Rods

[Traditionalist]

Elastic Modulus

Over the years I have built a fair number of rods, actually designing mandrels and using my own specifications for the wraps. I had originally planned to go into production with these rods, but I then shelved the idea. Only about forty various models were produced. I gave most of these rods away, although I still have a few, and they were very well received. I recently got a letter from an American chap  who won one in a charity raffle to which I had donated a few rods, telling me he had passed it on to his son. Very gratifying to hear things like that.

Anyway, to the subject at hand.

Thomas Young, an English Doctor and physicist, coined the term "Modulus" in the early 1800?s.  The term is used as a constant in equations, as "Young's Modulus", to calculate specific properties of certain materials.

In simple terms, it may be seen as a mathematical description of a material's property of resistance to bending.

Calculations using this are essential for developing the fibres used in many modern composite constructions. The fibres, such as carbon fibre, boron, glass fibre etc, provide the stiffness, at the same time reducing the weight which using other materials would involve ("standard" carbon fibre is about 30 % of the weight of aluminium, and roughly 250% stiffer) and the epoxy resins used hold the whole thing together.

So what does this have to do with fishing rods?, and why is the term "Elastic Modulus" so often bandied about?

IM6

It has to do with them, insofar as the term may be applied to the materials used in their construction. IM6 Graphite for instance. IM6 has a modulus of about 35 million, although many rod manufacturers use fibres of much higher modulus.  IM6 is actually only a trade name for Hercules fibre in any case, Hercules being the largest producer of carbon fibre.

However this may be, the fibres used in rod construction are only a part of the story. The taper, wall thickness, and of extreme importance, the weaves and resins used, and the actual manufacturing process are at least as important. In actual fact, of even greater importance than the modulus of the fibres used.

Rod designs vary considerably, and this may be controlled by any and all of the factors above.  Using a suitable design, resins etc., practically any rod action may be obtained, anything from a floppy noodle, to as stiff as a poker. This really has little to do with the modulus of the fibres used, and is mainly the result of other design factors.

Although higher modulus fibres may be used to produce stiffer lighter rods, they may also be used to produce noodles if desired.

Light, heavy, stiff, soft

Although light rods are generally desirable, they do have some disadvantages.  Some light rods will not load very well at close range, as they lack the mass to "pre-load" themselves, which a cane rod for instance has, and will not "cut the wind" very well, and will often not be very robust. Differences of half an ounce or so, or even quite a bit more, between various otherwise similar rods, will not really make much difference in terms of practical fishing either.  Rod length is more of a factor here than rod weight. Rods of about nine feet are usually more or less optimal for most people. With much shorter rods the weight is not even a major factor.

Whether you choose a stiff rod or a soft rod depends, (or should) mainly on what you want to use it for. Nowadays, this is not considered as important as it once was, as other technological advances in lines, leaders, floatants, sinkants, etc. have made it less of a problem. Casting techniques have also improved greatly, and a good caster can produce wide loops or tight loops, indeed, some can even produce "sexy" loops at will. Once upon a time, all this was simply not the case, and specific rod actions were deemed essential for specific applications. It is still a good idea to choose a suitable tool for your particular application though, and not just rely on "feel", or advertising hype.

From cloth to blank

Back to modulus.  The modulus given by the fibre manufacturers only applies to the fibre used, which comes to the rod maker in the form of special "matting", or ""graphite cloth" and once this has been built into a composite (sometimes also rather inaccurately referred to as "laminates"), it no longer applies, as the actual "modulus" of a finished rod (to which the term is not really sensibly applicable in any case, although it could theoretically be applied), is not dependent on the fibre used, but more on how it is used in the construction, wrapping, resin bonding, etc.

Hollow blanks are made by wrapping very carefully measured pieces of the matting around a steel mandrel. This is then coated with special resin, and "baked" in an oven.  Manufacturers keep their exact processes secret.

When finished, the mandrel is withdrawn, and used again for the next batch of rods.  Usually fairly large batches of rods are made at a time.  How good the finished rods are, depends on how good the design is, and on the quality control of the resulting blanks.  There are often a number of rejects in each batch, due to cloth imperfections, and various other problems.

