afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
FYI. Nice video on how a graphite fly rod is made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAuYBIX4k0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAuYBIX4k0s
H
harry
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 79
Appears they don't spine them at Thomas & Thomas ?
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Just some fly rod and rod building stuff to argue about:
One thing that becomes apparent from the video is that making a fly rod is very labor intensive. IMO, the one of the main differences between a $200 and a $600 fly rod is where it’s made. The labor cost for Sage in the US is say $20.50 an hour (including employee benefits) while in China it may be $.50 an hour. Freight costs to ship to the States are minimal on a 3oz fly rod. These are just guesses on the actual costs, but it demonstrates my point. BTW, my wife is a production planner for a large fishing manufacturer that produces in the US as well as China, so my guess is not that far off.
I would love to see what goes into making the graphite sheets. The claim is that the high modulus graphite is much more expensive to produce, in addition, the resins that are used to bind the fibers together is also a big factor.
The factors that go into the selling price of a graphite fly rod as I see them are first and foremost labor costs. Other factors are the cost/quality of the components, the cost of the raw materials and the process used to make the graphite into a usable form (sheet). As well there are intangibles that factor into the cost, especially in the high-end fly rods, such as the premium paid for owning the “latest and greatest” models in the line, and the reputation (name) of the manufacturer.
In another post about rod building, Jack argued that low-end blanks are not noodles. Here is some info I picked up concerning graphite modulus:
"The highest modulus rod blanks you can buy are available in the G. Loomis GLX and Sage Graphite IV. These range somewhere near 65 million modulus.
Next down the line is Sage Graphite III, G.Loomis GL4, IMX and several less known rod blanks coming in somewhere in the range of 55 million modulus.
If you back down a little to the mid 40 million modulus range, you will find a group of rods including Sage Graphite II, G.Loomis GL3, Redington Premium and rods with the IM8 and SC44 ratings.
A little lower on the ladder is IM7 at 42 million modulus and IM6 at 38 million modulus.
Standard graphite is rated at 33 million modulus, and along with IM6 and IM7, is as high as some rod manufacturers get."
Cheaper graphite fly rods are nearly exclusively made from lower modulus graphite, therefore these rods tend to have more flex and are usually slower-action rods. I know that the taper is the biggest determining factor as to the action of a rod, but to produce a fast action rod out of say IM6 graphite, the material used in nearly all low end blanks, the rod would have to be a very large diameter and very thick and heavy walls making it the proverbial broom stick handle that Jack mentioned.
Jack also mentioned in another post about the importance of aligning the spine, or some call it spline of a rod. The wall thickness of the blank is not the same throughout the shaft (although Gatti claims that their high-end rods are nearly perfect). Therefore, the rod flexes more on the side with a thinner wall, and flexes less on the thicker side; this is the spine. You can find the weak and strong side by rotating the blank between your hands while it’s being flexed. The blank will jump when it reaches that point. Many rod builders mark this spot and affix the guides with the spine aligned either strong side up or down. There is always a debate as to which way is best.
Many of the rod manufacturers (Sage and Loomis are two that I am aware of) build their rods on the straight axis. Since blanks are not perfectly straight, they build their rods with the curved side down or up, in other words the guides are affixed on either the convex or concave side of the rod. A simple way to do this is to roll the blank section on a perfectly flat surface and mark where the blank raises and lowers as it rolls. This to me makes the most sense, and is how I align my guides. I align the guides to the convex side of the rod.
Good luck.
One thing that becomes apparent from the video is that making a fly rod is very labor intensive. IMO, the one of the main differences between a $200 and a $600 fly rod is where it’s made. The labor cost for Sage in the US is say $20.50 an hour (including employee benefits) while in China it may be $.50 an hour. Freight costs to ship to the States are minimal on a 3oz fly rod. These are just guesses on the actual costs, but it demonstrates my point. BTW, my wife is a production planner for a large fishing manufacturer that produces in the US as well as China, so my guess is not that far off.
