DON'T BUY CND RODS

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
James- I'm happy to concede that I'm no physics expert, but I've never pretended to be one, either, and I'm not sure an expert is actually needed to question some of what has been floated on this forum. As far as the gravity thing goes, you'll see in my first mention of it that I knew it's affect was slight, and didn't weigh in on whether it had any real impact on loading.
I ended up lumping your statements with Mr Rolf's... Sorry about that!
 
Hi All,
It seem this thread is still going strong, and i wondered after all the debate can a fishing rod be a true lever if it is not spliced, i refer to my post with the picture much earlier,
Cheers Gordon,
 

inland

Active Member
Complex tapered spring/lever moving a tapered weighted String. Whether or not gravity does much to the rod itself while working, it sure as hell creates everything that is river spey casting. Starting first and foremost with running water. Between all else the rod does not bend or cast on its own. The line does not jump out of the water and magically drift off into space. Nor does it move forever. Gravity eventually always wins. Gravity also makes grown men of today whine and cry because rod Y weighs an extra ounce point 5. Oh dear I think my arm just ended up being longer than my other one. There isn't one of us on this forum that can extract everything out of the spring levers being made, why get all twisted up on ridiculous marketing hype to make them even 'better'? Certainly a good thing to improve fiber count and resin properties. No doubt. But to claim it does this and that and this and that, so does a rod from 150 years ago...if you are capable. One may be easier. Weigh less. And 1000 times more overall performance potential. But no matter how great that difference, the person doing the casting is always going to be the weak link. I am amazed every time I take 7 steps back and cast the wood rods of old. No they don't cast for shit if you treat them like a modern graphite tube. Spend some time and figure out how to cast them and then comment back on how far we think we have come. The stuff made today, even in the past 25 years is so fucking silly easy in comparison. Still a complex tapered spring/lever moving a tapered weighted string.
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
Wow, all of this because some guy doesn't like CND rods. Again I think I will go fishing and this time I will use a Sage. Hoping there isn't as much physics involved with the Sage rod. If I had to know all of this shit to cast a 2 handed fly rod I would have stuck to using a stick, some string and a safety pin.
After years of speycasting for steelhead I've decided to move on to tenkara & 2 handed skagit tenkara because the math is simpler and speyfishing for steelhead is all but done for these days. Besides tenkara and beer go together with a lot less stuff to pack to the river..
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
After years of speycasting for steelhead I've decided to move on to tenkara & 2 handed skagit tenkara because the math is simpler and speyfishing for steelhead is all but done for these days. Besides tenkara and beer go together with a lot less stuff to pack to the river..
Chicks dig the two handed rod no matter what you call it.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
But no matter how great that difference, the person doing the casting is always going to be the weak link. I am amazed every time I take 7 steps back and cast the wood rods of old. No they don't cast for shit if you treat them like a modern graphite tube. Spend some time and figure out how to cast them and then comment back on how far we think we have come. The stuff made today, even in the past 25 years is so fucking silly easy in comparison. Still a complex tapered spring/lever moving a tapered weighted string.
No doubt about that... The caster makes the most difference. But given the same caster with different rods, one can "maximize" your fishing (whether it be distance, fatigue, casting classy rods, etc).
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
James- I'd like to hear your thoughts on what I've actually said...
I can really only remember making essentially 2 points in this thread, one of which I just made again in the above post, that of firmly believing that the most productive modelings of casting will always account for MORE variables/facets, not less, as you suggest is necessary in order to clarify some specific/particular effect.[/QUOTE]

Totally true, but in modeling you often have to remove various factors as in most cases you'll find that correlation is not causation. And in a lot of cases, models need to fit the 90% before additional factors come into play. Case in point, if you read this: https://seesar.lbl.gov/anag/staff/bono/html/jsv_1.pdf, you'll notice that there is a partial differential equation in the Z dimension in the paper, but the only affect of gravity they account for is in the final layout of the line...

I went as far as to mention that over simplifying the model can actually skew your perspective on what is taking place, which I've both experienced and seen take place. Regarding rod action, it actually blows my mind a little bit that you seem to be disregarding the effect of the rod's own inertia on it's action. I have more than a dozen spey rods and I've cast every single one of them against the others with the express purpose of ascertaining the degree to which the rod loads under it's inertia vs. the inertia of the line, and there is unquestionably differences in how they load. If your only point has been that the rods least affected to load by their own inertia are theoretically the most efficient spring/levers, I've never argued that, but that doesn't necessarily make them the "best" rods.
Nor has anyone said that. We've just made the argument that if you can have the same "action" with less mass in the rod, that should leave more mass to be in the line, as it will do more good from a casting perspective.

I'm not disputing the physics, just the application of it. I also never argued that the design philosophy of producing low inertia rods hasn't produced some great rods, I have a few that I love, but I cannot fathom a world of rods that don't load to some degree under their own mass. What a sad place that would be.
And considering the realities of how rods are made, this will never happen. And frankly if you want to keep those kinds of rods in your hands, they'll remain a market for it. There's tons of folks who throw Boo, Greenheart, Glass, old graphite, etc that are perfectly happy with what they have. The *whole* point of the argument wasn't that this was bad, but rather that given a newer lighter material, one can still get the same soul in a rod while allowing the mass to move to the line.
 
