I understand adding heavier guides and after a point more guides to a blank will result in a slower and less efficient rod. I assume this same result takes place noticeably at some point when more or heavier thread wraps/rod art, and heavier/more coats of rod finish are applied to a blank. Ignoring for the moment the reality of "leveraged weight" is there a point, an objective measurement, perhaps some fraction of the blank's weight added to the rod which noticeably degrades the finished rod's performance?

I guess, probably, maybe, not sure. Good question.

I agree with Lynn.

+ 1 on Mikes comment .

Just keep in mind that any weight will degrade a rod's performance by some degree, but weight has a greater effect as it is added closer and closer to the tip. A decorative wrap just in front of the reel seat is not going to affect overall rod performance as say, using larger than necessary guides and wraps on the upper 1/3rd of the rod.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just keep in mind that any weight will degrade a
> rod's performance by some degree, but weight has a
> greater effect as it is added closer and closer to
> the tip. A decorative wrap just in front of the
> reel seat is not going to affect overall rod
> performance as say, using larger than necessary
> guides and wraps on the upper 1/3rd of the rod.
>
> .............
I agree with that to a point if it is a moderate or fast action where the upper 1/3 or 2/3 flex but if it is a light or slow power it will fall at the 1/2 way point
over large or excessive wraps will impede action and power easily felt on the 2/3 - 1/3 of the rod tip section.
Kind of brings on a parabolic wobble to the rod

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

For the purpose of discussion let's assume there is such a ratio and let's not, for the moment, get into an objective definition of noticeably degraded performance. What might you do with the ratio? Would you not add a needed application of finish to avoid being on the wrong side of the ratio? Would you reduce the number of guides even though the rod's taper and static testing indicated otherwise? Would you carefully measure the weight of thread and finish for each wrap? What if staying on the right side of the weight ratio meant a less durable rod with increased risk of failure?

With regard to the degraded performance, what performance property is at issue? Action? Lure weight? Strength?

My philosophy (admittedly purely subjective) is to add as little weight as reasonably possible without resorting to inferior or inappropriate components while, hopefully, producing something pleasing to the eye.

It is the distance from the point of effort, not the action, that determines the effect that weight nearer the tip has on the rod.

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

So the more paint, epoxy, permagloss, or thread wraps you put on a blank the more the performance of the rod is degraded, but there is no way to quantify how much. Still, I think it's important to keep this trade off between function and appearance in mind when building a rod.

Phil,
The equation for polar moment of inertia is
weight times radius squared equals the polar moment of inertia of the mass.
This must be added to the weight distribution of the blank where the center of the radius is the center of the grip where the rotation is about.
As the rod deflects the location of the guides relative to the center of rotation reduces in length.
This reduces the inertia under the input of torque.
As torque is reduced the rod straightens and the relative location of the guides increases, increasing the guide inertia.
This phenomena reduces the ability of the rod to respond.
Torque is only applied at one point of the rod unless the rod is a two-hander. For a two-hander the location of the torque versus the pivot point can change as the rod is deflected.

Hope this helps. Once the "switch turns on" you can visualize it and compare to high speed photography.

Gene

Donald, good questions, good strategy.

There is a trade off between decoration and performance in rod building. I bet many rod builders have dealt with customers who wanted the "most beautiful, most sensitive, fastest action rod ever" - where "beauty" was defined by adornments which decreased the completed rod's performance. If there were some way to explain, using observed measurements, that the weight added by adornments decreases a rod's efficiency then rod builders could better inform and better serve their customers.

Phil, your seeking absolutes, that most likely have little application for both us rod builders and our customers. As a builder of only fly rods, I rarely have to deal with much in the way of decorations, maybe a narrow trim wrap our something very close to the grip.

I find with my customers both USA and Europe, that appearance is the first thing they observe, then casting performance. Power is almost an after thought except in the heavier weight rods.

Some of my customers are certified casting instructors, and what they seek is the ability to carry an amount of line appropriate to the rods specs as well as the species sought, and an action that fits their abilities to cast accurately.

Not at all sure how I would utilize a ratio or even more, communicate it's effects to a customer who judges by feel and trial.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2017 09:54PM by Phil Erickson.

I am convinced that show and go are incompatible in many tools, including rods used to catch fish [especially fly rods]. The only absolute I will confess to is I would absolutely choose a fly rod I can cast 90 feet over a fly rod I can cast no more than 70 feet, no matter what its appearance.

I look at it this way. I build them to be as efficient as I know how. After that it is what it is. That being said, I'm not dealing with customers who might want all types of gee-gaws that add nothing to functionality. When someone does request such items I explain to them very clearly, " I'll put those things on for you, but you're just adding weight"

x10 on Lynn's comments.

I explain to my customers that I build fishing tools to catch fish. i.e. I build them as light as possible to be the most efficient fishing tools. I seldom put more than one or two wraps of trim thread on any guide and generally only a few trim bands on the butt wraps.

If they want a more decorative wrap, I simply ask them to find a different builder.

But, every builder and client is different. So, do what works for you and your clients.

Be safe

Most fish on fly rods are caught within 20-30ft ! Salt water species are an exception. I rarely have a customer who would ask for a 3, 4, 5 or 6wt that could cast 90ft.

I have 5wt rods that I can cast the entire line as well as some backing, but does it have practical application? The answer is NO !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2017 10:00PM by Phil Erickson.

When the wind blows you have to be able to cast 70' to cast 30 ' - or stay home. The ability of a rod or a fly caster to cast 90' is Never a disadvantage; quite the contrary.

hi Phil Ew..or break out the spin rod..lol.

IMO there are both absolutes, as well as, much ado about nothings.

An example of an absolute is, a rod that has single foot #5 guides as its' running guides, is going to cast (perform) better than if that same rod were to have double foot #6 guides as its' running guides. I know this for a fact because I changed the guides on one of my factory rods. It had the #6 double foot guides I referred to, and I put single foot #5s on it. The difference in feel and casting performance is night and day.

An example of a much ado about nothing is. I built two rods with identical components, all the components were placed in the exact same positions on each rod. I wrapped the first rod using single wrap trim bands on all of the guides. When wrapping the second rod, as I wanted the trim bands to show a bit more, I used 3 wraps for the trim bands. I can guarantee anyone that I could not tell the difference between the way those two rods performed.

And while there is certainly a point where aesthetic accoutrements could hinder the potential performance of a rod, those same accoutrements could enhance the experience of using that rod, thereby causing an actual performance gain. Anyone that fishes knows that confidence plays a major role in an anglers success. Some anglers may feel more confident when fishing with a rod that is more pleasing to the eye, than a slightly better performing bare bones performance is the only objective type of rod.

I know personally that when my truck is freshly washed and waxed, that I enjoy driving it more, and even though I know it doesn't, I actually feel it runs better. It's the same with my boat, I fish better when my boat is shinning and sparkling, than I do when its dull and dirty.

As far as the philosophy of rod building goes. There are many different aspects to the performance of a rod. Some builders may stress the casting performance of a rod. Others the sensitivity of a rod. And others still, the fish fighting ability of the rod. For me personally, I put a rods fish fighting and fish landing abilities first. Its sensitivity second, and it's casting performance last. How a builder prioritizes the different aspects of performance is going to have a bearing on how he or she builds a rod.

And finally .... Phil Ewanicki? Casting (assuming the rod is physically capable) is the most user driven aspect of fishing. Especially casting into the wind. The rod may be able to do it, but that doesn't mean the user can.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2017 04:59PM by David Baylor.