Pole Charts

[KirkB]

Gill CarbonFX Weave and PacerFX poles have a consistent FLEX throughout all their pole lengths. I believe they're the first mfr to do this. So maybe Gill (Pacer, Pacer Carbon, and Mystic brands) and the other mfrs will follow suit, and then this issue is then resolved?

Wait a minute!

After writing the previous post, I found this link: http://www-chi.nearnorth.edu.on.ca/polevault/PDFFiles/BestFlex.pdf

It happens to be written by a Canadian - Brian Risk (just thought I'd mention that!).

Brian talks about the "BestFlex" pole rating system that Jan Johnson seemed to have a lot to do with - and Gill.

But strangely, here's Jan Johnson's "Relative Resistance Chart" http://www.skyjumpers.com/articles/relitive_resistance_chart.html, where he lists "relative stiffness line" values of 1-65. Are these the BestFlex numbers? Or? Funny there's no mention of "BestFlex" in Jan's chart.

Jan does mention BestFlex here http://www.skyjumpers.com/articles/equipment_standard.html ...

#6 Conversion of existing pole inventory to new “normalized flex” chart now called “Best Flex”. #7 On going subjective observation for the purpose determining Best Flex validity. #8 Implementation of Best Flex: recommendation for conversion of all existing H.S. and college pole inventories to “Best Flex” system. #9 Building all future poles to the “Best Flex” standard.

But is this just an old web page (i.e. pre-dates the "Relative Resistance Chart")?

I hadn't heard of BestFlex before, and I don't know the date this paper was pubished, but a quick search on PVP dates consumer awareness of this system back to at least May of 2003 - in a post by Lonestar.

A date mentioned within the link above dates this system to September 1, 1998 - the date when Gill re-classified their poles.

So I'm very surprised that 10 years later, we still talk about pole weights rather than pole flexes!

And I get Pogo's point about flexes ... but I don't buy it, since Gill has apparently already solved that issue. (Sorry, Pogo.) But a quote within his link is interesting ...

A flex number is derived by using the universal flex system invented by Herb Jenks of Sky pole. This system was shared with Cata-pole, then with Pacer/Skypole, and, has been finally, adopted by UCS/Spirit.

If the flex number is UNIVERSAL, then why the confusion between mfrs? I don't get it.

... and ...

Xlogic uses the original Cata-pole flex chart which is the same as the one used by UCS/Spirit, this would be considered the universal chart by many.

Hmm... so many different charts and universal standards! What an oxy-moron!

So ...

When (if ever) will the NFHS be changing their rulebooks to refer to BestFlex values (or their equivalents), rather than pole weights?

Or did the BestFlex system never fly with all of the other mfrs as an industry standard?

What I read between the lines (not knowing the story) is that Gill TRIED to implement this standard - with the help of the National Pole Vault Safety Committee - but UCS balked, so it never happened. They didn't want to comply with something that originated with their main competition.

Am I close?

What's the "next steps" in this saga?

Kirk

[rainbowgirl28]

Hey guys, flex charts are closely guarded by each company. If you have them you probably shouldn't, so don't post them on here.

[rainbowgirl28]

Gill CarbonFX Weave and PacerFX poles have a consistent FLEX throughout all their pole lengths. I believe they're the first mfr to do this. So maybe Gill (Pacer, Pacer Carbon, and Mystic brands) and the other mfrs will follow suit, and then this issue is then resolved?

Wait a minute!

After writing the previous post, I found this link: http://www-chi.nearnorth.edu.on.ca/polevault/PDFFiles/BestFlex.pdf

It happens to be written by a Canadian - Brian Risk (just thought I'd mention that!).

Brian talks about the "BestFlex" pole rating system that Jan Johnson seemed to have a lot to do with - and Gill.

But strangely, here's Jan Johnson's "Relative Resistance Chart" http://www.skyjumpers.com/articles/relitive_resistance_chart.html, where he lists "relative stiffness line" values of 1-65. Are these the BestFlex numbers? Or? Funny there's no mention of "BestFlex" in Jan's chart.

Jan does mention BestFlex here http://www.skyjumpers.com/articles/equipment_standard.html ...

