Here are the numbers. As provided by Emory Harry
Thank You for taking the time to weight the pieces for us

"The reel seat is 4 1/4 inches long so all of the pieces of the other materials were the same length.
13.5mm Batson Blank through Reel seat=0.846 oz.
1" by 4 1/4" Cork=0.273 oz. (1/2" hole in center)
1' by 4 1/4" Texilium=0.472 oz.
1" by 4 1/4" Graphite Tube=0.411 oz."

I don’t use Texilium so we will remove that from the equation.

To keep things simple we’ll stick to the same lengths and awesome I’m making all the handles 12-3/4 inches long
3 x 4-1/4 =12-3/4”

The only unknown is the epoxy and thread. But since when using cork, you epoxy cork to the blank, the arbors to the blank, and to the reel seat. You end up using more epoxy than with Graphite tubing with offset design. Were you are gluing up just two arbors and a small amount of epoxy to secure the top of the blank to the inside upper edge of the tubing. For the most part the end result between the two will be about the same weight as far as the epoxy goes

The facts
Cork Spinning rod handle
12-3/4” long
2 pieces 4-1/4” cork 2x0.273 = 0.546 oz.
1 13.5mm reel seat 0.846 oz.
TOTAL HANDLE 1.392 oz

Graphite tube handle
12-3/4” long
4-1/4” x 3 @ 0.411 oz. each =1.233 oz.
TOTAL HANDLE 1.233 oz.

TOTAL WEIGHT SAVINGS WITH GRAPHITE TUBING 0.159 oz

Final conclusion to Emory’s comment-
“A reel seat will weigh more than an equal length of the tubing but not nearly enough to offset the rest of the tubing.”

Based on Emory’s numbers
The facts are graphite tubing IS lighter then using cork with a reel seat.

Steve,
No, the numbers do not necessarily suggest that. It would depend entirely on the length of the handle, yes if the handle were short, NO if the handle were longer. But that was not the point. The point was that cork is significantly lighter than the tubing so if you want to maximize the rods sensitivity why would you not use a handle made entirely of cork without any reel seat instead of a handle made entirely of the tubing without a reel seat?

Most of my handles run in the range of 6 to 10''.
I used your lengths and weights that you provided. If you wanted to change the results you should have used longer dementions.

Reasons for graphite:
Because then I can not attach the reel the way I do.
I would have to use some type of tape or other material that I find uncomfortable.

I would not be able to offset the blank the same either which is the major benefit of this set up.

You are right to a point. If I wanted to maximize Lightness I would use just cork,
But because I choose to maximize comfort, sensitivity, efficiency, and handling.
I choose the methods I have.

I get the impression that you believe the only way to achieve sensitivity is lightness and that is just not the case. It most definitely helps but there are more contributing factors then just lightness

Emory this is not something I just arbitrarily decided to do.
I spent 5 years developing and researching this.
And the facts back up the statements that have been made by Tom and some of the other well known builders.

Steve,
I agree that lightness is not the only factor that determines sensitivity. In fact I have written a couple of articles in past issues of RodMaker on the factors determining sensitivity. There are other things that affect sensitivity but the two major ones are stiffness and mass, actually the inertia that is the result of the mass. But virtually everything that a rod builder does to a blank adds mass ( weight). It is the factor that rod builders have the most control over and I guess that I would argue that for rods where sensitivity is important it is probably the single factor that rod builders should give the most thought when building rods.

Testimonials are not the same thing as facts and I have been building rods for over 30 years but I am still learning new things all of the time and often seeing how I have done things that were wrong in the past.

My thought would be that when we say one is going to provide more sensitivity than another, we need to say by how much. I have no way to measure the difference in this instance, but I'd bet that the difference between Steve's handle and one made from all cork is going to be very small. Perhaps tiny.

Differences need to be quantified before you can really decide if something is really detrimental or tremendously better. That's the trouble we run into when we simply state something like "this material is more sensitive than this one" or "this rod will cast farther than this one." Okay, but by how much or how far? Without some numbers behind such statements we aren't really giving our customers as much information as they deserve.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2007 04:01PM by Tom Kirkman.

The extra weight difference, wouldn't this be a moot point if the rod is fished tip up as is the majority of bass fishing is done?????

Also if you want to compare apples to apples for the spinning rod handles, for the cork grip you wouldn't need a reel seat it would be a TN handle.

.159oz of weight savings causing such a stir. I have to wonder how much an effect rain has on a rod blank, as weighter is quite heavy. If you polish your rod with some sort of wax.Pledge which sheds water, this rod will be much more sensitive than one which allows rainwaer to accumulate on teh blank, especially near teh tip. Just imagine how much rainwater accumulates in teh ring of a guide, or betweem guide feet....you'll need a crane just to lift teh rod.

