I seem to think that such videos make a person think that a company is doing something special by spinning a rod. When it is not really special at all. If building on the spine was so very important then building off the spine would result in a rod that did not perform well or did some awful things. They don't. Company A builds on the spine. Company B does not. They both work equally well. So for me it is a personal decision and my fishing is mostly for larger, more powerful saltwater fish. I need the maximum power and durability I can get from a rod so I build on the straightest axis. If any real evidence or data is ever presented showing that building on or opposite the spine is better in some way I would have no problem changing the way I do things. But this argument has gone on for years and proponents of building on the spine have never provided any evidence that what they are doing is somehow better. I am waiting.

Lynn,

I did not offer an opinion here. Only data from actual tests. Whether such data is of value is up to the individual rod builder.

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

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I need the maximum power and
> durability I can get from a rod so I build on the
> straightest axis.

So you build on "the" straightest axis? Please tell me how many "straightest axis" there are on a rod from which to build from?

And what proof is there that this straightest axis IS the most lift power the rod has? Tom said above: "For this reason if utilizing the blank's strongest or maximum deadlift capacity is important to you (it may or may not be) then you want the straightest axis, belly down. This is typically, almost always, the blank's strongest or stiffest axis."

"Almost always" is not definitive. Testing each blank for that stiffest side would be which would then throw out the straightest axis argument. Therefore the straightest axis is NOT always the greatest lifting power position, but again, how many straightest axis are on a rod?


> If any real evidence or data is
> ever presented showing that building on or
> opposite the spine is better in some way I would
> have no problem changing the way I do things. But
> this argument has gone on for years and proponents
> of building on the spine have never provided any
> evidence that what they are doing is somehow
> better. I am waiting.

Hmmm... I sort of thought the idea, description, and demonstration Gary Loomis took great effort in going through step by step all based in physics and science was conclusive enough. He explained how physics dictates construction. I agreed with him and his conclusions on the physics of it. As far as I am concerned that was evidence enough. I have yet to see anything compelling enough to not do it the Gary Loomis way.

So I guess this type of 'I-have-not-seen-any evidence' thing can go both ways. We reach a point where science and facts don't really matter and belief or faith kicks in and takes over. Oddly enough, with fishing rods, they all work in the end. We all reach the same goal with different ways of getting there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2021 09:17PM by Kent Griffith.

Mike Ballard:

" If any real evidence or data is ever presented showing that building on or opposite the spine is better in some way I would have no problem changing the way I do things. But this argument has gone on for years and proponents of building on the spine have never provided any evidence that what they are doing is somehow better. I am waiting"


You will be waiting forever because building the way Kent and Gary do has been proven over and over and over to NOT make a rod perform better or to be more accurate . What they think is fine but they will never be able to prove the way they build results in an advantage over a rod built on the straightest axis .

When I say Tom Kirkman is the one people need to pay the most mind to I do that based on knowing what he has done and accomplished over the years . I don't think everybody understands just how much Tom has sacrificed in coming to many of the conclusions he has. They are not opinions they are based on fact that would be impossible to argue against if people understood his testing methods and the machinery he has devised over the years that has made it possible to come to these fact based conclusions . The 27 X method of choke guide placement is just one of the many things that came from his ingenuity and testing methods.

Everything he does and continues to do is because of his love of the craft . He's a superb educator . And no I'm not @#$%& up I'm being dead honest , the guys brilliant.

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You will be waiting forever because building the
> way Kent and Gary do has been proven over and over
> and over to NOT make a rod perform better or to be
> more accurate .

Where is this proof? Who proved it? I've never seen it.

Mudhole teaches how to spine rods to this day. They make videos and splatter them all over the internet.

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

Get Bit Outdoors teaches how to spine rods they make and sell. Kevin also makes videos on it. Here's one of his now... [youtu.be]

BOTH of these corporations for custom rod building are oddly enough, paying sponsors here on this very forum saying their ideas and methods are proven false.

Oh, and I just checked Batson and rainshadow blanks, a third paying sponsor corporation here on this forum also recommends for top performance to guess what? Spine a rod. Go figure. [batsonenterprises.com]

[youtu.be]

Build to Fish: Step 4 – Finding the Spine
January 9, 2020/in Tutorials /by reeladmin

"Find the spine on a rod blank every time to get top performance out of your custom rod." says it right on the Batson website dated 2020.

