New Durston Iceline Trekking Poles — but no straps :/

Thanks for sharing your experiences, feedback, and suggestions Philip – and my apologies about the difficult experience.

I think your crew is leading the way in terms of # of broken poles. We were actually discussing your situation here in our office a few days ago about the amount of issues you had experienced. This degree of broken poles is not typical, but also it is true that the metal tip on the quick connect is the most common break point. I have been looking into this and I have found a way to strengthen this for our next batch of poles. Basically we are shifting the grooves higher to be further away from the focus point, and also looking at reducing the size of the grooves slightly. So that improvement is going to be in place for the next batch in a few months, along with a variety of other updates including the strap option.

For the initial poles, they are mostly working well but when someone does have a broken pole for any reason we are happy to send out replacement tips. Starting in a few months those replacements will be the updated/stronger design.

I’m glad you’re otherwise quite liking the poles. I appreciate the feedback and am always working hard to improve.
– Dan

Quick update on the pole strength:
We’ve done more testing on the strength of the quick connect piece.  Basically we lay the pole over a span and push downwards on the pole until it breaks.

With the first batch, we get an average breaking load of 27 kg (60 lbs). When it does break, it is at the quick connect. That result is pretty good though. You theoretically could lay the pole over a span and hang two pretty loaded backpacks on the quick connect. We’ve tested some other brands of poles that break at about half of that.

However, I am always trying to improve and we have been able to make some design changes to this part to increase it further. For the next batch of poles we’ve been able to make this spot over 30% stronger to break around 80 lbs.

Good testing.  There’s a trade off – heavier vs stronger

Mainstream sellers opt more towards heavier to minimize the headache of dealing with breakage and returns

Ultralite will break more often, but for many users that will work

Great idea to make the quick connect fail first so you can easily repair it

I really like these poles and appreciate the really speedy refinements. Also appreciate that DurstonGear has great customer service and takes care of customers. With that said, I’m a little skeptical that the first iteration strength is “pretty good.” I only have my own experience of a pole bending (not breaking) at the quick connect after less than a week of nights on trail. Not wanting to risk a complete failure, I’m back to my unfazed LT5’s which have been in service for two years. I’ll be happy to return to the Icelines after the update, because I really got used to the flip lock!

Since the joint design is leveraged from an existing manufacture, how does the strength of your redesign compare to the leverged design?

“I’m a little skeptical that the first iteration strength is “pretty good.”…not wanting to risk a complete failure, I’m back to my unfazed LT5’s”
It wouldn’t be polite to show specific results, but here is an image to show we have tested LT5’s (and many other poles) to failure and the Iceline’s are substantially stronger.

Most lightweight trekking poles will break between 15-25 kg. The first batch of the Icelines at 27 kg is quite good, and then you’d have to go with a far heavier pole to beat the 36 kg max load for the second batch.

Originally the quick connect was the bottleneck for strength, so failures would tend to happen here at the O-ring grooves. The updated design moves the O-ring grooves further away from the stress point, so it is very similar but stronger. Now the quick connect strength is about even with the rest of the pole. In some repetitions it’ll break there and other repetitions it’ll break elsewhere. So the bottleneck is improved and the pole has more consistent strength, such that to go higher would mean adding weight throughout the pole.

So I do think the results are quite good, but of course poles can still break. If anyone breaks a pole, we are providing free replacement sections for the foreseeable future.

Since the joint design is leveraged from an existing manufacture, how does the strength of your redesign compare to the leverged design?
I asked Komperdell how our results compare to other poles. This is their answer:

“These are actually really nice results, as regular 3-section poles from us average at 35kg. Our strongest pole averages at 39kg. Usually other folding poles on the market are much weaker”

Excellent answer!  Best wishes rolling out the new design!

In the meantime, my friend in Juneau has bent an additional Iceline connector, and snapped another. I am hoping 30% stronger is enough. I understand the measured failure values are useful for comparison, but they don’t seem to tell the whole story.

My friends were just visiting Kodiak for a week and a half. We spent three days in the mountains deer hunting. We went back to our standard trekking poles (various flavors of Black Diamond; mostly the 3-piece Expedition or 1-piece Vapor series) and had no issues.

