THIS IS A SERIOUS POLL WE NEED AS MUCH INPUT AS POSSIBLE!

[prsport3]

I figured it was time for me to tell you who we are, something about our organization, our history, how we operate, and where our subcommittee hope to go.

1 st The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) develops "voluntary consensus industry standards." It has successfully done this for over 100 years. The ASTM has a process that allows all interested parties to participate in developing standards. This first starts at the Sub Committee. A "Task Group" of volunteers is assigned the task of drafting the standard. This standard must meet the criteria established for an ASTM standard. Once finished, the Task Group reports their results to the Subcommittee. In this case the Task Group would report to the Subcommittee F08.67, Pole Vault. Again, at the subcommittee this standard will be reworked to improve it's viability. Whether consensus arrived at or not the "Work Document" is forwarded to the committee. The committee will send the document to all it's members for comments or approval. All comments will be sent to the subcommittee for resolution. It will be decided if comments are persuasive or nonpersuasive. If the comments are found persuasive then the must be answered to the person who submitted the comments satisfaction before the standard can be approved. Additionally 65% of the members must vote for the standard to move to the next level. (I would like to note here that the ASTM is an international organization of over 100,000 member who are on the leading edge of technology on this planet. Some of these people are so smart it's scary! They ask very hard questions.) Once everything is resolved that the subcommittee level the Standard is balloted to the whole ASTM. Again, 65% of the members must vote and all persuasive comments must be answered. As you can see no one company or person can influence this process. Two years ago you saw the results of our work when the size requirements were changed on pole vault pits. The High School Federation based their rules on the numbers developed by our subcommittee.

2 nd When the HS Federation implemented the weight label rule in 1995 (?) the manufacturers were supposed to agree on one methodology for the test apparatus and testing standard for rating and labeling pole vaulting poles. Since the ASTM provided that process it was decided by interested parties that the ASTM would be the best route to develop the standard.

3 rd Right now a Task Group created by the Chairman of ASTM Subcommittee F08.67 Pole Vault, is working on Work Document WK2656. It's title is "Standard Test Method for Deflection Testing of Pole Vaulting Poles. The introduction to this proposed test method reads as follows: "The need for a systematic means of evaluating the resistance at takeoff that a pole vaulting pole of a particular length provides and therefore it's nominal weight rating has been amply demonstrated since the advent of the fiberglass pole vaulting pole. Consequently, the goal of this specification is to establish a uniform testing apparatus to be used in such testing. This will provide the potential buyer with a useful yardstick by witch to compare pole vaulting poles constructed by different manufacturers." This has nothing to do with flex charts or span widths. Just the apparatus that tests pole. Discussing anything else just muddies the water and keep everyone from focusing on the issue at hand.

4 th We have tested and vaulted on thousands of pole vaulting poles made by all the manufacturers. What we found that if you know the stiffness of a pole which yields it nominal weight rating based on it's deflection in a testing apparatus you can vault on that pole safely no matter who made the pole. This allows a vaulter to go from pole to pole based on it's nominal weight rating and it's length.

5 th ASTM Subcommittee F08.67 has three additionally work documents which it hopes to develop in standards someday. They are: WK2656 Standard Specification for Deflection Testing and Weight Rating of Pole Vault Poles for Standard Pole Lengths, WK2792 Standard Test Method for Non Destructive and Destructive Testing of Pole Vault Poles, and Standard Specification for Non Destructive and Destructive Testing of Pole Vault Poles.

6 th Why are we going through all this trouble? No matter what you do in life 50 things can go wrong to create an accident. If you can think of 25 of these in advance you are a genius. Of these 25 you only have the ability to control a some of them. If you can eliminate a couple of these the accident will not happen. We are trying to eliminate as many variables as possible thru engineering, science, coaching education, and rules. My personal hope is that no vaulter need die again because we did not have the vision to control the variables that are controllable.

I hope you can see what I do and support the development of these standards. I believe that taking a survey to see what we should do is no way to save vaulters lives. This should be based on science and engineering.