I would love to see what goes into making the graphite sheets. The claim is that the high modulus graphite is much more expensive to produce, in addition, the resins that are used to bind the fibers together is also a big factor.
The factors that go into the selling price of a graphite fly rod as I see them are first and foremost labor costs. Other factors are the cost/quality of the components, the cost of the raw materials and the process used to make the graphite into a usable form (sheet). As well there are intangibles that factor into the cost, especially in the high-end fly rods, such as the premium paid for owning the “latest and greatest” models in the line, and the reputation (name) of the manufacturer.
In another post about rod building, Jack argued that low-end blanks are not noodles. Here is some info I picked up concerning graphite modulus:
"The highest modulus rod blanks you can buy are available in the G. Loomis GLX and Sage Graphite IV. These range somewhere near 65 million modulus.
Next down the line is Sage Graphite III, G.Loomis GL4, IMX and several less known rod blanks coming in somewhere in the range of 55 million modulus.
If you back down a little to the mid 40 million modulus range, you will find a group of rods including Sage Graphite II, G.Loomis GL3, Redington Premium and rods with the IM8 and SC44 ratings.
A little lower on the ladder is IM7 at 42 million modulus and IM6 at 38 million modulus.
Standard graphite is rated at 33 million modulus, and along with IM6 and IM7, is as high as some rod manufacturers get."
Cheaper graphite fly rods are nearly exclusively made from lower modulus graphite, therefore these rods tend to have more flex and are usually slower-action rods. I know that the taper is the biggest determining factor as to the action of a rod, but to produce a fast action rod out of say IM6 graphite, the material used in nearly all low end blanks, the rod would have to be a very large diameter and very thick and heavy walls making it the proverbial broom stick handle that Jack mentioned.
Jack also mentioned in another post about the importance of aligning the spine, or some call it spline of a rod. The wall thickness of the blank is not the same throughout the shaft (although Gatti claims that their high-end rods are nearly perfect). Therefore, the rod flexes more on the side with a thinner wall, and flexes less on the thicker side; this is the spine. You can find the weak and strong side by rotating the blank between your hands while it’s being flexed. The blank will jump when it reaches that point. Many rod builders mark this spot and affix the guides with the spine aligned either strong side up or down. There is always a debate as to which way is best.
Many of the rod manufacturers (Sage and Loomis are two that I am aware of) build their rods on the straight axis. Since blanks are not perfectly straight, they build their rods with the curved side down or up, in other words the guides are affixed on either the convex or concave side of the rod. A simple way to do this is to roll the blank section on a perfectly flat surface and mark where the blank raises and lowers as it rolls. This to me makes the most sense, and is how I align my guides. I align the guides to the convex side of the rod.
Good luck.
beeber2
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 720
No need to spline rods any more. Newfangled rods don't have a spine like the older ones had.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,313
To be clear, to the extent I argued anything, it would have been that not all low end blanks are noodles. Certainly you can buy a soft action rod for a little bit of money. My point was only that you didn't have to spend a ton to get a fast action rod. In fact, you can get a medium-fast Rainshadow (Batson) RX7, 43 Million modulus for about $55 in 9 foot 5-weight and an extra-fast RX8, 51 million modulus, for just over $100.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Jack,
I actually built a Rainshadow RX7 9' 5wt. It was the first rod I built, and use it to teach beginners and lend out. I would classify it as medium slow (and clunky).
The Sage and Loomis rods I own are of a different class with respect to being light and fast action. As I stated earlier, a mfg. can taper a fast action rod out of lower modulus graphite, but it will be a clunky rod (IMO).
Next time when you are at a fly shop or fishing with someone who owns a fast-action Sage or Loomis rod, cast it and feel the difference. I'm not saying those type of rods are best - just best for me.