I’ll get you some of the updated poles in a couple months :)

Slight digression, but I loaned my friends my X-Mid Pro 2 for the trip, and they liked it.

It seems like the test you describe would be useful for judging the overall strength of the material, especially if it was consistent across the entire pole. But my understanding is that it isn’t. It seems like a better test would be to clamp the tip area (everything below the basket) and then apply weight on the handle until it snaps. That seems like it would mimic real world failure. If you are concerned about the area below the basket, then do the same thing at various points (half way in between, one quarter, etc.) as again, this happens. You stick your pole in between rocks, it gets stuck, you bend it and it breaks.

I was backpacking with my wife on the CDT this week and thinking about the test Dan Durston posted above (yeah, I know – I don’t even use trekking poles). But, you know how the mind wanders on the trail… while I’m no engineer, it seems to me it’s a highly limited test which in no way mimics real world use. I don’t know what such a test would look like, but my guess is it would look a lot more dynamic. In the meanwhile, Philip Tschersich’s real-world experience carries more weight. At the end of the day, the “laboratory” is all well and good, but it in no way replaces actual hands-on use.

Just a thought…

Thanks for that behind-the-scenes look at how poles are tested in the industry, very interesting.

Between the lab and the real world, and vice-versa, there falls a big shadow.

And there’s yet another factor: one learns how to use their equipment. This includes understanding the limitations of a piece of equipment, and the adjustments that need to be made to best accommodate these limitations.

I broke one Light Trek pole late in the first season of use. And indeed it was down near the tip. I understood what had happened. Now avoiding levering the tips of these poles in rock cracks while moving forward is second nature. I learned the equipment. The poles are going strong 15 years later.

Yeah, when I pass a rock field I usually avoid using my poles (or at the very least I’m especially careful). I also pick sturdier poles when I plan on doing some scrambling. I haven’t broken a pole in a long time.

I am going to chime in here with my 2 cents.  I worked in R&D all my life and there are particular test that you run when you release a product, namely Verification and Validation.  The first one determines if you passed the engineering test, the second one evaluates if it met the customer’s request.

So, the original design probably passed the engineering spec, however; in real life there have been some failures, and may not have passed Validation.  These issues .are being addressed.

Now, in defending a small start up company like Dan’s, with the first release, initial failures are not uncommon.  Verification test usually requires some history to determine test methodologies and limits.  As a new product, these don’t really exist.

The design is leveraged from an existing manufacture who has years of experience developing this type of product.  The fact that they shared information with Dan about test limits/comparative data is stunning to me.  Companies typically do not share this data as that falls under the umbrella of trade secrets which in many cases are valuable that patents.

Given that the manufacture evaluated Dan’s test data and said that it was about on par with their designs is very positive that he is on the right track.

Will there be other failures.  Maybe.  That being said, the product will evolve and become better over time as the product goes through a normal shake down process.

I make these statements not as a defense of Dan but to provide some insights into the new product development process.  Creating new and innovative products is not easy.  My 2 cents.

Creating new and innovative products is not easy.

I am in compete agreement with the above.

Would also add, I don’t think anyone on this thread has thrown Dan under the bus in any way, including those who had their poles fail. Dan is obviously a stand-up guy and has a great deal of respect here. He conducts himself and his business in an entirely admirable way. I think anyone that throws down cash for a first iteration of anything from a small maker knows they are participating in ongoing R&D and that a “MKII” version is inevitable.

Jon, can you elaborate on

The fact that they shared information with Dan about test limits/comparative data is stunning to me.  Companies typically do not share this data as that falls under the umbrella of trade secrets which in many cases are valuable that patents.

Let’s go theoretical here. Let’s say we are talking about the water resistant qualities of a silnylon 6.6 fabric from Brand X. They have a lab test their fabric and find that it tests at 4800mm of HH and Brand Y tests at 3200mm.

Why would that data be as/more valuable than the patent on the fabric? Maybe this example wouldn’t be?

R&D is not the customers responsibility, especially in something as common as a trekking pole. There is nothing heavier than a broken piece of equipment. If it’s not good, why put it out?

