DON'T BUY CND RODS

ChrisC

Active Member
#31
Sorry about to hear about your situation. Unfortunately, companies who are on the fringe of viability are often the first to not keep commitments. Given the number of tackle companies that were around 10 years ago but not around today, it is something that I keep in mind in making my tackle purchases.
 
#32
The current system of adding a large premium into the retail price of a fly rod in order to pay for possible future "free" warranty services gives me pause. It's not wrong, necessarily; in fact, it may be the best compromise for a situation of conflicting values. But there's an inherent paradox in the fact that fly rods are brittle, hollow tools designed for a vigorous, risky outdoor sport. Most of my favorite fly and spey rods couldn't be replaced or repaired. And I have broken a few fly rods over the years. It hurts, but it goes with the territory. We shouldn't ask too much of the warranty system, even though many of us do. (Have you ever turned down an undeserved warranty replacement of fly tackle that you broke through your own fault?)

Fly rods are hostages to fortune. Accept it. Would you refuse to buy a desirable Paul Young or Les Peak rod at a good price because it's not under warranty?
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#33
The current system of adding a large premium into the retail price of a fly rod in order to pay for possible future "free" warranty services gives me pause. It's not wrong, necessarily; in fact, it may be the best compromise for a situation of conflicting values. But there's an inherent paradox in the fact that fly rods are brittle, hollow tools designed for a vigorous, risky outdoor sport. Most of my favorite fly and spey rods couldn't be replaced or repaired. And I have broken a few fly rods over the years. It hurts, but it goes with the territory. We shouldn't ask too much of the warranty system, even though many of us do. (Have you ever turned down an underserved warranty replacement of fly tackle that you broke through your own fault?)

Fly rods are hostages to fortune. Accept it. Would you refuse to buy a desirable Paul Young or Les Peak rod at a good price because it's not under warranty?


you make a couple very valid points... In reality graphite is a poor material for how we abuse it.. it is not designed to be bumped around and hit against rocks bent to it's maximum ever time we get snagged.... One of my favorite pastimes is watching rod breakage videos on you tube i am always amazed how much abuse the rod takes before it breaks... It is a great material and makes great fly rods just graphite and the outdoors are not a great combination... now mart of the problem exists because of marketing and customer demand for lighter and lighter rods.. so there is blame to be spread all over the place..

One thing however that is not correct at least not in the company that i work for is that the cost of repairing a rod is already figured into the original price of the rod. simple matter of fact the companies that still make rods in America would be in the red instantly if they lowered the price of their products and would be out of business within months. Simple fact is that it costs a LOT of money to produce high quality fly rods. The process is too labor intensive to do quickly and cheaply and do it right.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#34
... It is a great material and makes great fly rods just graphite and the outdoors are not a great combination... now mart of the problem exists because of marketing and customer demand for lighter and lighter rods.. so there is blame to be spread all over the place..
I can't help wondering why two handed rods have to become lighter and lighter. I understand the technology part but the risks assumed by the fisherman and the manufacturer don't add up for me. I'll gladly pay more for a rod that I"m confident won't break (while casting) and leave me stranded. I think the chase for lighter gear is a recipe for disaster...or certainly can ruin an expensive fishing trip.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#35
I can't help wondering why two handed rods have to become lighter and lighter. I understand the technology part but the risks assumed by the fisherman and the manufacturer don't add up for me. I'll gladly pay more for a rod that I"m confident won't break (while casting) and leave me stranded. I think the chase for lighter gear is a recipe for disaster...or certainly can ruin an expensive fishing trip.

I completely agree...
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#36
I can't help wondering why two handed rods have to become lighter and lighter. I understand the technology part but the risks assumed by the fisherman and the manufacturer don't add up for me. I'll gladly pay more for a rod that I"m confident won't break (while casting) and leave me stranded. I think the chase for lighter gear is a recipe for disaster...or certainly can ruin an expensive fishing trip.
It really isn't any different than any other fly rod improvement over time. I seriously doubt that anyone would really like to swing a 15' fiberglass rod, regardless of how durable. I however would love to be able to swing a 13' rod with enough power to stop a King without having to have something that resembles a greenheart rod of yesteryear.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#37
It really isn't any different than any other fly rod improvement over time. I seriously doubt that anyone would really like to swing a 15' fiberglass rod, regardless of how durable. I however would love to be able to swing a 13' rod with enough power to stop a King without having to have something that resembles a greenheart rod of yesteryear.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to swing a greenheart for any length of time... I was trying to suggest when we get close to the edge (technological & physical edge) we are taking a risk and I'm not sure that risk is justified or justifiable. My interest in CND rods came specifically from the designer and his relationship with Daiwa UK. I've a 13' 8/10 Daiwa that weighs 9.3 ounces, the CND Custom 8/9 weighs 8.8 ounces, the difference is .5 ounces...and we're talking two handers here. I've fished the Daiwa over 15 years and have never feared breaking it, broke the CND twice within the first 3 months. It's a great casting rod but only marginally better than the Daiwa. For my purposes I'll go back to the Daiwa because half an ounce is minimal...and I don't worry about overloading it. It's old graphite technology but an excellent casting rod nonetheless.

