Discussion in 'Spey Clave' started by kamishak steve, May 1, 2012.

  1. Oh, and just a quote from the guy who does Thomas and Thomas rods....

    Rod Designer, Tom Dorsey, explains,
    “Knowledgeable rod designers understand the significant benefits of a lighter shaft weight and diameter – low inertia, better dampening characteristics for cleaner loops and increased energy transfer to the fly line. The challenge is to achieve this while retaining rod strength. The blend of high modulus graphite’s and state of the art resins has enabled us to achieve this to a degree we previously thought impossible. To the best of my knowledge we have created the lightest, most powerful saltwater rod blanks built anywhere.
  2. I am a big fan of T&T rods. I've owned three, down to two, the 1206-3 spey and 1006-3 switch. To me, their 3-piece rods really do represent some of the finest work in fast, low inertia rods. I love them. When I was farting around with the notion of sway, or the role of inertia in casting, I found the natural balance point, or center of gravity, of all my rods, and expressed it as a function of length. The range was something like .20-.255, or thereabouts, so they all balanced between 20-25.5% of their length from the butt. My T&T switch was .20, and the 1206-3 was .22, the next lowest, and these are rods that have pretty streamlined cork & reel seat, and likely zero weight added for balance. The highest balance point was my Burkie 8133-3 at 25.5% of it's length. From a casting perspective, the difference in sway is obvious. I love the T&T action, but I feel like they have a very narrow grain window, and are best adapted to casts in which you don't want to hold a load on the rod, so for me, they are a niche rod, which is fine, as I have of number of rods for very specific uses. The Burkie, on the other hand, I genuinely feel will handle all lines and techniques, in a very wide grain window, with equal aplomb. I don't subscribe to the thinking that one is better than the other, but I do subscribe to the thinking that inertia, at times, has a role to play in casting, and shouldn't be disregarded as inefficient because a fairly simple model/formula says it is.

    And don't get me wrong, I like physics. To me, it's the common sense science, but as I have attempted to forward my understanding and articulation of things two-handed, I've tried to be sensible of how perspectives, models, analogies, etc... can actually skew my sense of what is taking place. I hope I'm not sounding like a jerk, but I question the usefulness of physics, especially once you get to the water, and I place a premium on understanding derived from experience, which I'm just slowly plugging away at, trying to gather...

    Best regards,

    fisshman26 likes this.
  3. Trevor,

    I am still a huge T&T fan. Their ultra narrow grain window can be a big hindrance. But the loops you can throw with those rods!!! The B&W Powerlites I have cast, and the Norways, are just as 'fast' and 'stiff' as the T&T two handers. But they are stronger in the tip with more mass while being full flex (if you can make them bend). Plus the Powerlites have a solid 'thump' as they recover. The grain range is amazing. Un-T&T like. In many ways easier to cast than T&T's. I still really like the CND Salar and Thompson Specialists. My son fishes a 13'6" Black Spey. And the Solstice rods are super sweet too.

    So many really great sticks out there...
    fisshman26 likes this.
  4. That is weird to me that you say the T&T's have an ultra narrow grain window- from what I have read on speypages from guys who underlined their 1307 with a 450 Skag head up to huge weights Bob Pauli casts on them I assumed they had a huge grain window.
  5. Tim,
    Grain window is defined by the caster's hands. the comfort range they can handle.

    For a given rod, some people are comfortable in a narrow range, some people are good at huge range. It's the skill to "time" rod's response. T & T 1307, 1610 has huge grain windows. As I said before, strong tip/ strong butt action rod has quicker casting tempo... if your hands are not sensitive enough to "time" it, you can't handle it. No offense. We all built differently... see video below my good friend Jerry cast 10 weight 16 feet T&T across the river with breezy ease. 450 Airflo Rage.


  6. Trevor,

    Since I consider we are friends from Speypages and WFF, so once again I will like to point out your logic flaw... no offense. Just my personal opinion.

    Practice and building experience is important and good for any sports and athletes. We all agree. But learning principle and mechanics doesn't mean we don't go out and practice casting anymore. You see your logic flaw? They are two different things. Doing mechanics analysis doesn't mean you stop practice and fish. Even theoretical physicists need to design experiments to prove the hypothesis and theory.

    Needless to say, for instructors/ rod designers. Learning mechanics is vital element in their career. Do you willing to pay 200 dollars to hire a instructor and all he can say is "Watch this!" . Or even worse, make some wrong analogy like "swing heavy hammer use less energy". I won't hire a guide like this.

    When you say you like use common sense and experience. Fine. I agree.
    So what is common sense?

    Is water boil at 212F a common sense? Is steelhead migrate to ocean common sense? or steelhead interbreed with local rainbow trout a common sense? To me, common sense is defined by how far you want to go, how much you want to learn. and of course how much time and effort you want to put in.

    From a fisherman's perspective, you can do whatever you want, the basic mechanics will catch fish... From casting instructors and rod designers" perspective... would it be dangerous to use common sense and not learn new casting mechanics?!

