Oct 8, 2013 at 8:11 am #1308477
Chad BBPL Member
Finally back in stock.Oct 8, 2013 at 8:19 am #2031826
Jacob SmithBPL Member
@wrongturnLocale: The Soda
Ditched mine for komperdell vario 4 carbons.
Always worried about dropping down off of rock ledges with GGs.Oct 8, 2013 at 8:34 am #2031832
Link .BPL Member
For less money,flick locks and less than an oz more in weight per pole Carbon Fiber Trekking Pole “CP3″ .Oct 8, 2013 at 8:44 am #2031834
@andrew-fLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
Anyone know how the Locus Gear poles compare to LT4s in terms of stiffness? They are an ounce more per pole, but have flicklocks… my wild guess would be that the flicklocks weigh about an oz and that they are made with similar tubing. Also would be curious to know if the bottom section is reinforced on the Locus Gear ones like on the LT4s.Oct 8, 2013 at 6:56 pm #2032101
Sorry, but this is going to be a major whine. You've been warned, and can skip to the next post if you like.
None of these expensive UL poles, the LT4s, the Locus, the lighter Fizans, and the lighter Komperdells have grip extensions that project down from the main grip.
I love these extensions, as they make hiking in rough terrain much more pleasant.
The extension itself, if made of light foam, weighs very little – no reason not to offer them. Have tried the MYOG approach, golf grips etc., but they are much heavier than the foam ones that are integral on my Scotts that cost around half as much.
So think I'll continue with the slightly heavier poles with extensions, and with more strength. But keep an eye out on Black Diamond's line to see what develops.
But will NOT boil the grips off one of the Ultralights, and replace with grips boiled off the Scotts. Why? 'Cause I'm sick and tired of having to make or remake every dam* piece of gear I use just to get a more suitable product !!!!
Whine!Oct 8, 2013 at 7:19 pm #2032103
Cayenne RedmonkBPL Member
@redmonkLocale: Greater California Ecosystem
Maybe just wrap where you hold with tennis racquet grip/ over grip ?Oct 8, 2013 at 7:34 pm #2032111
"Anyone know how the Locus Gear poles compare to LT4s in terms of stiffness?"
The Locus Gear poles are noticeably stiffer. I've got both. They also pack quite a bit shorter. The LT4 grips are better and lighter (I swapped some on to my FL2 poles).
The LT4 poles are lighter and thus better for on-trail high milage use. The FL2's are better suited for careful off-trail use, wet weather use (where a twist lock can slip), cold weather use (where a twist lock can freeze or just suck) or trips where you want to stow them (packrafting). They're still not something I'd use for skiing.Oct 8, 2013 at 7:36 pm #2032112
Max DiltheyBPL Member
Same thought: Bicycle handlebar tape. Corky and soft!Oct 8, 2013 at 7:51 pm #2032117
Garth CollierBPL Member
Hi Dan, How did you swap the LT4 grips onto to LG FL2 poles? I have been meaning to do this and have the LT4 grips to put on my FL2 poles BUT I worry that i may damage a good set of poles in the process. Your advice would be appreciated…cheers GOct 8, 2013 at 8:19 pm #2032137
@rosyfinchLocale: the mountains
what is FL2 ????
bOct 8, 2013 at 8:20 pm #2032139
I think they're referring to the Locus Gear CP3s. http://locusgear.com/products-2/trekking-poles/cp3?lang=enOct 8, 2013 at 10:22 pm #2032167
William ChiltonBPL Member
"None of these expensive UL poles, the LT4s, the Locus, the lighter Fizans, and the lighter Komperdells have grip extensions that project down from the main grip."
Samuel, these Fizans do.
They're the 4 piece poles that pack extra short at a cost of 11 grams over the 3 piece. The extended grip adds 3 grams.Oct 9, 2013 at 5:36 am #2032194
"How did you swap the LT4 grips onto to LG FL2 poles?"
It's easiest if you remove the lower 2 sections so you're just dealing with the upper. Step one is to get the Locus Gear grips off. The standard approach is to soften the glue (submerse grip in boiling water for 5-10min). I found that helped a bit, but mostly I was just tearing them off which worked fine.
