How much weight difference is there between a rod with minimal wraps/decorations/finish coats and the same rod with long/decorative wraps and two or three finish coats? Also, how much difference between the actions of these two rods can be physically measured? Function and appearance are often in opposition, but how much function is actually lost, percentage-wise?

Phil

Interesting question, the answer to which I've not seen quantified. I suppose with two identical blanks, one with lots of long or decorative wraps and the other with minimal wraps, the weight difference can be determined. But, (there's always a but) my guess is the action impact resulting from long guide or decorative wraps on the lower rod sections is not nearly so significant as are longer wraps on the upper third of a rod. If I remember correctly it was E. Garrison who would not add a tip top wrap because of the extra weight way out at the tip. However, It was one of the things he did not quantify.

if i can feel the difference, that,s enough quantification for me. lol.

Of course the answer is, "it depends." On a light fly rod, the effects can be substantial, on a Tuna rod none.

Easy to determine. Measure the CCS of two identical blanks (they don't have to be expensive, for the sake of this experiment almost anything will do), measure their weights to ensure good baseline weight on each, measure their frequencies if you can, wrap them differently, and re-test all parameters. Sell them. All it costs is time. As Phil Erickson says, the lighter the blanks the most difference in performance parameters.

I would suggest that the typical fisherman would not be able to tell the difference.

Good luck

Michael: I'm lazy. That's why I asked instead of doing it myself. I was thinking of something in the mid-range of rods, somewhere between a 4 1/2 foot meat stick and a 9 foot 4 wt. fly rod.

depends what size components you would use guides and threads that is why there is a vast selection of guides and different thread sizes where you would have issues is with light weight rods panfish ultra lights and fly /spey salmon/steel head rods and some jigging rods the stiffer the rod the less it would matter NOT the taper of slow, med,fast,x fast the rod blank it self because the tapers come in most size blanks and governs how the rod acts/ recovers when casting

The best day to be alive is always tomorrow !!
Think out side the box when all else fails !!!
Wi.

Me too, Phil. I was hoping you would do it. Of course so much depends on the extent of the differences in wraps that what one person would do would not necessarily relate to what someone else would do. But I have no doubt that with a rod like a 3 wt fly rod or a walleye jigging spin rod, the differences could be significant and easily felt. You mentioned action in the original post. I don't think action or power as defined by CCS , would be affected, but there is little doubt in my mind that for the lighter rods the recovery speed/damping and sensitivity changes would be easy to detect. Since there is no cost penalty (other than titanium) for doing it small, light, and minimum, that's what I always try to do.

With the CCS, the Action Angle is not going to change, the power will be slightly less. Now the real important measurement is the relative frequency (CCF) because this is where any weight and where that weight is located is really going to show up insofar as whether or not it produces any practical change in performance.

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

Regarding weight differences. Couldn't you just weigh the amount of extra thread, trim rings, winding checks, etc on a digital scale? Would give you a rough estimate anyway. Also depends on your definition of excessive wrapping. 2X, 3X, 4X, or whatever. The additional finish is kinda the X fact in the equation.

Regarding weight differences. Couldn't you just weigh the amount of extra thread, trim rings, winding checks, etc on a digital scale? Would give you a rough estimate anyway. Also depends on your definition of excessive wrapping. 2X, 3X, 4X, or whatever. The additional finish is kinda the X fact in the equation.

Of course you could do that, easy enough. The question as to how much difference it makes simply depends on a host of other factors. The CCF would be about the only way I know of to quantify how it actually affects the rod's performance.

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

I think there are so many factors that will affect the performance of a rod / blank. Small amounts of weight here or there on identical blanks using identical line and reels would be the only way to determine this. Identical guides and spacing as well as grips and reel seats would also have to be done in order to quantify the exact responses from these changes. It is mind boggling to say the least. I believe the most important aspect of a rod and reel is balance and what combination will create a better balance to enhance the performance of said rod. It is more evident in a fly rod than any other type of rod I can think of. Lighter tackle type rods for smaller fish types would be a second and as the target species gets larger then what is the point. The thing as custom rod builders that is not the art, then it is the performance and to me a rod should be built to the reel to be used on that rod. Whether fly rod, spinning, casting or even offshore the rod needs to be built to the reel and line that is to be used. The "Big Box" stores cannot provide this so that is why we are here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2017 07:09PM by Lance Schreckenbach.

It seems to me that until we can quantify the differences between rods made by added weight and leveraged weight there is little profit in obsessing over minor differences between blanks, components, or builds. Without physical data we are reduced to beliefs and "feel" - and there is no way to effectively recommend either of these to another angler.

Phil, what you say is true. But your original question can be answered by test for the two blank build conditions you "describe" (not very definitively, if you expect a definitive answer). Simply do a CCS, then the frequency test that Tom described. Then you have answered it for one set of blanks, one set of variables. To expect to plug in a set of values for the variations of build when the blanks themselves have not been objectively described is folly. And is it all worth it? By the time one gets all of today's blanks described objectively, they are obsolete. I'm fine with having CCS numbers for all the blanks I'm considering (and I know the reluctance of blank builders to provide them is based mostly on how much of a hard time we builders give them-better to not provide them at all) and know that the lighter I build, especially out from the grip,the better the rods will be.

If someone were to do this, I would caution against two rod builds. Build one, minimally, and then record the measurements. Then take the same rod and add whatever embellishments you desire, or perhaps one at a time, and repeat the measurements. This nullifies the slight differences that occur between blanks of even the same model, or even of the involved components.

...........

Tom: Your point is well taken about differences between blanks and how to neutralize them before comparing different builds. I have not seen any physical data comparing any two blanks of the same make and model. It's possible there is significant variation between blanks of the same make and model, as far as I can tell. If we rod builders are to communicate effectively we need to use specific terms which can be duplicated: ounces, inches, milliseconds for example. Words like "smooth", "fast", "soulful", "forgiving", "light" or "powerful" or, the BIG one - "feel", do not convey any useful information whatsoever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2017 09:06AM by Phil Ewanicki.

I would certainly agree with you. This is the reason Dr. Hanneman invented the CCS. The funny thing is that neither fishermen nor most rod builders would tolerate length being listed in terms such as "long" "medium, "short" etc. but they're okay with similar terms used to describe action, power, etc.

..........

Good catch, Tom, One rod is the right way to conduct an experiment like this.