about 2 months ago I lost a rod overboard in about 30 ft. of water and could not find is it possible to put spray in foam inside the blank (the kind that you put around electrical outlets) and not effect the action of the blank. I cant afford to lose many more rods on the bottom of the lake. thanks for any help

I'd imagine that would change the action of the rod but thats just a guess. Might be worth trying to just blow the foam up as far as the handle goes on your blank. that shouldn't change the action and shouldn't add too much weight. I'd just be wary of pushing it too far up the blank.

I know last year I saw a production rod that was garunteed to float even w/ a reel attached, I think it was a diawa, but not sure.

I utilize mostly cork grips but I wonder what the floation properties of EVA or regular foam are in comparison. The biggest issue to overcome would be the addition weight added by the reel.

I might just have to experiment with blowing foam up say 12-18 inches (how would you gauge though?) and do a float test without wrapping the rest of rod. I'd tape on a reel and fashion some sort of lanyard to the rod and send it for a swim. If you do this test, be sure to actuall "drop" the rod into the water as that will give you a true representation of how it will react as opposed to just laying it in the water.

Let us know if you try it!

If you seal the bottom section of a blank with just air inside you will make a more effective floatation solution than injecting foam. Foam filling the void weighs more than air filling the void.

You will need to offset the weight of the rod and reel to get it to float. I think you will have to look at a solution that is on the outside of the blank to accomplish this.

another option is to work up a "leash" like you would use on a surfboard, and attach one end to your rod and the other to you. This way you won't have to mess with your blank. I have seen products for this purpose somewhere, probably with one of the sponsors to the left.
Carrington

Somewhere, I saw a flotation device that was part of the handle. If you dropped the rod overboard, the device would separate then float to the surface. I just use a lanyard with a small clip. C2

If a handle insert like foam could be utilized that would be as far as I'd go. The idea of a lanyard attached to my body seems like it would be restrictive or a nuisance to the point I wouldn't always use it. (that's just me) Then I'd REALLY be @#$%& if I lost a rod overboard!

I'm really curious how much weight the necessary amount of foam to float a rod & reel would add to the blank. That's assuming you only needed say 12-18" of foam. I still wouln't want to extend much past the length of the handle in fear of changing the characteristics of the rod.

Ever since I dropped a $300+ rig in DEEP water I assumed the best answer was to just not do that again!

Somebody has to have tried this foam idea before ...anyone?

The foam ideal is not going to work. Unfortunately, the foam doesn't add any boyancy beyond what air has. If it did then you could set a peice of the foam on the table in front of you and it would float up to the ceiling as it would be more boyant than air. What would really be necessary here is something external to the rod. The problem here is setting something up that will work when the rod is knocked or dropped overboard that would float the rod without being too cumbersome in use.

The reason foam is used in floatation is that it negates the need to waterproof the area the floatation is placed in. If you just used a chamber then it would have to be waterproof so that the air could keep the item that needs floated above water. The foam works, usually closed cell foam, by creating lots of tiny pockets of trapped air that provides the floatation without requiring a waterprooof seal. Making the whole rod waterproof by sealing the end makes a single air pocket that will have more floatation than the same volume of closed cell foam as the foam material itself decreases the amount of floatation, though only slightly. Unfortunately, an air filled rod still is not able to float the weight of itself and the reel, though it may just manage it's own weight, if built lite enough. Though I would be surprised if this occured.

Has anyone else heard of the production rod that was garunteed to float then? I can remember seeing the picture on the net and a small article but no clue where that was. I'm pretty sure it was a crankbait rod but that's about it.

I am curious as to what they did to achieve that.

If a fish is pulling I dont think it would matter if it floats or not.

Freddwhy (Rapt-Ryte)

Scott and Daren are on top of this one - if you seal the ends of the blank, you won't need any foam. However, the amount of weight you need to float will not be displaced by the combined area of the air chamber (sealed blank).

The contraption that Charlie mentioned is a good one, albeit somewhat large and bulky. You attach it to your rod blank just ahead of the foregrip. It consists of a small chamber containing a small float and some twine/line. When the chamber is submerged for several minutes, the sealant that holds it closed dissolves in the water, setting the float and attached twine free. It bobs to the top and you then retrieve the rod/reel by the attached cord. If the water's not deeper than the amount of twine provided, of course.

Many years ago I studied this problem and came up with the same sort of idea that this gadget represents. I could never fashion a system small enough that it didn't get in the way. The current gadget is also large enough that I don't think you'd want it on your rod. But the concept has merit and I'd think that some enterprising rod builder could find a way to reduce the size but keep the effectiveness. Maybe the gadget needs to be in the rod butt itself (this is how I tried it), or contained inside the handle. There is probably a way to do this. It's a viable concept, just hasn't been implemented very well, yet.

..........

Does anybody know a material I could use for a sealant that would dissolve in a small amount of time? I may just have an idea that would work for this.
Thanks,
Daren

There are certain types of wood glues and putties that will stay fairly hard until they have been submerged. These are similar to what I used. But be warned, it can still take 15 to 20 minutes before they soften enough to allow your "float" to escape.

The float need only be large enough to float the twine or cord - if the water is so deep or the cord so short that the float need float the rod and reel, you're going to require a float so large that I don't think it would be practical. I used a small plastic float connected to monofiliment. The float didn't have to be very large.

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

For a lake fishing rod, I bet you could stuff enough say 10# test braid (only 3# test dia.) up in the handle and attact it to a brightly colored float that is either the butt cap or right behind it. Adhere the but cap with that disolving sealant and there you go.

It's still probably much easier to just not drop it in the water. ; )

The one that I saw became an extension of the handle and contained enough twine to reach the surface from reasonable depths. It consisted of a small float like Tom says, with a sealant that melts in water. I think that the sealant was a water soluble tape.

As I remember, it was the same diameter as the handle and extended the handle by a few inches.

Let me look through my archives and see if I can locate something. It may take some time. I'm not promising anything.

I may go into the mad laboratory and work on this. There are more exotic materials available now than were available when I first saw this. C2

I was thinking along the lines of using a small (16Oz) CO2 cartridge in conjunction with a floatation bladder (balloon) of such a size that when the rod gets wet long enough to disolve the seal, it then gets to the water activated inflator inflating the bladder providing enough floatation to float the rod to the surface.

As long as the rod did not get caught in anything on the bottom this should allow it to float up. Even if a fish is on the rod it should eventually float up as the fish tires of trying to pull the rig down. It would not take much of a floatation bladder to float the whole rig (freshwater) and it would work at any depth with deaper water causing the sealant to give out faster than shallow water.

Built as a fighting but style attachment this would give the ability to replace it when it is used and since it would likely be contained in a relatively small diameter package with integrated but cap this would replace all or part of the rear grip on a standard casting or spinning rod. The seal would be holding the butcap on so when it gives it would allow the bladder to be released as it knocks the but cap off the rod.

A larger version could be used with larger trolling rods and salt water rods as the grip is normally a larger diameter and longer allowing for a larger floatation bag for the heavier rigs used in salt water and big water fishing.

Kind of like "sospenders" for a fishing rod. I like the idea but something like that would probably be best kept to larger boat rods as opposed to say a 6' spinning rod.