Discussion in 'Spey Clave' started by kamishak steve, May 1, 2012.
I have the same rod , and I really like the 2nd generation 7/8 Grandspey on mine .
Mark- It's an interesting perspective to think someone "liked" my comments to agitate you, not because they found some merit in what I said. Anyways, I wish (or maybe I don't...) that I was engaged enough in posting to feel like playing along, but I'll take it as streamlined as I can get it.
Salmo- Check post #81 where James quoted T&T rod designer for the use of low inertia. A low inertia rod tip doesn't tend to stay put when you begin the forward stroke, while a high inertia tip will, assuming all other parts of the rod are equal. Anyways, I only ever tried to make the point that not all inertia/mass is bad. For fun, and not for accuracy, I used to play with the analogy that low inertia rods are the high horsepower, high rpm ultra-light sports cars of the rod world, capable of fantastic acceleration, while high inertia rods (the good ones anyways) are the high-torque, strong pulling trucks/tractors/trains of the rod world, plenty of which do damn well at 2500 rpm.
James- I can appreciate the point you are making, and I won't deny a certain stubbornness in my nature, but I'd need more than a couple minutes to tell you what I think. Maybe tonight...
James- Sorry for the slow reply, I didn't manage to get to it Wednesday night, and I left directly from work Thursday to visit family, which I'm still in the middle of. I guess I have to be honest and just say that I am not entirely sure where my position needs adjustment. I'm not saying that it couldn't use adjustment, but I'm left to wonder what the gap between what I meant and what was understood looks like. I don't know if you or anyone else is still interested in this, but for me, when you say things being less massive were brought up, I wonder where I didn't acknowledge the downsides of mass. When you say I resorted back to my original argument about feel, I'd answer that I was trying to discuss how the rod functioned, not simply how it felt. The ability to put a load on a rod when obstructions prevent a highly energized d-loop has saved some casts for me over the years, which goes to my very simple notion that mass isn't all bad. I also mentioned that I believe mass may have something to do with a rods capacity to unstick heavy loads. When I flip the tip on my light tipped rods against a load, they'll occasionally poop out on me, while my heavier tipped rods seem to possess a "follow through" that more consistently breaks the waters grip on the fly. I don't know if this is true or my imagination, but I've wondered if when we use a positive stop, and flip the tip, we accelerate the propagation of energy up the blank and make positive use of the mass as well as the spring/lever potential of the tip. I don't know...
Anyways, if I made some far-reaching statements or gave you or anyone else the impression that fly rods are done evolving, it wasn't intended. Feel free to point them out and I'll either clarify what I meant or acknowledge the crazy talk.
And to wit, we mentioned repeatedly that having a less massive tip can be made to feel and behave the same.
Which means having mass in the *line* is a good thing. I never said anything about energized loops. If mass in the line wasn't too important, then we'd be fishing heavy rods with light lines, not Skagits.
It's the strength of the tip, not it's mass. While mass is somewhat related to strength, it's not absolutely required. The fact that your light tipped rods can pull lines out of the water is more a function of taper than material.
I still think you are missing what I am saying about the inertia of the rod be useful. When I am up against the bushes and my sweep is constrained, I often end up only being able to managed a fairly shallow d-loop, which means I have less load from the line than I would like. By flexing the rod butt against the blanks own predisposition to stay put (inertia) I have more energy to unload against the line. I don't get this out of rods that don't easily flex under their own weight.
Roll casts load the rod through the mass of the line. While not dynamic, it is powerful when executed properly. What you feel on loading is mostly the resistance of the line, not the rod against itself. And once again, flexing is more a function of the taper of the rod. You can still get the same action with a less massive tip....
The Flexing of the rod IS NOT NOT NOT all about taper the flexing of a rod is about taper, choices in material, and the number of layers in each section. Show me your rod with a less massive tip and I'll show you a rod that does not perform.... Keep in mind though that it is all about balance if your tip is too weak it will try to do all the work itself and not be able to utilize the rest of the rod... If the tip is too strong it will overload the next section down and cause it to collapse.
a properly executed roll cast uses the weight of the line, the momentum of the line, the lines grip on the water and the haul of your hand to load the rod it is NOT just the weight of the line itself.. that is why roll casting on the grass is not the same as roll casting on the water.
