Greetings to all.

I'm looking for the lightest 1" to 1.25" graphite tube available to make into tennessee handles.

In the past, I've spoken to various manufacturers who assured me that their graphite tennessee handles are lighter than cork. Well, none are and I've stayed with cork for the lightest handles.

However, I'm thinking of trying to do a graphite tennessee handle for a project but still want the lightest handle possible. Anyone know whose graphite handle is the lightest per inch length?

Thanks in advance for your help.
Mo

ps: Also, can these tubes be flocked for a softer feel? Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2006 12:47AM by Mo Yang.

When all is said and done, I don't think you are going to find any tubing that will end up with a handle that is lighter than cork. To be lighter it would have to be so thin that I don't think it would last. As far as flocking goes, as long as you prep the material well, I don't see why you couldn't flock it. To me though it would seem not worth it to flock the graphite tubing, just my opinion since I like the look of the tubing.

I suppose the tube with just the cork ends, and Flex Coat (or similar arbors) cut down would be a pretty lightweight seat. I don't see why they can't be flocked, especially if you do a little surface prep on them. And for weight savings, split the grip if you can.

Still trying to build the perfect, lightest UL rod possible, eh Mo? Just remember if your handle is too light, the balance will suffer a bit, and then your wrists will too. I'd love to see where this ends up though, porbably gonna cost you a pretty penny. Any pics of the evolution of this/these rod(s)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2006 06:43AM by Ted Morgan.

Mo

I've weighed several different types of tubing. Certainly not all of them. And from what I've seen so far, a given length of tubing is heavier than the same length of unmachined cork rings. In other words, 6" of tubing wound up weighing more than twelve 1 1/4" x 1/2" cork rings. Much less after you ream the rings and shape them down to 1" in diameter.

I really like the looks of the tubing. But its weight has detered me from using it on my personal rods.


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

Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Has anyone given any thought to "swiss-cheesing" the tubing? Bore it full of holes to reduce weight. There are probably several ways to get what you want and still keep the weight down if you use some creative imagination here.

...........

Tom;
Now that's an idea! Been doing all my rods with graphite so I will experiment and let you know.
Mo:
I have one tube that I got from a friend a couple of years ago that I have been saving until I can work out all the other details of building the lightest rod. That is about half the weight of the other brands I use all the time. But I don't know who makes it. I will try and find out.

Wow, thanks for all the quick responses.

Ted - Well, still trying to be as light as possible but not quite a 'nuts' about it now. You're right about the balance. We're making all rods balanced in right at the reel foot so they are not as light as possible. But within that parameter, trying to be as light as possible. There's a point of diminishing returns and I think we're hitting it....:)

Of course, I'd still like to know if anyone has a particular brand that you think is valuable.

Steve, would love to hear if you find out.

Thanks,
Mo

I'm curious to know why flocking was suggested - wouldn't that decrease the sensitivity (supposedly the big draw of the tubing), and increase weight even more?

Rich, Just curious! I have seen numerous mentions of "sensitivity" regarding various materials. I have no idea what part weight means in regard to sensitivity but I know that when I fish (and most people that I have observed), I rarely touch the rear grip. When using spinning gear, my hand is on the seat with fingers spanning the reel foot and a finger on the blank in front (usually no foregrip) with casting, I palm the reel and barely touch the grip. if at all. I would think that whatever feeling is imparted would be more through the blank or line than the seat material.



Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Mike, I agree with you on where "most" people grip a spinning rod - I myself do the same thing, actually my latest build is a spinning rod that uses about 1/2 inch of material (burl cork) on either side of the reelseat (NPS), splitgrip and a 2.5 inch butt grip. My belief is that lighter overall rod weight is probably the single most important component of making a "sensitive" rod. So, minimize weight while maintaining a durable rod is my goal. It was just always my understanding that one of the big selling points of that graphite tubing is supposedly the sensitivity of it. And, there is no question in my mind that the type of line you are using has a much greater impact on strike detection than darn near anything you can do to the rod. You can take an ugly stick with powerpro and feel if you are on mud or gravel...

So what's my point? Heck, I don't know!!! LOL!!

Just curious on how valid our preconcieved beliefs are!!

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Janns
netcraft has the lightest tube I have used. But it was the 7/8 or so diameter and I didn't look to see if they have a larger diameter.. Should be a good starting point for you though. Chuck Ungs

Mo,
If you will do a search back a couple of weeks I weighed an equal length of a couple types of handle tubes and cork and posted the weights. I do not remember exactly what the weights were but I do remember that the cork was lighter.

