Trekking Poles for a Thru-hike

I am planning a thru-hike on the AT. Can you give me insight into the pros & cons of ultralight poles vs the old standbys?
Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
0
I am planning a thru-hike on the AT. Can you give me insight into the pros & cons of ultralight poles vs the old standbys?

Question:

I am planning a thru-hike on the AT. Can you give me insight into the pros & cons of ultralight poles vs the old standbys? How necessary are shock absorbing poles for the AT?

Submitted by - Scott - Grosse Ile, MI

Answer:

Well, it’s pretty simple, Scott. Lighter poles mean a lighter load, which is a good thing when you’ve got 2100+ miles till you reach the finish line. If I were you, I’d be weighing every single thing that goes into my pack, always opting for the items that shave ounces.

In terms of poles, you will save a few ounces (and dollars) by going with non-shock absorbing poles. Personally, I don’t really see or feel the benefit of shock absorbers in poles. Now, if I could install shock absorbers in my knees, that would be worth the extra money and weight!

For the AT, you’ll definitely want three-section poles that collapse down nice and small, because odds are you’ll stash them in your pack for certain sections. Non-collapsible poles just don’t make sense for thru-hikers because when you don’t want to carry them, they’re awkward to lash onto your pack and could cause you to get hung up while traipsing through tree-tunnels.

Here are a couple of good bets: the first is ultralight (and ultraexpensive) the second is a great bargain.

Black Diamond Z-Poles: Check out our video review.

Mountainsmith Rhyolite 6061