[at-l] hiking poles' efficiency...

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
> >"...I'm not arguing that the trail, which has been dug away leaving a 
>small
> >trench to begin with, doesn't suffer erosion.  I'm saying the damage you
> >perceive, that Leki type poles create, isn't as great as you'd like to
> >believe."
>
>I don't know what you think I believe. I know that some damage is obvious. 
>How
>serious it may be in the overall scheme of things remains questionable. I 
>do
>know that almost all of this damage could be eliminated with rubber tipped
>hiking poles.

What damage is obvious?  And since it may or may not be serious - why do you 
think it's acceptable to change everybody else's life based on *your* 
personal fear-based worst-case speculation?  And why do you think that the 
dynamics of rubber tipped poles wouldn't create other, more serious effects? 
  or didn't you think about that?


>  I don't know how rubber tips would impact on the ability of hiking poles 
>to
>  allow faster hiking. I do believe that rubber tipped poles would be 
>equally
>  effective in relieving stress on knees and would almost certainly reduce
>  incidents of falling as compared with sharp pointed poles.

Maybe - but I doubt it.  What analysis leads you to this conclusion?

>  I've experimented with Lekis. My rubber crutch-tipped pole is far more 
>stable
>  on rocks than are sharp-pointed leki poles. A quality soft rubber crutch 
>tip
>  grasps the natural inperfections of the rock and simply does not slide. 
>Leki
>  rock skids are obvious. You can see the scratch marks. And I've 
>experienced
>  their instability.

That may be your experience - mine is different.  I had more slips and falls 
with the crutch tips than with the Lekis.  The "simply does not slide" 
doesn't work for me.  YMMV

As for the scratch marks - go talk to Jim Bullard - or didn't you read his 
post on the subject.

Fact is that the first time this came up, I went out the next weekend and 
saw massive scratch marks on the rocks.  Trouble is - when I looked closer - 
they weren't scratch marks.  They were a part of the rock structure.  
Puzzling.  Until an at-l list member pointed out that the so-called "scratch 
marks" were a form of (I believe) lichen growth on the rocks.  That 
explained why there were so many more of them than would have been expected 
or reasonable on a section of the AT that had just been opened 6 months 
before.  It also explained the length, spacing and direction of those 
so-called "scratches".

>  Once while crossing a beaver dam, the leki I was using skidded so badly 
>on a
>  rock that I was dumped into the water.

Was that the Leki - or you?  Or did you just explain why you don't like 
Lekis?  <G>

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize