Which Is Your Favorite Rod Maker?

[TimD]

Actually TimD, depending on maker, taper, design, length and weight you can pretty much get whatever action you want out of a bamboo rod. just like graphite or fiberglass.

 

And why the hell isn't orvis on the list? zero gravity rods are at least on par with the Z axis (which people have noted), and they've outdone themselves again with a new line of rods that are (again) the lightest on the market.

 

Browntrout could you give me an example? I don't remember any bamboo rods being faster action than graphite.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

[H2O]

It really seems to be a matter of supply and demand when it comes to bamboo. Correct me if I'm wrong but back in the day since bamboo was the only kid in town it was relatively cheap and/or affordable. My grandfather had a nice stash of them yet I doubt he had much money to fork out after a hard days work in the coal mine.

 

Nowadays, the only people that can afford them are nostalgic old men or others with limp wrists.

[Taco]

Old men and limp wrists??? Holy crap......Burrnnn Baby Burn :lol:

 

Not sure how affordable things were back then, average Canadian wage in '49... $1.07/hr, one wage earner per household, 4-5 kids. 2007...$25/hr, 2 wage earners per household, 1-2 kids. If you look at Don's pricelist it took 2 1/2 days of work to buy even the cheapest grass Granger and 10 hrs to buy a $250 TFO plastic today. In 1954 Grizzly fiberglass blanks were selling for between .79 and 1.39 and Wright McGill's (Granger) glass fly rods were priced from $9.95 to $23.95

 

 

BTW The first commercial tubular fiberglass rods were developed in 1946 by Shakespeare using WW2 technology, Tonkin cane was banned from importation by the US in '50 and Fenwick brought out the first commercial graphite rods in 1973.

[H2O]

Old men and limp wrists??? Holy crap......Burrnnn Baby Burn

 

Glad you see the humor in that Taco Nothing wrong with nostalgic, I'd have one myself if I could afford it.

[Taco]

Glad you see the humor in that Taco Nothing wrong with nostalgic, I'd have one myself if I could afford it.

 

Hell Harry I love fishing with vintage fiberglass rods, it's my preferred way to fish small streams, it's what I learned to fish with.... but as far as I can recall no-one in the farming community I grew up in fished with bamboo..too expensive. *hit when my Old Man came to Alberta in '48 he worked for 45 bucks a mth plus board.... there was no damn way he was gonna spend close to a half a mths wage on a 'boo fishin' rod Hell the Canadian Government would only allow an immigrant to bring $100 into the country.

[TimD]

Hell Harry I love fishing with vintage fiberglass rods, it's my preferred way to fish small streams, it's what I learned to fish with.... but as far as I can recall no-one in the farming community I grew up in fished with bamboo..too expensive. *hit when my Old Man came to Alberta in '48 he worked for 45 bucks a mth plus board.... there was no damn way he was gonna spend close to a half a mths wage on a 'boo fishin' rod Hell the Canadian Government would only allow an immigrant to bring $100 into the country.

 

I can sort of relate. I got my first fly rod in 72, I think I paid $10 and I don't know how long I saved for it - but it was a long time. The rod was a fiberglass Daiwa 7/8wt 8-1/2 foot and lasted me until I broke it at Struble lake in 1991. The fly line I bought with it was Aircel (same brand I use now) it cost about $8 and the reel was a Southbend that I still have. I caught a lot of fish and had a lot of fun with that fly rod. About 3 years after buying the Daiwa I saw one of those Fenwick Eagle graphites at a Woodwards' store, it was like $54 and I could only dream about paying that much for a fly rod. Reality sank in and I got over the Fenwick - the fish could not tell which fly rod I was using and they seemed happy with what I was delivering with my Daiwa.

 

Cheers,

 

Tim

[Fishietales]

Well time to add my twopenneth, being only 2 miles from Hardys in Anlwick, I do seem to have a bent for their rods, I own three different models, with three different actions, and believe me rod action has little to do with distance, I have been invited on many occasions to watch the R/D guys testing the rods on the casting pool, and have watched the best casters in Britain using their rods, and it makes no difference to them what the action is they still get all the line out and half the backing, that goes for 3# river rods 7' long up to 11# 15' speys, of all actions, distance is determined by pure arm action, the co-ordination and rythum you put into the cast and the timing, tight loops, fast line speed, and the effort exerted in the final punch, they are what determine distance, I won't disagree that certain rods do help certain people overcome problems with their casting technique, but when you see the experts doing what they do best, you realise that it's not the rod it's the person using the rod that matters, to provee a point I now use a cheap $30 Shakespeare Oddessy #8 10' long, and a £25 shakespeare oddessy #5 8 1/2' long rod, the reason being the winter can cause all kinds of damage to your tackle, so at these prices I can afford to replace them each season should I need to, but the actions are mid to tip and they do the job, I can get all the line out and present a decent fly at 30yds, what more can you ask, mind I still use the Angel on very windy days, the fine diameter of the blank does seem to take the effort out of the casting