A specification (Verification) can evolve into a customer requirement (Validation) as the the market matures and customers set expectations,  Trade Secrets can be the process that I used to meet those specification material, used, machine setting, coatings etc.  if you patent these, a lot of that information has to be disclosed in the filing.  In rapidly evolving markets, that process could be obsolete in a few years and patent are expensive.

with respect to trekking poles, why give away any information that would allow a competitor to equal or exceed my performance?  If I made a trekking pole that was super robust in rocky field and better than anyone else,I would not provide test data or methodologies to the completion.  I might show a head to head test where I passed any they failed but no more details than that.  A buck a buck and in a capitalist environment, I wouldn’t give anything away.  My 2 cents.

Nothing matches extensive field testing. Results obtained in a lab setting only count for so much.

After breaking my 10th carbon pole I went back to aluminum. They only weigh about 1.5 oz to 2 oz more (each) and they’re considerably cheaper. Aluminum poles also last far longer. What’s more they make a lot better self-defense weapon against bad dogs.

If you use the same materials, the same methods, and the same factories, you pretty much get the same results.

Nothing matches extensive field testing. Results obtained in a lab setting only count for so much.

This is 100% correct for brand new products.  This is how most companies deal with this.

1)      You do all of your bench top testing coupled with field testing.  Once that is successful you…

2)      You release an ALPHA version to known customers, usually at no cost.  Once you get feedback and improve the design you…..

3)      Release a BETA version.  Usually at the target price with the stipulation of free upgrades or full refunds: satisfaction guaranteed.  Once that is successful you…

4)      Do a full product launch.  You track field failures and make adjustments as necessary.

Field testing is great but only if you have a large sample size, a diverse distribution of users and diverse testing grounds.  The best data that you can get is the field failure rates and customer satisfaction feedback.  All of this is impossible, particularly for a new product prior to launch.  Successful companies have learned how to roll the design based upon customer feedback.

Look at DCF tents, look at water resistant down.  How about the Sawyer Mini?  All around you are samples of products that evolved as they got field test data back from customers.  Field test a priori is rarely successful.  My 2 cents.

Aristotle wrote, “the hand is the tool of the tool”.  What he means is, the hand–the human–adjusts to the tool in order to make the tool effective. For Aristotle, our ability to conform to the very tools that we create is in some ways the essence of humanity.

Less lofty, I’ll go back to what I wrote earlier: we have to understand our tools; how they work, their limitations, the way they improve our own efforts. And then we adjust our behavior to accommodate the tool. The hand is the tool of the tool.

I don’t brush my dog the same way that I hammer a nail. I had to learn that distinction.

A lab test doesn’t really discriminate between experienced user of a tool and the opposite.  Even the field testing of a new product doesn’t always allow for the necessary learning curve required of a new tool. More: If a field test comes back from a new user of a tent with ‘x’ amount of experience, and another comes back from a user with ‘y’ years of experience, and they contradict each other…so called scientific evaluation is impossible, by the very criteria that Science has set up for itself. Too many variables!

I’m not against lab tests! but if they were definitive in regards to alpha products, beta innovations would be unnecessary.  Rather, products evolve as we learn. That’s a good thing!

Lab / Benchtop testing is supposed to emulate real life conditions/utilizations. How do you do that as a company introducing a new innovative product that you never made before? You take your product and abuse it and you observe the failures. You keep doing that until you think that the design is stable. Then you have to develop the best test(s) to test your product at higher volumes. You modify or develop new test as you learn about more failures.
With a trekking pole, people use it in different ways. So, the best way to get data is by customer failure rates. In this particular case, Dan was able to compare data with the supplier. As I said earlier, this is rare. If he didn’t have that data, he might just have to make the improvement and field test it (with a plethora of users). Note that a few people had pole failures and not all of them. You may never know why it works for some people and not others.
The other reason for field testing is the shear amount of work/dollars associated with bench testing. Let’s say that you wanted trekking poles with a 99% reliability with a confidence level of 95%. That seems pretty reasonable. With the bend test (and let’s assume it is a pass or fail test) you have to have a sample size of 299 parts with no failures. When I worked in the Inkjet business, our tests were typically 99% reliability with a 99% confidence interval.
As companies mature and learn more about their products, verification testing improves, and the test gets closer to emulating what is going on in the field. I am sure that most trekking companies have very defined Verification tests because the products are high volume and the impact of field failures can be financially devastating.
Keep in mind that I am not knock Dan, just trying to provide so insights into new product development.