WEIGHT v EFFORT ............................................. H. Rhodes, July 2006.
In practical terms weight is not just a question of gms or ozs - but more importantly, how much effort is required to move it.
Why does carrying a pack by hand take more effort (is more tiring) than carrying it on your back - even though it's exactly the same weight?

1. Where the weight is has a significant impact on performance - and when applied to poles - where the weight is distributed along its length as it integrates with the arm (its weighting) will influence how much effort is needed to move it.
Compare the arm/leg scenarios: lightening-up the weight of a boot at the far end of your leg as a pendulum, will mean less effort to move the leg - so it's less tiring; lightening-up the weight of your shorts will hardly be noticeable (even though it's the same leg that's moving) because it's near your hip pivot point as the leg swings through.
The shaft tip is the equivalent of your foot/boot, and the pole's top section is the equivalent of your thigh/shorts. Having the 'weighting' of a pole near to its elbow pivot point means less effort to move it……..
Effort expended or saved is not directly related to the 'dead' weight in gms or ozs of the pole.

2. The above scenarios refer to limbs/poles when they're off the ground - but the reason for using a pole is to have it for loading/thrusting-against for each step on the ground. Controlling this thrust from a suspended strap fixed to a shaft wastes a lot of effort; this is the equivalent of the leg's walking action on soft sand which is very tiring (inefficient) - especially when compared to walking on solid ground, thrusting against something firm which doesn't give-way. This firm ground is the equivalent of the 3D contoured Pacerpole handle - so the hand/arm can push directly against the contours controlling the arm's action without gripping and without wasting effort ….. rather than by trying to control a 3D soft-sand-action indirectly through the suspending strap of a conventional pole.

3. Even though Pacerpole's 'dead' weight may be more than an ultra-light pole, it is designed to make the body more effective (accessing maximum power and wasting less effort then conventional designs when being used to load and thrust-against on the ground) and whose effort expenditure when lifted off the ground is insignificant over the day to affect the net gain in performance and endurance levels.
An ultra-light pole is only ultra-light when it is off the ground; when it touches down it's as wasteful of body effort as any other conventional pole - which is why overall it is inefficient.