One more thing. Doesn't it take mass to turn over mass? lighter tips that are more prone to breakage are also less able to transfer energy deeper into the blank and therefore less able to release that energy...something to think about. Any physics experts out there? Am I wrong about this?
 
#38
[quote="One more thing. Doesn't it take mass to turn over mass? lighter tips that are more prone to breakage are also less able to transfer energy deeper into the blank and therefore less able to release that energy...something to think about. Any physics experts out there? Am I wrong about this?[/quote]

In the case of fly rods, you're actually dealing with the restorative constant sort of like a k value in Force=k*displacement, to snap the rod back into shape. The greater the restorative force, the faster the rod is moving back to its original position from a flexed position. More restorative force=more speed snapping back to shape=more line speed. Ultimately that speed is transferred from the rod to the line, which is what carries it through the air. The k value is specific to the material, (why we see such expensive graphite), mass doesn't really factor in.

Not a physics expert, but thought i would weigh in on that one a little bit...
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#39
mass actually does factor in on a relative basis concerning the strength of the tip of the rod.. the more material you use to build a rod the more potential stored power the rod will have..

I don't know anything about physics I do however know a lot about rods and casting them, what works and what does not. what does not work is a light tipped fast action rod, however that's how nearly the whole spey industry is moving they can have it..

what does work is strong tipped deepish loading rods that recover quickly.. rods that only flex in the tip only have stored energy in the tip where there is very little material to store energy therefore there is very little energy stored to put into the cast.

If a physicist would disagree then i would have to say that the laws of physics do not apply to fly casting and that they are wrong.

that's just me being an absolutist because i am right.:)

on another note I went into Cabelas last week i picked up and shook some winstons, some sages some loomis and cabelas rods they were all fast in the butt and light in the tip.. had i been blindfolded i would not have been able to tell them apart...
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#40
mass actually does factor in on a relative basis concerning the strength of the tip of the rod.. the more material you use to build a rod the more potential stored power the rod will have..

I don't know anything about physics I do however know a lot about rods and casting them, what works and what does not. what does not work is a light tipped fast action rod, however that's how nearly the whole spey industry is moving they can have it..
Mass isn't the thing, once again the relative strength of the material is what matters and the K constant of the material. That's why equations related to spring constants only us K (which by definition should account for K), rather than some constant + mass.

Also, a light tipped fast action rod works great for short light heads (aka Scandi), but does bumpkis when moving to massive long bellies and such. Hence the LeCie is one of the crispest Skandi rods around, and is a complete pig when trying to line with a long belly.
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
#41
Wow, this thread changed directions. I don't even understand where it went. Mass. K constant. Spring constant. WTF? I need to go fishing and I think I will dig out that old CND I got in the garage to fish with. Wonder what line I am going to put on it. Now, please no one tell me what the grain weight of the line I use should be. I could care less.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#42
Wow, this thread changed directions. I don't even understand where it went. Mass. K constant. Spring constant. WTF? I need to go fishing and I think I will dig out that old CND I got in the garage to fish with. Wonder what line I am going to put on it. Now, please no one tell me what the grain weight of the line I use should be. I could care less.
Please accept my apology, didn't mean to vear it off.
Get out your CND Kerry, it'll throw all kinds of lines but don't get too aggressive if it's a Custom... they don't like being pushed.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#43
Mass isn't the thing, once again the relative strength of the material is what matters and the K constant of the material. That's why equations related to spring constants only us K (which by definition should account for K), rather than some constant + mass.

Also, a light tipped fast action rod works great for short light heads (aka Scandi), but does bumpkis when moving to massive long bellies and such. Hence the LeCie is one of the crispest Skandi rods around, and is a complete pig when trying to line with a long belly.
The swing weight of the more massive tip causes the rod to load deeper and that is something that is not attained by making a stiffer tip out of a lighter material.. the physical weight has to be there. we have tried it does not work in the real world regardless of whether it works on paper.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#44
The swing weight of the more massive tip causes the rod to load deeper and that is something that is not attained by making a stiffer tip out of a lighter material.. the physical weight has to be there. we have tried it does not work in the real world regardless of whether it works on paper.
I suspect this is entirely correct. Springs are springs and a rod is a spring as we use it. "K" is dependant on the taper, therefore the spring is dependant on the taper. My Custom 8/9 has become a better caster due to the repairs because the repairs have stiffened the tip, by adding mass.

If you've broken a Custom, have it sleeved instead of having a new tip made. They get better with a stiffer tip.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#45
The swing weight of the more massive tip causes the rod to load deeper and that is something that is not attained by making a stiffer tip out of a lighter material.. the physical weight has to be there. we have tried it does not work in the real world regardless of whether it works on paper.
If the mass of the tip is something that loads the rod, I'm missing something. The momentum of the line I suspect would dwarf the momentum generated by a tip section. I don't design rods, but it would be nice to have a serious run down on this.....

BTW, why the serious hate of lighter materials bro? To be honest I'd much rather have the energy go to the line rather than moving and loosing energy due to a tip.... A lighter material by itself doesn't make a rod better, but one would assume that given a less massive rod you'd be able to use the energy more efficiently moving the line