Guys,

Please stay on the topic and away from personal stuff.

...........

Newton's fist law a motion comes into play here. T paraphrase, all object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by another force. All objects in motion will continue the direction, and speed of that motion unless acted upon by some other force.

What this means to us, as wielders of fishing tackle, is that the direction, and velocity of the tip will move our lure/fly line in the direction it travels. This places the lure/fly at the spot where we want it to land. Of course we have wind and air resistance to contend with, and casting ability. A heavy, compact lure, such as a Cleo, or Kast-Master, Swedish Pimple e, etc., will be less affected than a Daredevil, or broad, long spoon. The right fly line, and tight loops will cut through air better, giving you longer casts. Distance is, in part, governed by the velocity of the rod tip, which is attained by properly loading the rod in the back cast, which stores energy, and then transfers the energy during, and at the end of the forward cast to the line/lure.

Again, placing guides on the spine, belly, or straightest axis does not affect accuracy. The blank's ability to dampen vibration at the tip will allow the line to cast further, as will controlling line oscillation through the guides. That reduces line friction. Building the guides on the belly, for fly, and spin cast gives you that line control. I don't know why building on the spine for casting rods is preferred.
I suspect that using the thumb to help eliminate back-lashes is key here.

I haven't even gone into factors such as air temperature, humidity, rain, sleet, snow, the motion of your boat, and other such, and don't need to. These affect long distance rifle, archery, and such sports more than us. We're not shooting our lines/lures out 300 yards, or longer.

As there is so little difference between power for either building on the spine/belly, or on the strongest axis, and understanding somewhat, the laws of physics, and knowing how a softer end protects light tippets, I stand by my assumptions, and build the bottom half on the strongest axis to generate a little faster line/lure speed, an place the guides on the belly near the tip, to protect the tippet.

I thought I had already explained this, but couldn't find the post.

I do agree, build with what you are comfortable with. Arguing one way or the other simply causes friction between good people. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now, stop arguing this into the ground,; go out and try to catch some fish. I used to do it pretty well with a cheap rod, 10# test nylon line, and a Zebco 202 fishing reel. Those were good days. I build custom rods because it is satisfying for me to build something far better than I can get at Walmart, and to sell them to people who can appreciate the time and energy invested in them, or who just want something a little special for themselves, Otherwise, go get an Ugly Stick and go fishing.

Tight lines and frisky fish
RJF

As far as spinning rods are concerned I believe the choice in guide design , size and placement based on the reel and line type you plan on using the most is what determines whether a rod is going to be a performer or not . I'm convinced that 'Spine' has absolutely nothing to do with building a better rod and I say that because I followed the spine finding and spine orientation process when I first started building because I didn't know any better. I wanted to make sure I got everything right .


Since that time I have built many more rods and I can tell you with 100% certainty that I find no difference whatsoever in the way the rods fish , handle or perform regardless of spine orientation .

Six pages and not a single mention of a physical measurement such as pounds, ounces, inches, or feet. Apparently this aspect of rod building is about feelings and beliefs, not objective reality.

You may have missed the article I linked to. It has such verifiable measurements pertaining to blank strength per axis.

Other than the data showing that building on the spine results in the weakest orientation, there is no data pertaining to anything such as casting accuracy, distance, etc.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

...........

Tom: I re-read the article, a good one, containing actual measurements of weight and distance. Its contents support the contention that finding the spine and building on the spine, off the spine, or around the spine is a waste of time. It's still true, although some rod builders still claim: "Rod spine is critical to rod building, but the benefits of building on, off, or around the spine cannot be measured - only believed in."

Robert!! One of the best posts I have read. Thanks! Only thing I would change is "tight lines and frisky WIFE.

As I read this post thread on my lunch break I found a lot of mentioning of the enhancement of casting by building on the spine. Taking all the statements above into consideration my mind came up with one question.

If you build on the spine for casting do you only cast 12 to 6?

If I roll cast a "spined" rod then I am not casting inline with the spine.

One thing I learned from handloading transfers into the casting side of custom rods. It is not about accuracy it is about consistency. I cannot make a bullet accurate. I can make consistent loads that behave the same under the same environment.

Same with rods. Once they are in the hands of the angler it is about consistency. I rarely cast exactly the same way two times in a row. The boat is moving and the target isn't. So to make multiple accurate casts it is up to me to make adjustments.

...And the saga continues; and probably will into eternity. In the short 6 years I have been building rods, the “spine VS straightest axis” issue pops-up more and is more heatedly debated than any other topic. Everyone just needs to get-a-grip and get-along!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Proponents of either side will NEVER convince the other so why bother? What’s the point? What’s to gain? Utilize the debate time to come-up with something new and productive to produce a better aspect of rod building. I utilize the thinking of both sides to develop my own way of building rods; does that mean both sides are against me?

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Thank you Tom. Helpful.

Yes, I find that the stiffest and softest axis then to be 90 degrees off each other. At least in the blanks I build.

