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?