PoleVaultPower.com

Has any one seen, or jumped "on" the new Gill AGX Crossbar (http://www.gillathletics.com/GillItemView.aspx?FSID=530)? It claims the lower center of gravity makes the crossbar more stable. Is it worth the extra $15?

yea i jumped with it and people were hitting the bar pretty hard and it was staying on so it is better than the normal bar and it looks cooler. Also i think that you can just buy the ends and put them on your old crossbar

You have to raise your standards a bit higher, of course, since the bar sits a bit lower. You can use it on your old crossbars but you have to saw them shorter. High jump crossbars are just a little too short to work.

You have to be really careful not to saw your old crossbars too short or else the bar has a hard time staying on.

They rock.

SlickVT wrote:They rock.

well technically.... they dont rock. thats the whole idea!

but yeah. they are bad@ss crossbars.

Looking at the ends of this crossbar, the advantage of lowering the CoG is obvious. So obvious, in fact, that I'm very surprised that it conforms to the rules. Did Gill find a loophole in the rules, or were the rules just not written stringently enough in the first place?

As RG mentioned, the vertical offset also screws up the guages on the standards. Isn't this going to make it too easy for officials to make mistakes in the measurements? Won't it be all too easy for them to mistakenly DECREASE the height on the standards guages, rather than INCREASE it. Sure, they won't use the guages for any important records, but let's face it, they don't measure every height "officially" - they just use the guages.

What is the specific wording of the specific rule that defines the shape of the crossbar?

Will we now have to clarify records broken with the "new crossbar" vs. the "old crossbar" - like the "new pegs" vs. "old pegs" issue?

Shucks, in my day, we had triangular aluminium crossbars, and didn't fret over the length of the pegs or the roundness of the bar. OR THE COG OF THE BAR!!!

Kirk

They are very very nudge friendly. They are totally legal ...... for now. I suspect that the IAAF will take action in the next few years once the bars circulate around the world, but by that time who knows. The lower cg bar may become the norm.

You can also achieve the same result by adding weight to the ends of your crossbar. They don't blow off in the wind then.

KirkB wrote:Looking at the ends of this crossbar, the advantage of lowering the CoG is obvious. So obvious, in fact, that I'm very surprised that it conforms to the rules. Did Gill find a loophole in the rules, or were the rules just not written stringently enough in the first place?

As RG mentioned, the vertical offset also screws up the guages on the standards. Isn't this going to make it too easy for officials to make mistakes in the measurements? Won't it be all too easy for them to mistakenly DECREASE the height on the standards guages, rather than INCREASE it. Sure, they won't use the guages for any important records, but let's face it, they don't measure every height "officially" - they just use the guages.

What is the specific wording of the specific rule that defines the shape of the crossbar?

Will we now have to clarify records broken with the "new crossbar" vs. the "old crossbar" - like the "new pegs" vs. "old pegs" issue?

Shucks, in my day, we had triangular aluminium crossbars, and didn't fret over the length of the pegs or the roundness of the bar. OR THE COG OF THE BAR!!!

Kirk

Kirk, the way the rules are written, this bar actually meets the requirement better than the old ones.

They are nice crossbars. I don't think they make as big of a difference as long pegs short pegs though.

if you dont touch the bar it doesnt matter if its new bar, old bar or short pegs, long pegs

Touché!

If you brush the bar, you're actually not clearing it.

So if it's set at 5.80 and you brush it, you actually only cleared 5.79 or less. (Ditto with 4.00 vs. 3.99, etc.)

Volzing was also a way of getting creditted for clearing a bar that you didn't really clear. The only reason that I can think of that it took so long to sanction rules against Volzing was because it granted too much subjectivity by the judges. What if you Volz with the BACK of your hand? Is that still illegal? What if your hand ACCIDENTALLY brushed the bar, but the judge couldn't tell whether it was accidental or purposeful?

Rule: If the bar stays up it's a clearance; if it drops it's not.

The only reason the rules were written this way is so that everyone is judged more evenly - without subjectivity.

What if brushing the bar caused it to visibly shake or bounce enough that the judge (and everyone else) can see that you didn't actually CLEAR it? That wouldn't be such a bad rule, if you follow and agree with my logic. You can imagine the controversies, though. Worse than "safe or out" at first base, and look at all the arguments that causes.

But then there's the suspense and drama of whether the bar falls off or not, after a vibrating bar on a NEAR clearance. I like that, because I think we're not just vaulting to compete. I think we're also competing to entertain.

And these new low CoG bars are going to shake more without falling - adding to this suspense.

I dunno. I might have come full circle on this. I'm undecided now.

Just my .01 cent. (Unfortunately, the Loonie has now gone back down below the US dollar.)

Kirk