I have been looking at new poles lately, with a view to replacing all my old ones, and i am getting really annoyed and fed up with mftrs selling poles eg 40 ft but the actual pole is only 36 feet, unless you spot it in the small print you could get caught short so to speak.
Why have they all got pole paranoia and scared to state the actual lengths of there pole.
We all know how high we can reach with a pole, give us some credit for not being thick.
I think the only honest poles out there are Extell poles, I thought my 40 ft was 40ft until i got my tape measure out , guess what 4 ft short.
Come on suppliers sort this out, just sell us the right lengths, if your pole is only 20 ft sell it as 20 ft not as a 24 ft pole.
Rant over
Dave
It irritates me too Dave. Especially as there is no consistency when the extra bit allowed for reach varies between 3ft and 5ft. I'm assuming this depends on the pole weight and indeed, a reasonable working height for a heavier pole is 3ft from the ground whereas a very light carbon pole can be held at shoulder height for a while. I must say that I am not targetting any particular manufacturer with this complaint but it seems that as soon as one breaks ranks to try and make their pole sound longer, the rest have to follow suit in order to compete. Some manufacturers do make it clearer than others about which is the pole length and which is the "reach" length - notably Alex Gardiner always seems to clarify the difference. However, I do wish there was no need for any of this nonsense. The length of a pole is if it is assembled/extended, laying along the ground, and measured with a measuring tape. Funny how you don't see any manufacturers "shortening" their poles by quoting the "top of window" height which is less than the pole length due to the angle. We seem to get this throughout industry. A few years ago somebody suddenly decided that a hard drive capacity should be measured by assuming that there were 1,000 megabytes in a gigabyte (there are actually 1,024) thus making hard drives sound larger than they are. Also, athlon (the computer processor manufacturer) started giving its processors names and number that implied that it went through more clock cycles per second than it actually does. Even places like McDonalds have got in on the act by selling drinks that are either "large" or "medium" (no "small" please note). To me, the term medium in this context means half way so it should be used to describe a mid range size, not the smallest.
I feel that there really is a case for Trading Standards to get in on the act with all these types of things. I personally find them grossly irritating. It's not so much the misdescription that bugs me as the feeling that I am being taken for a mug.
I've restricted myself to acceptable wording on this as to write what I really think would possibly get the post deleted. Apart from that, there are plenty of more important things to get annoyed about but it must be greatly annoying when you spend hundreds of pounds on something only to find it won't do the job because it's shorter than expected. Could always stand on a pair of steps I suppose (I actually did this once when a pole was a couple of feet shy of the target but that wasn't due to the description. I was just too tight to buy a longer pole :-) ) .