Without wax,

Eddie Seese, Chairman
ASTM Subcommittee F08.67
astmf0867@aol.com

[Bruce Caldwell]

MY REPLY !!

MY comments in RED I value your efforts and the comments you have posted and the oppertunity to reply to them.
I figured it was time for me to tell you who we are, something about our organization, our history, how we operate, and where our subcommittee hope to go.

1 st The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) develops "voluntary consensus industry standards." It has successfully done this for over 100 years. The ASTM has a process that allows all interested parties to participate in developing standards. This first starts at the Sub Committee. A "Task Group" of volunteers is assigned the task of drafting the standard. This standard must meet the criteria established for an ASTM standard. Once finished, the Task Group reports their results to the Subcommittee. In this case the Task Group would report to the Subcommittee F08.67, Pole Vault. Again, at the subcommittee this standard will be reworked to improve it's viability. Whether consensus arrived at or not the "Work Document" is forwarded to the committee. The committee will send the document to all it's members for comments or approval. All comments will be sent to the subcommittee for resolution. It will be decided if comments are persuasive or nonpersuasive. If the comments are found persuasive then the must be answered to the person who submitted the comments satisfaction before the standard can be approved. Additionally 65% of the members must vote for the standard to move to the next level. (I would like to note here that the ASTM is an international organization of over 100,000 member who are on the leading edge of technology on this planet. Some of these people are so smart it's scary! They ask very hard questions.) Once everything is resolved that the subcommittee level the Standard is balloted to the whole ASTM. Again, 65% of the members must vote and all persuasive comments must be answered. As you can see no one company or person can influence this process. Two years ago you saw the results of our work when the size requirements were changed on pole vault pits. The High School Federation based their rules on the numbers developed by our subcommittee.
YES A LOT of PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN TIME AWAY FROM THEIR BUSINESS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO DISCUSS THIS.
2 nd When the HS Federation implemented the weight label rule in 1995 (?) the manufacturers were supposed to agree on one methodology for the test apparatus and testing standard for rating and labeling pole vaulting poles. Since the ASTM provided that process it was decided by interested parties that the ASTM would be the best route to develop the standard. I know of no such request and the NFHS is not familiar with flexes to ask such a request, maybe what they asked for was interpreted to wrong? THE NFHS CLAIMED TO ME IT WOULD BE NICE IF ALL WERE ON THE SAME FLEX SPAN SCALE BUT MADE NO FORMAL REQUEST.
3 rd Right now a Task Group created by the Chairman of ASTM Subcommittee F08.67 Pole Vault, is working on Work Document WK2656. It's title is "Standard Test Method for Deflection Testing of Pole Vaulting Poles. The introduction to this proposed test method reads as follows: "The need for a systematic means of evaluating the resistance at takeoff that a pole vaulting pole of a particular length provides and therefore it's nominal weight rating has been amply demonstrated since the advent of the fiberglass pole vaulting pole. Consequently, the goal of this specification is to establish a uniform testing apparatus to be used in such testing. This will provide the potential buyer with a useful yardstick by witch to compare pole vaulting poles constructed by different manufacturers." This has nothing to do with flex charts or span widths. Just the apparatus that tests pole. Discussing anything else just muddies the water and keep everyone from focusing on the issue at hand.
Without the flex number, setting a system up as a standard means nothing. Obviously the goal is to further merge into setting standards for spans and numbers derived from them. Your plan above CONTRADICTS IT SELF AND states SO

4 th We have tested and vaulted on thousands of pole vaulting poles made by all the manufacturers. What we found that if you know the stiffness of a pole which yields it nominal weight rating based on it's deflection in a testing apparatus you can vault on that pole safely no matter who made the pole. This allows a vaulter to go from pole to pole based on it's nominal weight rating and it's length.
My comments are valid
If all were using the Quaso system as they claimed then there would be no problem, however now I see another company is pushing new numbers on the public. SO Eddie I now believe there needs to be a standard. However who would benefit from it being published? I would not want a flex chart published, nor the spans, nor the method as there would be too many people order by Flex numbers. Also what would be the advantage for certain companies to participate in a method to allow those on their poles to switch brands?
And the fear that one might request for a recertification of poles. Having a mixed up number benefits them better as then you cannot move from one brand to another, so you stay with the same brand for security.There is no motivation for the big companies to comply!!!


