Pole Vault Manifesto

[Barto]

Pole vaulting is NOT about storing energy and then having it "returned" to the vaulter when the pole straightens. The pole bends to effectively shorten the grip height. Then it straightens to increase the grip height. Poles have been built that can bend past 90 degrees and then return to straight before any human could swing on them. These are NOT just stiffer poles - they are faster poles. These are the "new technology" poles that people have been talking about for 30 years. The problem is we don't have any "new technology" humans to jump on them.

The best poles are the ones that synch up with the vaulter's swing. We (all manufacturers) are pretty close to building poles that match up as close as possible to the range of human efforts. People have been jumping on them for quite some time. This is why you have not seen any major improvements in performances during the last 20 years.

[powerplant42]

If flexibility is not a factor, then why can we vault so much higher with a fiberglass pole than a steel one?

STEEL, to FIBERGLASS, to (?).

[volteur]

surely there is something in star wars or star trek that would be suitable

[powerplant42]

There are some freakishly smart people out there... you never know.

Perhaps there will never again be as big a shift in technology as steel to fiberglass, but it is just downright foolish to think that there will not eventually be technological advancements that make poles more 'flexible'.

[KirkB]

Pole vaulting is NOT about storing energy and then having it "returned" to the vaulter when the pole straightens. The pole bends to effectively shorten the grip height. Then it straightens to increase the grip height.

This, I understand and agree with. If you focus on the LEAKAGE part of my formula, you'll see that it's not contradictory to your statement above. No matter what, LEAKAGE must be minimized. Poles with excess LEAKAGE don't sell. They also don't last as long. Those are givens, and old news to all manufacturers, so I guess that's why you're not focusing on leakage (aka friction; aka loss of energy).

If flexibility is not a factor, then why can we vault so much higher with a fiberglass pole than a steel one?

Because we can grip higher, as Barto just said. But I would add to that by saying that fiberglass also gives us more time to invert. If you look at film of steel vaulters, they all have trouble shooting their legs and torso straight up. Instead, even elite steel vaulters flop awkwardly over the bar. That's because they have less time to swing to a "full inversion" on steel.

Poles have been built that can bend past 90 degrees and then return to straight before any human could swing on them. These are NOT just stiffer poles - they are faster poles.

These are the "new technology" poles that people have been talking about for 30 years. The problem is we don't have any "new technology" humans to jump on them.

This, I still don't understand.

The best poles are the ones that synch up with the vaulter's swing. We (all manufacturers) are pretty close to building poles that match up as close as possible to the range of human efforts. People have been jumping on them for quite some time. This is why you have not seen any major improvements in performances during the last 20 years.

This, I understand (even tho I've never used asymetric poles).

But can you break this down by decade? You've divided the history of pole technology roughly into pre-1978, 1978-1988, 1988-2008, and 2009+.

Pre-1978: The fiberglass logs of the 1960s and early/mid 1970s (I used these).

You didn't mention this, but I will add (and please clarify if I'm wrong) that there was a gradual improvement in pole technology between the mid to late 1970s and the mid to late 1980s. These are the so-called carbon poles with asymetric sails that match up to a vaulter's body-type and preferred technique.

Here's what you seem to be saying ...

1978-1988: "New technology" poles that people have been "talking about", but not commercially sold or used yet.

1988-2008: Poles that haven't changed much, hence no major performance improvements in the mPV WR.

Sometime in 2009 or later: Poles that "match up as close as possible to the range of human efforts". Barto, what does this mean?

Since I'm none the wiser, I must have got this all wrong, but really, I've just broken down your post into the 4 time periods that you mentioned (or implied).

Please clarify.

Kirk

[Barto]

Kirk, your time periods are fairly accurate as far as pole development goes. Since the mid 80's we have not seen much real progress because those poles are pretty close to what we can do. The problem of "leakage" is actually pretty minimal with modern poles.

As for "more flexible" poles.....

When you can accurately answer these questions, you will have answered your own question.

1) How far do you think you can take off from and still swing?

2) What is it that makes a vaulter jump above their top hand?

[KirkB]

So you want to make a riddle out of this, eh Yoda ... I mean Barto.

1) How far do you think you can take off from and still swing?

If I grip at 20', then I can swing off the ground, but there's 2 big problems ...

(1) I won't roll the pole to vertical or clear the bar, and

(2) The jolt on takeoff might be too much for the shoulder of my top hand to withstand. I could mitigate the risk of injury by going slower, but that's counter-productive.

So what you really mean is "... and still swing well enough to clear the bar (at a competition height) and land safely in the pit".