#6 Conversion of existing pole inventory to new “normalized flex” chart now called “Best Flex”. #7 On going subjective observation for the purpose determining Best Flex validity. #8 Implementation of Best Flex: recommendation for conversion of all existing H.S. and college pole inventories to “Best Flex” system. #9 Building all future poles to the “Best Flex” standard.

But is this just an old web page (i.e. pre-dates the "Relative Resistance Chart")?

I hadn't heard of BestFlex before, and I don't know the date this paper was pubished, but a quick search on PVP dates consumer awareness of this system back to at least May of 2003 - in a post by Lonestar.

A date mentioned within the link above dates this system to September 1, 1998 - the date when Gill re-classified their poles.

So I'm very surprised that 10 years later, we still talk about pole weights rather than pole flexes!

And I get Pogo's point about flexes ... but I don't buy it, since Gill has apparently already solved that issue. (Sorry, Pogo.) But a quote within his link is interesting ...

A flex number is derived by using the universal flex system invented by Herb Jenks of Sky pole. This system was shared with Cata-pole, then with Pacer/Skypole, and, has been finally, adopted by UCS/Spirit.

If the flex number is UNIVERSAL, then why the confusion between mfrs? I don't get it.

... and ...

Xlogic uses the original Cata-pole flex chart which is the same as the one used by UCS/Spirit, this would be considered the universal chart by many.

Hmm... so many different charts and universal standards! What an oxy-moron!

So ...

When (if ever) will the NFHS be changing their rulebooks to refer to BestFlex values (or their equivalents), rather than pole weights?

Or did the BestFlex system never fly with all of the other mfrs as an industry standard?

What I read between the lines (not knowing the story) is that Gill TRIED to implement this standard - with the help of the National Pole Vault Safety Committee - but UCS balked, so it never happened. They didn't want to comply with something that originated with their main competition.

Am I close?

What's the "next steps" in this saga?

Kirk

Kirk, there has been discussion of trying to standardize the flex chart. The bottom line is that it is a horrible idea.

If that were to happen, for liability reasons, the NFHS would have to require all poles to meet this standard. This would require all existing poles to be recertified. This would result in the extinction of the sport at the high school level in the US.

There is a de facto standard in place. All of the manufacturers are very close to each other in most sizes when it comes to the relative stiffness of the poles. Some old poles may not match up as well, but any new pole you buy today from any of the 4 US manufacturers will be close to each other.

There's no big advantage to any manufacturer going off this standard. Coaches want poles that fit into their series.

As far as BestFlex goes, they modified it again in 2003. All of the poles 12'6 and shorter were changed for the better.


Another reason for not standardizing the flex charts is that there is always room to improve the system. Some people have creative ideas about completely different ways of measuring the relative stiffness of poles.


Kirk, you're worrying too much about the wrong things. It's good that you think so much about the sport, but I'd love to see you spend some of that energy teaching kids in real life. You can only get so far thinking about stuff, at some point you need to get out there and apply it.

I also think you should get back into vaulting as a masters vaulter. Then you can get out there and test poles for yourself

[Pogo Stick]

I also think you should get back into vaulting as a masters vaulter. Then you can get out there and test poles for yourself

Amen!

[KirkB]

Kirk, you're worrying too much about the wrong things. It's good that you think so much about the sport, but I'd love to see you spend some of that energy teaching kids in real life. You can only get so far thinking about stuff, at some point you need to get out there and apply it.

I'm not "worrying", and as I said a few posts ago, I'm not trying to "change the world". I'm just trying to understand the current system of rating poles, and I'm asking probing questions. Not just for my own interest, but for the benefit of anyone else that's not aware of the "current system".

Besides, would you want me to hand my "kids in real life" my old 200 pound CataPole 550+'s, and say "try these"?

For example, this is news to me ...

As far as BestFlex goes, they modified it again in 2003. All of the poles 12'6 and shorter were changed for the better.

... and it's probably news to many others, since there's no reference in PVP or the www (that I could find) that states this. Only YOU have this inside knowledge - I don't, and I would guess that many others on PVP don't. If they did, it would surely have been mentioned somewhere on PVP by now.

