I read the artical in the Rodmaker, and just don't get the point. Everything I have learned, states that the strength of the guides come from the wraps. I know the epoxy that is used is diff from that used to coat the wraps, I know it is also stronger. I can't see it being a looks issue, and this is only my opinion, It is not appealing to my eye at all. If it is a weight issue. I can't buy that either. If you were to take the thread that would be used on all the guides, held it in your hand,no way could you tell that diferance in weight.

Can anyone tell me the practical purpose of this concept?

Mark Syck

SYCKO Custom Rods
There Are No Limits To The Imagination

Mark, I am extremely glad you took the time to read the article. There are many things that rodbuilders do when building custom rods at may not be considered as practical to others. I have gazed, in pleasure, at some of the rods you have posted on the photo board where the detail of your decorator wraps and the hours that it would take me to reproduce the effect did not seem practical. From looking at some of your pictures it looks like you are marketing engineering and it must satisfy your client base. In this case, I am marketing absolutely nothing. In each case only two people need to be satisfied are the builder and the buyer.

In my case, there is one thing about the rod that is highly practical. I have developed amine sensitivity and have to limit my exposure to conventionl materials. There are no amine bearing epoxies anywhere on the rod. The unique thing, maybe not practical to you, but still very unique, is that I am selling a rod that has absolutely nothing on it but blank, guides and grip. No chevrons, no diamonds, no weaves, no encapsulations, no inlays, no color, no contrast, no trim bands, no marble - good price for nothing is kinda a coup for some of the guys that buy rods from me.

I also think that twenty years from now when someone goes to the drug store to buy a six pack of fishing rods to use that day for $ 5.95 they will look very similar to these. When the materials are fully developed a robot can crank these things out by the thousands - they will then be highly practical. My great great grandson will say one day - do you remember the old fishing rods in the attic that have thread on them?

Oh one more thing, if you missed it at the very end of the write up. They sell like crazy!

There is more than one way to skin a cat -

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder -

Come visit me at the Swampland Booth in High Point and take a Sensi Touch to the tank and test cast a nothing rod - you will be amazed at the "feel".

Gon Fishn

Happy New Year

Mark,

There is no epoxy on the threadless guide wraps.

What we have is a urethane product and technique that takes the place of thread. Weight savings are very minute (depending on how much thread you're using to begin with), but definite, but aren't the only reason we presented this subject. It's a novel concept, it's different, works well, and allows for truly transparent wraps.


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

In some respects I guess it would considered as much or more of a selling point than a weave or decorative wrap. Depends on who your market is and what sort of thing happens to float their boat.

Bill and Bill,
The approach is certainly unique and I have no doubt that the uniqueness will attract a few purchasers. "Sell like crazy", I am not so sure. But to suggest that it results in significantly better feel is, I think, misleading. Sensi Touch, and you say that you are not marketing anything. I think that you are marketing something and to tell you the truth I think that I can smell it. Of all of the things that we rod builders add to blanks the one thing that adds the least weight and therefore has the least affect on sensitivity is the thread. A drop more of either epoxy or urethane with have more affect than the thread. If you remember I did some testing of this about a year ago and the epoxy on guides is much heavier than the thread and I suspect that urethane is as well.
As far as the amine sensitivity is concerned I believe that your sensitivity was to the epoxy not the thread. You could have used urethane coating but with thread and avoided any allergic reaction.
It is an interesting and unique approach but it does have some short comings and in my judgment you are over-selling it.

I agree with you Bill as long as the builder and CUSTOMER are happy and the rod preforms that is what truely matters. I like the look something you don't see often. I bet it gets alot of looks! Dale

Can someone post some pictures for the international builders please
Thank you in advance

Question for Bill Stevens,

I wonder what would happen if you tacked the guide down with the Swifty product as discribed, remove the tooth picks, and used the Swifty product instead of the Permagloss? That Swifty finish is really tough-much tuffer than epoxy IMO.

Ed Smith
Flat Rock, NC

How will this new concept compare if I were to tie one layer of silk thread and apply one layer of permagloss.

