Great info in this thread, I like going as light as possible.
Absent a little heat loss, the spring in the pole is going to return the energy to you when it decompresses. To me what's important is not the spring compression and change in length (position/velocity) but the impact (acceleration/jerk/jounce) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)). It's all about smoothing out the response to the step input. There's a lot of dynamics that go into higher order position derivatives, I find it more comfortable using shocks.
I have used both and I think when you have shock style poles you tend to use them a little differently than if you have non-shock poles. Without shocks I am more aware of placement and use them for "light secondary stability" and to assist my legs, where with the shock tips I used them much more forcefully and sometimes relied on them for forward for propulsion. I use non-shock poles now as there is less things to go wrong out on the trail (one pole shock system froze up which was warranted) and I do believe that being more cognoscente of pole placement with less force actually saves energy in the long run (or hike) lol.
I used trekking poles with shocks for 20+ years until last summer. I gave them up to save weight and don't regret it. The extra weight of the shocks really adds up after a long day. Think of lighter shoes. Also, the shocks always made noise for me. They are nice, but heavy. However, if you have some type of medical condition with your joints or do shorter hikes, they are great.
Definitely rigid IMO.
Rigid with flick locks for me.
Blackheart
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