.159oz of weight savings can be had by simply drilling a hole or 2 in the body of a reel. MAybe replace a couple of washers in teh reel with cork washers to save weight there too. DEfinately use a Magnesium reel. You could probably save .159oz on teh reel seat of the cork handle set up by replacing the metal hoods on the nuts of teh seat with Titanium.

I cannot believe you guys overlooked all tehse specacular weight savings methods. Before you know it, the rod will be able to detect fish vibrations in the water before you even cast your lure.

Tom,
The difference in the sensitivity can be calculated. In fact, if the rod is held at a low angle to the water the calculations are not very complicated. They get a lot more complicated when the tip of the rod is raised. If I remember correctly Steve said he was using the Batson RX8+ blanks which are very light blanks which means that the difference in the weight of the handle materials is going to be more significant. The lighter the blank the larger the affect the difference in the weight of the handle material is going to have on the rods sensitivity.

Stan,
I agree with your second point about the TN handle but I do not think we agree on your first point. If the rod is held at a low angle to the water then it is mainly just the line and total mass (weight) of the rod and reel that will determine sensitivity. But as the tip of the rod is raised and the energy in the fish's bite is transferred from the line through the guides and then through the blank to the fisherman's hand then the other properties of the rod come into play including both the total weight and the distribution of the weight.
You are right though that when the tip of the rod is raised the weight has relatively less affect on sensitivity then when the rod is at a low angle but this is only because there are more variables in the equation at the higher angle. I hope I said that clearly.

Billy,
I do not know about the others but I am going to give your comments the attention that I think that they deserve and ignore them.

Billy Vivona Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .159oz of weight savings causing such a stir. I
> have to wonder how much an effect rain has on a
> rod blank, as weighter is quite heavy. If you
> polish your rod with some sort of wax.Pledge which
> sheds water, this rod will be much more sensitive
> than one which allows rainwaer to accumulate on
> teh blank, especially near teh tip. Just imagine
> how much rainwater accumulates in teh ring of a
> guide, or betweem guide feet....you'll need a
> crane just to lift teh rod.
>
> .159oz of weight savings can be had by simply
> drilling a hole or 2 in the body of a reel. MAybe
> replace a couple of washers in teh reel with cork
> washers to save weight there too. DEfinately use a
> Magnesium reel. You could probably save .159oz on
> teh reel seat of the cork handle set up by
> replacing the metal hoods on the nuts of teh seat
> with Titanium.
>
> I cannot believe you guys overlooked all tehse
> specacular weight savings methods. Before you know
> it, the rod will be able to detect fish vibrations
> in the water before you even cast your lure.
>
> NERBS - North East Rod Builders


LOL...I think it need to be said....Good think I use pledge......Now the question is lemon scent or not?

Although it was "tongue in cheek", I think Billy has a very good point! Wouldn't a couple small holes drilled in the reel foot or body, remove weight??? Instead of concentrating on what won't work, why not deal with what will work???

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!!

Emory,

Again we come to the place where we need numbers. How much more sensitive would the cork be in this situation? 5% 10% 1%?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to put a face on the actual difference between some of these materials. As you and I both know, this is somewhat of a sticking point.

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

Tom,
Ok, lets make a back of the envelope calculation for a rod that is held parallel to the water. When the rod is held at this low angle the total mass is primarily what determines the sensitivity so this calculation should be the most revealing and also this calculation is much simpler than the calculation if the rod is at a higher angle.
The amount of energy that is required to move the rods mass (weight) a given distance or the force that results is directly proportional to the energy. It is directly proportional and the relationship is linear. The more energy for a given mass the more movement or force, the more mass for a given energy the less movement or force. That means that the percentage difference in the mass (weight) between a rod with a cork handle and one with a graphite handle will be equal to the difference in movement or the force at the fisherman's hand and therefore the difference in sensitivity.
Steve used a Batson RX8+ blank. I picked the RX8+ blank in the middle of the range of their offerings of RX8+ blanks. It weighs 2.13 oz. My measurements of a 4 1/4 in. piece of 1 in. cork was 0.273 oz. and a 4 1/4 in. piece of graphite tubing was 0.411 oz. If we assume the rod has a 10 in. handle that means that the blank and cork will weigh 2.77 oz. while the blank and graphite tubing will weigh 3.09 oz. The difference and therefore the difference in sensitivity is roughly 12%. If we add the weight of 4 foam shims to the graphite that I weighed at about 0.1 oz. each and assume that about the same amount of epoxy is used in both cases the difference becomes roughly 25%.

Weight difference or sensitivity difference? Are they truly on a linear course?

Now let's add something else - On Steve's rod the blank is in direct contact with the graphite tube. On a TN handle of cork, that will not be the case, at least insofar as the blank will be in the middle of the cork grip. I think there are some other factors involved here.

