Capt. Neil:

The spine would never cause less torquing under stress. Guide location determines that. Did the manufacturer keep records on the same model rods built and then returned over the same period? I know at least 5 other rod makers who "feel" that spine position is not only not worth their time, but that their rods perform better and longer by building on the straightest axis. These are all subjective opinions as far as I know, with no real data to back up any of these different positions.

.....

Chris,


Chris your point is well taken - nobody would be able to tell the difference and if you're talking about casting rods, all 3 will attempt to twist under load. I doubt you'll get any takers, not even among those who are the biggest proponents of certain spine orientation.

......

The spine myth is so firmly engrained that it will doubtless take more time to totally dimiss it, even in the face of actual tests and data. But that's okay, because spine is so very unimportant that you can't use it wrongly - it just won't matter and thus all the ideas about how if you don't orient the spine in a particular place all sort of bad things are going to happen to your rod will never come to pass, nor have they ever.

If you like doing such and such with your spine orientation, do it. But what we don't ever want to do is tell newcomers to the craft that there is a correct spine orientation for any rod - there isn't. More new rod builders have been scared away from our craft due to all the bad information on rod spine that we can count. It's a shame because none of it is based on any sort of factual information.

...........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2008 06:11PM by Tom Kirkman.

I don't believe in telling other rod builders what to do. What they do is up to them. But since the question was posed my own personal experience with rod spine is that it is so totally unimportant that I no longer even bother finding the spine on any rod I build. I just find the straightest axis and build on that. My rods don't twist and they cast with better accuracy than the guys using them. It is also my firm belief that by building on the straightest axis and alinging the concave bend down with the tip and butt on top, my rods respond better, set a hook quicker and fight a fish better than years ago when I did place the spine either on top or on bottom.

One thing that I have always found amusing is that I have seen numerous statements over the years from spine proponents on how very important that building on spine is but the funny part is that some build with guides on the spine, some opposite the spine and some different depending on the type of rod. That kind of implies, to me at least, that if it was actually useful, half of these "guru's" would have poorly performing rods.

My opinion would be, if it makes you feel better, go for it! Personally, I prefer to ignore it in favor of straightest axis

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!!

Hi Tom,

If in fact a company did change to using the spine and it did work I would suspect the info might be propriety info. Another unknown.

I always enjoy reading other's opinions and views on any given subject. Sometimes I learn something and other times I just let the info fly. Sometimes all this makes me laugh. Let's say for example I have a dialog going with someone about a given rod design topic. We can debate each others opinions and sometimes passionately. Many times because we do not know each other we have no idea what rods the other builds. If he knew I built salt water rods that can have up to 20 ounce sinkers hanging on the end of the line and if I knew he crafted 2 weight fly rods we might understand each other's opinions better. The wonder of the internet!!!

Capt Neil Faulkner

My experience is to simply build your rod and go out and fish cause the fish will not know the difference.

How about this:
When I pull out a new blank, I always find the spine. But, I build on the straightest axis and have no real intention of placing the spine in any particular orientation. I think it is like "kicking the tires" on a new blank.

When I first started building rods I built a Spine Finder. The frame is made of 1" thick White Oak, kiln dried and finished out with Tru Oil , a fine work of art. Mounted on the frame , on a 60deg angle, is a piece of sch 40 PVC with a Timkin Bearing in each end. ,,,,,,,,, And It's gathering dust.

J.B.Hunt
Bowling Green, KY

I've come full circle. I used to spine every rod and position it on top away from the fish. Then a couple years back I read some stuff and starting thinking about it and just quit using spine. I have been building on the straightest axis and the rods never twist and I've not had any unexplained breakages. Casting accuracy seems to be spot on as far as I or my few customers can tell. The casts are straight and in line.

I do build on the straight axis for point of reference and my rods do seem to be a little more responsive than when I built on the spine. I attribute this to having that little bit of extra power in line with the fish. Also if a stiffer rod is a more sensitive rod, then building on the straightest axis should result in a more sensitive rod than building on the spine. But I have no proof, only a suspicion from what I'm feeling.