And Gary Loomis said in his own words right out of his own mouth on camera doing it this way, soft side up, it loads into backswing of cast straight and unloads straight. This is a desired result and goal aiming for casting accuracy and performance maximizing contrary to your claim it isn't. And it comes from positioning the blank in one specific position to build on. I have agreed with his conclusions and have not seen anything to persuade me away from it.

If you do a google search on rod spining you will find an incredible wide variety of professionals, corporations, custom rod builders and much more all advocating spining a rod to this day. For a "proven" to be false idea, there sure are a lot of humans out there still doing it. I wonder why?

For a proven to be false idea... how come 3 sponsors here ALL use and teach it and recommend it, but YOU don't because you believe it is proven to be false?

Think about this for a second... Mudhole, Get Bit Outdoors, and Batson. All top professionals in their field all say the same thing on spining a rod along with Gary Loomis, but I am supposed to believe some guy online on a forum?

If I were to go down the list of sponsor corporations on this website and check each one of them, which one of them do you think would say don't spine a rod, build on 'the' straightest axis? Is there one on the list? So far I checked 3 and all 3 say spine a rod. Go figure????

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To lay this matter to rest, the spine test on casting rods needs to be done one fine day. It will require a calibrated casting machine so every cast can be the same, and it will require calibrated high speed motion camera filming the rod action in the backswing and forward swing to see and show what the tip of the rod is doing when spined correctly and tip flows naturally into the sweet spot, and when reversed and also on straightest axis theory to show video proof of rod tip variations of movement between all of the ideas.

I wish something like this could be done so we can all see with our own eyes precisely what the soft and hard/stiff side of a rod do for or against our casting accuracy.

The lifting capacity for me is a non-issue. I build for the casting improvements, not lift improvements.

And I'd really like a definitive answer on how many straightest axis there are on a rod?



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2021 10:00PM by Kent Griffith.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to think that such videos make a person
> think that a company is doing something special by
> spinning a rod. When it is not really special at
> all. And, O.k. Tom, maybe opinion was the wrong word. I know what I meant. Lol Everybody teaches it. They used to teach the world was flat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2021 09:57PM by Lynn Behler.

Fifty-two years ago I built my first rod. There was no such thing as a spine back then, and I built on the straightest axis and I was quite happy with the rods I built. Then a few years later rod building books came out stating that rods had a spine and it was important, so I started to build on the spine. I was not happy with these rods, they were not straight, the tips veered off to the left or right, and just did not look good. Being a scientist in training, I thought I would test the hypothesis that a spine built rod was better functionally, even though it looked like crap, than a straight axis built rod. I did measured casting distances, used a target for accuracy, and heavily loaded the rods to determine if there was any excess torque or twisting. These experiments were done, using two of my fishing buddies in a blind test using four rods that were the same, They were both excellent fishermen. This kept any bias I might have had out of the equation. Well to make a long story short, the spine built rod did not perform better than the straight axis built rod. So I decided why have the tip veer off to the left or right if you don’t have to. I build on the straightest axis with the tip up. Oh by the way, the same people who advocated building on the spine, where the same people who told me that if you build a rod with the tip up belly down, the guides will tend to straighten the rod. So what’s up with these two conflicting ideas being espoused by the same people. The spine debate comes up far too often, and in my opinion, it’s becoming a bore. Basically all it does alienate people for no good reason. I build my way, and you are quite welcome to build your way. Just don’t try to tell me which way is superior without proof. I tested and got all the proof I needed, and I have been very happy with my builds ever since.
Norm
,

Kent- Not to upset any of them as they are all good people but the companies that put a lot of effort into teaching about spine also sell spine finding tools. Make sense now? Just sayin'...

So you are saying they only care about the spine because they also want to sell their spine finding tools? OK.

I'm doing some digging into a number of the American rod blank companies and seeing what I can find directly from them... here is one I am reading right now... and I doubt if this company sells a spine finding tool...

[lakeladyrods.com]

Each LakeLady rod is crafted from the finest components available and designed to provide maximum performance while reducing weight and friction. Quality components affect the longevity and durability of your rod. LakeLady Rods feature blanks from Batson, St Croix, and others.

