DON'T BUY CND RODS

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

  1. TrevorH

    TrevorH Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA, US.
    Mark,

    It bums me out to see you taking swipes at people. You took a couple at me in this thread, and plenty at other people. I might have returned the favor once or twice, but it all sucks. I don't recall you doing much of that until your "perfect loops" thread got such negative review. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and believe it or not, you occasionally say things that don't make any sense. Get a thicker skin...

    Regarding the actual content of the thread, I can't say I've been moved much by what James or you has said. I never tried to disprove any law of physics, and I agreed with everything said about the effectiveness of springs. I've only tried to be sensible of the limits of how that translates to actual casting/fishing when used in a simplified model. At one point, I recall you making the statement that the perfect rod is weightless. You've both made the statement that the same action/load/feeling/etc... can be attained with ultra light weight or weightless material by adding weight to the line and/or adjusting the taper. I don't think it is that simple, certainly not to the extent that eliminating inertia in the blank should be the overriding design goal of every builder. My point has simply been that blank inertia has a positive role to play in casting & fishing. We use it every day, but a simple model would have us believe it's the bogeyman. I'm not suggesting adding mass, but I believe there are limits to the benefit of removing mass, and I think as casters, there is much to be gained by being sensible of the role of rod inertia. As I already pointed out, flexing the rod against it's own inertia creates a predictability in the energy you have to unload that is independent of what is taking place with the line. Whether we realize it or not, we do this all the time, but less so with ultra low inertia rods, as they are less capable of it.

    What I realized last night is that I was injecting a subject matter and conversation that I am interested in into a dialog that is related, but ultimately a poor forum for my interests, which are grounded in how to get the most out of the dozen or so rods in my rack, and less inclined to what we will be casting in 20yrs. Around a year ago, I posted a thread on "sway" over on Speypages that didn't get much attention. I would like some review of my thinking on this to see if it's crap or not, but honestly, this thread has probably sucked my will to type BS for at least a few months, especially seeing as the rivers are getting ready to open.
     
    fisshman26 likes this.
  2. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma

    This isn't a swipe as it is an observation. When there is evidence that your position may need adjustment, you seem to not sway in your beliefs. If you want someone to call BS, you need to be able to either back your statements up, or modify your thoughts. Your statements on feel were well received and noted, but when the idea that things being less massive were brought up, you resisted and resorted back to your original argument on feel. We understand, acknowledge and believe what you say, but please either reread what was presented or just flat out say that this is your opinion. Opening up the conversation that you want someone to call BS and not listen to it is probably frustrating to all involved.

    As for the simple model problems, I would encourage you to read the pdf provide earlier as it will provide a mathematical rigor that we've been unable to do through our simple descriptions.

    As for the whole thread, hopefully you still found it useful. There certainly frustrating parts of it, but as a whole, I think a lot of useful (and not so useful) material was covered.
     
    fisshman26 likes this.
  3. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Yeah, I went with the 510 skagit with T11 tips on that rod... The 540 gets really doggy.
     
  4. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,733
    Likes Received:
    3,124
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Trevor,

    I think a major part of the difficulty of this discussion is that not everyone is using the same definition of terms. For example, you refer to "low inertia" rods. I think the definition of inertia = resistance to change in motion, acceleration specifically. So a low inertia rod would have a low resistance to acceleration. A really low inertia rod could barely hold itself straight when no force is being applied to it (almost a wet noodle) so that it would bend completely at the application of the slightest force. Consequently I think you are using "low inertia" incorrectly and most likely mean something different.

    Mass in a rod definitely plays a role in rod action, and some of that role is negative. Slow recovery and slow to dampen are common in heavy rods of mediocre design. This is at least one reason why designers like graphite and the more advanced types of graphite for rod building. It helps reduce attributes that negatively affect casting. Contemporary bamboo rod design is very different from old designs - same material but different designs - in large part to make faster recovering rods that dampen faster after the casting force is applied to their inertia at rest. One of the methods of improving the performance of bamboo rods has been to reduce their mass as much as is feasible even in the tip section. So it goes with graphite rod design. The newest rods have less mass (and weight) even in their tip sections due to newer graphite fabric and resins. I think mass in this discussion has been confused at times with tip section taper and design, because the tip sections of contemporary graphite Spey rods are not heavy in weight or mass.

    I wish I were more knowledgeable of physics to better contribute to the conversation.

    Sg
     
  5. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,733
    Likes Received:
    3,124
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    My CND Solstice 13' 4" 6/7 likes a 450 Skagit head and 15' 8 wt tips and a 7 wt short belly floating line. Or I should probably say that my casting style brings out desirable results with those rod and line combinations.
     
  6. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    Trevor,

    I shake hands as friendly as you can imagine; teasing tone for teasers and fang to fang! Don't get too serious... we are just a bunch of fishermen talking around a camp fire as a wise man told me! If you don't get it, that's fine with me. If someone found this thread entertaining that's great. and if the casting mechanics influence some beginners, that's all bonus!

    Cheers,

    Mark
     
  7. yuhina

    yuhina Tropical member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Boston-Idaho
    Home Page:
    Steve,

    You already did and I have to say I enjoy your good posts and good writings as always!

    Mark
     
  8. Klickrolf

    Klickrolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    374
    Location:
    Klickitat, Washington
    So, I too have a solstice but have not lined it to my liking yet. Fished it early last summer with a windcutter 6/7/8 but it was too heavy. Then I came across the Custom 8/9 with a delta 8/9 it was sweet and I never went back to the solstice. Any suggestions on lines with at least 50' of belly for the solstice?
     
  9. Big Tuna

    Big Tuna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,060
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Wenatchee, Washington
    I have the 14'3" 7/8/9 and the Vector 8/9 is money.
     
  10. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,733
    Likes Received:
    3,124
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Klickrolf,

    My 7 wt short belly is 52=55'. It's an Orvis made by SA.

    Sg
     
  11. Brian Thomas

    Brian Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    132
    Location:
    Kamloops B.C
    I have the same rod , and I really like the 2nd generation 7/8 Grandspey on mine .
     
  12. TrevorH

    TrevorH Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA, US.
    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...
     
  13. TrevorH

    TrevorH Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA, US.
    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.
     
    Greg Holt likes this.
  14. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    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.
     
  15. TrevorH

    TrevorH Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA, US.
    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.