task Force you guys at GILL get offended.

this is suppose to be an independant group?

[PVJunkie]

The ASTM is an idependent group that does its own research and WILL look at reseach done by others. They write proposals.........NOT THE RULES!! They do NOT "police" the industry only try to make improvements. NO the ASTM (task force) and Gill are not one and the same. The ASTM (American Society of Test and Measures....I think thats correct) has a division dedicated to pole vault safty. The task force and the ASTM for pole vault safty are not the same but are working closely together. I could not name all the memebers of the task force or the ASTM. We do not get offended, in fact only one of my posts has had any intentional emotion in it. We do research, scientific, documented (not public....yet) research with facts that help in decision making processes that effect our sport. We do NOT always get our way (in fact no one ever does). The NHFS needs the ASTM, the ASTM needs task forces and they all need the manufactures and they all work for the athletes. With all that in mind...........no one person or company controls the sport. We all work together to make it safe, fun and hopfully bring honor and pride to everyone in the entire process. Pride is a scary thing, too little and your never gonna get anything done, too much and no one will let you get anything done.

[zack]

Very interesting discussion. There isn't really much left to say until someone comes out with a definitive answer to the question of an industry standard that will be accepted by all. So this thread will be locked.