[Stephen Fox]

I was on about the backpack mate as it was mentioned by yourself . Mike

Ah!Ok mate,I will wait on Stephens reply then, to see if they are available, or are in fact a phantom product.

i think i've answered this on another thread? Let me know if you haven't seen it.

[Moderator David@stives]

How did you Lose it ?

[evo]

not eating properly due to the worrie about the new poles selling. then coming on here being slagged off 

[Moderator David@stives]

I don't think he is worried about that

Looks a very good pole, I like gardiners poles, but I can see some real innovations on the facelift pole

[Stephen Fox]

That's about right actually! The worry/stress weight loss system.

Hardcore dieting, running and some Insanity. Feel better than ever.

[matthewprice]

i an always looking for somthing that works better,i have had ionics vertical clamps in the past and the problem i found was that the nylon nut wore fast and the reverse thread nuts cost a  lot. is it possible to let us know how your clamps work and how they last   thanks matthew

[KS Cleaning]

I was on about the backpack mate as it was mentioned by yourself . Mike

Ah!Ok mate,I will wait on Stephens reply then, to see if they are available, or are in fact a phantom product.

i think i've answered this on another thread? Let me know if you haven't seen it.

sorry stephen,no I haven't seen it,could you put a link up,cheers

[thermoclean]

First thing facelift need is a brush with a weight around 150g  like the SL extreme brush  they transform the feel of any pole.  Also isn't this facelift vs Gardiner stuff a bit sad a bit like arguing about whats the best smartphone out at he moment. A lot comes down to personal preference and in the end both will do the job very well.

[G Griffin]

Looks like a very good pole Steve

On another point, where has your belly gone

Haha! Lost 5 stone, not bad eh!

Is that 5 stone, exactly, or an estimation? We don't want a weight loss debacle  .
Well done, anyway.

[niceandclean]

Well, just answer my questions please.
Is the ultralight high modulus like the Xtreme?
Is the top section for occasional use only?
When is it available?
Do you think your carbon poles are harder wearing than Gardiners, if so how have you done it?

Mark,

Not high mod, our carbon is very good so no real need for the extra expense.

Top section we have designed for occasional use, but can be used every minute of the day if you wish. It's the worlds shortest stacked 25ft plus pole. I would personally say if you need a 25ft plus pole for most of your working day then buy a 30ft and make your life easier.

Have a look at our vid while its still up for a little more info on the pole wear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTn9ft7aXY&feature=plcp

Not entirely happy with it as we have a used SLX pole to compare but it just to get the idea. Will remove and replace shortly.

The carbon weave on the pole looks good. Is it made here in the UK, Europe or the Far East?

[keyser soze]

looks a great pole. a worthy rival to slx tbh... great news for us punters what does a 25ft cost foxy

[AuRavelling79]

Gardiner/Facelift pole length and weight debacle

...

Pole Lengths

...

The acts on pole lengths: (Here are some stated extended lengths from Gardiners website)

CLX/SLX poles

CLX 10 - 3.01m - 9.10ft
CLX 14 - 4m - 13.1ft
CLX/SLX 18 - 5.22m - 17.1ft
CLX/SLX 22 - 6.39m - 20.11ft
CLX/SLX 27 - 8.10m - 26.6ft
SLX 25 - 7.62m - 25ft
SLX 30 - 9m - 29.6ft
SLX 35 - 10.34m - 33.11ft

The only one which is the full length is the SLX25. The main question we need to ask is why is this suddenly an issue, when another company emulates these pole sizes and Alex has been getting away with it for years!? In fact, i find it staggering for Alex to pull us up on an extended lengths when his fall short in nearly every version.

...

I'm looking at your above quote and have zereod in pole lengths - now look at the metres = feet you have posted which in the case of the CLX10, SLX/CLX22 and SLX35 are significantly out.

You state the CLX10 is shown as 3.01 metres equating to 9.1ft. It doesn't - 3.01 metres equates to 9.87 feet.

Ditto the CLX22/SLX22 as 6.39 metres equating to 20.11ft. It doesn't - 6.39 metres equates to 20.96ft.

SLX35? you put 10.34 equating to 33.11ft - it should be 33.92ft

So in those three examples the lengths in feet you have posted are about 9/10 inches shorter than the metres actually work to.

(My feet rounded to the nearest two decimal points and found by multiplying metres x 3.28)

Furthermore(added later)

Nowhere do Gardiners claim that a pole number is exact length. For example,

The SLX25 at 7.66 metres equates to 25.12ft (not 25ft bare as you have quoted)

The SLX extreme 25 is 7.72 metres which equates to 25.32ft.

Both are "25's" but their lengths vary by 2 or 3 inches.

The exact stated length is there in metres for all to see.

[Stephen Fox]

Gardiner/Facelift pole length and weight debacle

...

Pole Lengths

...

The acts on pole lengths: (Here are some stated extended lengths from Gardiners website)

CLX/SLX poles

CLX 10 - 3.01m - 9.10ft
CLX 14 - 4m - 13.1ft
CLX/SLX 18 - 5.22m - 17.1ft
CLX/SLX 22 - 6.39m - 20.11ft
CLX/SLX 27 - 8.10m - 26.6ft
SLX 25 - 7.62m - 25ft
SLX 30 - 9m - 29.6ft
SLX 35 - 10.34m - 33.11ft

The only one which is the full length is the SLX25. The main question we need to ask is why is this suddenly an issue, when another company emulates these pole sizes and Alex has been getting away with it for years!? In fact, i find it staggering for Alex to pull us up on an extended lengths when his fall short in nearly every version.