[hydropsyche]

and believe me rod action has little to do with distance, I have been invited on many occasions to watch the R/D guys testing the rods on the casting pool, and have watched the best casters in Britain using their rods, and it makes no difference to them what the action is they still get all the line out and half the backing,

 

Interesting, Fishie. It kinda makes sense. If you think of fast verse slow as a sling shot, you would naturally think a fast would provide a more powerful "sling". But that would be predicated on how much power you exert on pulling the sling back. That would be equivalent to how much load you put on the rod. Its not the rubber, but the pull.

 

Does a rod that bends only on the top 1/4 provide better rebound then one that bends on the top 1/3 or top 1/2? Not necessarily.

 

What I've learned is what provides the best rebound is the weight of the guides and thread wraps. Imagine tying a fifty pound bag of cement to the bottom of a diving board. You would get better rebound without all that weight.

 

That is why when I build my own rods, I use single footed guides and try to go easy on the epoxy.

 

Having said all this, I bet some blanks provide better rebound then others, all other variables being the same.

[Fishietales]

Funny you should say that Hydro mate, but the Shakespeare's both have single legs, it' something I've not thought of before, but on the other hand I've got an old Patek Morton, it's a big old glass fibre thing I've had for years, the action is right through butt to tip, it's so slow you could have lunch while it loads, but the thing is it has agate eyes throughout, but the same rod can still punch a full line out, and a while ago I gave a friend of mine an old Fibretube ( this was a sister company to Hardys, they made the blanks for them ) rod it was carbon fibre with agate eyes right through, and that can put a full line out, so I don't know if your theory of single legs givng a less dampening action to double legs holds water, but I will try the difference between my #8 Hardy Sirrus 10' and my 8# Shakespeare Oddessy 10', basically it will be interesting to see if it takes more effort to cast with one or the other, I'm away fishing a still water tomorrow, I'll take both rods and field test them using the same line, I'll post the results tomorrow night

[Weedy1]

Here's some very good info. Check out the research section and the E-library section for the article "The Rod & The Cast".

 

http://www.flycastinginstitute.com/index.html

 

"The Rod & The Cast"

http://www.flycastinginstitute.com/e-libra...Cast_102507.pdf

[Fishietales]

Here's some very good info. Check out the research section and the E-library section for the article "The Rod & The Cast".

 

http://www.flycastinginstitute.com/index.html

 

"The Rod & The Cast"

http://www.flycastinginstitute.com/e-libra...Cast_102507.pdf

 

Seems to back up what I said in my post of the 17th, their conclusion is the caster is the controlling factor in the cast not the rod, or it's action, nice for once to have some scientific fact to help us out, Thanks Weedy mate

[Guest bigbadbrent]

Interesting, Fishie. It kinda makes sense. If you think of fast verse slow as a sling shot, you would naturally think a fast would provide a more powerful "sling". But that would be predicated on how much power you exert on pulling the sling back. That would be equivalent to how much load you put on the rod. Its not the rubber, but the pull.

 

Does a rod that bends only on the top 1/4 provide better rebound then one that bends on the top 1/3 or top 1/2? Not necessarily.

 

What I've learned is what provides the best rebound is the weight of the guides and thread wraps. Imagine tying a fifty pound bag of cement to the bottom of a diving board. You would get better rebound without all that weight.

 

That is why when I build my own rods, I use single footed guides and try to go easy on the epoxy.

 

Having said all this, I bet some blanks provide better rebound then others, all other variables being the same.

 

 

It's both how far you pull back, and how elasticic the rubber would be. Its simple physics really. Think of your slingshot (and rod) as a spring. The formula for spring potential energy is Ep=(.5)kx^2, where k is the spring constant, and x is the displacement from the original position. The higher the k value, the more elastic the spring (slingshot) or speed of the rod. This is relavent because potential energy is equal to kinetic energy.

 

So pretty much Ek=Ep, so (.5)mv^2 = .5(kx^2), where m is mass and v is velocity.

 

So if you were to pull back two rods to the exact same displacement, with the exact same mass of the projectile (line, etc), and the only variable the speed of the rod (k), then the faster rod would put a greater line speed.

 

in terms of a slingshot, if you pulled one that was made out of elastic bands back a foot, and one made with surgical tubing back a foot, the surgical tubing would launch the object further, as it has a greater k value (or tendency to go back to original position)

[snakeman]

On the subject of rods, has anyone here casted the Sage VT2? I'm looking for a good smooth-casting 3 weight and want to try a Sage that is not their lowest-priced model.