Many marketing departments have swooped on the term "modulus", and use it quite indiscriminately for all sorts of things, basically none of which have to do with the properties of finished fishing rods. It is basically hype.

So, does modulus mean anything?

It is not possible to compare fishing rods in any meaningful way by calculating their elastic modulus, and using the elastic modulus of the fibre used in their construction as a basis for such "calculations" is just nonsense, and will really tell you nothing useful at all about the rods in question.

The quality of modern composite fishing rods is dictated primarily by the manufacturing process used, the quality control, and the hardware and cosmetics.  Practically any modern blank, even Far East  "cheapies", will make decent fishing rods if good procedures and materials are used.

Rods produced in America and Western Europe are more expensive than those produced in Korea and similar places, simply because the cost of producing them is much higher. Labour, materials, marketing, etc etc etc are all more expensive.

Do you really get what you pay for?

There is indeed considerable controversy about cheap rods vs. expensive rods.  Some people maintaining that a cheap rod can not possibly be as good as an expensive one, merely because of its very cheapness. This is factually incorrect of course, certainly as far as composite rods are concerned, any composite rod built anywhere to the same specifications, under the same conditions, will be more or less identical to one built anywhere else. The price of course may vary very considerably, even though the rods are identical.  The same applies to any manufactured goods.

There are now quite a number of very good cheap rods available.  If you put good quality hardware and cosmetics on a "cheap" blank, then you no longer have a "cheap" rod. Also, the word "cheap" here is used in the sense of the final retail price. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual quality of a blank.

Composite blanks are by their nature "cheap" products, as they may be mass produced easily and consistently at will, once the specifications are known. Pricing policies of various firms have little to do with the quality of their blanks, although of course may reflect good quality to some degree.

Comparing blanks

There is no generally accepted way at present of mathematically comparing various rod blanks to one another in any meaningful or useful way. Most anglers choose their rods absolutely subjectively, based on how it "feels", how it "looks", price, manufacturers name, "modulus", etc etc.  Quantifying such things is an impossibility. Some good casters, and quite a few anglers know pretty well what they want and expect from a rod, but this is the result of long practice, quite a bit of skill and knowledge, and is subjective in any case, although some may pretty well agree on some things.

Some manufacturers, and a number of other interested parties have been working on various systems of definition and comparison for some time, but as far as I am aware, nothing of general application has yet emerged. If you have never cast a rod, and have no other knowledge of the subject, then it will not help you anyway, as there is no way as yet to translate such system results into useful information. They all require some prior knowledge.

Money doesn't talk

If you think that a very expensive rod is better than some other less expensive tool, then you must perforce buy the expensive one.  One thing is certain, it will not normally catch you any more fish than a cheapie.

Quite excellent rods which cost ten dollars ex-factory in Korea, or Taiwan, are regularly sold in Europe and America under various brand names, for well in excess of two hundred dollars, and sometimes a very great deal more. The final price has little to do with the cost of actually producing the rods, and certainly not with the raw material cost or the inherent "quality".  Transport, advertising, several middle-men taking their profits, etc etc, all jack the price up.

This is also why comparing rods based on their retail prices is absolutely senseless, as you have no way of knowing how this price was set. It may have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the quality of the rod.

Tools like rods, must not only be suitable for the application itself, fishing of course, but have a whole range of other properties which makes them more or less desirable for the purpose, and may be used to determine their "quality" more accurately than any mathematical equations relating to the stiffness or otherwise of materials used in their construction.

"Useful life"

As far as I am aware, there are no absolutely conclusive studies about the useful working life of various composite  rod-blanks, but modern resins, coupled with the manufacturing techniques now available should produce rods which will certainly last a very long time. There is some literature on the useful life of composites in aircraft manufacture, but this is highly technical, and not a great deal of use, as any conclusions drawn would have to be based on the use to which a material is put, and theoretical projections of such behaviour, with regard to composites built and used for other purposes, would be suspect at least.