I also think you should get back into vaulting as a masters vaulter. Then you can get out there and test poles for yourself

Sure, but I need to PREPARE for my comeback. First, I need to decide what weight pole to buy!

I wonder if they make them that heavy?

Oh, by the way ... my first "kid in real life" (in this decade) will be Pogo! We tried to hook up at the Abbotsford indoor pit over the Xmas holidays, but it didn't work out ... yet. I don't know if he'd appreciate being called a "kid", but as far as I can tell, he's certainly "in real life".

Kirk

[Pogo Stick]

And I get Pogo's point about flexes ... but I don't buy it, since Gill has apparently already solved that issue. (Sorry, Pogo.) But a quote within his link is interesting ...

Let's back to basic (physic).
Pole is made from elastic material. When loaded, elastic body is acting like spring. You can look at pole as leaf spring. Two most important parameters of each spring are elastic limit and spring constant. Elastic limit is telling you how many force spring (pole) can handle before break. This is equivalent of pole weight ratio. Spring constant describes how much spring change its length when loaded and It basically describes how "strong" or flexible is spring/pole. This is equivalent of pole flex. Both elastic limit and spring constant depends on material and technology solutions used in manufacturing process. You cannot easily alter one parameter without changing another, i.e. increase elastic limit (weight) and at same time reduce spring constant (flex). You can change this ratio slightly by using different materials, changing size, shape and position of sail piece, playing with thickens and diameter in different sections or maybe combining different materials in some sections, etc. but not too much. Of course, pole technology is improving and maybe one day it will be possible to build pole with big flex and small weight ratio or vice versa.

[Pogo Stick]

Oh, by the way ... my first "kid in real life" (in this decade) will be Pogo! We tried to hook up at the Abbotsford indoor pit over the Xmas holidays, but it didn't work out ... yet. I don't know if he'd appreciate being called a "kid", but as far as I can tell, he's certainly "in real life".

Everyone in my ages should appreciate being called "kid".
I did not give up. Small problems with knee injury at soccer has caused delay. Be ready and don't make any plans for the next few weekends.

[rainbowgirl28]

... and it's probably news to many others, since there's no reference in PVP or the www (that I could find) that states this. Only YOU have this inside knowledge - I don't, and I would guess that many others on PVP don't. If they did, it would surely have been mentioned somewhere on PVP by now.

That fact and these issues have been discussed on here before, but I will grant you that it might not be easy to figure out the right combination of words to use in the search box.

[KirkB]

That fact and these issues have been discussed on here before, but I will grant you that it might not be easy to figure out the right combination of words to use in the search box.

RG, I simply searched for "BestFlex". It's quite a unique word, so I thought that searching for it would zero in on any and all posts related to it. This works!

But I also tried "Best Flex", since that might be a common mispelling of it. This DOES NOT work! Instead, it ignores "best" and finds all posts with "flex" - all 1,473 of them! Even using the Advanced Search feature, with "+best +flex" doesn't work. It ignores the word "best".

Anyway, after browsing thru all the threads returned by "BestFlex", I found this gem, which is the one you must be talking about ...
http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4534&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=bestflex

It's a very good discussion of this topic, with lively debate from Bruce (ESSX), and Eddie (ASTM). This thread lasted from March 2005 to Feb 2006, then - after only 2 pages - it died on the vine.

I may not be up on current pole technology or terminology (thus my interest in educating myself), but I'm no dummy either, and I gotta say that I found that thread confusing.

There is definitely different camps, and it doesn't sound like much hope for a "universal standard". There's not even a common understanding of all of the issues! Until everyone can agree on what the issues are, I don't see how a standard - flex or weight or power number or whatever - will ever be agreed upon (as you said!).

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you call it, but it's very confusing - and potentially unsafe if misunderstood - the way it is right now.

RG, I get the impression that you're trying to stifle further discussion about the topic of flex or weight rating systems - BestFlex (Gill's), Power Number (ESSX's), or any others. And yes, the thread I quoted provides SOME background info on it, but it doesn't explain it all. In fact, it begs more questions than it answers!