An inherent feature in all modern composite rod blanks is the spine or backbone. A rod that twists out of alignment, moving right or left while under stress or one that delivers the cast “off target” is a rod that was built without consideration of the spine. A properly tuned rod will be spine-oriented to achieve optimum accuracy and responsiveness."


Imagine that! A rod moving right or left while under stress or one that delivers the cast "off target" is a what?

Yep. Same thing Gary said, same thing I agreed to. Same thing keeps popping up over and over and over and quite contrary to what I am reading here.

I am being told the idea of spining a rod has been proven over and over to be false and yet for some reason everywhere I look I keep finding it to be the rule.

[www.hookhack.com]

FAQ's about rod spine.

Q. Can I mark the spine on each piece and then put the pieces together?

A. Yes, but marking the spine is a bit more difficult to do with each piece than the with the assembled rod. The pieces by themselves will be stiffer and spine detection for each will be a bit more inprecise. Thus when the pices are assembeled according to marked spines, the actual resultant spine is often offset.

Q. Do I have to put the guides on the belly of the rod or can I mount them on the spine?

A.This is a question often discussed by rod builders. Some feel very strongly about their method of guide placement. One thing is for sure the guides must be placed on the spine or the belly or else the finished rod will exhibit "sideways" torque. The spine results from a number of vectors in the rod blank. If the guides are placed on one side or the other of the spine, the vectors will be front to back or vice versa. If they guides are offset, the resulting vectors will be too. During casting one feels the result as the casting hand tends to turn in or out during the back and forth motion. This gives rise to a number of casting problems. One school of thought suggests that lighter weight rods have the guides placed on the belly (2 thru 6 weight lines) and heavier weight rods (7-13) have the guides placed on the spine for more efficient casting or retrieval of that particular line weight.

[www.louisianasportsman.com]

Next comes one of the most important tasks: finding the blank spine.

According to Breedlove, this is a step most cheap fly rods bypass. When creating a blank, materials are bonded to the mandrel making for a stiffer part of the blank cylinder, called the spine. A rod with guides aligned across from the spine casts further and more accurately.

[www.wired2fish.com]

Not only did Lew's launch a new line built around new Winn Grips, but they also borrowed some engineering from the golfing world to apply it to a fishing rod. The Super Grip features a flat top section to keep your hands inline on the grip on casts but more importantly on the hookset, when the taper and load on the rod needs to feed down the spine of the rod.

This keeps the rod on its spine allowing you to apply maximum pressure on a fish and keeping the rod from rolling into a less flexible part of the taper. So you should have a stronger rod with more lifting power along the spine with the rod locked in place by the unique Super Grip.

-------------------------------------

It keeps going on and on across the board. Not one single corporation out there that I can find says they build their rods based on some straight axis theory. Without exception, all of them go to great lengths to hammer home how important the spine of a rod is.

Now why would any of them do this if the idea of spining a rod were proven to be false as claimed here?

Here's lamiglas on it...

[www.lamiglas.com]

"When a fishing rod blank is built, it is designed to bend in a certain way. At Lamiglas, we will test that bend (spine), and then build the finished rod according to the bend. A blank can be built into either a casting rod or a spinning rod, but the build must follow a specific process to work properly for either."

MUST FOLLOW A SPECIFIC PROCESS TO WORK PROPERLY FOR EITHER! End of story yet again. Same as Gary Loomis and all the others...

I'm with all of them and this proven to be false idea... However for the latest and greatest idea of straightest axis theory... not a single rod making corporation even mentions the idea- that I have found yet.

Kent, I think you may be confusing marketing literature intended to achieve objectives other than build better rods, with actual design practices.

There are dozens of rod making companies that, rather than mention the idea of straightest axis theory in marketing literature, actually use straightest axis theory when placing guides.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2021 12:21AM by Joel Wick.

What I am hearing is that because I do not accept the straight axis theory because of physics that I must have misunderstood Gary Loomis- and lamiglas and others, and people once believed the earth was flat and you can't fix stupid. And now I am confusing sales marketing literature with actual design practices.

So I get it. Someone who does not accept straight axis theory- something is wrong with them- or me in this case.

So what Joel is saying is that I am confused by sales literature made up to sell rods that are really built on the straightest axis but sold as spined rods for top performance, and do not believe this is the case.

