Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

DON'T BUY CND RODS

Spey 
58K views 259 replies 46 participants last post by  Klickrolf 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
I had happily owned a CND custom spey 13'6 8/9 for 7 years. It was a butter smooth rod, cast great, and it was my go to winter stick. On a recent trip to the skeena, the rod broke, just folded in half on my first cast. No big deal, rods break, it happens.
The issue here is that because the initial U.S. distributor is no longer, there was nobody in the US that would fix it, this meant 1 sending the rod back to Japan (if i could find who to send it to, just try going to the CND spey USA website and getting any information) 2 finding out if my rod would even still be covered. Turns out, it wasn't. I've copied the email I received from the head of CND japan to show you what kind of 'customer service' they provide. Basically they want me to pay 320 bucks to buy a new rod because they are unwilling to repair a rod I bought with an unconditional lifetime warranty. I would never expect this kind of treatment from sage, loomis, winston, scott, or any of the other major rod manufacturers. Needless to say I wrote them back saying that they had lost a former customer. I'm still just livid. I don't normally ever slander a company or a business, but this was outrageous and totally inconsistent with industry norms.

> Hi Steve,>> Thanks for your continuous interest and use of CND spey rod.>> As we have no longer distribute our products to USA and your rod has been> sold by initial distributor of North America, CND Japan could only offer limited warranty service.>> And please kindly understand that Lee and Nancy got no responsibility for> those rods sold> by initial distributor and they are just giving service by their generous> voluntary mind to CND customers.>> Follows are detail contents of my last offer.>> 1: Warranty parts cost $144.00-> 2: Difference of price $173.00- (B.Spey 13'6" #7/8/9 - Custom Spey 13'> #8/9)> 3: Shipping cost $ 33.00- (CND Japan taking half of shipping> cost)>> Total $350->> All prices are calculated based on Japan domestic prices for the warranty.> (Exchange yen80 / US$)>> This offer to replace a new B.Spey 13'6" rod (RRP $725.00- Japan price)> which offers 4 section with better specification.>> If you are not happy with this offer, I could only reduce another half of> shipping cost for $33.00-> So total $317.00- (Shipping cost free) This is the best I could offer.>> Kind regards,>> Nobuo Nodera>> CND Japan.

>> Nobuo,>>>> The rod that I purchased with an "unconditional warranty" cannot be>> repaired, and can only be replaced for 350 dollars?! There has to be>> some>> other option for replacement. I understand that the rod has been>> discontinued, but other manufactures typically offer the exchange>> without>> an additional 250 dollar fee. I hope we can come to some kind of>> arrangement. Thanks - Steve>>>>>> Best I could do is exchange to B.Spey 13'6" rod with difference of>>>> price and spare section cost.>>>> Which should be around $250- + shipping cost ($100-)>>>> Then he could get new B.Spey 13'6" from Japan.>>>> If only he could accept this offer, I could arrange exchange service.>>>> Best regards,>>>> Nobuo.

< 2015 >>>>
Update
 
See less See more
#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...
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
#47 ·
Please accept my apology, didn't mean to vear it off.
Thnaks, no apology needed. I certainly wasn't offended by the direction of this thread. I don't get into all the techno stuff when it comes to fishing and fishing rods. I still make my own lines and I make them by feel. If it casts well for me then it is the perfect line for the rod. If the rod breaks because of my line then I buy another rod made by someone else. I like keeping it simple.
 
#49 ·
I try and pay attention to how my rods handle their own weight during a normal casting cycle. I think of it as sway. A rod that doesn't load at all under it's own weight can be a workout to cast, as they tend to require a more abrupt power application to load to the same degree. My T&T 1206 has the least sway in my lineup right now. I'd guess my CND Solstice 13'4" has the most. If not it, then one of my other CND rods.
 
#50 ·
Rob,

I don't doubt your experience in the slightest, but I strongly doubt your explanation. James is correct in questioning the role of mass in the rod tip. The big problem at the moment is that neither you, he, nor I are compentent physicists to explain this rod and line interaction. (This is beginning to remind me of Yuhina's casting thread of a few months ago that went all ratshit.) I've read all kinds of descriptions by casters who think they know enough to explain the physics, but don't. And I've read an extensive article by a physicist about casting who probably understood enough about physics but not enough about casting and or rod design to really offer a clear explanation. . . . Maybe one of these days . . .

In a perfect world, the perfect rod is weightless. Then all the angler's energy goes into the line, which is what we are casting. The rod just makes it much easier than casting the line without a rod. The stiffer tip section that you describe for Burkie rods is an attribute shared by my CND rods. They do load smoothly into the mid and even butt sections. I think it is the stiffness and not the mass of the tip section that causes this. Of course the stiffness is achieved by the number of wraps of fabric around the mandrel, and that adds mass, but like James, I don't see how it's the tip mass that sends the bend down to the next rod sections. Particularly in consideration of the weight of the line and the water tension exerted on it; that's got to be considerably more "weight", or is it force, that what is carried by the tip section.

