DON'T BUY CND RODS

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
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.
It's not that Greenheart can't cast, but rather for a given swing weight it takes a lot more to get the rod to cast the same distance, that's all I was getting at :)
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
Mark,

Every single low flexing rod I have ever cast was largely identifiable as such simply by wiggling the rod with no line on it. Flex is to some degree a function of how the rod manages it's own weight. That is the real world, true for every single rod out there. If the top half of all the worlds rods suddenly became weightless, but retained exactly the same stiffness, their actions would change. If you are anything like me, and think that some of your rods are fantastic exactly as they are, then you should put down the equations and consider appreciating the role inertia plays in their action.
Once again we get back to the same original point. Flexing a rod without a line means there's energy being expended to move that mass. If instead you had a rod that was massless, but *still* flexed the same with the *line* providing the interia, there would be more power going to the line... In no way did I say the butt section would remain the same stiffness and as such *nothing* that has been stated that you can't have a rod with the same action full flexing action when a line is used. This has been assumed, and if I contributed to this misunderstanding of the argument then I apologize! :)

I just want to be clear that I really do prefer a full flexing rod, it's just that wiggling a rod is much different than casting a rod. I'd rather have it fully flexing under load with a line, rather than flexing without a line :
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
Ok let me say it this way..
there is not enough difference between the different materials whereby one could use a stiffer and lighter material to make a tip with less material and maintain the same strength ( ability to move line)

for instance if you took a normal high modulus tip for say an 7 wt spey rod. you could not use a stiffer material to create a lighter tip that would have the same performance and lifting power.. why? because rods are already designed so light that there is no room left to drop. even with nano resins sods simply have to have lots of fivers to maintain and form of performance or even to hold together and we are already at the bottom limit of the material.. unless there is a new material that is stronger and stiffer than carbon spey rod tips will never be significantly lighter than they are right now.

as a manufacturer I am excited about nano resin ONLY for the purpose of reducing repairs... we are already reaching the limits of the fiber's capabilities.. resin cannot make up for a lack of fiber therefore tips will not become lighter.


Graphite has and probably always will have a much higher modulus than the resin that binds it. For every resin advance, it allows the folks who build the graphite fabrics and opportunity to reduce weight and retain the same strength. So the upper limit that we currently know of for graphite is approximately 100 times greater than the current IM8 materials. From wikipedia:

The strength of the sp
² carbon-carbon bonds gives carbon nanotubes amazing mechanical properties. The stiffness of a material is measured in terms of its Young's modulus, the rate of change of stress with applied strain. The Young's modulus of the best nanotubes can be as high as 1000 GPa which is approximately 5x higher than steel. The tensile strength, or breaking strain of nanotubes can be up to 63 GPa, around 50x higher than steel. These properties, coupled with the lightness of carbon nanotubes, gives them great potential in applications such as aerospace. It has even been suggested that nanotubes could be used in the “space elevator”, an Earth-to-space cable first proposed by Arthur C. Clarke. The electronic properties of carbon nanotubes are also extraordinary. Especially notable is the fact that nanotubes can be metallic or semiconducting depending on their structure. Thus, some nanotubes have conductivities higher than that of copper, while others behave more like silicon. There is great interest in the possibility of constructing nanoscale electronic devices from nanotubes, and some progress is being made in this area. However, in order to construct a useful device we would need to arrange many thousands of nanotubes in a defined pattern, and we do not yet have the degree of control necessary to achieve this. There are several areas of technology where carbon nanotubes are already being used. These include flat-panel displays, scanning probe microscopes and sensing devices. The unique properties of carbon nanotubes will undoubtedly lead to many more applications.
Also while I don't design rods, I know that the march of technology will allow rod designers more liberties in terms of getting the most out of their tapers. If they didn't, then high modulus rods like the Carron comp rods wouldn't be full flexing. It wouldn't surprise me that Kerry designs a new rod that can take advantage of the new graphite/resin to create a next gen of rods that will be superb as well as durable.
 

yuhina

Tropical member
Once again we get back to the same original point. Flexing a rod without a line means there's energy being expended to move that mass. If instead you had a rod that was massless, but *still* flexed the same with the *line* providing the interia, there would be more power going to the line... In no way did I say the butt section would remain the same stiffness and as such *nothing* that has been stated that you can't have a rod with the same action full flexing action when a line is used. This has been assumed, and if I contributed to this misunderstanding of the argument then I apologize! :)

I just want to be clear that I really do prefer a full flexing rod, it's just that wiggling a rod is much different than casting a rod. I'd rather have it fully flexing under load with a line, rather than flexing without a line :
Good post, James,
It's a full circle! Doesn't it?