Nor has anyone said that. We've just made the argument that if you can have the same "action" with less mass in the rod, that should leave more mass to be in the line, as it will do more good from a casting perspective.
I'd have to go back and look, but my impression was that this wasn't limited to posing the hypothetical "if you can have the same action..." I wouldn't feel compelled to argue against that because it basically boils down to the effectiveness of the spring, assuming you can reproduce the action. I'm doubtful that a massless rod could ever "feel" or possess the same action as one made of graphite, as I believe the mass IS intrinsic to creating the action. 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. That is something that I intuit as a caster that I wouldn't ignore in attempting to appraise the role of inertia in the effectiveness of a rod. Anyways, I'm not convinced you can get the same old soul without the mass. I have yet to find any ultra low inertia rod that leads me to believe that this is the case, but maybe that is just a design problem they haven't approached yet.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
I'd have to go back and look, but my impression was that this wasn't limited to posing the hypothetical "if you can have the same action..." I wouldn't feel compelled to argue against that because it basically boils down to the effectiveness of the spring, assuming you can reproduce the action. I'm doubtful that a massless rod could ever "feel" or possess the same action as one made of graphite, as I believe the mass IS intrinsic to creating the action. 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. That is something that I intuit as a caster that I wouldn't ignore in attempting to appraise the role of inertia in the effectiveness of a rod. Anyways, I'm not convinced you can get the same old soul without the mass. I have yet to find any ultra low inertia rod that leads me to believe that this is the case, but maybe that is just a design problem they haven't approached yet.
Yeah, I mentioned that you should be able to create the same action. Somehow that keeps getting lost. As for soul, the Solstice IMO is a very fast recovering rod with lots of soul....
 
It wasn't lost on me. I'm just not convinced.

The Solstice is nice, but I need to dial a line for mine. I haven't gotten quite the love from it that I have some of my other CND rods.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
It wasn't lost on me. I'm just not convinced.

The Solstice is nice, but I need to dial a line for mine. I haven't gotten quite the love from it that I have some of my other CND rods.
What have you tried on it? An ACE 480 grain head rules, as well as a midspey 6/7...
 
6/7 FF, 6/7 SA Shortbelly Spey, 540 compact skagit

The FF would be fine for close quarters, but I'd reach for my Burkie 7134 or Winston 7133 for more range, and that isn't just because they are firmer. The full 6/7 line felt like a bit much to me. The 6/7 SA is a bit light. The 540 + t-14 definitely felt like too much for the tip, like I'd get better recovery but plenty of load with 20-30gr less.
 

yuhina

Tropical member
Yeah, I mentioned that you should be able to create the same action. Somehow that keeps getting lost. As for soul, the Solstice IMO is a very fast recovering rod with lots of soul....
Glad you brought it up again James, great series of posts BTW..

Trevor,
As you can see, James are much better in discussion and lay out the idea much clearly than I. This is really the point we are trying to make over the whole thread. If you think about Tim Rajeff's video again, there are a lot of wisdom in it. Realistic or hypothetical ... depends how you see it and how you use the knowledge from it.

Overall, I really enjoy the discussion with you. I can tell you are the upright guy and have the passion. Unlike some other people just hidden behind the screen and hitting the "like" buttons, simply just want to agitate the group discussion. It's really "pathetic" as you can tell! Childish maybe.. You definitely contribute some of important ideas to this forum. Analyze casting mechanics is not a easy task, as you can see in the PDF paper attached by James. That is the very reason, to me, to makes it an interesting subject to study. If it is too easy, I don't think we will be interested.

I am not sure what you mean by F1 casters and F1 rod builders. Good caster, to me, not only can cast "far", but also understand "how" he/she get there, and "why" he/she need to make adjustment depending on the vary river conditions. Same as good rod builder, "how" to select a proper material and "how" to make a particular action to suit the customer's special need. Those "how" processes rely on not only experience, but also the deep understanding of bio-mechanics. Most importantly, if those experience can't be translate into more rigid mechanics terms, it will be very hard to compare different knowledge. I think Steve (Salmon_g) has stated this earlier in his post.

The third category, Good instructors, well... they are "obligate" has to learn mechanics. Students come from different backgrounds, different level of knowledge. If a instructor don't understand the "how" processes by him/herself. How to translate the knowledge? how to make a proper analogy?! all he can say is "watch this!!" At some degree, we are all instructors. we are here to help out the beginners in this forum. Should we be more careful before we deliver the knowledge. Maybe not, if it has some entertaining values, I will also like to see that! Ha...

If your good casters is measure by long cast, well... I agree distance casting is fun and has it special knowledge in it, long leverage, long shooting head and thin running line and such...My brother Travis cast 180 feet in the knee deep water this year, is that amazing or what?! Too bad, he is too humble to post here... otherwise we will be able to take a glimpse of his casting mechanics and how distance casting can apply in the real fishing world.

In summary, if casting mechanics is not important to you, don't read those posts. (BTW, there are ignore function in this forum, I love it!), if light material is not important to you, don't buy it.. bamboo and fiberglass can be as fine as those nano graphite, depends on who is making it. and most importantly, Science won't help you catch more fish. BUT, they will make you more attractive in front of your friends! Ha...:)

good discussion gentlemen! I am off fishing tomorrow! I think Kerry is right... overall we are just a bunch of fishermen... Go fishing!

Cheers,

Mark
 

Latest posts