Points to ponder--- If spine placement could be used to stop rod twist the spiral wrap would never have been invented and would have no useful application today. Since the point of a rod blank is to resist bending does it not make sense to orient it so that it does what it was designed and intended to do to the greatest degree?

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Points to ponder--- If spine placement could be
> used to stop rod twist the spiral wrap would never
> have been invented and would have no useful
> application today. Since the point of a rod blank
> is to resist bending does it not make sense to
> orient it so that it does what it was designed and
> intended to do to the greatest degree?

If you are considering lift capacity then yes. If that is more important to you in the long run than casting perfection. Its a balancing act. If you go for straightest axis and dead lifting capacity of a few more percentages in lifting ability, then it sacrifices on the casting perfection, and may cause slightly more muscle fatigue in fighting with a rod on every cast.

Meanwhile on the flip side where I am at I could not care less about gaining a few more percentages of dead lift ability. It is far more important to me to dial in a rod blank to bend straight into the backswing and straight out of it reducing my having to fight more with the rod to get it to cast where I want it to go.

Here's another angle not being considered here... how many of us use a rod's lift capacity to its maximum before snapping? I can tell you I surely do not. No need to. Therefore, the extra gain in going for deadlift capacity is absolutely of no value to me. I don't use it anyway. And since I don't use it, then why build for it? Makes no sense to me. It makes better sense to me to build a rod that is easier to cast and enjoy the act of fishing. Deadlift is only for catching, but again, I don't push my rods into that extra gained percentage anyway, and some days I fish and don't even catch a dam fish, so on days like that, the soft spot up is more to my advantage and liking than any perceived gains in deadlifting capacity I don't really need nor care about.

Take your pick. Does not really make a difference much one way or the other I suppose. But it makes for interesting discussion and good body slams and getting drop kicked into the next county! lol

Kent,

No, I wouldn't agree with that statement in the least. It's incorrect. There is no physical thing attached or added to the mandrel to create a "spine." Rather the effect we refer to as spine is simply a manufacturing anomaly caused by the fact that the process of laying up a rod blank results in non-uniform wall thickness all around the blank. So it's not the material (a physical thing) but simply the process that results in an effect.

I realize you aren't responsible for anything on those web links, but information that is patently bad if not absolutely false can't really be used to prove anything. Yes spining blanks is still in use by many builders and rod making companies. For many it's a means of getting the customer to believe that it's a technique that provides them with a better rod - a bit of clever marketing. In reality it's unnecessary and doesn't add anything to a finished rod other than reducing dead lift capability by a tad, but I don't think anyone here is saying don't do it. If you do it and like your results. Keep doing it.

Now here's something that newer builders might find interesting and I may still have the brochures and photos - a company in Britain once tried building in an actual physical spine by the use of a mandrel that was flatted on opposing sides. It was very labor intensive because the flats had to be filled in first by hand laying narrow strips of carbon until the unit was round. Then it was rolled in the normal fashion. If you sighted from the end of the blank the outside was round but the inside was more of a keyhole shape. It didn't prove to add any benefit and the intensive labor involved doomed it to an "also ran" but it is an interesting piece of rod building history.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent,
>
> No, I wouldn't agree with that statement in the
> least. It's incorrect. There is no physical thing
> attached or added to the mandrel to create a
> "spine." Rather the effect we refer to as spine is
> simply a manufacturing anomaly caused by the fact
> that the process of laying up a rod blank results
> in non-uniform wall thickness all around the
> blank. So it's not the material (a physical thing)
> but simply the process that results in an effect.

When I said what I did I was not including the mandrel into it and did not realize that we were. I was strictly thinking of the the rod and spine, which yes the rod is a physical object that contains weaker side and stronger sides, and the spine is in my view a resulting effect from a physical object. This was my point.

I guess we have a communication gap and looking at different things differently. I was asking if you could agree that the spine effect was the result of the characteristics of a physical object- the rod.