Finding the spine on a rod is quick and easy to do so if it really offered much if any advantage I think the major factories would do it, especially the fly rod companies that are selling very expensive rods. The fact they don't do it has always made me wonder if it makes any difference or not. I'm now guessing that it makes no difference. At least none that I can tell.

Well, maybe the only way for any of us to make this into something practical is to do a little experiment: take two virtually identical blanks, spine one, and marke the straightest axis on the other. Build them both virtually identically, with the same grips and reel seats, number and placement of guides, etc. Or at least, lay them up like that (so you don't waste a perfectly good blank).

Cast them, using identical reels, line, and weight. Cast them from every angle you can think of - sidearm, overhead, underhand, backhand, etc. Cast them for distance. Then cast them for accuracy. Bring the weight back along the ground, simulating brining it back along the bottom, and see if there's any difference in "feel". Cast one of them over the fence, and introduce your neighbor to your rod building craft - you never know where your next customer will come from.

Do static tests on both, not just straight down off the tip, but pulling sideways in both directions, but with each rod at exactly the same vertical angle from butt to tip. Vary that angle as well, from horizontal to stright up, or even back beyond 360deg, and pull evenly on the rod, watching the action of the rod - not just the action of the line through the guiddes and tip, but also the twist in the shaft, the overall progression of the bend, and anything else you might think of to measure.

Do "fighting" tests, using a child, or your spouse or friend, or a relatively small cat or dog, to run from your feet out a certain distance where you "set the hook", and then reel in your "fish". Observe the action of the rod in a dynamic load situation such as this.

If there are no significant, measurable difference, and neither blank breaks, cracks, chips,, or peels, then spine vs straightest axis has no meaningful use in your designs. If there is, then it does. It's the only way I can think of to settle the argument with some sort of evidence or proof. It probably will take most of a day to set the test up and do it, but it'd be worth it - if you care, or are just curious.

I really do plan to take a day this summer to do this, just for fun, albeit without using the kitties or the puppy as "fish". But for those of us who build on "effecive spine" because it makes us feel better, it won't matter anyway, 'cause feeling good is 'way more important than all that other stuff.

Uncle Russ
Calico Creek Rods

A very interesting subject, tho I'm sure one that has probably been done to death here. I would like to know the best way to determine the "straightest" axis.

Lazer ? Eyeball it ?

I usually put mine on the rod wrapper and support it near the butt and roll the blank watching for the elliptical pattern produced by the tip. Seems to wrok ok, but I'm sure there may be better ways.

It makes sense to build on the straightest axis if that will indeed increase performance, but I have heard several comments here and elsewhere about trying to sell a rod that is noticealy crooked. I guess there is nothing wrong with hiding minor imperfections in a blank, but if it is so crooked that we go out of our way to hide the fact from the customer, at what point do we say the blank needs to hit the reject pile. I mean after all, just because we can fool the customer into thinking they are getting a stright stick, should we ?

Just curious about the cat test, mentioned in the original post, if the knot was placed on the spine or if the cat wasn't just pulling the knot to the bottom.

Russ,

What you suggest has been done and it proved that spine orientation makes little to no difference in casting accuracy and does absolutely nothing in terms of keeping a rod from attempting to twist.


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

Mark,

I would hope you're building on the straightest axis because it creates a better performing rod, not because you're trying to hide something from the customer. I'd think that most custom builders would reject a blank that was beyond what they consider as something they'd want for their own personal rod. Some factories have done things this way over the years but I'd hope that custom builders do it for the benefits it offers, not to hide anything.

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

Tom I agree with what you said, I will build to increase performance, but not to hide an inferior product from scrutiny.


Thanks,

Mark

When I started building (fly rods) I followed the the Law of Effective Spine. At least the 180 deg camp. Overtime, while fishing, I noticed that some rods were inherently more accurate. Since the guide orientation was constant (assuming I was accurate in determing the effective spine) I turned to the other school of thought - the casting gurus. All pointed out the obvious fact that the fly will go in the direction of the tip at release. They would go on to explain how to accomplish this in their world view via their favorite hand grip, arm movement .... etc. I went back and looked at it from a builders eye and discovered that on blanks that had a "curve problem" - a small but noticeable curve at the tip relative to the guide placement (small because I would not use a blank with a severe bend) - I had an accuracy problem compared to finished rods where the 180deg orientation and the straightest axis were closer.