Then you need to glue the new grips on. The LT4 grips have a smaller diameter hole, but they're quite stretchy. I put some gorilla glue in the grip and then I got the shaft damp, which helps the glue bond and it lubes things up. Be careful when you're working the grip on to keep things straight (I cut into the side of the grip with the top of the shaft on one of mine because I wasn't pushing down quite straight). You also want to make sure you get the grip all the way on, so you don't have floppy grip extending above the pole. It's not too bad, but the glue did dry surprisingly quick so I had to hustle a bit. It might be best to do a trial run without the glue. Just use water, get the grips on and leave it overnight. That might stretch out the grip a bit so it's easy to do with the glue the next day.
Don't use a ton of glue, because it expands and if you fill up the tubing with glue then the poles won't collapse all the way.
"what is FL2 ????"
The Locus Gear CP3 poles used to be called CP2 until a few months ago (and presumably they were called the CP poles before that). The CP2 poles came in two versions: TL (twist lock) and FL (flick lock). So FL2 is a lazy way of saying the CP2 FL poles.Oct 9, 2013 at 7:32 am #2032225
David ChenaultBPL Member
@davecLocale: Crown of the Continent
I added GG grips to some BD ski poles with an 18mm OD. You can use sand paper on a dowel to widen the grip hole a bit. Then put a bit of Gorilla Glue in the grip, a bit of mineral spirits on the pole, and they go together easily. Let the glue cure with the poles up-side down.
I've been bugging GG to make an all-season pole for a little while now. Alu upper, larger diameter carbon lower, flicklock, 150ish max length.Oct 9, 2013 at 8:17 am #2032248
Garth CollierBPL Member
Thx Dan and David for your advice.Oct 9, 2013 at 8:54 pm #2032549
Thanks for the suggestion. The extended sleeves are a little short, but am sure I could come up with a foam ring to create a small knob glued to the bottom of the extension. Would help to keep my grip from slipping off.
Now to decide if lowering the weight from 7.5 to 6 ounces is worth it. Doesn't seem so, but I've found that even an ounce reduction on a pole can make it much easier and more comfortable to use when trekking all day in rough terrain.
Appreciate your help.Oct 10, 2013 at 8:48 am #2032670
Marc KokoskyBPL Member
@mak52580Locale: Washington, DC Area
Dan – How do you think the sturdiness/quality of the FL2 poles compare to more robust CF poles such as the BD Alpine Carbon Corks?Oct 10, 2013 at 9:08 am #2032678
Jennifer MitolBPL Member
@jenmitolLocale: In my dreams....
I finally was able to try out my new CP3s on a hike a few weeks ago…I really, really like them. I also have the BD Carbon corks…
Frankly, the carbon corks seem like total overkill to me at this point. I used them on the JMT and didn't care that much for them…definitely too much pole. These CP3s hit the sweet spot for me…my 2 day hike was all on rock and the poles did a great job. There's a rattle in there somewhere that I can't seem to find (any hints?) that bugs me, but I don't see them breaking under normal use. Thin but not too thin, robust but not overkill.
If you think the carbon corks are spot on, you will find these guys a little flimsy. If you want slightly less pole than the BDs, then give locus gear a try. Excellent customer service, too.Oct 10, 2013 at 9:23 am #2032686
Dave C, why Al upper for all-season?
I have been thinking Large OD lower Al, with cabon fiber upper would be ideal.
Al lower should handle the localized trauma type stress that the bottom 12" tends to see (like accidentally jambing the tip btw rocks and bending). Could be bent back to shape if not damage too badly and would be cheaper the replace if broken.
Large diameter on on Aluminum to better match it with the stiffer carbon upper.Oct 10, 2013 at 11:45 am #2032777
David ChenaultBPL Member
@davecLocale: Crown of the Continent
James, my main reason is skepticism about the long term durability of using flick locks on 100% carbon uppers. Until recently BD used a sort of plastic compression sleeve to avoid compressing the carbon uppers. On the latest Carbon Corks they've gone to carefully done cut outs in the carbon itself. Time will tell.
My main reason for carbon lowers is stiffness. When you get into an all season pole with a 100+ cm lower that will get used for skiing, I don't find aluminum rigid enough.