Apparently, bamboo is susceptible to "going floppy" after a while, presumably as the "springiness" of the power fibres lessens in use, to put it simply.  Similar effects in other materials are often referred to as "fatigue".  This will also occur with other fibres (like carbon fibre), but will take much longer (in normal use), and be less apparent. In fact it is unlikely that a difference may be found at all in normal use, although it may be possible to measure one after a certain time in use. I am not aware of anyone having done this however.

Although I have heard that this is often the case with bamboo, I have never actually attempted to measure or quantify it.  Bamboo is interesting for a variety of reasons, and although I no longer have any bamboo rods (at least not in use), and the only ones I ever built were really quite awful, I still read a lot about it, and listen with interest to any comments from experts.

I would have no qualms about using even the cheapest composite blanks to build on, as all I would have to lose would be the time involved and a few materials. Hardware etc may be used again, should the rod turn out to be useless, or not up to expectations in some way.

One may also save a lot of time and trouble, take some casting lessons in order to obtain the necessary knowledge and "feel", and simply walk into a shop and buy the best rod one can afford, that one feels is suitable, after trying it out.  It is then most unlikely to be a "lemon". What "modulus" fibres it may contain, is more or less irrelevant, especially if it has a lifetime guarantee!

TL
MC

[greenwell]

  A most interesting and informative post there, Traditionalist Acouple of points I would like to bring to the fore if I may. You mention the use of good quality hardware on a " cheap " blank. Orvis, as you may know brought out the " Silver Label " series around the early nineties and there was also the " Trident" series at the same time. The Orvis catalogue price for Tridents was ?180 more than for the Silver Labels, across the range, i.e. whichever model of S.L. you looked at the same rod in the Trident range carried a price difference of ?180. It wasn't until a couple of years had passed that I discovered that the only difference between the two was the rings, reel seats and finished colour. The point I am making of course it that to my mind this was a perfect example of how a potential buyer without that information could end up spending around ?400 on a rod that the hype and price difference suggested was the superior piece of tackle, when in fact the cheaper alternative, in this case the Silver Label had actually been built on the same blank. It made me rather suspicious from then on about other examples such as Grey's Greyflex series as opposed to the Platinums, which were around ?100 dearer. I'm sure there will be plenty other examples out there.

                     The other point is, I wonder how many people choose a rod because it's " IM7", instead of a different one which might be advertised as "IM6" ! I'm pretty sure it happens.

                                 Greenwell.

[Traditionalist]

  A most interesting and informative post there, Traditionalist Acouple of points I would like to bring to the fore if I may. You mention the use of good quality hardware on a " cheap " blank. Orvis, as you may know brought out the " Silver Label " series around the early nineties and there was also the " Trident" series at the same time. The Orvis catalogue price for Tridents was ?180 more than for the Silver Labels, across the range, i.e. whichever model of S.L. you looked at the same rod in the Trident range carried a price difference of ?180. It wasn't until a couple of years had passed that I discovered that the only difference between the two was the rings, reel seats and finished colour. The point I am making of course it that to my mind this was a perfect example of how a potential buyer without that information could end up spending around ?400 on a rod that the hype and price difference suggested was the superior piece of tackle, when in fact the cheaper alternative, in this case the Silver Label had actually been built on the same blank. It made me rather suspicious from then on about other examples such as Grey's Greyflex series as opposed to the Platinums, which were around ?100 dearer. I'm sure there will be plenty other examples out there.

                     The other point is, I wonder how many people choose a rod because it's " IM7", instead of a different one which might be advertised as "IM6" ! I'm pretty sure it happens.

                                 Greenwell.

Indeed, it happens all the time. Korean, Taiwanese, and Chinese blanks are just as good as any others in the meantime. Many ( indeed most ), firms buy them ex-factory, and simply re-label them.  Most modern marketing is pure hype.

The main difference between a cheapie and a top rod are the fittings and furnishings. Many of the blanks are identical. Made from the same  pre-preg on the same  mandrels. There are only a few manufacturers making their own blanks, and they all "cook with water" anyway.