Scientific no. But it did change how I applied "common sense" - if the tip is out of the casting plane either because of casting mechanic flaws or build that's where the fly is headed. btw, it also dawned on me one reason that the factory guys were getting great reveiws and testimonials from anglers catching gazillions of fish even though "they were hiding blank flaws by building on the straightest axis". I began to think that this may be a case where custom builders were (are) drinking the own Kool Aide and ignoring what goes on on the water. I now build on the straightes axis.

In regards to testing I think we shouldn't overlook casting competion - distance and accuracy. One of our local clubs hosts an annual charity event. 90+% of the contestants and 100% of the winners (the same talented casters each year) use production factory rods. The distance part is easily explained using CCS data - production "5wts" with ERNs 6.5+. The accuracy piece intriqued me for the reasons above. What I find very interesting is the rods used by the winners are factory rods built that are notoriously built on the straightest axis. Which for years was portrayed as a "marketing trick" to help sell the rods in the store eyeball evaluation. The fact that they performed on the competition casting range appears to be the better rationale. At least imo now.

Hi Steve,

In these casting competitions it would be interesting to prove how much of the distance is a credit to the rod or to the technique and ability of the caster. I think the person holding the rod can make a greater contribution than the rod. Now match up the caster and the rod each with the best capability and NOW you really have a team.

Capt Neil Faulkner

Steve,

What you noticed was borne out by our mechanical casting machine. Any natural curature that exists off to the side of the casting plane can cause the tip to rotate in an arc (not around a central axis as the spine proponents worry about) causing the tip to move in a direction that is not in line with that of the intended cast. This does indeed cause a loss in accuracy.

If you build your rod with the spine either straight up or straight down, you will almost invariably have some curvature off to one side or the side. This is why rods where the guides are either on or opposite the spine tend to cast less accurately than those that are simply built on the straightest axis.

I do recognize that few fishermen can or even want to cast in a one single casting plane all the time. I also recognize that most baitcast reels cast overhead are done that way with the wrist turned 90 degrees. Just more things for the custom rod builder to consider.

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

Apologies to Johnathon. The cat test was mentioned in the second post.

Still curious about the knot location.

I agree Capt. I could enter with a rod with an ERN of 8+ and still get my hat handed to me. imo applied talent trumps the rod, all other factors held constant. However, I think Dr H's work accuately explains why all production "5wts" are not in fact constant and why certain favorite sticks are favorites. Their extra power does some of the work at the basic distance thresholds these guys must attain to even be in the game. But imo the few feet (or inches) of the winning margin is the talent necessary to get the most potential out of the rod. And to the point of this thread, niether of which is influenced to any degree by spine. If it was I feel certain that these pros would be demanding "correctly spined rods".

"I do recognize that few fishermen can or even want to cast in a one single casting plane all the time. I also recognize that most baitcast reels cast overhead are done that way with the wrist turned 90 degrees. Just more things for the custom rod builder to consider."

Tom my view is the issue isn't necessarily one of desire or need for one single casting plane. I think we all face situations on the water that require "innovation" in the casting stroke. What I was trying to explain (and I think you confirmed) is the importance of the actual plane the tip is in relative to where I think it is based on where I place the other 98% of the rod. I think this is what is being brought up about feel and confidence. After picking up a rod and casting a few times I can usually adjust my "aim" because I think I'm compensating for the tip's plane versus the plane in which I've place the rest of the rod (not very clear I know). I think it is the adjustment as small and as unconcious as it may be that seperates favorites from not so favorite. It has been my experience in the last few years that there is far less adjustment if all guides, including tip are on the straightest axis - excluding my casting technique it is far more likely that the tip and the rest of the rod are in the same off the vertical plane.