SafetyMax Box collar

[~jj~]

I agree too!!! But there is no way the NCAA or the IAAF or the NHSF are going to change there rules regarding the shape of the back of the planting box.
I think the manufactures have all done a good job of shaping the front bun sections of the pit to the outside edges of the box as it currently is. Some might be better and others not as good, but certianly all better than stright up 90 degree fronts of the 60's and 70's. They have all have bascially followed one an other in this regard.
Port a pit also had the patent for box collars, which has expired.

~jj~

[KirkB]

Charlie, I'm still confused.

In the drawings below, A is the shape of a standard box. B has rounded corners ... within the standard shape. C has rounded corners ... outside of the standard shape. D has rounded corners ... without changing the shape of the stopboard.

Do you mean B, C, or D?

I don't think you mean B, becuz that would interfere with the bend of the pole MORE ... not LESS.

PV Box with Rounded Corners.JPG (8.58 KiB) Viewed 5103 times

Kirk

[Riley Crosby]

Kirk, I jumped on a pit exactly the same as the red one you posted. that pit was brand new at the time, and it seemed a little on the cheap side. it was less thick then the high jump landing system the school had. It also seemed a lot more deep like length wise, so i nearly flew off the back a few times in warm ups. the weird shape kind of threw me off because it seemed like i was taking off so far away from the pit. and i felt less safe with the short "buns". over all i prefer a conventional shaped pit.

[~jj~]

Ok so which one in ur opinon will least restrict the pole bend (if you think this is a criteria)?

[KirkB]

Ok so which one in ur opinon will least restrict the pole bend (if you think this is a criteria)?

This question boils down to whether you think the angle of the stopboard (105 degrees) is sufficient in the forwards direction, and whether you think the angle of the side plates (120 degrees) is sufficient in the sideways direction.

My personal opinion is that there's already sufficient space in the forwards directions for the pole to bend freely ... but I'm uncertain of this. I would like to see high speed film ... to trace the path of an extremely bent pole ... or some evidence of rubbing on the top edge of the stopboard ... you can do this by chalking the stopboard, then seeing if any chalk rubbed off on the pole ... in order to decide for sure.

Another way to check this is to see if your pole has any marks from rubbing on any side except the "bend side". For a right-hander, a mark on the bend side might indicate either scraping on the stopboard, or scraping on the side plate (in the corner). However, if there's scraping to the RIGHT of the bend side, then that would indicate that the pole is scraping on the stopboard as it's approaching the corner of the box.

In the sideways direction, I felt I was always in danger of hitting the top edge with the pole, so a wider angle would be better (even tho I know that I bent my pole more than what was "optimal").

So I would say that D provides ample additional space in the corners, but with some evidence or testimony of other vaulters or coaches, I could be convinced that C is best. B is worst, and A is second worst, IMO.

Could other vaulters and coaches please state their opinion of this too? Maybe even check your poles for the location of the scrapes! Thanks.

Kirk

[rainbowgirl28]

The pole rubbing the box excessively is only an issue if you have a crappy takeoff and the pole bends really low.

[KirkB]

I forgot to add that if you ride your pole into the pit ... doing popups or whatever ... then you'll get additional scrapes on your pole not caused by a normal bending action. So if you don't use a separate warmup pole for popups, then you won't know what the scrapes are from.

RG, IMO the angles on the box need to be designed for the extreme case ... possibly an intermediate or elite vaulter that's overbending his pole. I don't think we should be ENCOURAGING the overbending of a pole, but we want those that overbend their poles to at least be safe ... and not get kicked sideways into a standard or off the pit.

I think the NCAA, IAAF, and NHSF should be in the business of ensuring that all PV equipment is SAFE. They should NOT be in the business of arbitrarily deciding which bending technique is "best", or how much bend is "too much". Besides, there should ALWAYS be a safety factor ... additional room for error ... when the pole bends "a bit" too much. But how much is "a bit"?

Kirk

[vaultmd]

The pole rubbing the box excessively is only an issue if you have a crappy takeoff and the pole bends really low.

Also, poles that are too soft get damaged when they get overbent.

[rainbowgirl28]

I forgot to add that if you ride your pole into the pit ... doing popups or whatever ... then you'll get additional scrapes on your pole not caused by a normal bending action. So if you don't use a separate warmup pole for popups, then you won't know what the scrapes are from.

Not really. It doesn't rub the box the same way it does when it's bending that low.

[~jj~]

[color=#00FF00]We have studied this phenomna (sp?) at length over the past 30 years. In most cases where the pole is bent a lot it does seem to rub the top of the back of the box. My personal feeling is that the angles are fine the way they are, and that it does not significantly hurt the performance of the poles rotation or bending. Since the location of the brushing is very low on the pole and since the box is the same for everyone, the current box seems fair for all participants.
In all my time i have seen very few poles damaged on the bottom to the point of breakage. So i don't think pole damage is a problem.
~jan~ [/color]

[KirkB]

... it does not significantly hurt the performance of the poles rotation or bending. ... In all my time i have seen very few poles damaged on the bottom to the point of breakage. So i don't think pole damage is a problem.
~jan~

Not sure about your first comment, but I agree that pole damage is negligible. But re the danger of the top edge of the corner of the box blocking the pole from its natural bend ... which can unexpectantly kick the vaulter out towards the standard? Isn't that a serious safety hazard?

I lost 2 teeth and got a concussion from missing the pit this way! (Although I must admit ... it was also a late plant, so I can't positively blame it on kickback from the box.)

Kirk

[rainbowgirl28]

I agree that pole damage is negligible. But what about the danger of the top edge of the corner of the box blocking the pole from its natural bend ... which can unexpectantly kick the vaulter out towards the standard? Isn't that a serious safety hazard?

Kirk

That's not a real problem, it's a theory you posted based on your experiences and some videos you were watching (which did not have good shots of the box). When you see that happening it's not because of the box. It's either because of the pole bend hitting the pit (rarely) or because of something else the vaulter is doing wrong (bad alignment at takeoff, etc).