Tom,

I think Dr. Hanneman and Mr. Emory are talking about the same thing. However, Dr. Hanneman uses line weight to control the mass. Using lead to controls the frequency is a great idea. What do you think of using soldering lead ? Hmm, I'll look in to this... Worth the time and effort.

Ben

Tom,
Bill and I are talking about the same thing. It does not seem to me that it makes any difference why someone would add weight. I think that it is a mistake in terms of its affect on rod performance whatever the reason. I think that it is a particularly foolish thing to do when the objective is to match the rods frequency to some ill defined and not well understood feeling or human characteristic.

You have mentioned a couple of times that you have known people that wanted to add mass and I have run into a few as well. In my experience they fall mainly into two groups.
1. People get used to the speed of older technology and do not like the feel of the newer technology. Someone grows up using a glass rod and does not like the feel of a graphite rod or in some cases a particular category of graphite rod. I do not have any argument with this at all. I would simply suggest to them that they stick with the older technology if that is what they prefer.
2. Adding weight to a fly rod by adding a large number of guides has been promoted for some time by a person that you and I both know and he has converted some in the organization to which he belongs. I have talked to him about it and frankly I do not think that he has any real understanding of the overall consequences on the rods performance of what he is doing.

Ben,
Bill Hanneman is not talking about the mass or weight of the fly line. In his writings he is talking about adding lead.

Emory,

No, you're not talking about the same thing. Dr. Hanneman never said that adding weight to a rod or lowering its frequency made it perform better. He's talking about creating a rod that offers the particular feel that a particular fishermen desires. A high stiffness to weight ratio is great, but not everybody wants it. If you had some simple means of ascertaining what a person's preferred "feel" is, then you're on the road to being able to match it for him/her.

Very few of my fly fishing buddies care for the fly rods I build and fish with myself. "Too quick" and "Too fast" are the terms they often use to describe them. They aren't comfortable with the quick response and recovery that I prefer. For whatever reason, they don't want their rods like that. It doesn't make them wrong or uniformed - it just means their preferred feel in a fly rod is different than mine.

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

Russell,

That very rod that you cannot image picking for any purpose (I don't like them either) is the very rod that many seek out specifically for their type of fishing. I know a guy that bought 4 of the exact rods you mentioned just a couple weeks ago. He loves them because they suit what he likes in a rod for a particular type of fishing he does. If you did anything to raise the efficiency of those rods; if you reduced the weight and raised their frequency, he wouldn't want them any longer.

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

Tom,
I think that you are the one that is missing the larger point. He did not say anything about the detrimental affects of adding weight either.
Bill Hanneman has advocated adding weight for several reasons. The one that you mentioned to get to the PPF and desired "feel" and he has also advocated adding weight to slow the frequency down so that it can be counted by eye. I think that all of his reasons are mistakes but I guess that I am not going to debate it any longer because we are not making any headway with the debate.

I am in the middle of this exact problem with a number of professional anglers.

They are dead set on the "feel" of a particular rod using a particular blank when this rod is built using conventional guides and finishing techniques.

I think I am one smart dude and build them what I think is a superior rod by using guides that weigh significantly less. The facts of the matter are 78% less!

Hand the same blank back to him -

He wiggles it a couple of time and says - Why did you change the blank?

I think the performance of the rod is better and he tells me it s u c k s!

The lighter action the rod the more significant the difference!

What next?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2010 09:42PM by Bill Stevens.

Dr. Statement, "I have a rod sold as a spinning rod with a CCF freqency of 95 cpm. I also use this rod for fly fishing. When I use it for fly fishing, I use a line which reduces the frequency of my fishing outfit to about 85 cpm."

Mr. Emory Statement," You may think that adding mass to a fly rod in order to achieve your PPF is improving the rods performance but my opinion is that if you do so you must not really understand all of the detrimental affects that this added mass has on the rods performance.
Did you look up Q factor, what it is and what added mass does to the Q factor of something that is mechanically resonant like your fly rod?"

Okay Mr. Emory, why are we not on the same page ?

Mr. Emory, Dr. never mentioned lead.

Tom Kirkman Statement, "I know one guy who wrapped lead wire around his rod blank between the tiptop and first guide. He certainly didn't create a more responsive rod by doing that, but he did create the feel and type of response which he personally wanted in that rod. "

Ben Lee Statement, "Using lead to controls the frequency is a great idea. What do you think of using soldering lead ?"

Ben

Ben,

My personal opinion, is that adding weight to a rod to slow its response is a mistake. Over-lining, perhaps, is okay because at least the rod is not permanently carrying that weight and all the detrimental effects that go along with it. However, the fact remains that different fishermen prefer different things in a rod. And, the highest stiffness to weight ratio, or highest frequency, is not going to be the ideal rod for all situations.


...........

Emory,

Dr. Hanneman is a pretty sharp cookie. He is certainly well aware of the detrimental effects of adding unnecessary weight to a rod but he is also aware that if you want to build the rod that will satisfy your customer and his specific needs, you may have to do that. If you have a means of determining what his preference is and can use that means to dial in the rod to his personal "feel" preference, then you're the smartest rod builder around - at least in your customer's eyes.

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

Fine tuning your own rod is what this is about. The custom rod builder give you the basic rod, then as an angler, with your own preference, with performance specs (data), tuning your own rod for the way you fishes.

I think Dr. Hanneman got luck with his answer. Tom..

