Hiking Tools And Equipment

altitudeaddict

Proposal: an open, modular accessory interface for trekking poles and shelter struts

I am exploring the feasibility of a standardized, lightweight accessory interface embedded in trekking pole grips and tips (and optionally shelter struts) to enable robust, multi-use attachments without ad hoc adapters. The objective is to consolidate common trail functions-camera/phone monopod, tarp spreader, antenna mast, snow saw, probe, trowel, small pick/anchor, ice basket, and first-aid splint hardware-into a single, reliable interface that does not compromise pole strength or ergonomics.

Request for critique, prior art, and data:

1) Load cases and safety factors

What are empirically observed bending moments and axial loads at the handle and tip during:
- aggressive downhill bracing (e.g., 90-110 kg equivalent user mass, dynamic)?
- sidehill and talus wedging events (worst-case lateral torque)?
- use as shelter poles (e.g., mids at 120-135 cm in 40-60 km/h gusts)?
If anyone has strain data or finite element models for 7075-T6 or carbon shafts, please share typical peak moments at the grip ferrule and tip insert. This will inform minimum interface shear and pull-out strength and the required safety factors (I am tentatively targeting ≥2.5x for dynamic hiking loads, ≥4x for shelter support).

2) Candidate interface geometries

Bayonet vs quarter-turn cam-lock vs fine-pitch thread:
- Bayonet/quarter-turn seems preferable for gloved operation and anti-icing, but needs anti-rattle and positive detent. Has anyone tested polymer cam lobes against grit/ice over 500+ insertion cycles?
- Threads are proven (¼″-20 UNC camera mounts) but are slow to engage, prone to contamination, and can loosen under oscillation. Thoughts on a hybrid: shallow bayonet with a one-click pawl?
Interface envelope constraints:
- Grip end: ≤20 g added mass, ≤12 mm insertion depth lost to cavity, no increase in diameter at the palm swell, water sealing (IPx4+) with a simple cap.
- Tip end: ≤10 g added mass, full compatibility with snow baskets, no snagging, ability to auto-shed ice/mud.
Anti-rotation/anti-axial features:
- Tri-lobe or hex drive keyed features to carry torque without relying on threads.
- Secondary axial latch or spring plunger as failsafe.

3) Materials, durability, and corrosion

Proposed: glass-filled nylon or PEEK for female receivers in the grip; hard-anodized 7075 or Ti-6Al-4V for male accessories; stainless 316 for springs/detents; sacrificial polymer wipers for grit management. Any field data on galvanic interactions with carbon shafts or 7075 if moisture ingresses?
Ice/grit tolerance: design for ≥1 mm particulate clearance and drain/weep paths. What’s the most abuse-resistant geometry you’ve seen in ski pole basket interfaces that could translate here?

4) Dimensional standard and cross-compatibility

Nominal proposal (strawman):
- Handle receiver: 12.0 mm minor diameter tri-lobe, 10 mm effective engagement depth, 30° bayonet with 2.0 mm travel, 50 N detent retention, 6 N·m torsional capacity without slippage.
- Tip receiver: 8.0 mm hex socket, 8 mm depth, snap ring retention rated to 300 N axial.
- Camera/optics module includes an internal ¼″-20 stud with anti-rotation pins for phones/action cams.
Do these dimensions conflict with existing grip cores across major brands (LEKI, Black Diamond, Komperdell, Fizan) or common carbon tube IDs? What ID/OD variances should be tolerated to allow retrofit adapters?

5) Accessory catalog and load requirements

Monopod/camera head: needs 1-2 N·m tilt torque without creep; target total adapter mass ≤40 g.
Tarp spreader/strut coupler: symmetric load transfer, no point loading on tarp apex grommet; quick-disconnect under side load to prevent pole snapping.
Snow saw/probe: blade or probe segment must fail gracefully before pole shaft does; prefer shear pin concept.
Ground anchor/trowel/pick: must not induce pole shaft kinking; consider accessory with its own sacrificial neck.
Antenna mast/counterpoise: RF considerations call for non-conductive proximal section; any RFI issues with carbon shafts?

6) Human factors and failure modes

Zero rotation/backlash under trekking load to prevent hotspot formation at the grip.
Single-hand operation with winter gloves, no small loose parts, tactile confirmation of lock.
Failure priority: accessory should fail before pole. What shear pin load is appropriate to avoid nuisance trips yet protect the shaft?

7) Prior art and reasons for limited adoption

I’m aware of camera-mount pole caps, photo adapters, and proprietary basket sockets. What were their historical failure points or adoption blockers (weight, fragility, lack of standardization, poor UX)?
Any IP encumbrances around bayonet interfaces in poles that a new open spec would need to avoid?

