Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



(1) 2 3 »


Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2013/6/7 9:31
Posts: 247
Offline
Just read this article and it says they partnered with a company in the Pacific Northwest...would that be Sage or Loomis?

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/l ... n-made-fly-rods-and-reels

Posted on: 2013/10/1 21:29


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2010/7/18 7:23
From Lansdale
Posts: 893
Offline
Article says Waterworks-Lamson.

Posted on: 2013/10/2 5:43
_________________
To err is human, to forgive depends on the error.


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2010/6/19 16:43
From Clinton County, Pa.
Posts: 1741
Offline
Quote:

KeithS wrote:
Article says Waterworks-Lamson.
They made the reel but it does not say who manufactured the rod.

Posted on: 2013/10/2 13:46
_________________
"Even the thousandth trip to the same familiar stream begins with renewed hope and unfailing faith." ZANE GREY


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2011/1/18 18:44
Posts: 67
Offline
I thought you might find this article and video interesting. I am not certain that it will answer your question, it might even stir up other questions. Nevertheless, it is an interesting article and video to say the least.
http://waterworks-lamson.com/our-story/

http://waterworks-lamson.com/videos/

Posted on: 2013/10/3 10:16


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
That's a great article, thanks for posting. Nit picking, but given my profession, I have to:

Quote:
(Titanium) stronger than stainless, virtually inert, and weighing about 35% less, it is a costly and worthy alternative


Stronger in what sense? I mean, there are literally thousands of stainless steels. But if you have 2 identically sized pieces, generally the steel has higher strength. Titanium is indeed lighter, though. So steel generally has a higher strength to volume ratio. Titanium generally a higher strength to weight ratio. Though there are plenty of steels which are so much stronger, they do have a higher strength to weight ratio as well, but these steels generally are "stainless in name only", meaning you'll get some rust. They are hard to form and machine as well. Knife blade alloys, bearing steels, and the like.

Titanium is a worthy competitor, I do agree with that.

Quote:
we chose exotic, high strength "super alloys" like 17-4 PH rather than....


lol. 17-4 is pretty common. It's a specialty steel, but a common one, it's not exotic. Nor is it a super alloy, which is a term with an actual definition which relates specifically to austenitic high temperature alloys. 17-4 is martensitic and decidedly NOT for use in high temperatures. Most super-alloys are Ni or Co based, some have no iron at all. Though there are a couple of iron based alloys which are borderline fits for the definition, such as A286. But these have, at a very minimum, > 20% Ni as well. Typically more.

Sorry for the rant. Nobody cares, I know. An alloy metallurgist just can't let stuff like that pass....

Posted on: 2013/10/3 14:59


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2010/2/15 19:09
From Ohio
Posts: 716
Offline
Interesting analysis, but that stuff is so far over my head.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 20:57


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2013/6/7 9:31
Posts: 247
Offline
Interesting links...pretty cool. I still wonder about the rod blanks though. I wonder if they would be a higher end blank without the name brand on it. There have been many articles about how manufacturers charge $800 for a rod but it should only cost $400. They up the price to make up for warranty claims.

Posted on: 2013/10/6 11:36


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2013/6/7 9:31
Posts: 247
Offline
Just out of curiosity I called cabelas and spoke to customer service and they transferred me to another person about the rod. He said it was 100% American made and I asked if he could tell me the producer. I rattled off some names and he said they were not made by those mentioned. The only two I forgot to say were sage and orvis and when I did he just laughed and said well it has a 25 year warranty. Orvis seems to offer the same so I wonder if the American Dream rod really is an orvis with a cabelas name on it.

Posted on: 2013/10/6 12:11


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/6/25 9:41
From Pgh
Posts: 1161
Offline
Common, pc, cut us marketing guys a break. Overall, Ti is better than stainless in a weight/strength ratio-- that's "reelly" what's it 's about. The copywriter may have taken slight creative liberties in the explanation of the stainless selection, but this is a freakin' fly reel. Type 304 stainless would've sufficed fine unless the user cleans reels with Clorox! It's not a lie. It may be a slight exaggeration. The bottom line is still the same. These reels are built like a brick "$&ithous4e."

Posted on: 2013/10/7 18:35
_________________
"I used to like fishing because I thought it had some larger significance. Now I like fishing because it's the one thing I can think of that probably doesn't." --John Gierach


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
I'm fine with marketing putting a little spin on things. So long as spin doesn't equal WRONG.

;)

For instance:

Quote:
Type 304 stainless would've sufficed fine unless the user cleans reels with Clorox! It's not a lie. It may be a slight exaggeration.


They used 17-4. Which is LESS corrosion resistant than Type 304. So, if the user cleans with Clorox, you gave him a worse option. Now, how is that an exaggeration and not a lie?

Just because you didn't KNOW you were lying doesn't mean you weren't.

:)

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-09-13/

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2003-05-30/

Posted on: 2013/10/8 14:39


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/6/25 9:41
From Pgh
Posts: 1161
Offline
LOL.. just having fun with you scientists... got to admit the cartoons are funny, because there is a bit of truth to them!

My only point about T304 is that it is the most common of all stainless, they could have used that and called it "exotic" steel because "exotic" is a subjective adjective. A hamburger might be exotic food to a Tibetan.

And if it more corrosion resistant, I gave him a better option, no?