I've gripped 15'8" successfully with a fiberglass log, so I suppose with your new-fangled pole technology and a little luck, I could grip about 17'. I won't do the trig to work out the takeoff point from the box, but that's fairly straight-forward.

Personally, I would set my target takeoff point 4" behind my top hand. That guarantees me that I won't be under, with ±4" tolerance. (Most 'Petrov model' vaulters would choose a takeoff point directly under the top hand, but I hated being under. I needed a free takeoff or I'd crash and burn.)

I guess if you're going to build me a pole that's optimal for my technique, I'd like one that coils slowly and recoils quickly. That's if I expect the pole to do all the work for me. But as I've said before, I don't see how a pole can recoil any faster or slower than it coils, other than by manipulation by the athlete's technique. You put a dead weight onto it in one of those new-fangled Pacer Mystic test machines, and I'm thinking that the coil/recoil speeds will be identical. No?

A pole with a slower coil and quicker recoil would soften the impact on the shoulder too, so that would be a distinct advantage. But again, I don't see how that's possible.

I guess I just don't even understand how an asymetric sail modifies the bend to the advantage of the vaulter. Sorry, my inexperience with these new poles is impeding my thought process - I just can't imagine how they work. But I have to believe that they do work, because vaulters have been swearing by them for a few decades now!

Yikes, I'm trying to understand this, but I'm just showing my ignorance.

2) What is it that makes a vaulter jump above their top hand?

Maybe I'll have better luck on this one ...

Just about all decent male vaulters (with a couple of years experience under their belt) should be able to jump above their top hand. Your technique needs to be sufficiently refined so as to (1) run fast enough down the runway, (2) takeoff (i.e. jump) without losing too much speed, (3) swing smoothly to an inverted position (there's lots of different ways to do this), and (4) continue (i.e. finish) your extension directly upwards, without letting the pole get ahead of you, and without dropping your hips prematurely over (or into) the bar.

Most vaulters with a PR of about 12' or higher (maybe 10' or so for females) have sufficient speed, coordination, strength, and technique to achieve this.

To try to answer your question, the trick is to convert your horizontal speed and momentum to vertical speed and momentum, with minimal leakage within the pole/vaulter system.

OK, I give up. I dunno! I shoulda said that in the first place! I have no idea! Those are trick questions!

I feel like I'm about to get a physics lesson now, and at the end of the physics lesson, I'm feel like I'm going to get a sales pitch to buy a "new technology" pole that will just solve all my vaulting problems. Poof!

Did you know that I'm from Missouri?

And somehow, I don't FEEL like I've answered my own question.

Barto, may the Force be with you!

Kirk

[Barto]

....somehow, I don't FEEL like I've answered my own question.
Kirk

Kirk, don't be hard on yourself. You hit the nail on the head. Unless someone is a 32' long jumper, then a "more flexible" pole will not allow them to jump higher. They will not be able to get into the pit.

By the way, most guys gripping near 17' takeoff around 14'. I'm guessing that back in the day gripping 15'8 you were probably taking off around 13' .

As for asymetrical sails, the basic answer is that they allow the vaulter to takeoff with a higher angle and be in a better position to swing. The old "logs" you jumped on took much more energy to get moving in the first place. They required more straight ahead angle at takeoff.

[KirkB]

Thanks, Barto. I'm still feeling quite naiive when it comes to "new pole technology", but I'll refrain from any more comments from the peanut gallery, and just try to soak up as much as I can. [sigh]

By the way, most guys gripping near 17' takeoff around 14'. I'm guessing that back in the day gripping 15'8 you were probably taking off around 13' .

I actually don't know. I didn't carry that measurement around in my head. I just re-measured each time, based on my grip, and put down a strip of tape about 4" back of "vertical".

I only tried 15'8" a few times. Mostly, and on all my best jumps, I was at 15'4".

Kirk

[altius]

why can we vault so much higher with a fiberglass pole than a steel one? I hope that was a rhetorical question old PP42!!!

[powerplant42]

It has a rhetoric 'air' to it, and I know the answer, but I'd like someone to give the answer and then expand on it by discussing how it is relevant to flexibility as a factor in clearance height.

[Barto]

It has a rhetoric 'air' to it, and I know the answer, but I'd like someone to give the answer and then expand on it by discussing how it is relevant to flexibility as a factor in clearance height.

Ok, I'll bite.

"More flexible" poles will not lead to higher vaults. Here is why. Poles do not throw the vaulter up over their top hand. Vaulters swing up over the top hand. It is very difficult to swing on a pole that is bent much past 90 degrees. Poles that bend more than current models will not allow the vaulter to swing up above their top hand.