...

I'm looking at your above quote and have zereod in pole lengths - now look at the metres = feet you have posted which in the case of the CLX10, SLX/CLX22 and SLX35 are significantly out.

You state the CLX10 is shown as 3.01 metres equating to 9.1ft. It doesn't - 3.01 metres equates to 9.87 feet.

Ditto the CLX22/SLX22 as 6.39 metres equating to 20.11ft. It doesn't - 6.39 metres equates to 20.96ft.

SLX35? you put 10.34 equating to 33.11ft - it should be 33.92ft

So in those three examples the lengths in feet you have posted are about 9/10 inches shorter than the metres actually work to.

(My feet rounded to the nearest two decimal points and found by multiplying metres x 3.28)

Gold, there is no such thing as 33ft 92. There are only 12 inches in every foot. You are confusing imperial and metric measurements. You have brought up a valid point, why   pole lengths and reach heights are in feet but the extended are in metres?

[stuart mc]

he has you there goldie you need to do your sums again and change the .92 or whatever and convert to inches

[AuRavelling79]

he has you there goldie you need to do your sums again and change the .92 or whatever and convert to inches

Where? I only see 33.92ft ...

[AuRavelling79]

Gardiner/Facelift pole length and weight debacle

...

Pole Lengths

...

The acts on pole lengths: (Here are some stated extended lengths from Gardiners website)

CLX/SLX poles

CLX 10 - 3.01m - 9.10ft
CLX 14 - 4m - 13.1ft
CLX/SLX 18 - 5.22m - 17.1ft
CLX/SLX 22 - 6.39m - 20.11ft
CLX/SLX 27 - 8.10m - 26.6ft
SLX 25 - 7.62m - 25ft
SLX 30 - 9m - 29.6ft
SLX 35 - 10.34m - 33.11ft

The only one which is the full length is the SLX25. The main question we need to ask is why is this suddenly an issue, when another company emulates these pole sizes and Alex has been getting away with it for years!? In fact, i find it staggering for Alex to pull us up on an extended lengths when his fall short in nearly every version.

...

I'm looking at your above quote and have zereod in pole lengths - now look at the metres = feet you have posted which in the case of the CLX10, SLX/CLX22 and SLX35 are significantly out.

You state the CLX10 is shown as 3.01 metres equating to 9.1ft. It doesn't - 3.01 metres equates to 9.87 feet.

Ditto the CLX22/SLX22 as 6.39 metres equating to 20.11ft. It doesn't - 6.39 metres equates to 20.96ft.

SLX35? you put 10.34 equating to 33.11ft - it should be 33.92ft

So in those three examples the lengths in feet you have posted are about 9/10 inches shorter than the metres actually work to.

(My feet rounded to the nearest two decimal points and found by multiplying metres x 3.28)

Gold, there is no such thing as 33ft 92. There are only 12 inches in every foot. You are confusing imperial and metric measurements. You have brought up a valid point, why   pole lengths and reach heights are in feet but the extended are in metres?

Like I said to stuart m - I have put 33.92ft, using the exact same method as you have in your original post. 33.92 is perfectly valid it equates to 33ft 11.04 inches.

So again I say that you have in several cases significantly understated the length when converted from metres to feet.

[stuart mc]

he has you there goldie you need to do your sums again and change the .92 or whatever and convert to inches

Where? I only see 33.92ft ...

malc, you say he is exaggerating by a good few inches, but he put 33 ft 11 inches you made that 33ft 11inches plus point 04, hardly much to worry about really

[Lee GLS]

you are both right, but stephen should instead of putting 20.11ft, it should have been 20ft 11", the same as 20.96ft

[Stephen Fox]

Gold, as pointed out inches only go up to 12. You can't combine two different measurement systems. It causes confusion, which is the whole reason we are having his conversation.

Why are there two different measurements in the specifications? I can only deduct it is hide the fact that the lengths are not equal to the state sizes.

[AuRavelling79]

Gold, as pointed out inches only go up to 12. You can't combine two different measurement systems. It causes confusion, which is the whole reason we are having his conversation.

Why are there two different measurements in the specifications? I can only deduct it is hide the fact that the lengths are not equal to the state sizes.

Wrong, Stephen - as LeeGLS states if you meant feet and inches you should have put (eg) 33ft 11 inches or 33ft 11". By putting 33.11ft you have said 33ft and .11 of a foot.

.11 of a foot is 1.32"

There are not two different measurements to hide anything - the exact extended length is stated in metres - the working height in feet. And a number on the pole which approximates to the feet. What would you have? An SLX7.62 instead of an SLX25? An SLX Extreme 7.72 instead of an SLX Extreme 25? That would sound a bit clumsy and using whole metres would be too approximate to be of any use. And a change in clamp design might mean a slight adjustment in length too.

Bear in mind that Gardiner Poles are sold in the USA where feet and inches are popular and to "my generation" in the UK which uses both.