I don't care a jot if a rod looks straight or not, maybe I'm lucky

I'm far more concerned that it is performing in its optimum way and working at its best for me or my customers

I am not sure exactly what people are on about when talking about this ''upward curve''.. Is the test for this just rolling a ''naked'' new blank along a flat surface? Is it pretty much the same as finding the spine?
And can we clarify the spine better please:

some people think it is (in the standard butt down on a hard flat surface rod flexed up in the hands and feeling for the bump and pop test) the plane of least resistance, and others like me think and were taught that it is the bump or hard part of the rod i.e the overlap that is the spine

It doesn't help anybody clarify what they want and expect when we are all discussing different things, doing different tests, and describing different things as the same thing

Seems to me that all this talk about spine orientation, is much to do about nothing. I build fly rods and have done so, along with fly fishing for 50 years and I my opinion the spine has absolutely no effect on casting or fish fighting.

Rod blank spine and corrosive primers in ammunition both became non-issues 70 years ago.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rod blank spine and corrosive primers in
> ammunition both became non-issues 70 years ago.

I thought like you when I started this thread with an essay
but in hindsight think that ignoring the spine could result in casting accuracy and rod durability issues
Think about it, the hardest part of the blank keeping a straighter plane on the cast, and also doing the most work in bending and flexing repeatedly against hooked fish
It is too easy to just dismiss the spine as bunkum when it COULD be important.. but the fact is nobody seems to know authoratively one way or the other
Seems strange that in a topic as massively well attended and invested as fishing; nobody has done or can provide info on tests done on rods?
Come on people this is a rod building forum.. Surely there have been tests done that somebody knows about?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 04:27AM by Tommy Bee.

As we Americans are painfully aware anybody can claim anything COULD be true, but it seems a waste of time to worry about possible problems which have no observations, data, or evidence to suggest these problems truly exist. I am quite certain numerous tests have been made of the effects of a rod's spine, but we have not seen test results because there were no effects.

Also important to remember that if spine was important, then orienting it anywhere other than in the "correct" position would result in some sort of trouble or difficulty with the rod. That fact that it doesn't is testament to the fact that it isn't of any practical concern.

..............

Still too easy to be dismissive
It's an uncomfortable truth but most factory made rods are not aligned and people; having spent masses on them over the years, are not going to be happy about them having possibly non-optimised performance
And what tests have been done to measure casting accuracy and durability.. please tell me..
The fact is that many rods cast horribly while others cast well.. It is a feeling you get from experience.. and why would that be?

Most factory rods are not even close to being optimized for performance. A $400+ bass rod designed for flipping and pitching, would not have #6 running guides on it if it were optimized for performance.

Personally, I'd look more to the guide train as the reason a rod casts horribly, before I'd consider it casts poorly because the guides are placed with no consideration for the spine of the blank.

Before I joined this site I bought a book on rod and tackle making. In it it said that locating and identifying the spine of the blank was of utmost importance. Prior to building my first rod, I joined this site. I did a lot of research using the search button and found many posts pretty much mimicking the responses you've read already. For that reason I have given zero consideration to the spine of the blank. I've done the test to find it just to see what all the hoopla was about, but I have never marked it.

I orient the reel seat to the straightest axis of the blank and place my guides accordingly. Everyone of the rods I've built out cast any factory rod I have owned. Most of them by quite a bit. While the blanks I've built on may be part of reason for that, I have no doubt in my mind that the main reason for the increased casting performance, is the guide trains on the rods I've built, and the factory rods I compare them too.

Anyhow ..... if you want to do the tests you're talking about, why not build two identical rods? Build one with the guides placed in relationship to the spine, and one with no consideration to the spine, and test for yourself.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2017 12:11PM by David Baylor.

We've even done tests with a mechanical casting machine and found no difference in casting accuracy regardless of where the spine was oriented. Those results may still be here on this site if you search the archives. It would be back quite a ways, maybe from 2002 to 2004 or so.

.................

From above:
"Still too easy to be dismissive
It's an uncomfortable truth but most factory made rods are not aligned and people; having spent masses on them over the years, are not going to be happy about them having possibly non-optimised performance
And what tests have been done to measure casting accuracy and durability.. please tell me..
The fact is that many rods cast horribly while others cast well.. It is a feeling you get from experience.. and why would that be?"

One for sure fact is that no two people cast rod exactly the same - In fact it's very likely that the same person probably doesn't cast precisely the same each time. ]
Throw into that the differences between popping 'actions' and 'worming' actions that an angler wants to perfect or a straight overhand cast and side-arming (skipping) a bait under a dock and - at least to me the concept of aligning according to a "soft" or "hard" spot on a blank becomes a moot point. If it makes you feel better -by all means go ahead. To me it's a waste of time.

The devil is in the details. All too often well-meaning rod customers and builders assume their priorities are the same as everyone's - without revealing the use of the rod or the priorities of its construction: fly rod, casting rod, trolling rod, jigging rod, deep drop rod, snatch-hook rod, live bait rod, color scheme, durability, weight, portability, noodle rod, hot-shot rod, shallow-diver plug rod and so on . . . These considerations trump less concrete considerations such as the elusive "spine" element.

