almost finished my "banty" rod

[FrequentTyer]

I'm hesitant to prolong this discussion, but I am intrigued by the question of what the impact of loosing the butt section would be on the line weight. If you want to dramatically simplify the thing, the moment of force applied from the butt to the the tip top is a product of the force applied and the length of the lever arm. This would be, in an overly simplified model, some function of line weight times the active length of the rod. If you hold everything else equal (and you can't), shortening the rod from the butt would suggest a higher line weight would be needed to load the rod (i.e. apply the same force). But, you have dramatically changed the lever by decreasing the cross sectional area in the but section. Once you take this into account, it is possible to either maintain the same line weight rating or more likely to significantly decrease it. I don't have the measurements for the rod in question, but when I have time I'll fool around with a few 4 piece models that I do have numbers for and look at the effects of dropping out the butt section on the stress curves.

 

[gfen]

You're doing it wrong.

 

[TimMurphy]

gfen wrote:

You're doing it wrong.

Dear gfen,

No, he isn't.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[grouse11]

Gfen, you're like my dad. There may be a million ways to accomplish a task but in his mind, the only correct way is the way that he does it. That's not necessarily a bad thing because it may be the fastest or most efficient way but it does have a way of working on people's nerves, especially when he tries to teach other the "right" way.

Anyways, this topic has pretty much been going nowhere for a while so lets just end it before it turns even uglier.

Thanks again for all of the positive feedback,
Grouse11

 

[gfen]

sorry, i'm gonna need some proofs to model a theorm to determine if there is, infact, only one way to do it. clearly this thread needs more math.

ergo, still doing it wrong.

 

[FrequentTyer]

grouse11 wrote:

Anyways, this topic has pretty much been going nowhere for a while so lets just end it before it turns even uglier.

Thanks again for all of the positive feedback,
Grouse11

Good deal Grouse11. Enjoy your rod.
Mike.

 

[FarmerDave]

I'm still trying to figure out what Gary has against the post war Japanese rods. ... suggesting you destroy those instead of American production rods...

I'm joking of course, and not saying he is giving bad advice because it is only opinion at this point. The post war Japanese will likely never be all that collectable because they were severely lacking in workmanship. But some do cast rather nicely.

I don't see where what I did to that post war Japanese rod in the picture is all that different from what Grouse did. I stripped it down and completely rebuilt it the way I wanted it. The only thing original is the blank. I just used all three sections. But both of us have eliminated any collect-ability potential.

And I've done the same thing to a couple post war Japanese, one H-I, and a couple of Montague and one Shakespeare (made by South Bend). Don't have any pictures handy of any of the others.

H-I are well known. Most of them are not collectable simply because they made so many. For a long time they were the biggest tackle manufacturer in the world. I believe the Sport King was actually made by H-I.