But you are right about all the @#$%& thrown around in the fishing rod bizzzzness for marketing and sales... an awful lot of it out there. Everywhere. That I will agree to.

I do not believe that the spine has anything to do with "casting perfection." My rods all cast perfectly. A lure will go in the direction the tip was moving in at the time of release. Even if the tip did twist, that would not change the linear path of the cast. Tie off a line and pressure the rod to put a bend in it about the same as it bends when casting. Now sight along the rod. It will be straight no matter what. The idea that the tip could ever be off to one side on a cast is wrong. A twist would never take it out of plane.

Kent,

Still, no. The mandrel has nothing to do with it. There is no physical thing that creates a spine. The process yes, the materials (physical things) no.

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

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe that the spine has anything to do
> with "casting perfection." My rods all cast
> perfectly. A lure will go in the direction the tip
> was moving in at the time of release. Even if the
> tip did twist, that would not change the linear
> path of the cast. Tie off a line and pressure the
> rod to put a bend in it about the same as it bends
> when casting. Now sight along the rod. It will be
> straight no matter what. The idea that the tip
> could ever be off to one side on a cast is wrong.
> A twist would never take it out of plane.

Good point. I wonder how many people ever saw the casting demonstrations put on by a guy named Stan Fagerstrom (deceased). He was amazing. His demo involved casting on every axis a rod possesses. If one particular axis affected casting differently than another, I don't see how he could have done what he did. Amazing guy.

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

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe that the spine has anything to do
> with "casting perfection.
> The idea that the tip
> could ever be off to one side on a cast is wrong.

Wrong says you? Are you Gary Loomis and have been through several corporations making rod blanks with top engineers for decades? How about lamiglas and their top engineers and claim on spine effect? Mudhole? Get Bit Outdoors? Batson Enterprises and Rainshadow rods? And the many others.

Sorry man, but the physics are clear. Put the stiff side up and backswing a rod into the cast and prove to me it loads straight without skewing. Prove it. Until then your claim does not hold water.

There is a reason top engineers in rod making and the best of the best all agree on one way to do it. Sorry but they are unanimous and you are not.




Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent,
>
> Still, no. The mandrel has nothing to do with it.
> There is no physical thing that creates a spine.
> The process yes, the materials (physical things)
> no.
>
> ............


I never mentioned the mandrel. We are not on the same page, and not able to discuss the same subject matter. If we cannot get on the same page and same subject matter we will never agree.

But I will say it again... the spine effect is a result of the physical characteristics of the rod- a physical object. The mandrel is no where around when this spine effect is learned from the rod through a simple process of discovery.

Not sure what the mandrel has to do with that. I never mentioned it nor considered it for my statement. (shrugging shoulders in the I give up mode and going fishing instead!)

I gave it my best shot and got body slammed and flat earthed and confused and misunderstand and no point in going on... Let the discussion on spine and straightest axis roll on! I'm out at this point. Roll on! Peace, over and out!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2021 10:03AM by Kent Griffith.

You mentioned this: "When I said what I did I was not including the mandrel into it and did not realize that we were." We were not including the mandrel as it has nothing to with spine. You asked if I agreed that the spine was a result of a physical thing. It is not. It is the result of anomalies in a process.

There is no such thing as "straightest axis theory." It's not a theory that a rod built on the straightest axis will exhibit the greatest possible deadlift capacity for any rod blank. It's a fact.

If there is something such as spine physics I'd like to see it. But I'll need numbers and data, not supposition.

Until then people can build their rods any way they wish. The very fact that spine makes no difference allows for building on any axis and having a nicely performing rod regardless.

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

I know the spine doesn’t affect casting accuracy, I have done the experiments. Casting accuracy is in the hands of the beholder. In all the years I’ve been fishing, I never felt that I was fighting the rod when casting, the lure just continues to go in the direction It was going when I released it.
As far as physics is concerned, Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. That’s a law not an opinion.