    Just my opinion, don't take it personal, I know you are a good mechanic guy in spey casting!


  7. Am I wrong about the video......I did not see one cast go "across' the river.
    Nice dig on the hammer analagy btw, I wouldn't take you out anyways ;-)
    I respect what Rob has to say on this subject
    Greg Holt likes this.
  8. watch closely Bruce... We hanged the leader on the branches of the other bank several times... no kidding... You can ask Fred... for a 16 feet rod, I am sure you understand this is a small task...:)
    BTW, are you the one saying the hammer analogy?! Oh... my apology!
  9. Mark,

    You missed the point...

    I mentioned the potential for skew to you once a while back. Limiting the discussion to this thread, I think it is a mistake to disregard the potential positive role of inertia in casting because a physics equation implies that it makes for inefficient springs.

    I'm quite interested in modeling and understanding casting for the sake of maximizing my effort on the water, especially these days, with kids and work reducing my time in the water. In terms of actually improving my casting, I think there are more productive approaches than modeling only facets of the cast with physics equations.
    fisshman26 likes this.
  10. And I would agree, except we get back to fibreglass rods and greenheart. Both are massive and in most cases much less desirable to cast.
  11. Trevor,

    "positive role of inertia in casting"?

    If I understand you right, you are back to the original confusion again, the tip weight/ inertia / rod load...

    Despite using ultra light material, you still can put load/ inertia/ LINE weight on the rod tip to create the "feel". This is done by creating a regressive taper. The regressive bend feel is from the action design, not by installing the rebar in the rod tip (as Steve mentioned before). You DON'T need to put a extra "rod tip weight" to create this inertia feel...

    Well... if you don't understand this difference between taper and load feel by line momentum.. there is nothing I can say... good luck on your quest!


  12. Greenheart actually casts quite well. PITA to hold as it gets silly heavy.

    I built a spliced 5/6wt greenheart trout rod (Partridge had a closeout on some old blanks so I modified it and milled spliced joints) and it casts and fishes very well. Even on the Ranch on the Fork with a silk line.

    For spey casting I have a small Somer's Vibration rod. 12' for about a 9wt spey line. Heavier and slower than say a Clay. But more then up to the task. And at 12' is quite manageable weightwise. One of these days I will refinish it so I can use all the time. I did throw a 14' Vibration many years ago. HEAVY, way heavy, but it works. The biggest issue with the larger rods is dealing with the swing weight while fishing. Casting it doesn't really matter. They cast WONDERFULLY. They pull your arm(s) out of your (their) socket(s) when fishing.

    You don't throw loops like modern featherweight hollow plastic tubes with wood. Nor do you have the same linespeed. A few tweaks to your casting stroke and the loops tighten up and speed up substantially.
  13. William,

    I understand what you are saying, I have a clay rod - 12' 7/8 3 piece splice joint. It cast and fish wonderfully. Clay's rods are amazing, a lot of feel!! To me, spey fishing is the combination of art and science, if there is time I have to abandon all the scientific thoughts... that is when I fish clay's rod.


    BTW, back to the original thread, BUY CND rods... they are one of my favorite company. a lot of great rods!

  14. Mark,

    Every single low flexing rod I have ever cast was largely identifiable as such simply by wiggling the rod with no line on it. Flex is to some degree a function of how the rod manages it's own weight. That is the real world, true for every single rod out there. If the top half of all the worlds rods suddenly became weightless, but retained exactly the same stiffness, their actions would change. If you are anything like me, and think that some of your rods are fantastic exactly as they are, then you should put down the equations and consider appreciating the role inertia plays in their action.
    Greg Holt and fisshman26 like this.
  15. Trevor,

    Unfortunately, my brain is not good enough to understand what you say here... sorry.
    but the good thing is Bruce K. understand it and like your post. I am happy to see this. Maybe he has used his "energy saving heavy hammer" to solve your inertia equation. Good on him. ;)

    Do whatever makes you happy, and make you understand,Trevor. Science is not everything... as I said before, it won't help you catch more fish.


  16. mark, I wish I could take credit for the hammer analogy but it actually comes from the greatest speycaster that ever lived.
  17. Maybe it's time for the weightless hammer analogy?
    fisshman26 likes this.
  18. Rolf,

    That's funny! But more precisely, it is weightless shaft with a weighted line as a hammer head... it might a little bit hard for you to imagine since your casting energy utilized Albert Einstein's theory which is transffering mass into nuclear power, so I attached a video here for your reference, also quote what they said the importance of taking weight out of the blank.

  19. The trouble is a weightless handle cannot swing a weighted head...unless it's very very windy! You're talking about theory...I'm talking about facts.


    And I won't criticize your understanding of Einstien's theory...though I should!
  20. It's easy to see how we talk at cross-purposes. I always considered the object being struck to represent the line and the hammer to represent the rod, but as with all analogies, this one has it's limits. At the risk of sounding like a lunatic, I've been thinking about rods and paint brushes lately, but mostly because I was doing a lot of painting...

Share This Page