If you are enough of an equipment nerd to read the articles on this site, then you’ve probably noticed the Exel Curve ski pole in videos and pictures this season. It’s easy to spot with its conspicuously not-straight shape, and Ole Einar Bjørndalen’s public endorsement and use of the pole has been hard to miss. Bjørndalen has a reputation for being extremely systematic and analytical about his equipment choices. When he chooses a piece of equipment you can bet that he will have tested it exhaustively, and believes that it will facilitate his best performance. I have a huge respect for Bjørndalen’s approach to sport, and his adoption of a radically different pole shape piqued my interest. Exel didn’t ask me to try these poles – I went looking for them because I was intrigued by the idea.
I should note that I started this process as a skeptic. I have generally been of the opinion that poles are sticks to push on. There is pretty much no opportunity to add value within the scope of standard straight-shaft geometry. Light and stiff are the primary performance considerations, and every company makes something good enough to win on. Straps and handles and baskets all play a role, and some are better than others. But basically I consider poles to be a solved problem. I’ve tested some normal poles this winter that have nudged me a small step away from the conviction that it doesn’t really matter which poles you choose, but it’s a very small step. The proliferation of pole offerings in the marketplace reflects the plain fact that poles are profitable. The materials and development costs are low, and the market supports really high retail price points. Compared with making skis, poles are easy money.
This isn’t the first time that an oddly shaped pole has been offered. Leaving aside the various ergonomic grips that have come and gone, there was the Kraftstaven pole that was introduced in 2007. Interestingly, the Kraftstaven pole and the Exel Curve take almost the opposite approach to the same problem. The Kraftstaven pole sweeps back from the handle and tucks the shaft in under the elbow – apparently attempting to align the direction of the pushing forces with the forearm, and shift the load to the bigger muscles in the back. The Exel Curve sends the shaft forward of the hand position, essentially pushing the baskets forward and grabbing a bit more terrain with each pole plant. It’s worth noting that both claim to generate “more power”. Hmm.
I’ve never even seen the Kraftstaven pole in person and it never appeared to achieve much market penetration. So I’ll focus on the Curve, which I’ve used on the snow. The first thing to note about using the pole is that the bent shaft comes at an expense. Creating something other than a straight cylindrical shaft requires additional material, and adds weight. Sure enough, the Curve weighs 12.5% more than the KV+ Tornado poles that I used most of the season. And between the added weight and the initially clumsy-feeling ergonomic effect, it’s clear that any ergonomic advantage offered by the curve will have to overcome a liability in weight and feeling. I’m not surprised that we haven’t seen wider adoption of this pole by World Cup skiers, because the first impression is that they’re heavy and slow moving. I don’t know many elite skiers that would stick with a pole like this after the first few minutes. But, I had been warned that it would take some time to come to appreciate them. And I couldn’t shake the feeling that Ole Einar probably knew something that I hadn’t figured out in my first two KMs of skiing.
I got my first inkling of positive feeling from the pole when I switched back to my straight shafts after skiing with the curve for about half an hour. I expected to feel instant relief, and I was prepared to just stick the weird bent things back in the box and ship them back to Exel. But it wasn’t relief that I felt when I switched back, it was… as though something was missing. The straight poles felt insubstantial and ineffectual. Great. Now I had no poles that I enjoyed skiing on.
I stuck with the project for a couple of weeks. I’ve got to say that I never reached a point where I was excited to put on the Curves, but I definitely came to appreciate their advantages. And they do have their place. I think a certain amount of adaptability is required to get the most out of the poles. The first adjustment that I made was to allow my hands to come back toward my shoulders at the pole plant. A lot of elite skiers set up in this position, but it usually feels pretty forced and cramped to me. But the Curves seem to want the initial hand position to be back a bit – especially at lower speeds. Once that adjustment is made, it feels natural to ski with the poles. But it’s not until the speed comes up that you really notice the benefit.
At race speeds on flat terrain the poles really seem to chew up the meters. Skating is a funny technique because the angular nature of the leg push means that the leg motions at high speed can be quite slow and long, while the arm push is a pretty simple 1:1 drive ratio. So at high speeds the arms and hands are really whipping, and the legs are comparatively relaxed. The Curve seems to even out that ratio, and make high speeds altogether more relaxed and easy going. It’s like having a big ring on your bike – your legs won’t make more power, but you can go a lot faster without spinning-out.
In the end, that “big ring” analogy is about the best I’ve been able to do. The Exel Curve does not magically make me more powerful. It makes me more comfortable at higher speeds. I think that with a bit more time on the poles, I would end up choosing to use them on flat courses. I can understand why they have broken through in biathlon before cross country at the World Cup level. I would not choose these poles for the average World Cup cross country course. But for flatter, and faster courses, even with lots of transitions and turns, I think the Curve is really good. It certainly promotes more gathered and centered skiing at high speeds than straight shafted poles.
I think the Exel Curve is a tool that has utility analogous to a time trial bicycle. It may not be what you want to use every day, and it may not be what you want for every event. But depending on the events you focus on, and your personal skiing qualities, they’re something to consider. I’d have a hard time recommending them as an only pole, but I’d like to have a pair at my disposal.
So – final analysis – who should consider buying these poles?
- Somebody who places a focus on flatter and faster skate events – like some of the Midwestern marathons. Are they Birkie poles? It’s not a slam-dunk, and it probably depends on your technique, but they might be awfully nice to have on the lake.
- Somebody who spends most of their time on the big ring of their road bike, suggesting either flat terrain, or high power and low cadence motions.
- Somebody who emphasizes smooth power and long glide in their ski technique, over tempo and energetic motion.
I fear that not many skiers will have an opportunity to work with the poles for long enough to gain an appreciation for them, and that a quick test wont win too many converts. Instead, the market for these poles is likely to be defined by the marketing efforts, and the people who buy them are likely to be the early adopter crowd, and folks who want to have something “different”. I hope Exel does well enough with the concept to keep it alive, and allow for continuing development and refinement.