I have not, by any means cast every rod or blank out there, but I have yet to cast a rod built on a low to moderate priced blank that's fast, light, and reponsive. I have heard than Dan Craft fast-action rods may fit the bill, but I haven't cast one as of yet.
All just my opinion Jack. I knew if I mentioned your name in a post, I won't get a response - and you didn't disappoint!
If you like slower action rods, the world is your oyster! There are a bunch of blanks out there at a moderate price to fit the bill. I built a 7' 4wt PacBay Tradition rod for my wife. It's a great little rod that, IMO, will rival the Orvis "full flex" rods as they call them. I built it, including decent components, for just under $100!
I actually built a Rainshadow RX7 9' 5wt. It was the first rod I built, and use it to teach beginners and lend out. I would classify it as medium slow (and clunky).
The Sage and Loomis rods I own are of a different class with respect to being light and fast action. As I stated earlier, a mfg. can taper a fast action rod out of lower modulus graphite, but it will be a clunky rod (IMO).
Next time when you are at a fly shop or fishing with someone who owns a fast-action Sage or Loomis rod, cast it and feel the difference. I'm not saying those type of rods are best - just best for me.
I have not, by any means cast every rod or blank out there, but I have yet to cast a rod built on a low to moderate priced blank that's fast, light, and reponsive. I have heard than Dan Craft fast-action rods may fit the bill, but I haven't cast one as of yet.
All just my opinion Jack. I knew if I mentioned your name in a post, I won't get a response - and you didn't disappoint!
If you like slower action rods, the world is your oyster! There are a bunch of blanks out there at a moderate price to fit the bill. I built a 7' 4wt PacBay Tradition rod for my wife. It's a great little rod that, IMO, will rival the Orvis "full flex" rods as they call them. I built it, including decent components, for just under $100!
MattBoyer
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,515
As far as splining goes, I still do it on mine, and I put the guides in the inside if the rod is under a 7WT, outside if it's a bigger rod that needs more backbone to accelerate the line on the backcast. I, too have heard that it's not necessary, but it only takes a second or two and it can't hurt.
Boyer
Boyer
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Matt,
I'm not saying just stick the guides anywhere on the rod. My point was there is a choice to either spine/spline the rod, or affix the guides on straightest center axis, the way the rod mfg do. Finding either takes the same amount of time.
I'm not saying just stick the guides anywhere on the rod. My point was there is a choice to either spine/spline the rod, or affix the guides on straightest center axis, the way the rod mfg do. Finding either takes the same amount of time.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,313
I don't always respond just because my name is mentioned, but usually you can count on it if you characterize a prior post or position of mine incorrectly. But, now you are shifting the target by introducing the concept of blank weight. You made an original claim that low-end blanks are all noodles. This is simply not true and that was why (in that other thread) I disagreed. There are inexpensive stiff rods, as I had mentioned, and also inexpensive, high modulus rods that are lightweight. I won't disagree that generally the low-end rods are made with lower modulus graphite, thus, generally softer action, but that's about as far as I can concede to you, and if that had been your point all along, then I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment then or now.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Jack wrote: "But, now you are shifting the target by introducing the concept of blank weight. You made an original claim that low-end blanks are all noodles.
Actually Jack this is what I wrote in my original post about blank weight: "to produce a fast action rod out of say IM6 graphite, the material used in nearly all low end blanks, the rod would have to be a very large diameter and very thick and heavy walls making it the proverbial broom stick handle."
Jack wrote: "There are inexpensive stiff rods, as I had mentioned, and also inexpensive, high modulus rods that are lightweight."
Who makes a blank that has a fast action, is made from high modulus graphite, and is lightweight and inexpensive? That's what I've been looking for since I began building rods a few years ago.
Actually Jack this is what I wrote in my original post about blank weight: "to produce a fast action rod out of say IM6 graphite, the material used in nearly all low end blanks, the rod would have to be a very large diameter and very thick and heavy walls making it the proverbial broom stick handle."