You might find this interesting;

http://www.common-cents.info/rodexpertise.pdf

This is also worth reading if one is interested in rod design and properties;

http://www.common-cents.info/

TL
MC

[Traditionalist]

Wanton Wiggling

"Have a wiggle! Go on, have a wiggle", he said. So I had a wiggle.

Unfortunately, even after wiggling, I was not much wiser than before. Despite the fact that I have handled thousands of rods, and fished and cast with a goodly number, all I get from "wiggling" them in a tackle shop, or indeed anywhere else, is a very rough idea of their unloaded action, whether they are particularly stiff or floppy, and a vague inkling of what they might be able to do.

Under no circumstances would I buy a rod as a result of such a wiggle. I consider wiggling a time honoured, but basically more or less useless tradition, and I only really do it to satisfy the wishes of sundry tackle shop proprietors and similar unfortunates, many of whom continue to labour under the erroneous and often dangerous misapprehension that it is essential.

Rather crestfallen, apparently because I only wiggled weakly ( I am a weak wiggler by nature, and also by conviction, in point of fact I really prefer not to wiggle at all if I can help it), and I did not immediately burst into enthusiastic praise of the rod, he took it from my hands, and said "Watch this".

Oh ominous phrase! On quite a number of occasions, especially when casting, or handling fishing rods generally, the utterance of these very words has proved to be a harbinger of impending disaster, and nowadays, when hearing them,I get the almost uncontrollable urge to hide, or run for cover. In this particular instance, I did neither, I simply took several steps backwards to what I fervently hoped was a safe distance.

I had no idea what he was actually going to do, but I was fairly certain that it would be neither impressive or sensible. Over the years, quite a number of factory reps, tackle shop proprietors, proud rod owners, and potential world record casters,( at least they thought so), have been moved to do the most amazing and silly things with fishing rods in my presence. Perhaps I am a bad influence?

Long ago, after the first few such incidents, I realised that it was absolutely pointless trying to persuade them not to, and that simply allowing me to have a cast or two with the implement in question would more than suffice as a demonstration.

Every single time, my exhortations proved completely futile, and unsettlingly often with disastrous results.

Unmoved, and indeed apparently absolutely oblivious to my protestations and misgivings, the gentleman poked the tip of the rod over the counter towards his shop assistant, and said "Hold it tight!".

My attempt to take yet another step backwards also proved futile, as I bumped into a set of steel shelves behind me.

The assistant grasped the rod tip, and our worthy wiggler raised his hand hard, putting an awesome bend in the rod, and continuing to do so until it had very nearly described a complete semicircle from butt to tip. At this point, the spirit of carbon fibre apparently decided that he had had more than enough of this vile treatment, and gave up the ghost.

Quite a small report sounded, followed closely by a shriek from the shop assisant, followed yet again by another much louder cracking report, and a sound like hailstones hitting a tin roof.

This all occurred within a split second.

The assistant had barely completed his marrow curdling shriek, before clapping his hands to his face, from between which amazingly large quantities of blood began welling and dripping. The wiggler stood apparently dumbfounded for a second, and then dropped the remains of the rod and began wiping his eyes.

Quite a few minutes, and considerable gentle persuasion,was required to get the shop assistant to take his hands away from his face, so that I could view the damage. A long deep gash ran from the side of his mouth, nearly up to his eye, and although the flow of blood had by now diminished a little, there was still plenty to go round. Indeed, the counter top, his clothes, the floor, the cash register, had all received a more than ample helping, and more was being freely distributed by the second, should the first few gushes indeed prove insufficient.

All anglers in Germany are required to have a first aid certificate before they may obtain a licence. I had originally assumed that this was in case of accidents on the stream, but now realised that the powers that be must be aware of what dangerous places tackle shops can be.

After about twenty minutes, an ambulance arrived and carted him off, after one of the medics had removed a few loose splinters from the wigglers eyes, and admonished him not to rub them.

I heard he had to have sixteen stitches in the gash. He will have a scar that any Cossack would be proud of, for the rest of his life.

In the meantime, the wiggler picked up the butt, and a few bits and pieces, and holding them in his hands he looked at them, and then up at me, saying "I cant understand it, nothing like that has ever happened before! Must have been defective!".