At the chance of being labeled a snob, I submit that in fly fishing, casting accuracy is more important then most other types. My experience in over 50 years of fly fishing, and teaching fly casting, is that one never casts on one plane or even the same plane consistently, thus any effect (which I believe is 0) has NO effect on casting accuracy, distance or fish fighting!

Some just won't accept that their preconceived notion are invalid, and so the debate goes on.

Up to each individual I suppose

Like I said if the hardest part of the blank is at the back, facing you, taking all the stress of repeated hauling then surely that can only be good for the rod's durability

AND STILL NOBODY HAS TOLD ME (DESPITE REPEATEDLY CLAIMING THAT LITEREATURE EXIST) WHERE I CAN FIND TESTS AND EVIDENCE ON THIS TOPIC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2017 03:44AM by Tommy Bee.

At one ICRBE show in Charlotte Don Morton had a tool / did a demonstration at his booth that demonstrated that the "spine" of a rod actually changes over the length of the rod which means that what you are measuring is not an absolute "hard" spine but rather an average. I've been looking for a video showing this but haven't found one (yet). Tommy I will agree with you when you state "up to each individual"

The spine is an effect of manufacturing anomalies - it's not a physical component of a rod blank.

Tests and data for deadlift capability via blank orientation is on the library page. The results of casting tests were also published in RodMaker and appear in a very early post on this forum. You'll have to do a search for the post number, I don't have it. Interviews with blank designers such as Gary Loomis, Dick Kanter, Jason Brunner, Jim Green and others, which contain the blank designer's stance on "spine" have all appeared in RodMaker over the past 20 years.

And finally, if spine did matter, we'd know it because if you didn't put orient it to the correct position, something about the rod would be amiss.

.........................

The spine is an effect of manufacturing anomalies - it's not a physical component of a rod blank. The stiffest or most powerful axis of a rod blank (this is not the spine) is the result of having the greatest amount of material located on the compression side. Blanks do not possess the same wall thickness all around their circumference.

Tests and data for deadlift capability via blank orientation is on the library page. The results of casting tests were also published in RodMaker and appear in a very early post on this forum. You'll have to do a search for the post number, I don't have it. Interviews with blank designers such as Gary Loomis, Dick Kanter, Jason Brunner, Jim Green and others, which contain the blank designer's stance on "spine" have all appeared in RodMaker over the past 20 years.

And finally, if spine did matter, we'd know it because if you didn't put orient it to the correct position, something about the rod would be amiss.

.........................

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
if spine did matter, we'd know it
because if you didn't put orient it to the correct
position, something about the rod would be amiss

Does happen!
Some rods can have a far better feel and casting accuracy than others

I think a point here that we may all be missing is an obvious one, in that if a rod has a very pronounced and obvious spine it is better to take it into consideration

Also I do not agree with whoever said that you should spine each section of a multi-piece individually
Put the rod together as it would be when fishing, then spine it
The results can be remarkably different that way, suddenly a seemingly off spine rod is revealed to have been spined previously to spigotting, which also shows you which sections were orginal to each blank if you get them muddled up.. You don't fish the bits of rod on their own, you fish the whole thing, so surely this makes more sense

Anyway I have kind of made my mind up that I will spine the rods with the spine taking the brunt of the hauling i.e facing me. I think it could help with rod durability and casting accuracy to have the spine taking the force of both casting and hauling.. as I have said already

this is obviously a topic of controversy and I will research further the history of it using the references you kindly mentioned, Tom

"Also I do not agree with whoever said that you should spine each section of a multi-piece individually
Put the rod together as it would be when fishing, then spine it
The results can be remarkably different that way, suddenly a seemingly off spine rod is revealed to have been spined previously to spigotting, which also shows you which sections were orginal to each blank if you get them muddled up.. You don't fish the bits of rod on their own, you fish the whole thing, so surely this makes more sense"

I'm curious how you can put the blank together the way you will fish it and then spine it? The multi-piece blanks that I use are not marked as to how they should be assembled. I would either put it together using the straightest axis on each section, or spine the individual sections, you have no consistency if you haphazardly put the sections together and then spline it. You should assemble rods consistently (unless it's consistently bad) one way or the other but just putting it together and then spineing the blank makes no sense. I'm not sure if you are asking a question or if you are dictating how a rod should be assembled? Google has a world of knowledge about spineing a blank, there is no right or wrong way to do it, if you believe spined is the best way to do it, do it your way. St Croix builds on the straightest axis, I have a feeling they have tested it and found it to be a moot point, but that's the great thing about custom you can build it your way.

As long as the spine of a rod (if it has one) remains constant a competent fly caster can and will quickly compensate for it - just like he/she would for a steady wind - and casting accuracy will not suffer. And I doubt the spine of a rod (if it has one) changes after it has been assembled or while it is being used?

Taking the easy way out in other words