Telescopic vs Folding - whats your preference for touring?

[XXX-er]

Good memory steve. I kind of amble along and glide my feet when skinning and just barely skim the ground with poles when climbing. On flats, a light touch for moving with skins is nice. For those long road or glacier approaches the good old BD Traverse alu uppers with carbon lowers get adjusted longer going from 115 to 130 or longer for skating or classic style. But it doesn't really kill me or make/break a day to use fixed length poles

these ^^ just don't break, aluminium upper/carbon lower, used to be the BD flicklock, I think they call them the BD Razor now, they are the brand of pole you most often see unloaded from a chopper baskette ... they seem to be the most bomber

sometimes I use em long if I am skinning on a raised skin track, sometimes I use em short held on top like a cane, sometimes I grip them on the aluminium mast (i wrap the aluminium upper with cork roadbike tape) sometimes I use them long for xc skiing with fishscales, sometimes use them for hiking in summer, I've used them for XC road skiing with roller blades

It takes 30 seconds to adj poles on the fly and there are reason to adjust them, if you don't see a reason to use adjustable poles or you got em but don't adjust them ... that is not the fault of the adjustable poles

[Norseman]

Re. Angle Parking's comment on pole length... (I know he knows this but maybe not for others reading/lurking):

Stride is way different between nordic and skinning uphill, and equating pole lengths for these activities is super inefficient.

Classic and skate nordic benefit from long pole propulsion because the slope is flat, the gear is light, and gliding is the goal.

When skinning uphill, poles are not an efficient means of propulsion.

The more you lift your hands and arms, the more energy is wasted. Hence all the comments on grips/tape lower down the pole... keep those hands below the chest, muthafucka!

I have an old set of Traverse alu that I only ever adjust for long flats that are glideable, and I enjoy poling then. If I'm skinning, one pole for balance, one free hand for sending sexts

[kalisto]

Cross country ski poles for classic technique are measured to the armpit, skate skiing poles are measured to the chine. There's are reason for this.

^ This. Lower HR in the grand scheme of things doesn't always mean better.

[Angle Parking]

My arguments in favour of adjustable poles are pretty much entirely rooted in the fact that we have some long, flat approaches and long, flat traverses around here. I would wager that most everyone's opinion on this matter is strongly rooted in where they ski and what type of terrain they skin or traverse on.

[Norseman]

Yup

[NW_SKIER]

Re. Angle Parking's comment on pole length... (I know he knows this but maybe not for others reading/lurking):

Stride is way different between nordic and skinning uphill, and equating pole lengths for these activities is super inefficient.

Classic and skate nordic benefit from long pole propulsion because the slope is flat, the gear is light, and gliding is the goal.

When skinning uphill, poles are not an efficient means of propulsion.

The more you lift your hands and arms, the more energy is wasted. Hence all the comments on grips/tape lower down the pole... keep those hands below the chest, muthafucka!

I have an old set of Traverse alu that I only ever adjust for long flats that are glideable, and I enjoy poling then. If I'm skinning, one pole for balance, one free hand for sending sexts

I thought the freehand was for rolling doobs?

[I've seen black diamonds!]

This thread again?

Long for flats. Short for boot packing/hiking. Extended grip for side hilling.

If your adjustable poles are collapsing, tighten the screw. If there is no adjustment screw you probably have shitty poles.

[3PinGrin]

I thought the freehand was for rolling doobs?

LOL

To add to my prior comments, I do a lot of exploring/log hopping (beetle kill) and stream crossings that would REALLY suck with short poles. So yeah, terrain/local conditions play a big role. I will say that when crossing huge blowdowns of trees I often wish my poles extended to 200cm.

edit to add: the "you're doing it wrong" comment is expected and probably deserved

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Why not the red ones?

Maybe I will.

[Norseman]

I thought the freehand was for rolling doobs?

Pick yer vice for the one-hand mode 😁

[LHutz Esq]

I am an old nordic nerd from way back.

I have yet to figure out how some folks I ski with can get by w/o really using their poles.

Some really fast on the skin track folks seem to just be dragging em along- might as well be in their pack. All the old nordic kids I see use their poles for propulsion - most of them (myself being the exception maybe) are swift on the up.