I have known several men who actually make rod blanks. Not mentioning any names, but they have already come up. And I can tell you that I am not misunderstanding anything nor confused about it. I simply choose spining over straight axis for a reason.

I have a neighbor here who is a German educated mechanical engineer, and last night we discussed this issue and came to an interesting conclusion based on the two methods. We basically concluded spining a rod is basically the same as straight axis theory. The only difference really is how it is applied to a rod blank. With spining, it is done by like lamiglas says "must follow a specific process to work properly for either." Gary Loomis said the same thing and showed by demonstration the process.

In the video Gary Loomis said soft side up. This would tend to put the hardest or stiffest side down or close to it. Tom also said the outside of the curve tends to be the stiffest and should be where? Yeah, down. This would tend to put the softer side up. Same as spining.

The end result is clearly very close to being the same thing. Gary Loomis even said if the rod has a bend 90% of the time it will be towards the soft side. And Norman above said he builds his rods on the straightest axis with the tip bending upwards.

So based on what I am hearing, the straight axis theory is very close to being the same thing as spining a rod- a now disproven idea claimed around here- yet still doing precisely the same thing based on different reasoning yet reaching the same end result. Soft side up, stiffest side down basically though as Tom says these two are not always opposite of each other makes very little difference here. Its close. So close its spooky.

So what are we arguing about then really? Words and semantics?

As with spining a rod, there are people who choose to do it 2 ways. Soft side up or soft side down. One way is adhered to by top rod blank builders and the other way is frowned upon.

And yet with this straight axis theory we see the same thing. I asked above and did not get an answer to how many straight axis does a rod have because I kept seeing a reference to the number one, when in fact the correct number is 2.

One way is how Tom says do it, and Norman says he builds on the straightest axis with the bend or tip in the up position. And we are told this is the "correct" way to do it. Even Gary Loomis said when spining a rod, 90% of the time the bend in the rod will be to the softest side and it goes up. Same thing. Two titles on doing the same thing.

And yet online I find that Joel is right! At least one rod company does follow straight axis theory when building their rods... A representative of FDx custom rods said this:

[www.ultimatebass.com]

"Straightest axis - if you look down a rod as you roll in in your hand, almost all of them have a bend near the tip. Most commercial rods are built with the bend down as you would fish it. This is for appearance only so they line up nice and straight on the rack a BPS. This is purely marketing driven."

Imagine that! Tip up, tip down it don't matter! This is straight axis theory applied arbitrarily not based on scientific reasoning or purely physics, but market driven for sales! This was said above too and here it is again.

There is an old saying that some cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way. I think we are dealing with some of this here.

Spining a rod and straight axis theory are basically the same thing if applied correctly.

The only real difference as I see it, is for me I do not care where the stiff side is, I am more concerned where the soft side is- straight up. Meanwhile the adherents to straight axis theory want the stiffest side down with the slightly bent tip to the soft side- straight up.

So what's the difference? Not enough to argue about really. But to say spining is disproven while pulling a bait and switch over to straight axis theory and doing the same thing don't cut it. You are spining a rod anyway and simply calling it something else with different reasoning. We have lost the forest because the trees are in the way.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2021 08:18AM by Kent Griffith.

I am listening to you Kent. Winston, Scott, GLoomis and CTS all build on the spine. Tom mentioned that St. Croix doesn't and I heard back from Sage and they build on the straightest axis. That says something to me. The majority of very good rod makers build on the spine. As I read the comments on this topic, the main thing I hear is "appearance" of the guides being straight. I have never built on the straightest axis and my guides are always straight. I also hear that building on the straightest axis is the strongest way to build, I read the study and the strongest is very, very little. Maybe like getting the Pfizer vaccine over Moderna....a few % better. Maybe there isn't a best way and maybe it doesn't matter and maybe people should stop telling others, "my way is the best way." However, by the info I have read and by the comments on this thread and by building and fishing my rods...I would for sure choose spining my rods and will continue to do so even if Chis C Nash says I will be body slammed by Tom.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2021 10:50AM by Todd Andrizzi.

Kent,

Again, the softest and stiffest axis are rarely if ever 180 degrees opposite one another. Generally they'll fall anywhere about 60 to 170 degrees apart.

