I was reading an earlier post of a situation where a rod was being splined and broke. There were several subtopics that spawned off of the main subject however, the one that really caught my eye was some rod builders don't spline their rods or at least it's not that important. The question for a beginning builder as myself is To Spline or Not To Spline? Is it that important or not? I'm certainly going to go back and reread my book now, as I want to build a quality rod, and maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention the first time!!! So, veteran builders I really need your pros and cons on this topic. Looking forward to the replies that hopefully can clear the air or at least make it breathable.

You can search on the site above and search "spine" or even "spline" and find enough arguments to keep you busy for a month. its an ongoing debate that has varying degrees of acceptance of one practice or another. Those firmly entrenched in the spine corner and those firmly entrenched in the build on the straightest axis corner and some in the middle.

Kevin

I don't spine. I build on the straightest axis. If you want to test wether or not it matters. Grab a blank and tape on a reel seat and guides in line with the spine and go cast it or fish it if you want. Then line everything up with the straightest axis and see if you can tell a difference. Biggest reason I build straightest axis is I couldn't tell a diff when I tested and trying to line micro guides up on anything but the straightest axis seems almost impossible

Arthur,
Read all of the discussions and then make your own decision.
Good wraps.
REW

I'm a novice and have built about 15 rods and splined the first 7. Then just started building on the straightest axis, and no issues. With no hard data, I don't think it matters. Now the static testing thing, does seem to matter, so maybe concentrate your energy there. It's kind of a pain, but when you fish, you have the inner knowledge that you are set up "right". Now with that said, my current "best" fly rod, is set up with 11 guides, where 10 would be more standard. It's what evolved with my static test, and I went with it. It was great on the water where you aren't counting guides.

You will find things that matter to you and things that don't. Splining the rod may be one of them, or it may get lost in the shuffle. I just got back last night from Alaska, and what matters is that you have a rod, and a spare for when things break, and another spare to feel comfortable beyond that.. You will forget about splining, and static testing, and a whole lot of other esoterica with the first fish you catch on a rod you built yourself. Find your own system, build some "junk" rods to try out ideas, and then go fishing and see what you like, and what you don't.

Good luck,

Drew

I've built a few rods in my day...but I've never seen one that had any splines.



LOL

Jay,
Actually a few years ago there was a manufacturer which created splines on their two piece rod blank models.
The splines served to insure that the two pieces would match and lock together without any chance of twisting - one with the other.

So, sometimes the unreasonable really does happen.

Roger

Arthur, When talking about the stiffest axis on a rod, it is called the spine, not spline. Think of the spine of your body, creating strength. I've built, "on the spine" and I've built using the rods straightest axis, meaning while sighting down the length of the rod, there are hopefully no bows to the left or to the right. You want any curve to go up towards the tip as viewed from the butt of the blank. We call this curve, "the belly". You want the curve of the belly to be on the lower side of the blank as you are sighting from the butt towards the tip. This lets the rod blank straighten out as you add any weight of the components to the blank, especially guides, thread and finish. I've found no diffenence in casting efficency and power in landing a fish by building "on the spine" or on the straightest axis. You will not "cast around corners" if the rod is built in any unusual way, meaning if you could build the blank in any position, you would most likely not find any difference no matter how the rod was built. Building on the straightest axis will have a natural asthetic appeal to you and any other person handling the rod, as it looks straigth and true. I hope this helps and will make you not sweat a detail that doesn't matter to you or to the rod your building. Good luck and build a bunch, the best way to learn. Greg Weaver

I'm still surprised at folks that say there is no data available on the issue of rod spine. It is available, and it all proves that there is no benefit (nor detriment) to building a rod on any particular axis, with one exception.

The spine is the softest, not stiffest axis. And no, it's not important to spine a rod. However, if you wish to do it, it won't hurt anything other than that is puts the blank in it's weakest position in terms of deadlift capacity (assuming you're lifting straight up).

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

Why would one position be "weaker" than another? Softer maybe? The rod blank alone wants (when flexed) to bend in one position. Once guides are added the whole ball game changes.

DR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2011 03:10PM by Duane Richards.

The blank doesn't want to bend in any position - if it did it would be useless for fishing. Perhaps a better way to say it, would be that the blank resists flexing on all axis, but less so on one than another.

The orientation that puts the cumulative thinnest wall on the compression side will provide the least amount of deadlift capacity. This is why that orientation results in less resistance to flexing than any other. And this happens to be what you'll have if you orient the spine to the top of the rod.

I'll try to get the data up on blank deadlift capacity sometime this coming week.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2011 02:35PM by Tom Kirkman.

Tom,

I am not disagreeing with you and have a question. In terms of dead lifting capacity only, would it be stronger to spine the rod and place the eyes on the opposite side than one would normally?

No, because the stiffest (strongest) and softest (weakest) axis are rarely 180 degrees opposite each other.

The straightest axis does tend to be along the stiffest/strongest axis, or very very close to it.

Now here's the real kicker - except for very rare circumstances, none of us can fish a rod on a single axis. Therefore, while this is all very interesting, it doesn't amount to anything of real value out on the water. If I was bottom fishing for certain species and felt that most of the load on my rod would always be straight down or nearly so, I'd almost surely put the stiffest/strongest axis so that it would come into play in that situation. But that's about it - there simply isn't a wrong or right way to orient your rod under most circumstances.

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

WOW!!!!! I surely didn't think this issue would be this intense. Tom, I do remember you covering the axis of a rod may not necessarily be 180* opposite each other in your book. Someone made a suggestion earlier about using lesser quality rod blanks and trying it both ways for the best results. That seems like a good place to start for the novice (IMO). However, I will continue to discuss this with as many builders as I can. All it can do is make me a wiser rod builder myself. Thanks for those who commented, trust me they all are food for thought.

Whatever you do, don't get too obsessed with it. It just doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If it did, then 99% of rods, which the makers do not spine, would be suffering all sorts of mishaps, and they're not.

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

As a rodbuilder, the best thing is you get to build it the way YOU want to. Don't know if I'm just lucky or what but my last several rods have had the spine and the straightest axis were almost on the same indentical plane . . . go figure.