[bowbonehead]

Snakeman: If you get a chance to try casting a Sage SLT at the Expo at Spruce Meadows I'm sure that Dee Chitani from Sage will be there with a full selection. I have a 490 SLT and its great for making those delicate casts on flat water. Cheers BBH

[Guest bigbadbrent]

i know a little store that has SLT's for 25% off.....you know the one

[snakeman]

i know a little store that has SLT's for 25% off.....you know the one

 

I don't actually

I'd be interested in casting one though. Just got a nice pay cheque and I want to burn it on fishing gear before it turns into booze.

[TimD]

It's both how far you pull back, and how elasticic the rubber would be. Its simple physics really. Think of your slingshot (and rod) as a spring. The formula for spring potential energy is Ep=(.5)kx^2, where k is the spring constant, and x is the displacement from the original position. The higher the k value, the more elastic the spring (slingshot) or speed of the rod. This is relavent because potential energy is equal to kinetic energy.

 

So pretty much Ek=Ep, so (.5)mv^2 = .5(kx^2), where m is mass and v is velocity.

 

So if you were to pull back two rods to the exact same displacement, with the exact same mass of the projectile (line, etc), and the only variable the speed of the rod (k), then the faster rod would put a greater line speed.

 

in terms of a slingshot, if you pulled one that was made out of elastic bands back a foot, and one made with surgical tubing back a foot, the surgical tubing would launch the object further, as it has a greater k value (or tendency to go back to original position)

 

Bigbadbrent,

 

I think you math is a little out.

 

K is the spring constant and unique to a fishing rod or any spring - it can't be used as a variable (thing of big springs vs little wienie springs). The other aspect of K is that it only works for the elastic range of the spring - meaning that overloading a rod could remove it's ability to recover. X is the rod load (deflection from straight). The equation pretty much says that the only way to impart more force to the line would be to load the rod more (i.e. increase X). The way I can think of to do that would be by accelerating one's arm faster MA (mass times acceleration) for a given length of line or by increasing the mass of the line used - as long as the elastic range was not breached.

 

I teach my students that they have to start the cast slow, then accelerate quickly and then perform a dead stop with their arm. If they don't stop properly it reduces the spring's displacement and robs the cast of power.

 

A couple of interesting points are that:

 

Faster rods (higher K value) need more force to get the energy out of them - one needs to cast harder using more acceleration

Over-lining for short distance casts would help the rod load better, as would under-lining for long casts.

Since K is a constant, physics would tell us a rod that loads well for distance casting would not be as useful for shorter distances (that marketing BS about rods that are good for distance and close in is just physically impossible)

Technique - timing, arm acceleration, transfer stop, and line hauling are way more important in casting than how expensive the rod is.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

[Guest bigbadbrent]

In essence though, overlining a rod helps make that rod slower, and underlining makes it quicker, so suddenly we're back at the fact that a faster rod will cast further... K is only a constant for that ONE spring (rod).

 

Of course this is all irrelevant, as someone who could be the best caster you've ever seen with a fast rod, might have their technique completely ruin trying to cast a slow one

 

you're also taking it far too literal, obviously there are far more motions in work then just conservation of energy (let alone that a rod is not a spring)

[Badger]

...

[Guest bigbadbrent]

Overlining puts more weight into the air, making the rod bend further..its a technical slower, not truely slower

[Weedy1]

Read the CCS paper on Rodbuilding.org.

Great Sunday read.

 

Other info for you nerds.

http://www.common-cents.info/

http://www.superbob.org/CC.htm

http://www.superbob.org/CC_Data.htm

 

 

This PDF is an excellent read - perfect for a Saturday night.

 

castanalysis.com/links/jsv2003.pdf

 

 

If anyone has any of the papers Spolek wrote I would love to have a look at them.

[Fishietales]

It still boils down to the fact that if your rhythm is wrong or your timing is wrong, then you won't get the best from your cast, now I don't know how it works across the pond but i don't know many coaches over here that can go into the math, or the dynamics of the ultimate cast, the R&D guys can but not the run of the mill coaches, and these are the guys at the business end of coaching, and the bog standard novice is not interested in the tech spec either , all they want is to get a line on the water and catch fish, so rather than give them all the tech bumph, I generally just firstly put an anti wrist brake device on them and get them to learn the stopping positions both behind them and in front of them, using a short line and the casting pond, once they've mastered that, I go into the power aspect, the inertia of the stop that propels the line forward, it's worked for me without all the math, The only math I want to know, is if I use a full 30 yard line and a fish takes a further 30yards of backing how much backing do I have left before I'm running down the river after the damn fish

[hydropsyche]

I like all that techie stuff. And that common cents link is great. I've been looking for that for a long time.

