John,
I think the easy answer has to be yes, but have to ask, is this a trick question? By “measurements”, I assume you mean the physical diameter measurement and not load measurement? Can you clarify what you mean by “different loaded path”? I would guess that if the specific points were far enough apart, the intermediate lengths could allow for different tapers, which would affect loading, affecting “feel”. I.E., two rods, one being fast action, the other slow action, 2 points measured at tips and another at 18” back from tips.

jim spooner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John,
> I think the easy answer has to be yes, but have to
> ask, is this a trick question? By
> “measurements”, I assume you mean the physical
> diameter measurement and not load measurement? Can
> you clarify what you mean by “different loaded
> path”? I would guess that if the specific points
> were far enough apart, the intermediate lengths
> could allow for different tapers, which would
> affect loading, affecting “feel”. I.E., two
> rods, one being fast action, the other slow
> action, 2 points measured at tips and another at
> 18” back from tips.

Yes, that was what I was thinking of. You certainly could have two very different blanks that share a couple or possibly a few similarly measured points, but between these points the blanks have differing characteristics. Action, taper, rate of taper, linear vs nonlinear taper, material differences, mfg processes differences and many other things contribute to "feel". It seems like there are just too many factors to model and expect anything more than generalities for results.

John,
As the Geico commercial says, “Everybody knows that” (Ha).
Seriously, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Admittedly, I have a short attention span and I’m easily confused (snicker). I’m particularly confused when you say “It seems like there are just too many factors to model and expect anything more than generalities for results.” What results are you referring to? I’ve re-read the previous posts to find the relevance….help me out, are we talking about “feel” or measurements/ratings derived from CCS or RDA? If you really wanted to comprehensively model a blank, you could make flex measurements every 3 or 4 inches rather than just the overall length. I think most of us that measure blanks/rods don’t have a practical need to go beyond the basic Power and Action, but that isn’t to say it can’t be done. (Ref: CCS, CCF, TP, PR, etc.)

P.S. I know ALL of this stuff is related, so where I said ”I’ve re-read the previous posts to find the relevance….”, I should have said "the specific relevance".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 03:00PM by jim spooner.

Jim,

Not really trying to get at anything specific. Like I wrote early on, I have limited experience collecting the blank data and even less using it in some productive manner. Mostly, I just tinkered around and took some measurements from blanks I regularly work with. Some of the things you and Tom have written peaked some points of curiosity in my mind and this was the basis of my questions.

Reading the posts I began to wonder, among other things, if and to what extent the subjective feel could be objectively modeled using the various measurement systems. It was not my intention to hijack the thread and take it in a new direction than your original post, which admittedly I initially misunderstood.

John,
Now I’m with ya.
Subjective feel is kind of an abstract commodity. As Tom mentioned previously, measuring a blank/rod’s resonant frequency would get you close. I also think the blank’s/rod’s “efficiency” (Power divided by weight) can contribute to feel and/or sensitivity (i.e., the lightest rod possible for a given Power), which’ll also increase the frequency. The only other correlation I can think of between subjective and objective “feel” would be by having quantified numbers for the characteristics and then the individual angler (making it subjective again) testing to determine cause and effect. Not very scientific, but sometimes practical. The same logic could be applied to the “calculated” lure range (based on Power)…..either provided by the blank mfg. or rod builder generated. The calculated range would/should be in the ball-park, but only on-the-water testing can determine the optimum lure weight…..again, by the individual angler’s casting style/technique or input energy

P.S. I guess another possibility of correlating subjective to objective, or at least add some validity to it, would be by having quantified numbers for the characteristics and then have MANY anglers test to determine cause and effect statistically (like a test survey or “feedback”).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 04:29PM by jim spooner.

let me try to make this as simple as I can

When a company like say Seeker makes a blank -- then trims it to be used with a certain lure weight

How do they do this Casting A Certain Lure Weight

If any one knows Thank you for the info
If no one cares to tell
This post has just ended

happy building

Bill - willierods.com

let me try to make this as simple as I can

When a company like say Seeker makes a blank -- then trims it to be used with a certain lure weight

How do they do this Casting A Certain Lure Weight

If any one knows Thank you for the info
If no one cares to tell
This post has just ended Thank you for any info you have posted

happy building

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,
At the risk of beating a dead horse (Ha).
From an earlier post: The mfg.’s that trim blanks to accommodate different LURE WEIGHT requirements would have specs based on prior testing as part of their development process. The designers can use formulas to get within certain parameters (including LURE WEIGHTS), but further testing is needed to refine the engineering process.
I can tell you exactly how I would do it (I already have), but as to the specifics of how Seeker does it, you’re not likely to know….unless someone from Seeker jumps in here.
Perhaps someone else can give you the simple, common-sense answer you’re looking for.