5 th ASTM Subcommittee F08.67 has three additionally work documents which it hopes to develop in standards someday. They are: WK2656 Standard Specification for Deflection Testing and Weight Rating of Pole Vault Poles for Standard Pole Lengths, WK2792 Standard Test Method for Non Destructive and Destructive Testing of Pole Vault Poles, and Standard Specification for Non Destructive and Destructive Testing of Pole Vault Poles.
WHY? There has been no problems with poles breaking??

6 th Why are we going through all this trouble? No matter what you do in life 50 things can go wrong to create an accident. If you can think of 25 of these in advance you are a genius. Of these 25 you only have the ability to control a some of them. If you can eliminate a couple of these the accident will not happen. We are trying to eliminate as many variables as possible thru engineering, science, coaching education, and rules. My personal hope is that no vaulter need die again because we did not have the vision to control the variables that are controllable.
DIE because of a wrong flex number? That is slim. I am more worried about recertification of poles that would kill the sport.
Maybe it would be better to remove the flex number from the pole being they are not comparable. The Xlogic System is easier for the coach to use anyway.
I hope you can see what I do and support the development of these standards. I believe that taking a survey to see what we should do is no way to save vaulters lives. This should be based on science and engineering.

yes YOU HAVE WORKED HARD ON THIS, I give you that credit but so many things are against it working!

We are all having the same conversation over and over people have spent valuable time on this, time away from their business, their family, to come back to the same message;
It cannot be done without harming the event, the manufactures, and the athletes
JUST MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER AND MY RIGHT TO VOICE THEM

[fchipr]

Unless you want a whole bunch of oversighteers "helping you" to TELL YOU how best to do your manufacturing business, I think you let the indivudual manufacturers come up with the scheme that best suits there designs, specific raw materials and manufacturing processes. And to the extent they can play towards the ASTM standards great. But that is "nice to have" not need to have.

I bet that based on the detailed engineering designs and manufacturing processes of which certainly have company propritery content (that you are not willing to share with your competitors), each manufacturer can make a sound engineering argument on why "his" flex rating best suits his spoecific design and manufacturing approach AND conversely why being forced into using someone elses or a generic industry sponsored scheme biases his poles one way or the other...and hence creating a niche to exploit (or be exploited) by competitors in the marketplace.

The designer and manufacturer know best and will provide for less without all the "well-intended" help/oversight that know matter what you say adds cost....usually fixed cost, which one should always be trying to pull out of the product.

Now if you are willing to put into the public information domain all your cad drawings, design tools, emperical test data, and actual detailed manufacturing fabrication and test methods and process instructions plus your raw material specs, then you eliminate the "competitive advantage" motive that could be behind (or a result of this).

But, if you (the manufacturers) are not willing to disclose everthing it takes to design, and build these poles, OR if all manufacturers agree that no bias could possibly exsist based on a generic or nominal standard
then my argument is mute.

But if one just says in perfectly ethical marketplace talk..."oh we would never exploit our competitor by using this standard to differentiate us from others"...I don't buy it. The real world is not like that.

I suspect th\e true motivations of any manufacturer behind the push (overtly or covertly) if my assumptions/considerations above are true. That is; 1. creating a potential standard bias for a given design or make approach by forcing all to comply and 2. it is true that company proprietary/competition sensitive data exists, and remains close hold to each.

Thats it. Gotta run.

Thats my long 2 cents worth. Probablly not the exact PV coach input you'd expect. But, one thing about us multi-year walk on/freebie coaches, we have other backgrounds than just T&F. Hope it helps.

Coach Chip

PS: Hey there Mr Essex: Good discussion on state of the art things and pros and cons of CarbonFiber poles nowadays. Bet you guys spend a large percentage of your annual discretionary investments on pursuing this technology and manufacturing process path for the "poles of the Future" !