All of this is way to academic... I'll state it in absolutes as I so often do... a rod with a more massive tip will nearly always outperform and feel better than a rod with a lighter tip..... it will move sink tips better, it will cast further and feel sweeter in your hands. ohh and it will have less tendency to shatter when your snap tee launches a leech into it..
not to be rude but do any of you guys even know what kinds of dimension differences we are talking about here??? the difference between a light tip and a heavy one????
How much material do you think is in the tip of say a 7wt spey rod? anyone have any guesses???
Yes, you are absolutely right, but what's funny is you didn't mention the weight of the tip... Must have slipped your mind....
So in each successive generation of Burkies, they must all suck worse than the first, cause they use new materials. The reality of your statement over the history of fly rods have shown that you're statement is "nearly always" false. And each of these successive changes have produced dogs and treasures. But this progress has happened, fairly fast, and within the span of your career.
Mass or feel? For mass, we're probably talking on the order of grams (10 or so) in the tip. In this particular case, all of the arguments of how a heavy tip loads the rod and how you can't use a higher modulus material to build a strong enough tip seems to be pretty funny. As for feel, that's another whole ball of wax which has been readily admitted.
Of course, if you can provide exact numbers that would be great. I really do believe that this would provide some really enlightening info. More importantly, this would be really good to do via comparison between blanks over time.
Personally I don't believe that the first generation of the new nano resins are going to be the hallmark of rods using this technology. But given time, rods using this new material will outperform (in some form) older technology. And yes, along with this, rods will get lighter. Of course you do bring up the problems associated with durability, but engineers will address this moving forward. It may not be fly rod engineers, but rather the folks who do material science on military and aerospace, as it is a requirement for them.
William and Bruce,
Instead of hiding behind the screens, how about coming out and make this thread a great discussion?!
At least Rob is speaking from his experience, James is speaking from his analytic mind, how about you guys? Just want to "Win" or "Fuel" this mud fight??
If my memories served me right, 4-5 years ago, Dec Hogan reviewed a bunch skagit rods in a FF magazine. He and his buddies give the CND Skagit Specialist a really low score in the review. I still remember what he said about this rod "we really don't know how to cast this rod!" It has embarked a good discussion on the speypages... as you can tell... different people might have different preference and different understanding about "good cast"... why not contribute some civil opinions to this forum?
We can have a standard platform for discussions, let's just talk from experience, let's abandon all those scientific talk as Trevor suggested.
Let's talk about casting experience, What is good action, what is bad rods...what line an rod combinations make you hard to cast skagit heads... what makes hard to feel the rod load...etc.
I think Rob already named a few companies that has put up some new rods in Sandy Clave that "tip too light"... I have cast some of those new products also... How about let's start a new discussion from your own casting experience?
This is my sincere suggestions, not a teaser...
If I had more free time, I would play in these discussions more.
I like a few models in the Burkheimer, Meiser, T&T, CND and B&W range. I like old slow brown sage rods. I like greenheart and cane. I love Carron's.
Current favorite rods:
B&W Powerlite 13' 8-10, 16' 11 and 15' 7-9
But really it doesn't matter. I am not a good enough caster to get the most out of just about any rod. Just a fisherman with my own preferences.
My current spey rods range from a 6 oz. 7125 Burkheimer to a Sharpe scotty 14' 10 wt with metal ferrules that feels like it weighs several pounds. I have mainly kept the spey rods I've owned that felt the best to me out of a couple dozen I've owned and used. When you get the tip moving on the Scotty it doesn't stop easily.
I don't care for rods that have weak butts such as the dredgers, not because they won't cast well, I jest don't like the feel of loss of control when I'm playing fish on them. I've also had a Redington, T & T and an ACR where the tips felt light to me, and I didn't care for that either although they cast well enough. I sold Klickrolf my old Daiwa Jim Love special,mainly because I didn't have a reel that fit the reel seat,not because it didn't cast well.
