Pacer Poles (FX vs. older model)

[KirkB]

It's still a mystery to me how the 15-0 155 fits into his pole progression. According to JJ's chart (which is quite reliable), it should be heavier than the 14-0 170 and lighter than the 14-6 170. Is it?

Kirk

[PVTEXAN]

It's still a mystery to me how the 15-0 155 fits into his pole progression. According to JJ's chart (which is quite reliable), it should be heavier than the 14-0 170 and lighter than the 14-6 170. Is it?

Kirk

Can't really explain it myself, but he feel like it falls between the 14-6 165 and 170 in terms of stiffness. The new pole represents more of an experiment for practice than a necessity for competition and the price was right: free

[Oldcoach]

On Gill poles 13 ' thru 15', I have noticed that the pre 1998 (Best Flex) poles are rated 5 lbs lower than newer models. So if you are mixing old and new Gill poles on Jan's chart you will find some problems. If you plot the flex number vs weight rating for 1998 and later Gill poles they have a linear relationship for a given pole length. Pre 1998 poles will not fit this plot unless you shift the weight rating up by about 5 lbs.

[lifecaster9]

I have a 14'6 pacer pole(the older model you mentioned) and I am currently using a 15 pacer fx(new model) they are the same weight rating of 175 however the older pacer is a lot stiffer and heavier. I find jumping with the fx to be a little easier.