 

Once thing to consider, and correct me if I'm wrong, all of the worlds champion distance casters use ultra fast rods. No?

[TimD]

I have to disagree with these comments. Read the CCS paper on Rodbuilding.org. A rod has a variable K (increasing) spring constant, plus the rod mass is significant in the oscillation characteristics. For example, my Dan C FT goes from .915 Nt/m at the start to over 2.33 Nt/m at 25% deflection. You can make rods that cast well at short and long distances.

 

A faster rod is not stiffer, faster or slower is in the taper and material choice, so it has nothing to do with rod power. There is no relationship between casting force and rod speed. Overlining a rod does not affect rod speed, same thing as having more line in the air does not affect rod speed.

 

Don't get me started on rod frequency measurements and predicting casting characteristics.

 

From rodbuilding.org: http://www.common-cents.info/part5.pdf

In this dynamic straightening process, the speed of the rod tip starts at

zero (fully loaded) and reaches a maximum at the point the rod reaches its

original “straight” position. Then, it slows and the line, now traveling faster

than the tip, forms the loop and the cast is on its way. The line can never travel

faster than the tip. (Hauls represent a different situation.)

The “speed of the stop” (i.e., how quickly the angler can decelerate the

rod) and rod tip velocity are the critical factors in how far one can cast a line.

 

Badger,

 

You can disagree all you want, but you can't have an increasing constant - please show me where the guy talks about it on rodbuilding.org? Where does he talk about rod mass? Feel free to find somewhere that says spring mass is a determinant in its potential energy.

 

Overlining works until the limit for elastic range of the spring has been met. There are a lots of guides out there that help clients that are weak casters by overlining their rods. I used to cast 7wt lines with my 5 wt rod and the rod could handle it until its range topped out (about 50-60 feet).

 

The little quote I have above talks about f=ma. The only way to get acceleration is to move your arm. The basic casting stroke is to gather up slack line, start slow, accelerate and then stop. The well-timed stop lets the rod unload and deliver the line. So it is about casting skill more than anything.

 

From Brent:

In essence though, overlining a rod helps make that rod slower, and underlining makes it quicker, so suddenly we're back at the fact that a faster rod will cast further... K is only a constant for that ONE spring (rod).

 

Of course this is all irrelevant, as someone who could be the best caster you've ever seen with a fast rod, might have their technique completely ruin trying to cast a slow one

 

you're also taking it far too literal, obviously there are far more motions in work then just conservation of energy (let alone that a rod is not a spring)

 

 

Brent,

 

Overlining up to a point helps the spring (rod) load, too heavy of a line will turn the spring into overcooked spaghetti. A faster rod will cast further if the spring (rod) is loaded and that means greater acceleration (when mass is held constant). I don't think it is irrelevant - they do not suspend the laws of physics for fly fishermen - they just allow us to make them longer. But I do agree with you totally that it is more about casting skill than the rod someone is holding.

 

Here is wikipedia on Hooke's Law and linear springs:

Objects that quickly regain their original shape after being deformed by a stress, with the molecules or atoms of their material returning to the initial state of stable equilibrium, often obey Hooke's law.

 

We may view a rod of any elastic material as a linear spring. The rod has length L and cross-sectional area A. Its extension (strain) is linearly proportional to its tensile stress, σ by a constant factor, the inverse of its modulus of elasticity, E, hence,

 

\sigma = E \varepsilon

 

or

 

\Delta L = \frac{F}{E A} L = \frac{\sigma}{E} L.

 

Hooke's law only holds for some materials under certain loading conditions. Steel exhibits linear-elastic behavior in most engineering applications; Hooke's law is valid for it throughout its elastic range (i.e., for stresses below the yield strength). For some other materials, such as aluminium, Hooke's law is only valid for a portion of the elastic range. For these materials a proportional limit stress is defined, below which the errors associated with the linear approximation are negligible.

 

Rubber is generally regarded as a "non-hookean" material because its elasticity is stress dependent and sensitive to temperature and loading rate.

 

Applications of the law include spring operated weighing machines, stress analysis and modeling of materials.

 

(Tim again)Sure sounds like the rodbuilding.org guy. Brent I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that a rod was a spring a few posts ago - as long as it is not made out of rubber.

 

Cheers,

 

Tim

[Guest bigbadbrent]

The only math I want to know, is if I use a full 30 yard line and a fish takes a further 30yards of backing how much backing do I have left before I'm running down the river after the damn fish

 

Not enough