I ski far more efficiently when I use my poles on the up. It can't always be done, but it sure seems faster and more efficient when I do. A high heart rate can also mean that you are moving faster or involving more of your body in the propulsion. It can also just mean that your body is getting used to a different type of movement.

The push you get from "actual" pole use is not just from the arms but from your core. Which for most bc skiers is fairly well developed. You're packing them muscles up - why not use em and save some of your legs for the down?

Don't get me started on weight shift, or not using the pole straps (that's all I use them for, the approach, the push on the poles is transferred through the wrist/strap, not the hands. I don't use them for the down or side-hilling)

Many ways to get to the top my friends.

[Meadow Skipper]

When skinning uphill, poles are not an efficient means of propulsion.

The more you lift your hands and arms, the more energy is wasted. Hence all the comments on grips/tape lower down the pole... keep those hands below the chest, muthafucka!

Yes! I was reading through this thread wondering if I'm the only person that shortens my poles a lot/most of the time for climbing anything more than a gentle slope. I like to keep my hands low and maybe push on the top of the handle if I need to. I hate having long poles climbing steeper stuff.

So I usually end up lengthening the poles before I start my descent.

[TahoeJ]

Well this thread just goes to show different perspectives and regions... while I definitely defended having adjustable poles, I rarely ever use them. How long are these flats that you guys typically deal with that you take the time to adjust? (seriously asking, don't take this as snarky or judgement at all)

For example... are you adjusting poles for this? (I do not bother, but maybe I should)

[MultiVerse]

I am an old nordic nerd from way back.

I have yet to figure out how some folks I ski with can get by w/o really using their poles.

Some really fast on the skin track folks seem to just be dragging em along- might as well be in their pack. All the old nordic kids I see use their poles for propulsion - most of them (myself being the exception maybe) are swift on the up.

I ski far more efficiently when I use my poles on the up. It can't always be done, but it sure seems faster and more efficient when I do. A high heart rate can also mean that you are moving faster or involving more of your body in the propulsion. It can also just mean that your body is getting used to a different type of movement.

The push you get from "actual" pole use is not just from the arms but from your core. Which for most bc skiers is fairly well developed. You're packing them muscles up - why not use em and save some of your legs for the down?

I can sort of understand this perspective on hard snow but if the snow is soft then from a physics standpoint aren't you just wasting energy pushing against something that doesn't push back, like in TahoeJ's pic? A strong core could mean not inefficiently relying on poles going uphill in certain conditions. To your point, faster more efficient skiers do seem to pole plant closer to their bodies rather spreading their poles out for balance so it does make sense but even then the glide is minimal.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that fixed poles are often times lighter. People might say that they don't mind heavier poles or can't tell a difference but a lighter pole still saves energy. There's a reason someone always breaks a pole in elite nordic races even though it ruins their race, because a heavier more durable pole is too slow at that level.

[GeezerSteve]

I'd fat fishscale that with adjustable poles set at 145cm

For example... are you adjusting poles for this? (I do not bother, but maybe I should)

[GeezerSteve]

same answer

[XXX-er]

Well this thread just goes to show different perspectives and regions... while I definitely defended having adjustable poles, I rarely ever use them. How long are these flats that you guys typically deal with that you take the time to adjust?

so I adjust them while I am skiing, sometimes at the same time while i am also chewing gum

even tho they say men can't multi-task

if you don't adj your poles

its not the poles fault

[I've seen black diamonds!]

How long are these flats that you guys typically deal with that you take the time to adjust?

Typical spring tour is something like 4 miles and 3000 vert from car to summit. First 2 miles cover about 1000 vert or less, which means lots of flat.

[LiveLarger]

Poles like the Black Crows Oxus is what you see all over Europe now.

As anyone who are actually efficient in the mountains know, you want to be able to keep your hands parallell when traversing. Thats why a lot of the telescope poles have a rubber bit, where you can place your hands. The thing is, telescope poles are fiddely and unefficient. Every time you adjust them, you loose time. You are wasting time. And if it's one thing you don't want to do in the mountains, it's waste time. You should all the time be doing something productive. Just ask any decent alpine climber, and they will tell you the same.