This could be fun. Will you be at the Sandy Spey Clave?

Sg
 
#52 ·
Rob,

I don't doubt your experience in the slightest, but I strongly doubt your explanation. (This is beginning to remind me of Yuhina's casting thread of a few months ago that went all ratshit.) I've read all kinds of descriptions by casters who think they know enough to explain the physics, but don't.

In a perfect world, the perfect rod is weightless.
Sg
Ha... thanks for the honor mentioning Steve.

I was wondering where are those F1 casters?!! I tried to restrain myself and not get into those physics talk... well... if you want my opions. James Mello is correct and right on the topic. The momentum from the LINE pulling/ load is the force useful for the cast. As Steve mentioned, the perfect rod is weightless, the IDEAL Spring you guys are talking about also should be weightless. (look up: Hooke's law and K constant).

The most common misconception is the confusion between rod action and power.

"Action" is the term used to describe "Where" the rod bend, the shape of loaded rod. (full-flex, mid-flex, tip-flex), this is independent factor than "power".

"Power" is the speed, how fast the rod recovery. everything being equal, nano graphite > graphite > fiberglass > bamboo . The ratio of graphite fiber and resin determine the recovery speed.

Can you tell the difference? the less weight (less resin) in the blank, the relative more power it has. (this is exactly what nano graphite is doing, remove the excess weight from resin, and pack more graphite fibers into the blank to created "near weightless" blank! ) You can use nano graphite to built rods with any actions (full flex, mid action, fast action whatever...), because action is an independent factor.

Mark
 
#51 ·
Been chuckin my Skagit Specialist for years and it is my favorite rod! Like 80% of the fly companies out there if you catch them at the right time and place you got a hell of a product. If you caught them after they overextended themselves you lost out...
 
#56 ·
If the rod tip is heavier then I have to have a heavier reel to balance it for a long day of swinging flies. I'd rather have all that extra weight as a part of the line that is cast into the river that will not require me to balance and fight against it. I don't know squat about rod design, physics, K or Laws of Motion. What I know is that the right rod, heavy or lighter, can do the job right. My TFO Deer Creek is pretty heavy, casts like I know what I'm doing and feels darn good doing it. My Sage Z Axis is much lighter, casts like I know what I'm doing and feels darn good doing it. My Meiser is in between, casts like I know what I'm doing and feels darn good doing it. At the end of the day, the lighter rod seems to leave me with a bit more in the tank, so that I can make a few more casts with the hope that the 1200th cast might bring the tug that the 1000th missed.

Interesting discussion. Right now based on the explanation, I'm with Mello and Yuhina, no offense to others, but what they are saying and how they say it makes sense in my confused mind. I think I get parts of what Rob and Rolf are saying, and that makes sense, but I just don't fully get it. (understatement of the year)
 
#57 ·
E=MC(squared)

It comes into play with speyrods. To me the best rod is an autocaster. If you're taking a day to fish you'll want an autocaster.

E is energy, that's what we want in the release, the more the better. M is mass (weight for simplicity), what we need to most efficiently utilize the mass of the entire rod. C is motion...in Einstein's equation it was the speed of light in a vacuum...but it works with most other moving objects if we can define the inputs. Here we must assume the inputs remain the same, the caster making identical casts each time, but with a different rod, only the rod can change, nothing else, the line cannot be changed, nor the fly or leader.

M is the mass of the rod being loaded in the cast. The deeper it loads the faster the line will ultimately move (all else being equal).

And you know what? all of this sounds stupid because it's the D-loop that loads the rod...the D is critical...but the equation applies!
 
#58 ·
Rob, I think I'm getting what your saying...let me know if I'm on the right track:

Two tips with exact characteristics, with the exception of weight, will not perform equally on the same rod. The heavier tip will load the rod deeper, because of the additional mass in it's contruction.

This sounds reasonable to me, considering the fact that, most when wanting to load the rod deeper, add grains to the line/head. Instead of adding the grains to the line/head your saying add it to the rod tip section!

Would be interesting to hear if anyone has tested this theory...Perhaps take a balanced set up, one that is balanced in lower end of the rods grain window, and then add some wraps of leaded tape to the tip section, gradually of course and in a tappered distribution. I bet you would feel a definite loading advantage with as little as +20grns.

Am I close?

James
 
#59 ·
I don't think the bottom half of the rod can differentiate between the weight of the top half of the rod and the weight of the line. They are both objects that want to stay put. We bend the rod against their resistance to moving. Eventually, they come along for the ride. It seems like the design trick is balancing ease of loading with speed of recovery and apparent swing weight. The arms race towards faster rods has, to a degree, focused on recovery speed and swing weight at the expense of load-ability. I like firm, light tipped rods too, but I have to work a little harder casting them, and piling the grains on in the line DOES NOT change their essential action, which I see as largely a function of how they handle their own weight.
 