None of us has said "this is the way to do it." No one has said that one way is correct and another is incorrect. Only that we do have data to indicate that building on the spine does not in any way produce superior rod characteristics, and building on the straightest axis does result in a rod with the greatest amount of lifting power. True, it's only a few percent, but for those who say they want the utmost in that category, the straightest axis (belly down) is the way to get it.

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

Sort of amusing that the commercial rod companies that build on the spine also use masking tape to shim any mis-fitting parts. I have found what amounts to toilet paper tube cardboard under the real seats of rods made by the supposedly premium makers. Does that mean masking tape or cardboard bushings are superior to brick foam or urethane bushings? I have always believed the goal for a custom rod builder was to build a better rod than you can buy. I never bother to mimic what any commercial rod company is doing.

I finally went down and routed through my rods and checked my favorite rod...a St. Croix ultra legend. I took the tip and spined it. It is without a doubt, 100% built on the spine. I have been waiting for St. Croix to answer back on this issue. Tom said they build on the straightest axis. This is an older rod...before St. Croix outsourced products to Mexico. As mike mentioned above, he wouldn't mimic what a commercial company does in their rod making. I wouldn't consider it either if they were being built in Taiwan or some other off shore companies. But, if the very majority of the best rod makers in the world are doing a specific technique, I seriously take a look at it. I have a store bought rod that I like...very sensitive and has pretty good components for the price of $60. The only thing that bugs me a bit is if/when I get a good fish on and fighting, I can actually feel the rod twist to the right. I haven't checked this rod's spine but I would bet it is not built on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2021 10:52AM by Todd Andrizzi.

Four pages on a topic that will never end and Mike comes up with the only answer that matters!!

Todd A :

"Chis C Nash says I will be body slammed by Tom"



My apologies Todd , you have nothing to fear . I can assure you Tom is one of the most cordial individuals to be found anywhere and loves all rodbuilding.org members.

Kent,

So much of the information in the links you provided is absolutely wrong I wouldn't know where to begin. But for instance - "When creating a blank, materials are bonded to the mandrel making for a stiffer part of the blank cylinder, called the spine." This is simply and unequivocally not true in any way, shape or form. The "spine" of a rod blank is not a physical thing - it an effect. It is part of several manufacturing anomalies that result in the wall thickness of a rod blank not being verbatim all around the circumference. And, the "spine" doesn't travel along a straight axis. If you locate the spine over the length of the entire blank, it'll be different than if you spine 2/3rds or 1/3rd of the blank. It tends to rotate as you move along the entire length of the blank. And, the spine is not the stiffest axis, it is the softest axis. There is so much more bad information in those links I just don't have the time to go into all of it.

.........

Todd,

We had an article in the magazine, text and photos provided by St. Croix, that show them using a laser to find the straightest axis to build on. And, rod twist is entirely a function of guide orientation. If your $60 rod is a casting rod, then yes, it's going to twist built on spine or not. The machine that we used to bring to the Expo for people to try with any rod, even those built on the spine so that they supposedly wouldn't twist or torque opened a lot of eyes over the years. It may be time to get it out and bring it back.

..........

Chis C Nash, My problem wasn't ever with Tom. It was with your comment after a comment Kent made. I felt that was a very inappropriate comment to be made. I appreciate your apology.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent,
>
> So much of the information in the links you
> provided is absolutely wrong I wouldn't know where
> to begin. But for instance - "When creating a
> blank, materials are bonded to the mandrel making
> for a stiffer part of the blank cylinder, called
> the spine." This is simply and unequivocally not
> true in any way, shape or form. The "spine" of a
> rod blank is not a physical thing - it an effect.

Its an effect caused by a physical thing. Would you agree with that?

As for the information on those sites, I can not be held responsible for any of it.

I pulled up those links to numerous sponsor websites and videos, and other rod blank corporations and commercial rod companies simply to show one thing and that is that this so called disproven spining idea is to this day still being declared as the rule many of them claim to go by. That's it.

Whatever else any of them claim had nothing to do with why I posted them. I merely wanted to show how spining is still in operation throughout the fishing rod industry. And I don't think this can be disputed any longer, while all of the various claims found on those websites can be disputed from now until forever, but it does not negate the fact that spining is still considered the rule for many rod blank companies and commercial rod companies. That much is true in my opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2021 12:17PM by Kent Griffith.