It's probably not that important if you are skinning up 3000 vertical feets on a hill behind your house, but if you are doing long trips in eg the alpine in the Alps, efficiency matters.

The great thing about these poles, are that they are very light weight. So when you are holding low on the handle and skiing, it's doesn't feel like the part sticking up is much in the way.

Point is. You want a light pole, long enough to skin with, with one continues long handle. Thats it.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

The thing is, telescope poles are fiddely and unefficient. Every time you adjust them, you loose time. You are wasting time. \

You could say the same about heel lifters. If you keep flipping them around you're waisting time and energy. But used occasionally they are vital. In some places (Wasatch) skinning without them would be terrible. In others they are irrelevant.

Not surprised that someone who skis in the Alps doesn't understand maximizing efficiency on long approaches. But you could probably do a better job keeping your elitism in check. It comes across as ignorant more than enlightened. The mountains here don't look like yours. In many cases the roads end long before you start gaining vertical. Being able to kick and glide as efficiently as possible saves time and energy.

[LiveLarger]

You could say the same about heel lifters. If you keep flipping them around you're waisting time and energy. But used occasionally they are vital. In some places (Wasatch) skinning without them would be terrible. In others they are irrelevant.

Not surprised that someone who skis in the Alps doesn't understand maximizing efficiency on long approaches. But you could probably do a better job keeping your elitism in check. It comes across as ignorant more than enlightened. The mountains here don't look like yours. In many cases the roads end long before you start gaining vertical. Being able to kick and glide as efficiently as possible saves time and energy.

Heel lifters are a whole different discussion.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Heel lifters are a whole different discussion.

Yes, but it tends to go a similar way. I think I've used a high lifter exactly once this year, and could easily live without them. They are inherently inefficient outside very specific terrain. I've used race bindings in the past and missed the flat mode more than the high lifter. But ask folks in Utah and you'll hear a different story. Terrain matters.

[zede]

Poles like the Black Crows Oxus is what you see all over Europe now.

As anyone who are actually efficient in the mountains know, you want to be able to keep your hands parallell when traversing. Thats why a lot of the telescope poles have a rubber bit, where you can place your hands. The thing is, telescope poles are fiddely and unefficient. Every time you adjust them, you loose time. You are wasting time. And if it's one thing you don't want to do in the mountains, it's waste time. You should all the time be doing something productive. Just ask any decent alpine climber, and they will tell you the same.

It's probably not that important if you are skinning up 3000 vertical feets on a hill behind your house, but if you are doing long trips in eg the alpine in the Alps, efficiency matters.

The great thing about these poles, are that they are very light weight. So when you are holding low on the handle and skiing, it's doesn't feel like the part sticking up is much in the way.

Point is. You want a light pole, long enough to skin with, with one continues long handle. Thats it.

Even in the Alps you get flatish approaches depending where/how you ski. Also you're hardly wasting time adjusting them as you can adjust them while skinning. And if losing half a second is such a big deal for you, you should probably quit skiing and get some bromazepam.
The only drawback of telescopic poles is their weight, and it's a matter of personnal preference whether you want light unpractical poles or slightly heavier practical poles. I guess if you ski on 80mm wide 160cm long skis that weight 1100g you don't want heavy poles.
I see plenty of people that manage to skin up 1800m with "unefficient poles", so I guess it's not really a big issue as you seem to think.

[LiveLarger]

Even in the Alps you get flatish approaches depending where/how you ski. Also you're hardly wasting time adjusting them as you can adjust them while skinning. And if losing half a second is such a big deal for you, you should probably quit skiing and get some bromazepam.
The only drawback of telescopic poles is their weight, and it's a matter of personnal preference whether you want light unpractical poles or slightly heavier practical poles. I guess if you ski on 80mm wide 160cm long skis that weight 1100g you don't want heavy poles.
I see plenty of people that manage to skin up 1800m with "unefficient poles", so I guess it's not really a big issue as you seem to think.

I don't understand how telescope poles are better on the flats than eg those Black Crows mentioned with a long handle. They are supposed to be long and light, so you can hold far down on the handle without it feeling awkward.

As far as I can tell, they do look a lot like a copy of these: http://www.a2-16.com/ which have been around for a while. I have seen others too.

[nickel]

Nerds.