Thought I would resurrect this old chestnut just to check up.

Blanks are obviously made to tight specifications more than ever now with better technology and under enormous machine pressure (hence very uniform).

Even though has and always will be a spine where the roll is folded over and the blank slightly harder in one place, is the spine ever straight down the blank, and is it of any consequence?

It isn't likely to follow a straight line down the blank the flag/pattern won't end up stopped end to end along one single axis. But it's not really of any consequence.

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

Tommy,
If you want to spine the rod, go ahead and spine it. You will certainly do no harm to yourself or the blank by building on the spine. So, if it suits you - by all means build on the spine of the blank.

But, if checking for the spine of the rod does not suit you, then just build on the straightest axis which is the typical standard being used my many rod makers today.

Good luck

I think that the end user is likely to have heard of the spine and would look for it. For this reason, I build my rods on the spine. Easier than having to explain how it does not matter...lol

Am I right that there has been no scientific testing done on this subject?

That surprises me in such a supermassive participation interest as angling.

Surely a robot could be used to ''cast'' a rod on a dead straight axis (also used to pull a blank to destruction on a dead straight axis) to thus measure durability and casting accuracy, torque etc. on both spined and unspined rods?
I know that some golfers would never use an unspined shaft, however fishing rods are up to four times as long and do very different tasks. I was taught to spine and got a little bit obsessed with it taking my butt fixtures cork and duplon apart to test the rods I had and basically getting in a right faff. For a start the blanks were now unclean and covered in glue so it was hard to get a clean roll, then I had to tape them up again in an unsightly way. All rather irritating actually as well as pointless. But the fact is my sections got mixed up anyway. So all in all I just got in a big fat stress over it all. And what for?

I am not in a position to start building properly as here in the UK decent carp rod blanks are very expensive as are consumables and tooling (you have no idea how lucky you are to live in the US).

Basically at this exact moment I wish I had never done the course and yearn for more innocent days when I did not know nor give a damn about my rods. I appreciated them for how they performed, end of story.

Now I am just in a permanent state of annoyance with my kit thinking it is not right when it may not matter whatsoever about the spine.

So please somebody tell me unequivocally that it is absolute myth and bunkum?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2017 03:04PM by Tommy Bee.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It isn't likely to follow a straight line down the
> blank the flag/pattern won't end up stopped end to
> end along one single axis. But it's not really of
> any consequence.
>
> ............

Not misleading, but possibly slanted toward smaller blanks that might use only one flag.
A major manufacturer gave me a 14' blank. Not to test, but as a gift. At a minimum, it had a couple of carbon fiber flags, a nano carbon mesh layer, and a dual bias flag. Additionally, the handle had a Texalium cover for durability.

I felt the blank was not strong enough and we added 4 additional flags to the blank (one at a time). We also changed out the Texalium for carbon fiber twill. We then had a blank that was right for me.
Did it have a spine? Yes. Did the spine wander? Very little, if at all.

What is expected in Hawaii?
If it is a custom rod. the expectation is that it is built on the spine.
If it is a production rod, the expectation is that it is built on the straightest line.
If it is a low end rod, there are little expectations.

There was a myth started that factories do not build on the spine. May I suggest doing a you tube search on Lamiglas Factory Tour, Cousins Factory Tour, St Croix Factory Tour, etc.
St Croix mass produces rods and as such builds on the straightest line.

There's a lot more, but time is precious.

Don Becker

Tommy Bee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I right that there has been no scientific
> testing done on this subject?
>
> That surprises me in such a supermassive
> participation interest as angling.
>
> Surely a robot could be used to ''cast'' a rod on
> a dead straight axis (also used to pull a blank to
> destruction on a dead straight axis) to thus
> measure durability and casting accuracy, torque
> etc. on both spined and unspined rods?
> I know that some golfers would never use an
> unspined shaft, however fishing rods are up to
> four times as long and do very different tasks. I
> was taught to spine and got a little bit obsessed
> with it taking my butt fixtures cork and duplon
> apart to test the rods I had and basically getting
> in a right faff. For a start the blanks were now
> unclean and covered in glue so it was hard to get
> a clean roll, then I had to tape them up again in
> an unsightly way. All rather irritating actually
> as well as pointless. But the fact is my sections
> got mixed up anyway. So all in all I just got in a
> big fat stress over it all. And what for?
>
> I am not in a position to start building properly
> as here in the UK decent carp rod blanks are very
> expensive as are consumables and tooling (you have
> no idea how lucky you are to live in the US).
>
> Basically at this exact moment I wish I had never
> done the course and yearn for more innocent days
> when I did not know nor give a damn about my rods.
> I appreciated them for how they performed, end of
> story.
>