Jack wrote: "There are inexpensive stiff rods, as I had mentioned, and also inexpensive, high modulus rods that are lightweight."
Who makes a blank that has a fast action, is made from high modulus graphite, and is lightweight and inexpensive? That's what I've been looking for since I began building rods a few years ago.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,313
Sorry, you are right. When I referenced an "original" post, I meant on the other thread about rod building, but that was Tabasco_Joe, not you. I blended my recollection of his posts with yours on this thread. Now that I have made reference to that thread, I see that he did agree with me that not all cheap blanks were noodles, just more likely to be, which I don't contest.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,313
Maybe try these:
Toward the bottom of this page the RX8 is just over $100:
http://www.acidrod.com/RainshadowFLY_blanks.html
Also, Batson apparently has a blended blank known as RX8 "XF" that might suit your needs for just over a buck (scroll down this page):
http://www.schneidersrods.com/batson_advanced_rod_blanks.htm
tabasco_joe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 889
I'd have to believe if you can feel much of a spline it will affect the rod as it loads/unloads and should be taken into account with respect to guide placement. It's possible some of the rod building process are getting good enough that there is no spline of consequence. I have a couple four piece blanks I haven't been able to find the spline on some sections. I'm sure on these it's chance not consistent process quality.
Afishinado; when you align your guides based on blank curve are you checking the spline at all? Ever try both methods and see how well they correlate? I would think a blank with a strong spline and a curve that didn't correlate would have some complex torque during casting and be rather inconsistent casting.
Acristickid
Well-known member
Totally ignorant on this subject so I thought I would ask.
Have a low end St. Croix 2 piece rod with about the first 5 inches of the tip broke off. Someday I would like to fix it.
Is it possible to just order the top section or do they make you buy the whole kit?- assuming it would still be in production.
Can you order just the 1 section? Is it possiblt to reuse the guides from the old section?
If it cost a lot probably wont go that route since I really dont use anymore but just though it might be a good practice if I ever decided to give it a try.
Thanks for any help.
Have a low end St. Croix 2 piece rod with about the first 5 inches of the tip broke off. Someday I would like to fix it.
Is it possible to just order the top section or do they make you buy the whole kit?- assuming it would still be in production.
Can you order just the 1 section? Is it possiblt to reuse the guides from the old section?
If it cost a lot probably wont go that route since I really dont use anymore but just though it might be a good practice if I ever decided to give it a try.
Thanks for any help.
pcray1231
Well-known member
I can somewhat answer how the carbon fiber is made. I believe fishing rods are not actually graphite, but rather carbon fiber with a graphene matrix.
Graphene can be thought of as a sheet of atoms in a hexagonal arrangement, in only two dimensions, so that each atom is bonded to three others, kind of like a chain link fence with hexagonal openings. The bonds between the carbon atoms are very strong covalent bonds, the same as in diamond. So the sheet itself is very strong and stiff (like a diamond) if you pulled along the sheet, and it conducts electricity and heat. Graphite is a whole bunch of these sheets stacked together, however, the bonds between sheets are vanderwaal's bonds, and very weak. Thus the sheets slide over one another very easily. Powdered graphite, with very small sheets, is thus a very good lubricant, as well as used as pencil lead (your actually shearing off small graphite sheets when you write). In larger sheets, graphite varies in properties considerably depending on direction, weak and nonconducting in one direction, and stiff, strong and conducting along the sheets. The technical term for different properties in different directions is "anisotropic."
Carbon fiber can be thought of as a graphene sheet rolled up, so that it bonds as a tube instead of stacking layers of sheets, the result is a very strong fiber that doesn't want to bond strongly to anything else.