#61 ·
Where does the interest in "recovery" come from? Once the line is sent it's pulling itself out...a few extra rod tip flops have almost no influence on where the line is going or how fast it gets there.
Recovery speed is how fast it goes from bent to straight, which tells you something about what it'll impart to the line. Dampening is how much it flops around after unloading.
 
#66 ·
I have to respect what Rob is saying, if for no other reason he is immersed in the building of rods. E=MC(squared)? ? Energy= mass multiplied by velocity squared. Velocity, however you wand to describe it, is squared first them multiplied by the mass. That's the way math works. So velocity is going to jack the numbers up much faster then mass. All this aside, I think Ed said it best. He doesn't know beans about physics, rod design, or anything else. But what feels good and works for him is what matters at the end of the day. And what feels great to one person may feel entirely different to the next.
 
#70 ·
Momentum is the thing that loads the spring one way or another. In a lot of standard physics tests, they don't dynamically load the spring, but instead make the assumption that the spring is statically compressed. In the cast of the rod, the momentum is coming from the line, as well as the tip....
 
#71 ·
What is it, since momentum is constant unless acted upon (Newton's 2nd law) it is p=mv, differentiated from force, F=ma. This is only one of the things that makes casting analysis hard for me, because incorporating rate of change in casting dynamics makes me dizzy. No static loading in Spey casting.
 
#74 ·
What is it, since momentum is constant unless acted upon (Newton's 2nd law) it is p=mv, differentiated from force, F=ma. This is only one of the things that makes casting analysis hard for me, because incorporating rate of change in casting dynamics makes me dizzy. No static loading in Spey casting.
Forced objects all has momentum; object has momentum not necessary is receiving force.
for analogy; all salmon are fish, but not all fish are salmon!

The difference between momentum and force is acceleration.
 
#75 ·
Now we just need an F1 physicist...

Hmmm... maybe not. While I do find magical weightless rods, ideal springs, and physics equations mildly interesting, there's a "massive" risk of oversimplifying the dynamics of casting by trying to reduce it to a few letters and an equal sign. I'm likely in the minority here, but I believe the most productive way to discuss tapers is simply to compare notes on rods we have cast, rods that actually exist, with an effort to qualify the statements made and provide some context. For my part, I enjoy a wide variety of spey rods, so I don't really have anything to prove here, although I would encourage people to buy CND rods, as I think they are great, but that's a different subject, maybe a different thread.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on what a "strong tip" is. I feel I've run into 2 types of strong tips, those that simply start strong and those that firm up very quickly. The former tends to tolerate heavy loads without flinching, while the latter tends to make "off the tip" casts better. The Lamiglas LS 1357 would be my #1 example of the first, but I'm inclined to say that the Dechos fit this profile too, and have certainly enjoyed wider distribution. My 12'6" 7/8 MKS would be a good example of a tip that firms up very quickly, though it's starting strength is by no means insubstantial. Thoughts on strong tips?
 
#78 ·
Trevor,

That's the way rods are really designed - by iterative tinkering (even tho Orvis used an advertising spoof years ago that their rods were "computer" designed). Clearly there is nothing wrong with that technique, but some of us were born analytical and can't help ourselves. So we look for the mechanical and physical attributes that help explain what goes on during casting.

Qualifying attributes makes for good conversation (and advertising hype like the Sage ONE, wherein your arm becomes one with the rod). However, for the analytical - see any of Yuhina's posts - quantifying the differences is the key to understanding differences. And as near as I can tell, it's just complex enough to lie slightly beyond the level of competence of everyone who joins the discussion. It's interesting that the "contemplative" man's recreation involves arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and many of the fundamental laws of physics. And I'll speculate that there is some sophisticated organic chemistry in developing ever more sophisticated graphite fabrics and resins that enhance all the desirable attributes.

BTW, it's OK to mention CND rods, cuz this is the CND rod thread. But I blame the thread hijack on Rob Allen cuz he generated the discussion about tips, i.e., strong, stiff, more mass, less mass. And this is what led us to discuss (as best we can) the mathematical and physical attributes that create the desirable tip action attributes. Pretty clear now that it isn't just increased mass, since that would mean Burkheimer rods would use steel rebar or some such for tip sections. Since Burkheimer uses high tests graphite materials too, it's about which grade of graphite fabric, how many wraps around the mandrel, and the all important taper to get a tip that loads just as the designer - and caster - want it to. Fun stuff.

Sg
 
#79 ·
Your advice will be easy to follow...as I've never even heard of CND. Bummer about your rod, hopefully they will reconsider and provide a reasonable level of support. I suppose nothing is truly a lifetime warranty, given the possibility of companies going out of business, mergers, etc. -- all the more reason to stay with the big names with long history of outstanding support. Good luck.
 
#81 ·
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.
 
#82 ·
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,

T.
 
#86 ·
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,

T.
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.

Second,
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!

Cheers,
Mark
 
#83 ·
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...
 
#84 ·
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...
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.
 
#88 ·
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!
 
#92 ·
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.
 
#93 ·
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.
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.


Cheers,

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

Mark
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top