Mo Yang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> QUESTION for you Tom if you are still following -
> HOW did you attach weight to the blank tip capable
> of holding 20+ lbs? For UL I just attach weights
> using masking tape but that is not the most
> elegant method. I once had a blank tested by a
> manufacturer and they sent me photos and had some
> kind of rubber tube that they simply put on the
> blank tip and the pulling tension tightened it. I
> could never find that thingamajig. Thanks.
>
>
> I'm not sure if anyone commented on the
> illuminating Rodbuilding article Tom shared.
>
> 1. I am surprised by how CONSISTENT the blanks are
> in breaking strength. Every single blank with the
> natural soft axis broke in the 22+ lbs range.
> Every blank in the strong axis broke in the 23+
> lbs range except for one at 24.1 lbs. The data
> actually gives me confidence in building. I've
> always wondered about the consistency of break
> strength.
>
> 2. I build UL and notice that between dozens of
> the same blank, there can be a noticeable
> difference in power between different production
> batches. And building on the soft or stiff axis
> makes a measurable difference when fishing when
> using ultralight lures and jigging them. So I
> build more on what I need out of the power rather
> than the straightest axis.
>
> 3. Thanks Tom for sharing that article on breaking
> 50 blanks. Kudos for the effort. I am sure that
> took quite a bit of time as you were suspending
> and adding in 0.1 lbs increments - for all 50
> blanks. Wow.
>
> ps: I'm also surprised that there are 3 pages on
> spines after so many threads through the years. A
> hot topic for sure. :)

Kent Griffith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
>

Not to beat a dead horse but this comment was addressed to me after I mentioned that most spine proponents sell spine finding tools. This Lake Lady Rods person is dead wrong. None of what he says happens, actually happens. He's just using marketing jargon to sell rods. Most of the other links I took the time to go read were along the same lines. If building on the spine was so important, then rods not built on the spine would have serious issues with casting or whatever. They do not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2021 04:15PM by Mike Ballard.

Todd Andrizzi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robert!! One of the best posts I have read.
> Thanks! Only thing I would change is "tight lines
> and frisky WIFE.

Haha. Yep, a definite typo on my part. I''m glad you enjoyed the post. You brought a little humor into this thread. Thank yo.

Tight lines and frisky fish (i;m too old for a frisky wife, oh, but I do remember).
RJF

Speaking of Ugly Stiks, you can't build or buy a better, tough as nails, abuse taking, cheaper and yes, uglier snapper bottom fishing rod than an Ugly stick! Just sayin' ; )

Mark Brassett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of Ugly Stiks, you can't build or buy a
> better, tough as nails, abuse taking, cheaper and
> yes, uglier snapper bottom fishing rod than an
> Ugly stick! Just sayin' ; )

I snapped the tip off of one trying to show off how far I could cast a big Cleo. It was really too heavy for the ultra-light Ugly Stick..
I snapped the cast forward and watched the tip go ailing through the air.. It wasn't the fault of the rod. I was stressing it way beyond what it was designed for On the other hand, I landed a chinok salmon on a cheap fiberglass rod that I purchased 40 years back, and though it made some loud complaints, it didn't break. I was using a 1970's era Mitchel 303, also not the best job for a powerful Chinook. Sometimes, that's the way it goes.

Tight lines and frisky fish
RJF

It's amazing to me how many advertise rods by showing how big a fish it could land or how far it can bend . I've run into many anglers that praise their rods and insist it's the best by it being able to land a large drum . There are people not on this forum but some others who are affiliated with a certain rod company and they do nothing but post pics of the largest fish they can and apparently it's a good tactic because the responses are " Awesome" I need one of those lol.

Just about any rod rated appropriately with enough guides to support it will land huge fish . Shakespeare sells tons and tons of them though and many are happy with them and that's all that matters .

I'm familiar with the little Cleo's as it's deadly on a variety of fresh water species but never knew there was a Big Cleo. Got to check that out

On another note I agree with Robert about no frisky wives , the last thing I need is to expire before I get to fish my latest build.

As long as all the components are securely attached every rod is equally "accurate" - that is, given the same input it will cast to the same spot. It is the caster's job to sense where this spot is and to compensate for wind and the wind resistance of the object being cast. The person casting, not the rod maker, is Entirely responsible for the accuracy of casts.

You can make accuracy much easier for yourself by building a rod with ultimate accuracy in mind . Try casting a rod with oversized guides including running guides & an oversized tiptop with a super thin supple line and then do the same with guides including runners and a tiptop that are much smaller in diameter and you will quickly realize how restricting the line to much less movement inside the ring leads to greater accuracy which is really just basic common sense .

Given the same input and the absence of wind a rod will cast to the same spot every time. Not all the spine or reverse-spine can make a poor caster a better caster any more than a great pool cue can make a great pool shark, or a great bat can make a great hitter, or . . .