>>2767947>posting a "study" that is purely self-reported, with no reproducble measurementsLet me guess, you work in marketing? What are you gonna come up with next, some computer simulation done for a bachelor thesis that has the results hardcoded into it? And yes, that exists - though afaik, it didn't get into publication, so you'd have to raid the archive.
Here's one of the few actual studies on the topic:
https://thesportjournal.org/article/load-carriage-force-production-comparison-between-standard-and-anti-shock-trekking-poles/tl;dr: It can be proven that when walking on good, grippy surface, poles do absolutely nothing to reduce forces. Same thing every first-year engineering student could tell you by looking at how poles are used, btw.
In rough terrain, it's a different matter. But there, staves are superior.
>>2767973>reading comprehension over 9000I never claimed my staff "works" the way people claim poles do.
It's purely for stability in rough terrain. And yes, that includes "really steep stuff" in the mountains, where I have to use the full length to get it to even touch the ground in front of me. Now, i might be overloading your smooth brain, but try to keep up: if a 200cm staff, gripped almost at the top, can barely touch the ground, a 115 cm pole is to short to reach it.