After spend few pages and try to explain how line momentum works... And we are seeing the same puzzle/confusion come out again... well... that is the reason I prefer watch the graceful casting put up by Ian Gordon at this moment! I am excited, can't wait to see this video! Good discussion anyway.

Mark
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
Hi All,
Just came across this thread and i see its going off topic...... just to make it go off topic a little more, :D
I wanted to add a couple of points on Speycasting and its mechanics from more than 100 yrs ago, i know its old stuff but sometimes i think if we look back and dig a little we can find so much that will become new again.... in time.
While i like this debate, i think we would sometimes be better looking at some Speycasting detail other than the rod and line, i say this as the Greatest man ever to pick up a Double-handed rod regarded " Speycasting" as pretty inefficient.,So much so that he used his own cast "Highland Switch cast" to cast a distance we still cannot match or even come close to without shooting loads and loads of running line.
But It would be a mistake to think of Alexander Grant as a distance caster or even a Speycaster, in fact nothing could be further from the truth, and he never regarded himself as either, but he was a brilliant mathematicianand a man of natural science that set out to show what was possible using Rods, lines and technique based on scientific principleswhich anyone could achieve.
To this day there has never been a better rod and line designer.
Gordon.
www.mackenzieflyfishing.com
I've read of some of his incredible casts with his Vibrations rods he designed. I can only imagine what a rod designing genius could do with the wide assortment of materials to build from. If the accounts of his prowess were true (which I believe they were), the he was definitely the Mozart/Brahms/Beethoven/Newton of his time :)
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
mark, I wish I could take credit for the hammer analogy but it actually comes from the greatest speycaster that ever lived.
BTW, considering your experience as a comp caster, I was curious as to what your take on the state of rods from 10 years ago to now. This particular question is a bit independent of the modulus, as I understand that better and better tapers have been developed :) It may have something to do with the newer material, but like I said, I totally understand the role of the rod design being super important.
 
Hi James,
There is no doubt about his casting ability, but just as important was his style of casting, a little man of poor health that could swing a 20ft Greenheart rod all day without fatigue using his Highland switch cast, a bugger of a cast to master even though it is so simple, i am sure the only person that can teach the cast is me..... just because i have studied it for so long, and having all Alexander Grants personal letters on the subject does help.

Today we seem pre-occupied with shooting head lines and the underhand style of Speycasting, two things Alexander never liked, both are the exact opposite of the Highland Switch cast, and yet he was the originator of the touch and go cast.
Mark i spoke with Ian Gordon last week and the DVD will be out in the US in July in NTSC format.
Got to fly.
Gordon.
www.mackenzieflyfishing.com
 
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.
Gravity, that's why a heavier tip works better for spey casting.

Gravity works on everything of substance (with weight), it does not effect weightless/massless matter. More weight in the tip provides more inertial mass for acceleration.

"The inertial mass of an object determines its acceleration in the presence of an applied force." (taken from Wikipedia, first sentence 2nd paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
(read the entire wiki link, it's not useless info!!)

Gravity effects a heavier tip more than a lighter tip (due to it's weight), regardless of stiffness. Therefore gravity will force a deeper load into a rod with a heavier tip...and acceleration upon release will be increased...that's higher line speed. (I use "release" but "recovery" would be the term here). Mass, acceleration and mommentum are the keys.

The ideal weighless rods and hammer handles don't work in the real world because they are not effected by gravity and therefore cannot accept inertia...they can't load or accelerate anything because they don't exist and cannot usefully exist within the physical world we experience. If mass isn't the key try picking up a feather and throwing it as far as you can, then create a lead replica of the feather and throw it, which will travel further?
 

Latest posts