How many poles is it?

[Decamouse]

Since you PM me and I answered - I can do the same here - I did state that flex numbers are "not" based on an ASTM Standard - the skew was regarding to Power Rating and kg being more accurate than lbs - since you mentioned your Power Rating - not trying to stir up stuff - there is enough of that in the world without T&F nuts

[Bruce Caldwell]

Rainbow girl asked: Do you guys think the ASTM will tackle the flex numbers issue after they are done with helmets?
I really hope they do not make a standard for helmets!
I hope not if they do it will eliminate the event. A helmet is not the answer for not padding hard and un-yielding surfaces. If there were no hard surfaces what would you need a helmet for?
JUST MY THOUGHTS!

I really do not feel the people on the ASTM have enough info about each manufacturers flex charts to do so. Setting up one would require a totally different method that could stand by the current used flex. The flex is a measurement to determine reference to the previous pole made. Not a method to switch poles from one brand to another. An ASTM standard could provide this avenue.

[Bruce Caldwell]

Because the ASTM has not set in motion a potential ASTM standard
we cannot make reference to something that is not there,
There is not even a motion to elect one, a committee to produce one, or an idea to develop one. (That I know of) We hear a lot of talk but no one is asking us for our input on the matter and when we do offer info it falls on deaf ears.

[Decamouse]

Seems mention of ASTM does cause concern - I clearly stated there is "not" an ASTM std dealing with pole flex - there is an ASTM std for pole vault pits, they have a working group discussing helmets, and yes there have been comments about pole flex standards made - many of these were also touched on at the USATF in the Rules meetings dealing with equipment - got to sit in on hours and hours of good stuff. The whole point about flex numbers is there is no standard - it is a manufacturer rating that is "similar" among various folks -

[Bruce Caldwell]

Since you PM me and I answered - I can do the same here - I did state that flex numbers are "not" based on an ASTM Standard - the skew was regarding to Power Rating and kg being more accurate than lbs - since you mentioned your Power Rating - not trying to stir up stuff - there is enough of that in the world without T&F nuts

Ok I will restate what I mean.
First this was not a dig at Pacer/Gill
Metric is in 10's so 10 as a multiplier works all round the flex chart efficiently without averaging up to the next foot or lbs.
When I look at other brand poles not to mention any by name all of them!
I see 54 kilos as 120 lbs 54X 2.2= 118.8 lbs
I see 60 kilos as 130 lbs 60X 2.2= 132.0 lbs
I see 68 kilos as 150 lbs 68X 2.2= 149.6 lbs
I see 70 kilos as 155 lbs 70X 2.2= 154.0 lbs
I see 77 kilos as 170 lbs 54X 2.2= 169.4 lbs

To me it was confusing and not consistent so using the metric number as a power number works in a more accurate way than averaging up. It sets the basis to establish a possible method of measuring and comparing Kilos to flex numbers in the future.

[Decamouse]

Gee - track in field is full of metric imperial mixes - although some flex numbers used to be in inches - so inches lbs had at least the Imperial measurment system - we run 110meter hurdles - spaced 10 yards apart with 42" height - so a 16.4 flex (measured in cm) might have been a 170lb and the metric was rounded? 77.27! The point is accuracy is relative to the precision of the measurment and what is compared to. You nailed it when you said it allows that vaulter to transition up and down poles in that brand - not necessarily across pole brands - hope I parapharsed it correctly - time to get out of the office

[PVJunkie]

Actually

54kg = 119.04761904761903 Pounds
60kg = 132.27513227513225 Pounds
68kg = 149.91181657848324 Pounds
70kg = 154.32098765432096 Pounds
77kg = 169.75308641975306 Pounds

2.2 lbs per Kg is a rounded number. The actual conversion is 1kg = 2.204585537918871 Pounds. So if accuracy is key (and converting is not the accuacy problem here) then the total conversion should be used. The real problem here (in the vault) is the application of the wt based on the flex #'s. Thats Jeffs point here. The conversion of kg to lb is irrelivant. Its when one pole with a 18.6 flex is marked a 160 and another pole (different brand) that has an 18.6 (achieved the same way) is marked a 155. They are essentially the exact same pole with different wt maxs. Figure that one out. Each pole manufac can mark the max wt the way they want. Can you drive faster than 55mph (88.51408983375444 kilometers/hour) on that donut of a spare on the hwy........of course you can. Is it safe.......not according to the maker of that donut!!!