Now that you mention it, it'd be interesting to see if carbon saves that much weight over alloy in these higher strength applications. My current one pole for all situations rig is the aforementioned BD boundary ski poles, with GG grips on the uppers. I use BD carbon probe lowers for snow, as they are longer and stiffer. I cut ~10cm off the factor alu lowers, and use these for dirt. The result is a compact enough pole when fully collapsed, that goes out to 125cm max. These summer poles, with trekking baskets and no straps, are right under 8oz each. Not LT3 light, but light enough.Oct 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm #2032872
How do you think the sturdiness/quality of the FL2 poles compare to more robust CF poles such as the BD Alpine Carbon Corks?
You're asking the the right guy because I've also owned the BD ACC's. There was a sad day about 18 months ago when I left them at the trailhead in a sleep deprived stupor.
In terms of quality, all of these poles are nice. BD does a great job and Locus Gear is detail obsessed – they're beautiful poles. The LT4's are a more basic but also well executed design.
In terms of strength/durability, the ACC's are much beefier than the CP3's or LT4's. At 16oz/set (vs. 8-10oz) they're also much heavier. I find the ACC's to be overkill for trail use – I certainly notice the extra weight. I think the LT4's are perfect for high milage trail walkers and the CP3's are great for people who do a mix of trail and moderate off-trail hiking. The CP3's add flick locks, shorter stashed length and a bit of extra stiffness for just 1oz/pole which is a pretty good trade off for people who venture off-trail or packraft (easier to stash). I think they're cheaper too. If the CP3's are 25% stiffer than the LT4's, then the ACC's are 100% stiffer (wild guesses).
The ACC's have the stiffness to venture into the winter season, but I like to use cheaper poles when I'm skiing because I break a lot of them. For on-trail use they are overkill and heavy, but slower walkers might not notice the weight difference. They're probably best suited for snowshoeing, predominately off-trail hiking (ie. Brooks Range) and for rich people to use while skiing.
FWIW, with the ACC's is that you can ditch one of the lower sections and toss in a GG LT4 lower section, which makes the pole much longer because you're adding a section from a 2 piece pole into a 3 piece pole. This doesn't really compromise stiffness because you only have 8" or so of the bottom section sticking out, and it allows you to set up rather tall 'mids.Oct 10, 2013 at 3:54 pm #2032876
@rosyfinchLocale: the mountains
can you take a shot at comparing all these carbo poles to the BD carbo Z-poles? I think they weigh about 10 oz @ 120cm lengh
Bill DOct 10, 2013 at 4:52 pm #2032898
I've only walked around the store with the BD Z poles, so my experience is very limited.
The pair I used had some slop in the joints, so they felt more flexy than they probably were. If memory serves, they weren't nearly as stiff as the ACC's – perhaps they're in the vicinity of the CP3's in terms out outright strength, but the CP3's feel better under normal load because they don't have the slop in the joints.
Comparing the Z poles and the CP3's, the Z poles are quicker to deploy and they stow even smaller, but they have some omnipresent slop and they're non-adjustable, so the CP3's are the nicer poles IMO. If you're new to poles or possibly using it with a shelter, than an adjustable pole is really nice. I wouldn't get the Z poles unless you get a great deal or really want 'em to pack small. They're a nice choice for split boarders who only need poles for the way up and they want them to pack unobtrusively on the way down.Oct 10, 2013 at 5:26 pm #2032910
One thing that troubles me about all these carbon poles: It is seldom if ever clear whether the carbon tubes are pultruded, wrapped carbon cloth, or filament wound.
Regular visitors to this site are probably familiar with equipment editor Roger Caffin's posts about the filament winding machine.
In spending much time with carbon tent poles I've discovered that the difference, in terms of break strength, between the filament wound and the others is usually like night and day. I say 'usually' because Cabela's markets an arrow shaft of their own that they claim is multi-layer, but is not competitive in terms of break strength with
the multi-layer shafts form Gold Tip and Victory.
I wish the carbon trekking pole makers would provide more info about the composition of their products.
Until that happens, I'd prefer a 5-6 oz ALU Fizan pole to a carbon one an ounce or so lighter. All of the many posts I've seen on BPL about Fizans have been quite positive, and their cost is quite reasonable, even when you figure in shipping from the UK to the US.Oct 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm #2032918
Christopher *BPL Member
@cfrey-0Locale: US East Coast
Interesting point Samuel. I was just rereading one of Roger's posts on CF tubes and I had failed to connect it back to trekking poles.
While I cannot attest to the underlying structure, the lower sections of the GG LT's do have that rough overlaid spiral wrap.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.