The way they are made starts with a polymer. The polymer is oxidized at relatively low temperatures (maybe 600 degrees), breaking the bonds between individual strands, but not within them, making each strand independent of others. These are then carbonized at extremely high heat (3500 degrees is an approximate) in a noble gas atmosphere, driving off everything but the carbon. The real science comes in on what polymers to use to get the most perfect structure, of course more refinement of the initial polymer, thus more expensive, is needed to get the perfect graphene tube structure. Also, the heat treatment matters a lot, lower heat favors carbon fibers to form, making higher strengths, but also is less successful at driving off impurities, and the material is very brittle. Higher heat results in a higher percentage of carbon, but the fibers tend to break up into sheets of graphite, losing strength. I'm sure the really good stuff uses high heat to get pure carbon, followed by some more heat treatments to promote carbon fiber over graphite sheets. I don't know the specific process, and it may be proprietary.
After this, you have a thin, very strong strand of carbon fiber. Twist a bunch of strands together and you have a carbon thread, like a small multistranded rope. The thread can then be woven into a carbon fiber cloth, the specifics of the weave I do not know, and I'm sure there's several to impart different properties. You end up with a flexible, yet very strong carbon fiber cloth. In most applications, and I don't think fishing rods are any different, you use several sheets of this cloth and "glue" them together with plastic. I'm sure there's just as much science in the plastic used.
I believe super high modulus carbon fiber cloth (known commercially as graphite) isn't that hard to make, it'd need better initial polymers and more heat treatment so it may be somewhat more expensive. But this isn't what holds back progress. The higher modulus, the more brittle the material. The magic comes in the various weaves, which are proprietary to different companies, and the different plastics. Get it all right, and it ALLOWS you to use higher modulus graphite, meaning higher strength, which allows thinner walled, lighter rods with faster actions. Using that kind of graphite without a properly matching weave or resin will just result in a rod thats very high in tensile strength, but as brittle as glass.
Graphene can be thought of as a sheet of atoms in a hexagonal arrangement, in only two dimensions, so that each atom is bonded to three others, kind of like a chain link fence with hexagonal openings. The bonds between the carbon atoms are very strong covalent bonds, the same as in diamond. So the sheet itself is very strong and stiff (like a diamond) if you pulled along the sheet, and it conducts electricity and heat. Graphite is a whole bunch of these sheets stacked together, however, the bonds between sheets are vanderwaal's bonds, and very weak. Thus the sheets slide over one another very easily. Powdered graphite, with very small sheets, is thus a very good lubricant, as well as used as pencil lead (your actually shearing off small graphite sheets when you write). In larger sheets, graphite varies in properties considerably depending on direction, weak and nonconducting in one direction, and stiff, strong and conducting along the sheets. The technical term for different properties in different directions is "anisotropic."
Carbon fiber can be thought of as a graphene sheet rolled up, so that it bonds as a tube instead of stacking layers of sheets, the result is a very strong fiber that doesn't want to bond strongly to anything else.
The way they are made starts with a polymer. The polymer is oxidized at relatively low temperatures (maybe 600 degrees), breaking the bonds between individual strands, but not within them, making each strand independent of others. These are then carbonized at extremely high heat (3500 degrees is an approximate) in a noble gas atmosphere, driving off everything but the carbon. The real science comes in on what polymers to use to get the most perfect structure, of course more refinement of the initial polymer, thus more expensive, is needed to get the perfect graphene tube structure. Also, the heat treatment matters a lot, lower heat favors carbon fibers to form, making higher strengths, but also is less successful at driving off impurities, and the material is very brittle. Higher heat results in a higher percentage of carbon, but the fibers tend to break up into sheets of graphite, losing strength. I'm sure the really good stuff uses high heat to get pure carbon, followed by some more heat treatments to promote carbon fiber over graphite sheets. I don't know the specific process, and it may be proprietary.
After this, you have a thin, very strong strand of carbon fiber. Twist a bunch of strands together and you have a carbon thread, like a small multistranded rope. The thread can then be woven into a carbon fiber cloth, the specifics of the weave I do not know, and I'm sure there's several to impart different properties. You end up with a flexible, yet very strong carbon fiber cloth. In most applications, and I don't think fishing rods are any different, you use several sheets of this cloth and "glue" them together with plastic. I'm sure there's just as much science in the plastic used.