P.S. I added LURE WEIGHT to above text which might help clarify.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2015 08:48AM by jim spooner.

Back to the subject of Lure Weight Determination….a couple more points to ponder……

If a lure weight range is derived from a blank/rod’s power, the resulting lure weights will be linear, right? (i.e., lure weights go up in proportion to power).

My gut tells me that Action should also be part of any equation to determine a lure weight range, and if so, two rods with identical power, but different actions, would have different lure weight ranges (non-linear). I’m not privy to any high-speed photography to show a rod being cast and how it flexes, but I suspect that during the dynamics of a cast, a faster action blank would be more vulnerable to failure due to greater flex (stress) at the tip, possibly flexing beyond 90 degrees when transitioning between the back-cast and forward cast….similar to a high-sticking situation. I’ve heard that exra-fast action rods tend to be more prone to breaking. I don’t know if it’s true or not, never happened to me, but I could see where they would have “stress-risers” along a relatively short length of the blank.

Although Action is a known variable, but added to the other unknown variables like casting style and energy input, it would make formulating a viable formula for lure weights difficult.

The calculation that I’ve been using actually gets me pretty close to the mfg’s ratings for unaltered blank/rods, so for all practical purposes, when I alter a blanks length, I could just look at my other rods with the same (or close) power and adopt the same range, assuming the Mfg’s knew what they’re doing (Ha). As I’ve said previously, I don’t know where the designated lure weights came from in the URRS Table 2….not even close to Mfg’s ratings, so I don’t see how they’d be useful.
If we’re really trying to maximize the capacity of a rod to load and propel a lure we’d probably be close to the blanks elastic limits and possibly be at risk, depending on the robustness of the cast. I remember a saying from my racing days…”An engine always runs best just before it BLOWS”. (Ha).


I think that in many cases, casting certain weight lures just “feels right” and we should just go with our intuition. Same way for a particular rod used for a given technique. “Feels right” can be a viable factor in rod selection, no matter how subjective it may be.

I hate winter! Gives me too much time to think about this stuff (Ha).

jim spooner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ... If we’re really trying to maximize the capacity
> of a rod to load and propel a lure we’d probably
> be close to the blanks elastic limits...

Jim, I don't think that generalization can be made from a theoretical sense, but maybe not so from a practical sense. With respect to inputting a load and a materials ability to store and then unload that energy, the efficiency at which the energy transfers into, through, and out of the material is not linear. Both physical properties and material properties would be variables. From a practical sense, wouldn't it be prudent to load, store, and unload energy through a materials elastic range where this happens most efficiently? That may or may not be near a loading that approaches a materials elastic limit right?

John,
I think that because of the design characteristics of a blank/rod, depending on whether in the casting or the fish fighting mode, there would be an inherent Achilles’ heel, where failure would be most likely….assuming that the blank/rod was loaded close to or beyond its elastic limit. The mode of use would most likely dictate where the failure occurs. What remains the biggest unknown variable is the amount of energy input and speed that the individual angler could employ. One angler may load the rod with the necessary speed to cast a lure very efficiently, where another angler could possibly apply enough input energy and/or speed to overload the blank to the point of failure.
What I meant by “linear” was that if Power alone was used to calculate for lure size, the lure weight range would go up in relation to the Power numbers. If Action is a factor affecting lure weights, then the lure weight range could vary for two rods of the same Power. I.e., a rod with a given Power and Action might have a lure weight range that could be less than another rod with more Power but a different Action. It remains to be seen whether Action affects lure weights significantly enough to be included in the equation for calculating “suggested lure weight ranges”.