My point is only that the difference in sensitivity is only being speculated on - how does one arrive at real numbers via some sort of measuring device? I do not doubt that the rod with the greater mass density will be less sensitive (this has been my argument for many, many years) but in this case I cannot believe that Steve could make his rods 25% more sensitive by substituting cork for graphite tubing. Perhaps that is the case, but I'd like to see some actual measurements taken, if there were such a way to do so.

I have some information on the way to you now that might provide you with some ideas for just such a device or test. I hope so.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2007 09:31PM by Tom Kirkman.

Being an engineer - I have taken issue with many of the claims regarding sensitivity, and what causes increased, or decreased sensitivity. I will not mention the specific claims, or what have you that I have found numerous shortcomings with, but let me just say that here is my opinion on sensitivity:

It is not the most important element in a fishing rod.

Ok - now that I said that, let me quantify it.

It's kind of like what caliber of rifle do you use to kill a deer. A .22 long rifle will kill a deer. So will a .460 Weatherby Magnum. Obviously, the .22 is "not enough", and the .460 is "overkill". So here is the question - what is the caliber that fits in terms of ability to satisfy the main requirements then hunter is looking for? Well, for about 99.9% of people, that's a rifle that is comfortable (hmm, ergonomics!) to shoot, while still having "enough" to get the job done.

Anyways, getting back to the correct sport (fishing) - maximizing one aspect of a rod without paying adequate attention to others is poor design. And, when it comes to sensitivity, I believe there are elements of design that will result in greater sensitivity than other designs. Steve's rod design is one of them. Carefull examination of his design reveals that in a spinning setup, his design places one's hand as close to direct contact with the blank as can be expected and still maintain some ergonomic quality. Sure, you could wrap a reel directly to the blank, and forget the handle alogether - but you couldn't cast and fight fish all day with it - it would be hideously uncomfortable. In addition, I hold fast to the knowledge that like materials, or at least materials with similar mechanical characteristics in terms of modulus of elasticity, etc, are better able to transmit mechanical vibration (strain) across medium boundaries than dissimilar materials. But I'm not even sure I think it's necessary to go that far with it. Show me an even halfway decent quality factory rod (I'm talking St. Croix Premier and similar), and I will show you a rod that is sensitive enough to fish for darn near anything swimming. I'd challenge anyone to find a fish that can strike so imperceptibly as a finicky walleye. A good quality factory rod is more than adequate for strike detection on this species. So - how much do we REALLY need to worry about sensitivity? Don't get me wrong - I love building rods lighter than factory and maximizing where I can - but it has to been done with an eye towards what the rod is really needed to produce. Better ergonomics are the key, and I believe that even improved ergonomics will improve the perceived sensitivity in a rod, due to reduced angler fatigue as well as intangibles such as - how much does the person like the rod, how comfortable is it for them? When I was a golf club maker, it was widely accepted that a person would shoot better with clubs that they liked the look of - sounds crazy, but it's true. If a club had too thick of a topline for the golfer, the result would invariably be too many chunked, or fat shots. Same runs true to fishing rods. If the angler likes the rod, the balance, the feel in hand, they will fish better with it. Even if it weighs 0.2 of an ounce more.

Rich,

I think you make extremely good points here and I doubt that many can find anything to object to. We are in a situation recently, however, where some guys would like to actually be able to measure sensitivity from a standpoint of "what movement or feel is transmitted to the human hand via the rod" and having some sort of measurement (even just a relative measurement) would go a long way to towards dispelling certain myths and cementing other suspicions. Not that it is the end all, be all, in the sensitivity argument - I agree wholeheartedly with your comments above, but it would be nice to nail some comparitive numbers on this one aspect of a many faceted equation.


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

Tom - I couldn't agree more :-)

Greetings Steve,

I read this thread with interest.

I may well be missing something but your comparison doesn't seem to be a fair comparison.

Your cork handle includes a reel seat. Your graphite is only a tennessee. I make cork tennesse as my standard handle.

If, you made both handles tennessee which would be a fair comparison, then the weight would be as follows:

1. Cork - 0.819 ounce
2. Graphite - 1.233 ounce.

The graphite is fully 50% heavier then the cork. In this case, I'll pass on the graphite.

Another advantage of cork for me is the fact that I can cut into it, and seat my reels flush to the handle so I don't have a bump from the reel seat. I don't think I can do that as gracefully or easily with the graphite.

Am I missing something?

Mo

Rich,
Thanks for a real world approach to this whole thing!!!! Your post has reinforced my belief in the use of common sense!

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!!

Good points, build them the way you like. If you really want to save weight buy lighter reels, lol.

One thing I was wondering about, what are you using for arbors on the graphite TN handle? Thanks.