> Now I am just in a permanent state of annoyance
> with my kit thinking it is not right when it may
> not matter whatsoever about the spine.
>
> So please somebody tell me unequivocally that it
> is absolute myth and bunkum?

Yes plenty of testing has been done. Spine orientation is not going to stop nor cause blank twist nor will it cause casts to go off target. The lever effect of the line guides trumps any spine effect. Twisting a rod around its own axis does not change the casting plane.

Here is something else you might wish to consider:

[www.rodbuilding.org]

and...

[www.rodbuilding.org]

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

"So please somebody tell me unequivocally that it is absolute myth and bunkum?"

I know one fly rod World Casting Champion. There are about 3 categories in fly casting and he won one of the categories.
He understands the spine, its proper alignment, and how to take advantage of it.

On the less talented end is myself. I had a person build a rod for me. He was properly instructed regarding the requirements and he built the rod with the guides on the wrong side of the spine. The result was the tip section twisting on the handle when rod was cast with maximum power. This rod was built conventional and you would expect the guides to keep the tip section in proper alignment with the handle. It didn't happen. The tip section rotated on the handle. That rod continues to sit in the corner.

Don Becker

You're just contradicting each other

It is far too confusing to the point where I do not give a damn any more

But rather than keep fretting and trashing the expensive gear I have I am going to side with Tom Kirkman's pragmatic and scientific response that it matters basically not a jot and go and enjoy my fishing with rods that I can afford and are the same as all my mates happily use in ignorant bliss*



*Or is it just that it doesn't matter?

Maybe two rods at the extremes are important to spine, or not as the case may be

One being a super finesse light short fly rod, the other being a super strong shark rod.. for obvious reasons the fly rod being reel under, and the heavy duty deep sea rod being reel over the top

I just read up on a major senior high quality blank manufacturer (a doctor no less) saying that he has heard all the arguments and not got a clue which way to spine a rod is best. Says it all really.

If the rod is not breaking it is good to go is what I will bear in mind, just how it always was. And I will be more wary of flash advertising expensive rods as they may be no better than duff cheap ones.

It's a shame people cannot agree on this subject in a pragmatic way, but what throws the theory of the spine straight out the window for me is the fact that it may not even be straight in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps it is slightly better for a rod's durability to make it hard side back

Perhaps it is the other way around

Perhaps completely the opposite

Anyway tubes were never meant to bend straight, they compress!

So perhaps the 'sweetspot' i.e soft plane/plane of least resistance is best after all, a little bit less durable/deadlift strong, but more 'sweet' and less twist potential? OR maybe somewhere in between and random is best!?

Who could know!? (And maybe the differentials are just too minimal and life just too short)!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2017 05:29PM by Tommy Bee.

The average person buying a fishing rod has never heard anything about spine. They go into a store and look at a rack of maybe ten rods that are all the same. Then pick one up shake it up and down to see if they like how it feels then site down the rod. If the rod doesn't look straight it goes back on the rack and they pick up the next rod shake it and if it's straight that's the one they want. If the rod isn't straight it doesn't look right, that's why rod companies build on the straightest axis.

Thomas F. Thornhill

Why don't you just try it for yourself? Tape up a set of guides and go cast and "fish" with it. If it was indeed so important, then you couldn't have all these builders and various companies doing it so many ways and yet all being able to fish with and enjoy their rods.

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

Anyone very closely watched professional casting instructors, factory representatives, and professional fishermen make casts? It's easier to see with a fly rod, but look closely and more probably than not (J Wulff is a notable exception) the reel is not oriented to the plane of the cast or perpendicular to the plane of the cast. You would think if spine were a big deal for casting accuracy or distance it would at least get an honorable mention amongst the pros.

That's one of the practical matters that few discuss - we neither cast nor fish on a particular axis.