I refrained from further comment, and took my leave shortly afterwards. This particular tackle shop is no longer on my list of "places I like to visit".

For those of you interested in the technical aspects of such an occurence, here they are.

If you grasp a rod at the tip, practically any lateral pressure you exert on this thin part of the blank will cause it to snap like a carrot. Having done so, and still being under considerable pressure from any wanton wiggler who is holding it at the time, the broken end will spring up and out with very considerable force. Should anybody be unfortunate enough to have placed his physiognomy in the arc which this, unlike a carrot, extremely sharp and jagged implement is now describing at very high speed (which is basically unavoidable if he was foolish enough to hold the tip of a rod for a wiggler), it will almost certainly be permanently altered as a result.

Steel beams placed relatively low under the roof, are not a good idea in tackle shops owned by wigglers (much the same applies to ceiling fans). Having carried out the rapid, unwonted, and fairly large scale plastic surgery on the luckless employee now holding his face, the tipless rod continues its unstoppable journey upwards, until it contacts just such a steel beam, with a resounding crack. Being already damaged, the impact causes the remains of the tip to shatter like glass, and spray fragments all over the place. Some of which may cause injury or discomfort to innocent bystanders, and of course the by no means innocent wiggler, and his already severely injured assistant.

There are any number of morals to be gleaned from this story, but I will confine myself to those having an immediate effect on anglers wishing to purchase various fishing implements.

Wanton wiggling is a waste of time and effort, and risky to boot. If you see tackle dealers, or anybody else carrying out wanton wiggling, then don?t buy any rods from them. Even if nothing happens at the time, a rod which has been wantonly wiggled is highly likely to fail at some future date, as they are simply not designed to stand such treatment, and will almost certainly be damaged by it.

The extremely high incindence of broken tips, for no immediately apparent reason, when fishing, is in my opinion, at least partially a result of wanton wiggling. Those who fish bead-head and similar flies, using fast rods and tight loops, often have only themselves to blame, but for many others, the reason is that you are probably the unsuspecting victim of a wanton wiggler.

TL
MC

[haresear]

 :lol: :lol:

Hilarious Mike. I like your style.

Alex

[greenwell]

An unfortunate incident but one which has probably nearly happened many times over down the years. Wiggling, as you rightly say tells little about a rod other than perhaps it is either fast or slow but seems to be the standard method for deciding to purchase or not. However, two points about rod selection come to mind which I hope will be useful. Firstly, if the opportunity is given by the tackle shop to try the rod out with a reel and line it is important that one tries it with one's own reel and line, that is, the line/reel which you will use with the rod for everyday fishing. Shops will normally provide these to try the rod with but invariably the reel will be lighter/heavier than your own and the line wiil likely be a size heavier than your own. Even if it is the same supposed weight the chances are it won't be the same make/model and therefore will not give you the same performance that you would be expecting when you arrive at the lochside with your own gear. So, golden rule is if you are going to have a look at some rods with a view to trying out a few, take with you the reel and line that you normally use.

                                         The other wee snippet is don't be influenced too much if the guy in the tackle shop is a topflight caster and offers to " let you see what it can do ". It might send the line to the other side of the country and sing dixie in his hands but it's not going to do that in yours. That doesn't mean  it's no use to you, it just means that for the moment you'll not be able to utilise it's full potential but it is still likely to serve your purposes perfectly satisfactorily. The opposite is also true, he may not recommend a particular model because it's not his cup of tea but it may well be just right for your needs and more practically, your abilities.

                      Best of all, take an experienced fishing buddy with you, if nothing else for their impartial input.

[Wildfisher]

Brilliant!

This article MUST  go in fish wild.

What do you say Mike?

[greenwell]

And that was from Greenwell, who, due to advancing age and the onset of senility, forgot to sign his post.

                                   Greenwell

[Traditionalist]

Brilliant!

This article MUST  go in fish wild.

What do you say Mike?

Be my guest Fred.

TL
MC

[mossypaw]

Traditionalist,
I salute your indefatigability.
Great posts, not just this one.