The 2 rods I've had the longest and wouldn't sell are my 15 789 Meiser Highlander and my Redfly 14' 9/10. I also like my burkheimer 7125 and 7133 winston b2X very much.
The rods I've sold and wish I had back include an ACR 1193 and Sage z 5126.
I cannot give you specific dimensions for obvious reasons I can tell you however that over the last ten years we have built the best feeling highest performing rods in the industry and our rods have been using heavier and heavier tips...it seems as though the stronger we make them by adding material the better they feel and the better they perform.
Err... not to be a dick, but if you've only cast rods and never rolled them, you are probably not qualified to say what can and can't be done.
Regarding the successive generations of Burkie's, I know they take great pains to preserve the action of the rods as they move on to new material. It doesn't feel like a stretch of the imagination to me for them have to encountered a point with graphite, that at a given butt strength, they don't get the same flex using the lightest possible material in the top half of the rod. The posts you've made in answer to me and others regarding what can be done are speculation and oversimplification.
I think I've actually reached the point of not caring about this thread...
Rod butts load to some degree under their own weight. Materials will continue to improve, but it won't change the fact that the distribution of mass in relation to stiffness within a blank is key to creating a rods action.
Err... Not to be a dick, but lots of folks who roll 2 handed rods don't even cast them..... And even the ones that do, don't design them....
Easy to be a critic, when you haven't even synthesised any of your own ideas. Trevor, please enlighten me how you would suggest to make rods better? Perhaps stay the course with current materials? Maybe use heavier guides?
So the tips between models, with higher modulus graphite have gotten heavier then? Not just stiff, but actually heavier?
Oh, and by the way, I really do consider Burkie rods to be something to behold... Don't get me wrong, as I have huge respect (reverence?) for what Kerry has done in terms of rod design....
You're getting pretty bitchy. I think you are reading quite a bit into what I've posted, which doesn't make me wrong, it just makes you somewhat strange to argue with.
I haven't argued against the march of technology. I've argued that a rods action is partly a function of how it manages it's own weight. Not a complicated idea. Your only counterpoint is a magical rod that feels and behaves exactly the same, but loads only from the line.
My attention to how rods load under their own weight certainly precedes this thread. Tell me how you figure I haven't synthesized any of my own ideas?
William and Verne,
Great to see what you guys like... good info.
full flex category: Echo Decho 5122, Dredger 12'9
semi full flex category: MKS 13'6 (regressive), CND custom 13', Riverwatch 12' (5 side), TCX 7126, Z-Axis 1016, Scott G 1016
tip action category: Guideline LeCie 13'7
Carron has good lines, I like them. But personally, If I have to fish a longer head, I like the more aggressive taper CND GPS has. I like the way it cut through the wind without adding more line speed.
The only "tip heavy" (heavy swing weight) rod among my collection would be the riverwatch. Of course it is made out of bamboo...
The "tip light" feel would go to LeCie and TCX 7126... both are super light swing weight... but they flex significant differently. If you have both rods and fish them long enough, you will understand what I mean flex differently. The TCX has extremely light tip, yet, flex all the way into the mid section. This is more obvious in their switch rod 5119. I was so shocked when I first cast the 5119, how deep the TCX bends! On the other hand... try to bend the LeCie 13'7 same way will require two skagit 720 grain welded side by side!
I might be bitchy about it, but frankly you're acting boorish (especially with "not to be a dick", and "you're getting pretty bitchy". And perhaps my rod seems "magical", but once again, that is the idealized model which has been stated many times. Real rods of course cannot have those properties, but based on basic physics it's better to have the mass in the line and not in the rod.
Also, in each of the threads that you specify on Speypages, you got the same answer as you've seen here. And in some cases from folks who are more knowledgeable about rods than me. I don't know what to say other than you seem to be looking for validation for your ideas, when they tend to be rejected (in the scientific sense, not the antagonistic sense).....