Tom, I have seen those casting demonstration, he could put a casting plug in someone’s pocket at a good distance away, casting in all possible planes. Casting accuracy is much more then just going in a straight line, it involves the ability to precisely control the line of flight, speed and distance. Takes good eye hand coordination, precise timing, and a great sense of feel. If I remember correctly, he said in order to condition his new casting reels he would fill them with tooth paste and grind away on the reel until the gears because as smooth as silk.
Norm

Kent--- I would be happy to put my geometry knowledge against any of the people you mentioned. And they do not all agree on any particular way to do it.

Norman,

I first saw Stan perform at the 1987 ICAST event in Atlanta. And he would indeed cast into people's pockets. And these weren't flips or pitches - they were actual casts. He only died about a year or two ago. I think he was pushing 100.

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

Tom...I know how to find the spine on a rod and there is not a doubt My 9' 5wt legend ultra is built on the spine. Maybe st. Croix has changed from 20 years ago but the rod I have is 100% built on the spine. The rod was probably built early 2000.

Tom, I don’t remember when or where I saw him, I just remember that I was amazed at what he could do with a rod and reel. Another amazing trick caster was Shag Shahid. I think he was a good friend of Lew Childre, and helped promote the Lew’s Speed rods and Lew’s Speed spool. Both were quite talented and had great personalities.
Norm

Todd Andrizzi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom...I know how to find the spine on a rod and
> there is not a doubt My 9' 5wt legend ultra is
> built on the spine. Maybe st. Croix has changed
> from 20 years ago but the rod I have is 100% built
> on the spine. The rod was probably built early
> 2000.

I don't doubt that it was at that time. When Jason Brunner went to work at St. Croix (can't remember the exact year) he had them build the rods on the straightest axis and was the person that supplied the magazine with the article. It ran sometime in the early 20-teens. I'll try to find it. Another thing Jason did was change the amount of ferrule overlap on the multi-piece ferrules, but that's another story, albeit a very interesting one.

I have known Gary Loomis personally since the early 1980's. The aforementioned video notwithstanding, Gary always preferred to work with what he called the "natural curve" in a rod blank and often stated that he wouldn't want a perfectly straight blank because once you put the guides on it you'd have a slight droop due to guide weight. In every discussion or seminar he did for the Expo or in the magazine, he never mentioned spine but rather took the natural curve (which is generally along the straightest axis) and positioned it belly down and tip up, so that the weight of the guides would tend to bring it back to straight. He may be doing things differently today, but for at least 40 years he built on the straightest axis.

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

Norm,

I forgot about Shag. He used to cast between a person's legs while they were standing backwards and get the casting plug to flip up and land in their shirt pocket.

..........

Sounds like Shag's rod was built on the straightest axis to me .


"Standing backwards and get the casting plug to flip up and land in their shirt pocket"

Never heard of guys being able to cast into people's pockets , that's like trying to cast into a slightly oversized coin slot .


Amazing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2021 05:05PM by chris c nash.

I choose to use the belly to place my guide son, to take advantage of the softer tip, which will then act as a shock absorber for my tippet. i use placement of my guides on the stiffest axis on the lower 2 sections of my blank to generate more casting speed, and give me greater lifting power.

I believe that on spinning, and casting rods, lures such as Swedish Pimples, Kast Masters, or a heavy Cleo are much less affected by wind, while Daredevels, and spoons are highly affected
by the wind. So fish the accordingly.

That's my take on this whole guide placement subject.

Tight lines and frisky fish.

RJF

Perhaps we can't fix stupid but we can state objective facts based upon tests done with measurements, like feet and inches. It wouldn't do any harm, and it might even provide rod makers with some practical information they can put to good use.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we can't fix stupid but we can state
> objective facts based upon tests done with
> measurements, like feet and inches. It wouldn't do
> any harm, and it might even provide rod makers
> with some practical information they can put to
> good use.


Interesting that you say that. The RodMaker articles on rod breakage and strongest axis hang on the walls in no less than 20 commercial rod building warranty operations worldwide.

...........