I believe super high modulus carbon fiber cloth (known commercially as graphite) isn't that hard to make, it'd need better initial polymers and more heat treatment so it may be somewhat more expensive. But this isn't what holds back progress. The higher modulus, the more brittle the material. The magic comes in the various weaves, which are proprietary to different companies, and the different plastics. Get it all right, and it ALLOWS you to use higher modulus graphite, meaning higher strength, which allows thinner walled, lighter rods with faster actions. Using that kind of graphite without a properly matching weave or resin will just result in a rod thats very high in tensile strength, but as brittle as glass.
pcray1231
Well-known member
P.S.
As with all sporting goods (esp. golf), the industry takes huge margins. Though there are differences in raw material costs and effectiveness of the product, both factors play a very small role in the actual price tag. That's mostly determined by marketing.
As with all sporting goods (esp. golf), the industry takes huge margins. Though there are differences in raw material costs and effectiveness of the product, both factors play a very small role in the actual price tag. That's mostly determined by marketing.
Stevie-B
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 414
After watching the video, I would suspect that several of the prcesses could be more automated. Where the guy was measuring and cutting the strips could be reduced to a die that stamps them out. Plus, if the rods were cheaper then I would buy more.
pcray1231
Well-known member
A quick bit of searching,
I was slightly wrong about the different modulus. There is no difference in how the different modulus fibers are initially made. But the low modulus, low cost carbon fiber ends there. The stuff still has some junk on the outside thats basically useless, think of it like bark on a tree. In high modulus carbon fiber, the extra stuff is basically stripped off, leaving the higher strength core. With thinner fibers, more can be fit into an area, and you get higher strength.
As of the early 2000's, standard carbon fiber sheets went for around $10 per pound, the super high modulus stuff for under $30/pound. It's gone up recently because Boeing and Airbus are eating up the supply, and the supply isn't that great. Still, you're top of the line fly rod has no more than $15 dollars worth of carbon fiber in it, probably a lot less, for a rod thats upwards of $600.
Of course, add in the other features, like the cork, real seat, eyes, ferrules, etc., and you may have another $50 worth of materials there. Now add company execs, R&D, labor, shipping, customer service, marketing department, patent lawyers, etc., and the initial cost of a rod begins to take shape.
I was slightly wrong about the different modulus. There is no difference in how the different modulus fibers are initially made. But the low modulus, low cost carbon fiber ends there. The stuff still has some junk on the outside thats basically useless, think of it like bark on a tree. In high modulus carbon fiber, the extra stuff is basically stripped off, leaving the higher strength core. With thinner fibers, more can be fit into an area, and you get higher strength.
As of the early 2000's, standard carbon fiber sheets went for around $10 per pound, the super high modulus stuff for under $30/pound. It's gone up recently because Boeing and Airbus are eating up the supply, and the supply isn't that great. Still, you're top of the line fly rod has no more than $15 dollars worth of carbon fiber in it, probably a lot less, for a rod thats upwards of $600.
Of course, add in the other features, like the cork, real seat, eyes, ferrules, etc., and you may have another $50 worth of materials there. Now add company execs, R&D, labor, shipping, customer service, marketing department, patent lawyers, etc., and the initial cost of a rod begins to take shape.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Jack I appreciate your suggestions on finding a fast-action rod blank. One of the biggest disadvantages to me, when building your own rods, is that you don’t know what you have until you build it. As you know, I am a big fan of Sage and Loomis fast-action rods. What I try to do is compare the blanks and try to predict what type of action and how it will feel based on modulus of graphite used, and the taper and weight of the blank. It is an inexact science, but after studying the specs of many rod blanks, I have made some conclusions that seem to work for me. To me, rods tapered with a larger diameter tip and upper section with a thinner butt, make the rod feel tip heavy and dead. I believe that when using lower modulus graphite to make a fast-action rod, the rod tends to weigh more, and most of the material is in the upper section in order to make the action faster. These rods to me have a clunky feeling to it, and don’t feel light and responsive on the cast. I’ve come to that conclusion, based on studying the specs of rods that cast/feel good to me, and rods that don’t. I’ve even been known to carry a micrometer with me when I visit the fly shop!