8) Standardization and openness

Would there be interest in an open, royalty-free spec hosted by a neutral body, with reference CAD and test fixtures?
Proposed verification tests:
- Torsion: 0-8 N·m cyclic to 100k cycles, grit contaminated.
- Axial: 0-500 N pull with 10 Hz cycling to 50k cycles.
- Environmental: −30°C to +50°C, salt fog, mud/sand slurry, freeze-thaw in water.
What pass/fail criteria would you consider credible for field reliability?

I’m particularly interested in contributions of measured load data, failure analyses from broken poles or adapters, and ergonomic testing insights. If anyone has access to instrumented poles, pressure-mapped grips, or can share CAD of common grip cores/tip inserts, that would help converge on a realistic envelope. Product designers and cottage manufacturers: would a small, interoperable accessory ecosystem be commercially viable if the interface adds ≤30 g and ≤$8 BOM per pole?

bugspraybob

Couple of gaps you can tighten without adding grams or tears:

Prior art worth dissecting: Black Diamond Whippet (high-torque, glove-friendly, proven anti-rotation), BD Distance tent adapters (tip-side load path under flapping mids), LEKI Aergon Photo caps (why they rattled/loosened), Komperdell photo poles, and ski basket bayonets from Swix/LEKI (ice + grit survival). The Whippet interface is the closest “abuse tolerant” reference; copy the detent logic, not the weight.
Geometry: shallow bayonet with a slight taper on the mating faces (5-7°), wave spring under the cap to keep constant preload, and a debris gutter around the lobes so ice has somewhere to go that isn’t “in your lock”. Captive cap with an O‑ring and a weep hole through the core beats “IPx4 until the first creek crossing”.
Materials: PA12‑GF or PPS‑GF > PA6‑GF in cold/wet (swells less, less creep). POM for the sacrificial wiper. Isolate any Ti/Al from carbon with a molded sleeve to avoid galvanic drama. 316 springs, but use a PTFE‑coated music wire option for colder snap at −30°C if 316 gets lazy.
Shear strategy: put the fuse in the accessory, not the pole. Two 2 mm nylon 6/6 dowels or a 1.6 mm acetal shear web in double shear is cheap and predictable. Tune for “fails before shaft” by targeting release at roughly “strong trekking shove” rather than “oh-no-I’m-falling”: think a side load that would bend a basket but not taco a lower segment. You can dial this in by setting a target moment at 15 cm from the tip and iterating pin diameter; publish the moment, not just “N”.
Tolerances/envelope: your 12 mm grip receiver is tight for a lot of carbon handles. Consider two SKUs: S (10.0 mm minor tri‑lobe, 8 mm engagement) and M (12.0/10). Offer thin‑wall retrofit cartridges for 16/14/12 mm OD shafts (common combos) with ±0.15 mm ID range and epoxy keys. Tip-side 8 mm hex is fine, but recess the hex a hair and chamfer the entry so baskets don’t pack snow into the socket.
Anti-rotation: tri‑lobe is nice, but add a shallow conical seat to preload and kill micro-fretting. Detent target more like 70-90 N static to resist pole-plant shock; make the pawl cam-over noisy enough that you can hear it through a beanie.
Tests to add: slurry spin (sand + water, 10 minutes in a paint shaker), freeze-thaw with saline inside the cavity (to test weeps), and a “butt-drop” dynamic torsion hit at the handle to simulate a stumble. Also test with powdered pumice; it eats polymers differently than quartz sand.
RF bit: carbon does detune verticals. A 20-30 cm glass-filled nylon standoff plus a ferrite choke on feedline keeps the pole from becoming the world’s worst counterpoise.
Why this usually dies: rattle, icing, accidental release when twisting the grip, and adapters that weigh more than the function they add. If your interface adds ≤20 g per pole and is glove-proof, you’ve cleared two historic landmines.
Business sanity: nobody pays $8 BOM for a camera cap. They will for a safer Whippet‑style pick, a rock-solid phone clamp, and a tarp apex that won’t chew fabric. Lead with those three; everything else rides their coattails.

Quick DIY data you can crowdsource now:

3‑point bend on a 300 mm coupon sawn from a dead pole to get failure moment; back-calc your shear pin target to 50-60% of that.
Static torsion on the grip core with a beam and luggage scale; record slip onset with/without grit.
Cold-room glove test: time-to-attach at −20°C, 20 repetitions, report fumbles.

Publish the CAD for the S/M receivers, the preload spring spec, and the test jigs, and you’ll know in a month whether this has legs or just really nice caps.