Posted on: 2013/10/8 15:09
_________________
"I used to like fishing because I thought it had some larger significance. Now I like fishing because it's the one thing I can think of that probably doesn't." --John Gierach


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
No, you gave him 17-4. You said 304 would have worked unless he cleaned with Clorox. Meaning, 304 would have sufficed (I agree), but you gave him something even better (in some ways, but not in others, and not in the example you gave).

17-4, while being less corrosion resistant, is also much, much stronger than 304, for instance. All else being equal, it's also cheaper, on account of having much lower % Ni. But generally, it's an aerospace alloy so it often has cleaner melting methods which bumps the price back up. Trade-offs abound in material selections. If you really want a better product, rather than a more marketable one, well, you gotta be informed or consult someone who is.

Regarding the term "exotic", that could be construed as merely an exaggeration. It has real meaning in the market, and 17-4 wouldn't fit, but that meaning is rather subjective. I'm not too upset that the author took liberties.

But calling it a super-alloy. That one wasn't an exaggeration, it was just plain wrong. Super, when used like this, isn't a subjective adjective. It means something very specific. And 17-4 is pretty much the complete opposite.

I know you're just playing. I am too. Well, sort of. I took playful shots at you. But the shots at the author were a good old fashioned rant. If it were about software or something, instead of metallurgy, I wouldn't have known, just like nobody else did. But knowing what marketers do to metallurgy makes me awfully suspicious of what they do to everything else. I don't tend to believe anything a manufacturer publicly says!

Posted on: 2013/10/8 15:39


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/6/25 9:41
From Pgh
Posts: 1161
Offline
Well I guess all steel can be considered "alloy steel?" If one considers carbon steel in that light ANY stainless could be considered "super alloy?" If one is used to working with high alloy steel then I can see your point. But from the layman's POV I can see stainless being a "super alloy" metal. But that's just my opinion. And it is subjective.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 16:40
_________________
"I used to like fishing because I thought it had some larger significance. Now I like fishing because it's the one thing I can think of that probably doesn't." --John Gierach


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/6/25 9:41
From Pgh
Posts: 1161
Offline
pc,
FYI -- A quick google search found other writers who took creative liberties by categorizing 17-4 a "superalloy"...

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=4220

http://www.altempalloys.com/17-4-ph-stainless-steel.html

http://rapidprotocasting.com/superalloy-castings.php





Posted on: 2013/10/8 17:10
_________________
"I used to like fishing because I thought it had some larger significance. Now I like fishing because it's the one thing I can think of that probably doesn't." --John Gierach


Re: Any idea on manufacturer?

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
1st link does not call 17-4 a super alloy. The company's name who sells it is called "Super Alloys". It'd be like a golf company named "Drivers" who also sells putters. The putter would be a "Driver" by brand, but not by description.

2nd link does not call it a super alloy either. The company's tagline says they supply "exotic, high temperature, and Super Alloy products", but this is there for all alloys, not part of the description of 17-4. If that description of what they sell is all-encompassing, it would mean they consider 17-4 to be one of the above, not all of the above. I already allowed that I didn't have too much of a problem with calling it "exotic". More likely, that line merely states what the company focuses on, but is not all encompassing.

3rd link also does not call 17-4 a superalloy. They make superalloy castings. They also make austenitic alloy castings. They also make Inconel castings. They also make martensitic/precipitation hardenable alloy castings. 17-4 is put in that category, not the others. Correctly.

The term "super-alloy" very specifically relates to steels which are designed to maintain high tensile strength and exhibit low creep and high oxidation resistance (high temperature corrosion) in high temperature environments. The biggest use of them is generally in jet engines as well as power gen equipment, but some of the "lesser" ones are used in exhaust systems, fasteners in furnaces, etc. All of them are going to be austenitic. Many will be Ni or Co based, rather than iron based, and hence, not technically a "steel" at all. Some lump iron based high temp alloys, like A286, in the "super-alloy" group. But these type of alloys will still have 20+ % Ni. If you water the definition way down, you could almost lump alloys like 316L in there. Ni in the mid teens, austenitic, and you still have some temperature resistance as well as taking a fairly long time to form phases like sigma. Used often in kitchen type equipment.

Super-alloy metallurgists (which I am not) are often trained separately from other metallurgists, and hold different titles. Their alloy system is rather unique, being Ni or Co based. You have a gamma (austenitic) structure with gamma prime (also fcc or austenitic) precipitates, so controlling lattice parameters and such are paramount. They also do some funky stuff like directional solidification that you just don't see in other systems. Their world is just very different than other metallurgists.

17-4 is martensitic. With, umm, 4% Ni. There is no world in which this is a super-alloy. It is a nice alloy, with some attractive properties, and I work with it and similar alloys all the time. But it'd be hard to pick a worse option for high temperature use.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 13:45

Edited by pcray1231 on 2013/10/9 14:01:15
Edited by pcray1231 on 2013/10/9 14:05:42



(1) 2 3 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
What kind of streams do you primarily fish?
Approved Trout Waters (Stocked Fish)
Class A Wild Trout Streams
Special Regulation Areas
Wilderness Trout Streams
No Preference All Trout Streams
116 total votes!
The poll will close at 2014/4/30 15:00
3 Comments
USGS Water Levels





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com