Here is a comparison of the two rods you recommended (the first two) vs. high-end rod blanks and one lower price rod that I’ve cast:
(All rods are 9’ 5 wt / 4 piece for comparison)
Rainshadow RX8: Tip = 4.5 / Butt = .340 / Weight = 2.0 oz
Rainshadow RX8XF: Tip = 4.5 / Butt = .340 / Weight = 2.0 oz
Sage Z-Axis: Tip = 3.5 / Butt = 3.75 / Weight = 1.5 oz
Loomis GLX: Tip = 3.5 / Butt = 3.71 / Weight = n/a
TFO TiCr: Tip = 4.0 / Butt = 3.80 / Weight = 1.82 oz.
Both the Sage and Loomis rod blanks are in the $300 range and I use them as a benchmark. They are great rods, but very expensive. The other 3 blanks are in the $100 range. Based on the comparison, I would choose the TFO as my inexpensive fast-action blank. The Rainshadows are tip heavy, while the I would predict that TFO would feel a lot more light and responsive to me, and would suit my taste in rod feel and action. I’ve actually cast all the above rods, and the TFOs and they ARE decent, while Rainshadow blanks don’t do much for me at all.
Just some info to help others chose the blanks that may suit them the best. When you cast a rod you really like (or don't like), take note of as much as you can and try to find a blank to that works best for you. Good luck.
Here is a comparison of the two rods you recommended (the first two) vs. high-end rod blanks and one lower price rod that I’ve cast:
(All rods are 9’ 5 wt / 4 piece for comparison)
Rainshadow RX8: Tip = 4.5 / Butt = .340 / Weight = 2.0 oz
Rainshadow RX8XF: Tip = 4.5 / Butt = .340 / Weight = 2.0 oz
Sage Z-Axis: Tip = 3.5 / Butt = 3.75 / Weight = 1.5 oz
Loomis GLX: Tip = 3.5 / Butt = 3.71 / Weight = n/a
TFO TiCr: Tip = 4.0 / Butt = 3.80 / Weight = 1.82 oz.
Both the Sage and Loomis rod blanks are in the $300 range and I use them as a benchmark. They are great rods, but very expensive. The other 3 blanks are in the $100 range. Based on the comparison, I would choose the TFO as my inexpensive fast-action blank. The Rainshadows are tip heavy, while the I would predict that TFO would feel a lot more light and responsive to me, and would suit my taste in rod feel and action. I’ve actually cast all the above rods, and the TFOs and they ARE decent, while Rainshadow blanks don’t do much for me at all.
Just some info to help others chose the blanks that may suit them the best. When you cast a rod you really like (or don't like), take note of as much as you can and try to find a blank to that works best for you. Good luck.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
TabascoJoe wrote: “Afishinado; when you align your guides based on blank curve are you checking the spline at all? Ever try both methods and see how well they correlate? I would think a blank with a strong spline and a curve that didn't correlate would have some complex torque during casting and be rather inconsistent casting.
Tabasco,
I look in on the rodbuilder.org forum. The site is frequented by many of the custom rod builders in the US and abroad. Here is a post from Tom Kirkman, one the moderators, and an expert rod builder.
“Spine or not to spine?? Does it matter?