Sensitivity,
Rod sensitivity or feel is a really messy issue, probably the most complex that we deal with in rod building and it has been very much over simplified for years with the stiffness over weight explanation that has traditionally been used to explain rod sensitivity or feel.
There are a lot of variables but it we simplify it some by neglecting the frequency related issues, how the rods resonant frequency and damping affect sensitivity, and also for the sake of simplicity assume for a moment that all of the vibrations coming up the line are transferred to the rod then the amplitude of the vibrations coming up the rod are a function of the mechanical impedance of the rod. And the mechanical impedance is determined by the mass density(weight per unit of volume) and the elasticity of the materials. It is actually the square root of the mass density times the elasticity. And obviously both mass density and elasticity affect weight and weight distribution.
The amplitude of the vibrations will be higher through the graphite or glass tubes including their foam shims than through cork and therefore the sensitivity will be better because they have a higher mechanical impedance. However, I agree with Mike that the handle material will make very little difference if you have your finger on the blank or are using a blank through reel seat because the vibrations will get to your finger before they get to the handle.
I said earlier to assume that all of the vibrations are transferred to the rod but obviously they are not and Rich makes a good point about the effect that the line has. The braided lines that do not stretch like mono stretches have a much higher mechanical impedance and will transmit the vibrations much better. If the rod is held so that it is pointing straight down the line then almost all of the vibrations will actually travel up the line to the fisherman and very little will be transferred through the guides to the rod. If the rod is held at a high angle relative to the line then most of the vibrations will be transferred through the guides to the rod and down the rod to the fisherman. So even the angle the rod is held while not affecting the sensitivity of the rod itself will affect the overall sensitivity of the rod and the line combined. I said sensitivity was messy. If we throw the rods frequency related variables into the considerations and also consider the fishes bite to be a frequency and or an impulse (jerk or pull) then it gets much worse.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2006 11:25PM by Emory Harry.

Emory,

I must have missed it. Searched and scanned through your posts for the last 90 days and did not see it. I probably need new glasses....:)

Would you kindly give me a suggestion as to a couple of search words I might use to find your post?

Thanks,
Mo

Mo,
I will do better than that. I will make the measurements again this afternoon and post them for you.

Mo,
I just weighted the following materials with the following results.

1 inch diameter Cork=2.4 grams per inch
1 inch diameter Texalium=2.9 grams per inch
1 inch diameter graphite=3.1 grams per inch

The cork had a 1/4 inch diameter internal hole. It would naturally weight significantly less if bored out to fit most blanks.
The Texalium (spelling) is from Lamiglas.
The graphite tubing is from Batson enterprises.
The Texalium and graphite tubes will require several shims on most rods. The shims that I have weigh 2.8 grams per inch with a 1/4 inch internal hole.

I was a little surprised that the Texalium which I understand is actually made of glass was lighter than the graphite so I measured the thickness with a micrometer. The Texalium was 38 thousands thick and the graphite was 45 thousands thick.

The bottom line is, after the cork is reamed out to fit the blank and shims are added to the Texalium and graphite tubing the cork is going to be significantly lighter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2006 03:35PM by Emory Harry.

Emory, Does that add up to more sensitivity. Does the density of the texilium versus the cork, for instance, make a difference??

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Mike,
Both the Texalium and the graphite will transmit any vibration better than the cork, the amplitude will be higher, even though they are heavier because their mass density and their elasticity will be higher. However, wasn't it you that made the very good point that any vibration traveling through the rod will reach the finger of the fisherman before it even reaches the handle of the rod if the rod has a blank through reel seat or if the fisherman has his finger on the blank?
The added weight of the Texalium and the graphite tubing will lower the resonant frequency and increase the damping factor but it is my feeling that this will not have as large an effect as you might think mainly because the added weight is near the butt of the rod.
Frankly, I have spent some time on this and I do not have the math all worked out yet that will let me calculate exactly how large the different effects will be and which effect will dominate. It really is a messy problem that I do not believe anyone has ever worked through completely.

Oops, sorry, double post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2006 06:03PM by Emory Harry.

Emory,

Gosh, talking about going above and beyond. You did not need to do that - but THANKS for doing so.

If you know: Is your graphite arbors similar to the Flexcoat polyurethane arbors?

Mo