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

I agree with all above that say it's a non-issue, You build the rod with the guides aligned to the spine on a conventional bass/steelhead, whatever rod, than when you cast you naturally rotate your hand into a more palm down position to free your wrist for the cast, you cast away with the guides now to the side of the rod, not up and down with the spine.
The cast goes out beautifully and right where you wanted it, how important was the spine and the position of the guides?

When I first started building rods I tried to build rods on the spine and in many cases the spine and straightest axis were the same. However, there were many times when the spine and straightest axis were not the same, so if I tried to build on the spine the tip would veer off to the left or the right. I did not like having a crooked rod so I built on the straightest axis and quickly noticed that straight spined rods and the straight nonspined rods cast and performed exactly the same. When there is a bend in the blank I like to have the bend pointing up. When you put the guides on the rod they will tend to straighten the blank and the bend becomes less noticeable and as Tom mentioned it also increases the dead lift capacity. In my opinion build the rod the way you want, but I like the looks of a straight rod vs a crooked or bent one, but this is my opinion.
Norm

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's one of the practical matters that few
> discuss - we neither cast nor fish on a particular
> axis.
>
> ...............

"we neither cast nor fish on a particular axis."

Some and maybe most neither cast nor fish on a particular axis.

Here are two pictures of a person who does fish and cast on a particular axis.

Practice improves strength, muscle memory, and consistency.

[www.expressnews.com]
[www.expressnews.com]

He does practice casting when there is available time. He fishes at a distance and is accurate in his casts.

I practice when I can. However, my concern is getting exercise. If I can get in 8 casts, I will need to walk a total of 2 miles to retrieve the lead.

Don Becker

This has been the best read of spine vs. straightest axis rod building I have encountered, and thanks to all contributing. From this site, I have learned to build on the straightest axis but still check the blank for the spine simply because both building methods have merit and deserve attention, even though I am now converted-comfortable with building on the straightest axis trumping ( as Tom would say) building on the spine. However, while building on the straightest axis FOR A LIGHT TROUT ROD, I will typically employ the natural bend of the blank pointed down in hopes of enhancing further casting distance in lieu of fighting power. Aesthetics are simply that and I habitually employ Form-Follows-Function. Additionally, at my age, I am accustomed to the tip of my rod pointing down.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

donald, is that an extra,extra,extra,extra,extra, etc. fast tip rod?

I have decided I want spined after all

I only have four rods, two Ugly Stik Elites for thrashing about off the wall for UK Seabass (the new ones) which, amazingly for a cheap rod appear to have been perfectly spined (whole rod spined that is, not just by section)

I have just sold my two ''premium'' factory carp rods because the manufacturer made no effort to spine them despite them retailing at $350 each

And I still have my pair of ancient custom built carp rods which have been spined and which I love and go on and on (fingers crossed because I'm about to take them on a long trip)

I have located a decent shop that sells factory made rods of a good quality at a reasonable price which they assure me have been built on the old backbone

Maybe it doesn't matter, but the fact is that my teacher taught me to spine and I am now fussy as @#$%& about it

Another thing I noticed is that the place where you locate the spine in a tip section, i.e the butt of the tip or middle of the rod, happens to be where the rod takes the brunt of the force of its working life

By the way in ''UK style'' I am referring to spining as building with the backbone at the back, NOT the point of easiest flex or settlement which seems to be the US way and the way of the golf market

Hi Ben,

It seems there must have been some maximum number of views for the pictures. I am no longer able to access the pictures.

The pictures did clearly show no change in the axis of the rod during the cast.

Regarding the action of the rod, it is very difficult to determine when observing a top caster (in this case the top US National Distance Casting Champion - Will Nash). When casting, the load will be transferred into the rod's handle. This gives the appearance of a moderate to slow action. Will holds the distance records for the 4 recognized casting weights (100, 125, 150,and 175 grams). Will recently smashed the US distance record for 175 grams (about 6 ounces) by casting 833 feet using a Century T-1200.

Will competes at tournaments using a low pendulum cast. Fast action rods are normally desired for both low and high pendulum casting. Although I do not cast Off The Ground (OTG), it is my understanding that more moderate action rods are more desirable for OTG casting.

Don Becker