There has never been any evidence given that offers proof or good reason for mounting guides on the spine or opposite the spine. The whole idea that it was a good idea came from a book written in the early 1970's and which other authors then picked up on. None offered any reason for doing this other than that if you flexed a naked blank by hand (which never happens while fishing - our rods have guides on them which act as small lever arms and overcome "spine") the blank would roll to a certain location. The authors stated that utilizing the spine in the manner they recommended would prevent rod twist while fishing and create a more accurate fishing rod. Both statements have been very much disproven in actual mechanical tests over the years. For the most part, everything written about the importantance of rod spine in the various texts out there has always been based on opinion, not tests or facts. But if you repeat something often enough and long enough, it tends to become "fact." It's a hard myth for many to let go of, but it will die in the next few years. At least one publication actually somewhat recanted on their 20+ year stance on the importance of spine after our test results were printed in a very early issue of RodMaker. They too, then decided that spine has nothing to do with preventing rod twist.
Guide location has everything to do with rod twist, spine has nothing to do with it. For best accuracy, you need the straightest axis in line with your casting plane, only problem being that most of us don't always cast on the exact same plane each time. But you don't want any natural curvature being so far off line from the normal casting plane that the rod tip will travel in an arc (twist around a central axis is fine).
If you do choose to build on the spine, however, you won't hurt a thing. If it makes you feel good - go ahead and do it. That's precisely because it just doesn't matter. The one thing you never want a new builder to worry over is rod spine. Far too many shy away from building a rod because they're afraid or have been told that if they don't get this spine thing correct, their rods will twist, explode, cast to the left, etc. But none of that is the actual case. Try not to worry over it too much - it really doesn't matter.”
Tabasco, I know that Sage and Loomis build on the straightest axis, so after reading all the info, that’s what I try to do.
Here is the forum address if you want to check it out. Most of these guys really know their stuff. If you ever have a question about rod building or a problem, they should have the answer. Good luck.
http://www.rodbuilding.org/list.php?2
Tabasco,
I look in on the rodbuilder.org forum. The site is frequented by many of the custom rod builders in the US and abroad. Here is a post from Tom Kirkman, one the moderators, and an expert rod builder.
“Spine or not to spine?? Does it matter?
There has never been any evidence given that offers proof or good reason for mounting guides on the spine or opposite the spine. The whole idea that it was a good idea came from a book written in the early 1970's and which other authors then picked up on. None offered any reason for doing this other than that if you flexed a naked blank by hand (which never happens while fishing - our rods have guides on them which act as small lever arms and overcome "spine") the blank would roll to a certain location. The authors stated that utilizing the spine in the manner they recommended would prevent rod twist while fishing and create a more accurate fishing rod. Both statements have been very much disproven in actual mechanical tests over the years. For the most part, everything written about the importantance of rod spine in the various texts out there has always been based on opinion, not tests or facts. But if you repeat something often enough and long enough, it tends to become "fact." It's a hard myth for many to let go of, but it will die in the next few years. At least one publication actually somewhat recanted on their 20+ year stance on the importance of spine after our test results were printed in a very early issue of RodMaker. They too, then decided that spine has nothing to do with preventing rod twist.
Guide location has everything to do with rod twist, spine has nothing to do with it. For best accuracy, you need the straightest axis in line with your casting plane, only problem being that most of us don't always cast on the exact same plane each time. But you don't want any natural curvature being so far off line from the normal casting plane that the rod tip will travel in an arc (twist around a central axis is fine).
If you do choose to build on the spine, however, you won't hurt a thing. If it makes you feel good - go ahead and do it. That's precisely because it just doesn't matter. The one thing you never want a new builder to worry over is rod spine. Far too many shy away from building a rod because they're afraid or have been told that if they don't get this spine thing correct, their rods will twist, explode, cast to the left, etc. But none of that is the actual case. Try not to worry over it too much - it really doesn't matter.”
Tabasco, I know that Sage and Loomis build on the straightest axis, so after reading all the info, that’s what I try to do.
Here is the forum address if you want to check it out. Most of these guys really know their stuff. If you ever have a question about rod building or a problem, they should have the answer. Good luck.
http://www.rodbuilding.org/list.php?2