Ben

Ben,
You wrote, “...Using lead to controls the frequency is a great idea. What do you think of using soldering lead ? “

Weight is weight. The rod doesn't know what it is. Solder has a very high density, therefore less volume, and is removable. For the environmentalist’s sake, make it lead free. However, you might notice a bit more tip bounce.

Several years ago, I developed a similar product called “Dr. Hanneman’s Feel Fixer”. It was a removable frequency modulator made of lead which would allow the angler to reproduce the effect of using a fly line which was one half, one, or two AFTMA Line Numbers heavier than the one presently being used.

The whole concept of “half line heavier” is simply to reduce the frequency of the fishing outfit. From this, it is simple logic to recognize the principle purpose of a fly line is to allow the angler to adjust his “outfit” to match his Personal Preferred Frequency. But, the marketers of these lines never tell you about tip bounce, so one might suppose that is not a serious marketing factor. I have yet to see anyone decrying using a heavier line to adjust feel. Emory ?

------------------------------------------------
Emory,
You wrote, “ ...Bill Hanneman has advocated adding weight for several reasons. ... I think that all of his reasons are mistakes...
we are not making any headway with the debate.”


Now, let me respond.

Have you considered we are not making any headway because you define headway as concurrence with your opinions? Perhaps, you might be mistaken.

You keep repeating the theme that one must make the most efficient rod possible and this means the “maximum frequency” for the application.

That is a great “motherhood” statement, but you have yet to tell us how to do this. I can buy rod blanks having frequencies anywhere between 50 and 1000 cpm. Tell me, which ones should I buy.

OK, you need to know my application. I want to cast a one and three eighths ounce lure a distance of 40 feet using my fly rod, my spinning rod, and my bass rod.

You keep touting the value of knowing the resonant frequency of the rod blank. Now, tell me what is the relationship between the resonant frequency of a blank and its suitability for my application? There is none except the frequency of the blank must be higher than the finished rod—but how much?

Frequency values in themselves are almost meaningless. The important number is the PPF the customer desires.

This much I do know. If I wish to use my fly rod, my outfit must have a CCF of about 83 cpm. If I wish to use my spinning rod, my outfit must have a CCF of about 100 cpm, and if I wish to use my bass rod, my outfit must have a CCF of about 115.

I also know I could take any single finished rod having a CCF of 120 and by the judicious addition of weight use it to cast a fly, spinning, or bait casting lure. It certainly wouldn't be the most efficient rod for this application, but I could fish it in any configuration.


As the beginning of the thread I wrote, “I believe the future lies in Feel and PPF.” “Now, where do you think the future lies?”
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill,

Welcome to the world of PPF.

Dr. Hanneman wrote, “I believe the future lies in Feel and PPF.” “Now, where do you think the future lies?”

Adopting Technologies that allows us to do this. Golf world already and been using these devices to build and custom their clubs. I've been doing some research on a frequency analyzer and found one I like. This instrument can communicate live raw data to our desktop computer or to our laptops computer. We can interface it via RS232 jack or by analog input via mic port of our computer. What this meant is that we can custom and build software that allows us to record and measures resonance frequency to the unit of Hertz. A database can be build and share among rod makers and custom rod builder. We can standarize rod frequency measurement of what is now isn't among the rod makers and builder. How about it ?

Ben

Ben,
Have you observed the reduction in frequency as components starting at the tip top are added ?
As guides are added does the effect reduce with each subsequent guide ?
I would assume the frequency reduction and increase in PMI to go the same way with diminishing returns as guides are placed closer to the butt.
The tip top should be the major contributer to loss of frequency and small weight changes will give big results at this location.
The technology should cross lines between club and rod even though the application of the components vary. It's still just a hollow graphite shaft.
We place hardware along it's length as opposed to the end and we deal with more taper and length. But the shaft is not aware of it's purpose only the final results.

Eugene Moore

Eugene,

I haven't done much observation/recording on reduction of frequency to provide you with a definite answer (I am sure it is, science dictate so.. changes in stiffnes or mass will alter the frequency). I don't have this High Tech unit to play with yet. Here is the frequency analyzer that i wish for:

[www.golfsmith.com]

Read the PDF document for Technical Info. I can directly interface with this unit and build custom software for it.

Ben

Ben,
I hate to see you spend that much money. If you go to the webs most popular @#$%& site you can buy a very good older Tektronix oscilloscope for much less than that. You can then contact me and I will tell you how to make a device that will allow you to make resonant frequency measurements. The oscilloscope will allow you to make a number of other mesurements as well.
By the way, you have a hidden e-mail address. I attempted to contact you earlier and your e-mail was hidden. My e-mail is [[email protected]].

Mr. Emory,

I would like to incoporates this idea into my software called Micro Rod Shop. See this link: [www.rodbuilding.org] . For every guides added, there will be RF measurement displaying of it, It measures dynamicly and reports data to the software, providing the custom builder with up seconds of the rod's Frequency. Rod Makers and Custom Builders could use this software if they have this RF Analyzer that interfaces to their PC. Coming soon...


Ben

Ben,
Go for it. If I can be of any assistance please let me know. And unblock you e-mail.

Mr. Emory,

Thank you for the encouragement. If we can persuade Dr. Bill Hanneman as well, I'll be on my way. My Email address is unblocked.

Ben

Ben,

Lots of luck. See Frequency Revisited - Part 3