If there's confusion about a topic (such as BestFlex), isn't one of the purposes of this PVP forum to clarify the issue? Not SOLVE it, but at least CLARIFY it - by active discussion? I agree that some topics have been beat to death, but IMHO, this one hasn't. At the very least, I would like to understand the chronology of what's happened in recent PV history re this.

Here's what I understand so far. Please correct me, or fill in the blanks ...

pre-1995 - the USATF NPVSC (National PV Safety Committee) - chaired by Jan Johnson - took on the responsibility of improving PV safety. They worked with the manufacturers and the NFHS (National Federation of High Schools) to specify pole characteristics that "would be safe for most HS vaulters", "simple/inexpensive to enforce", and "fair to all competitors" (I'm paraphrasing).

1995 - based on NPVSC recommendations, the NFHS changed their PV rules to say that a vaulter cannot use a pole that's rated under his/her body weight.

1995-1998 (presumably) - all pole mfrs complied with this rule.

QUESTION: HOW did they comply? Did they merely use their existing pole weights, and just add the compliance labels, or was there a specification of how the WEIGHT RATING should be determined? If each mfr had its own system for computing the "safe weight" for a 150-pound athlete (for example), and if they keep their flex charts secret, how did they "comply" with the new NFHS pole rules? Is it just blind trust that the Big 4 will compute fair weights for their poles, and apply fair labels? I don't get it.

Sep/1998 - Gill developed the BestFlex rating system (working with Jan Johnson and the USATF NPVSC (National PV Safety Committee)).

Sep/1998? - the NPVSC endorsed BestFlex as a voluntary standard (is this true?), and started to provide a free "pole-labeling service" to any coaches/athletes/clubs that wanted to comply with it.

From http://www-chi.nearnorth.edu.on.ca/polevault/PDFFiles/BestFlex.pdf

In regards to the BestFlex system and reclassifications, should you need help in acquiring new labels for your poles, contact Jan Johnson.

Feb/2001 - on his SkyJumpers site, Jan published an "Opening Statement Regarding the Need for Standards in PV Equipment" http://www.skyjumpers.com/articles/equipment_standard.html
From the wording of that "opening statement", I assume that there was still lots of work ahead of them, and there were still no mandatory standards re BestFlex or any other standard flex rating system.

QUESTION: So how were NFHS rules enforced for the 6 years prior, if there was no agreement between mfrs on how to measure flex or weight? Isn't weight just a more granular measurement then flex, but they're both measuring how much the pole bends?

May/2003 - BestFlex is first mentioned on PVP here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=733&p=6453&hilit=bestflex#p6453

Mar/2005 - the "topic of flex numbers" is discussed in this gem of a thread, here: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4534&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=bestflex

2006-2008 No discussion on PVP about BestFlex. Not even any hint that BestFlex "died on the vine". QUESTION: Why?

1995-2008 HS track meets continue to enforce the pole weight rule. Apparently quite happily, without many issues.

QUESTIONS: Are they just relying on the Big 4 to "do the right thing" in rating and labeling the weights of their poles? Is there an online document that explains how each mfr must comply?

Feb/2009 - this thread. The issue now seems to be how to move from one length pole to the next highest, with some correlation between flex numbers.

Can anyone shed any light on this? What am I missing?

Kirk

[Barto]

Bestflex was an in-house initiative at Gill to get a handle on a system of asigning wts to various lengths and flexes of poles that had evolved over 40 years and never been standardized. It was a precursor to the FX program which finally standardized all of Gill's pole lines.

To the best of my knowledge it was never intended to be used as a tool to standardize any other manufacturers poles. Some people may have wanted to use it for that purpose, but I do not believe that was the initial intent.

There is no "universal" way to measure the flex of a pole. The major pole manufacturers all use a fairly similar method, but it is not standardized or universal between manufacturers in any way. A Nordic or a UCS or a Gill or an Essxx pole with the same length and same flex number are still different poles. They may be very similar, but they are not identical.

In my opinion the sport of pole vaulting would be best served by dropping this entire issue and closing this thread.