Anthony Lee

Robert,

There is nothing to see, really. Just take a guide and set in on your rod blank. That's what it looks like. Nothing there but the blank and the guide right on it. Nothing to see.

........

The threadless "wrap" will still be clearer than silk and PG.


...........

Permagloss is not an epoxy. If there is anything tougher than permagloss, I don't know about it.

It really does work, and to answer Mark's main question as to what the practical purpose is, my only answer is that there is nothing all that impractical with it. It's another way to do a rod, IMO. Not much different than if you were to do a rod with white silk for a transparent look. This gives you the same look, only much clearer, for no real tradeoffs. I've never really liked the transparent look personally, but if you are going to do one, this is a new option. Silk will always have a slightly hazey look to it, no matter how well done.

Myself, I don't see this as a replacement method for anything but simply another tool in the box. Not suitable for all purposes, IMO, but after playing around with this method, I can see where it certainly has its place. There are also compromises that I've been messing with that really show some promises for the weird thinkers out there... you NERB types know who you are... with single strand diamond wraps or two trim bands, or super simple single chevrons over a guide foot then finish with this method. Just some new doors to open.

Not for everyone, but I personally think it is a bit more than just a novelty.

how about it is filled with "swamp gas" a real selling point down in the bayou? or even mike the tiger breathed on it? anything for an LSU fan. you go Bill, i dont know if i will do it but it is a neat concept

MIck,

There will be some photos to that effect in the next issue.

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

Glued on guides have been the subject of discussion for a couple of years now over on the BFHP.

[www.wmi.org]

It is a subject that always draws some interesting reactions. The ones that I've seen are typically on the lower end rods built OUS, presumably as a way to reduce manufacturing costs. Sometimes the finish will be made opaque to simulate a thread wrapping so you have to look close to see it.

mark

Is this Permaglossing on the guides is it? How many coats?

I've not seen any rods with glued-on guides. I don't doubt that some exist somewhere, but it takes a particular adhesive with a particular technique to really secure them well. I'd be interested in seeing a rod that actually had guides held on by nothing but adhesive, prior to something like Ralph's trick with the PG. Even so, this is an encapsulation and I doubt it saves any time over thread wrapping and one single coat of epoxy. I think the commercial makers would have a fit with this one.

Still, if such things exist in the commericial rod lines, it'd be interesting to see how their technique compares.


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

And here I thought I was onto something...... should have known you'd be on top of it, Tom. hahahah

Robert, yes that is the general concept. Something to hold the guide in position and then "wrapping" it with several coats of permagloss. How many coats? It depends on a few things, at least what I've noticed. What type of rod/guides? What application? How old/thick is your Permagloss? Are you doing it for weight or the visual effect (what do you want and what do you want to give up)? Figure anywhere from 5 to 12 coats. It is something that folks will have to decide on themselves and debate furiously for a long time I'm sure.

Do a couple of guides with different amounts for yourself and see what you think is strong enough.

People are naturally skeptical and the reactions to glued on guides have been very similar in the past.

If a manufacturer were to use this technique, they would use a much higher viscosity, perhaps even a UV curable finishing system which would save the time and cost of out-wrappping.

mark

There are certainly marketing issues involved and for that I feel no remorse. I too am in the business of selling rods and marketing my custom rods to the public is not outlawed.

There is one blatent falsehood included in the above posts.

When Mick Comesky makes the statement that he has "played around" with this stuff he is totally miss-leading everyone. The guy spent endless hours performing destructive testing on all type of guide attachments under controlled conditions. He measured loads, time rate of loading at various angles of pull. Mick has photographic evidence of what actually happens when an attachment fails. You would be flabergasted to see where some of the Permagloss shear planes were at time of failure. If you think the guide foot would pull through the Permagloss you would be in error. His test data and work ethic utilized would rival any detail work done by one of the weave masters!

Pictures posted.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Gon Fishn



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2006 08:49AM by Bill Stevens.