The reality is..........an essx pole and a carbon pole have very little if any similarities. The Essx sail design and position are most similar to the sail and position of a Skypole. So............if you want a alternative to the Skypole or vice versa, there it is.
THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT EITHER
The only problem I see is.................you can only get them from one co. and they ARE the most aggressive pole on the market (I can back that one up with research its not just my opinion).
Pacer makes a very good vaulting pole however the fact is they are not the only company making carbon poles
CARBON POLES ARE MORE LIKELY to break no matter the brand;
My comments are not personal or slamming of any company it is a fact.
So will you Gill guys back down for a minute and listen then think before you attack me.
When you manufacture a carbon vaulting pole the procedure is to apply carbon to add stiffness and strength so that other types of glass "S" and "E" glass can be reduced or removed.
In doing so you have a thinner vaulting pole and you have a lighter pole.
This pole being thinner is subject to less impact strength and has a greater potential of breakage if struck by the crossbar, standards, or the runway if not caught.
When using a carbon pole as any vaulting pole you need to catch the pole.
Carbon has less impact strength than normal glass weaves such as "S' and "E" glass.
The perfect world would be a carbon that has greater impact strength to go along with the stiffness strength to provide much more side impact for those times when the pole cannot be caught.
- that is an interesting number - and unless you make a carbon pole with the carbon layer on the outside - the whole argument is invalid if you are talking about what the carbon does - 60% more impact force before it creates a stress riser in the pole! ??? - but that has nothing to do with impact testing - If you are talking about ability to sustain with damage caused by hitting a hard object or spike marks - then resin and wall thickness is the answer- but - it also adds weight - i.e. - a training pole - wall thickness is the issue with carbon - thinner walls (our carbon is not on the outside layers) - lighter poles - so surface damage on any pole is not good - location and depth are import - depth of damage to thickness is critical (so thinner wall!!!) - now another comment I read - "So will you Gill guys back down for a minute and listen then think before you attack me" this was posted before I posted this - and my previous post attacked no one - it said numerous times if the pole works well for you that is good - also said good can be defined many ways - if someone takes that as an attack - maybe the world needs to lighten up 
by the way Bruce - I agree that carbon by itself is not as good in impact tests as fiberglass or aramid fibers - but in a composite material like pole vault poles - surface layer damage and stress risers are more of a factor than the basic carbon property - time to go vault 