In reading through this thread there seems to be a heavy reliance on chemical composition materials.

<<< I purchased a plastic part recently and put it on a rod and now have to remove it because it is breaking down chemically and turning into goo and the brand of it is from a sponsor company here.<<<

My point is, how well does chemical composition material holdup in the long term? Say 10 or 20 years down the road? Mine lasted maybe 2 years and is now junk.

This is why I still prefer cork. I have rods that are 35 years old and the cork is still in great shape and not deteriorating, while on a fairly recent build I trusted a chemical composition and now regretting it.

I don't trust foam. It is structurally not as sound in my opinion. The epoxy holds it on fine, but if it comes loose it is usually because the foam itself is tearing apart from the foam held by the epoxy. I've seen this happen in foam grips. I have to replace one now because down inside where it attaches to the blank it is tearing loose from constant use. Cork has not done this.

Just something else to consider...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2021 08:59AM by Kent Griffith.

I co-invented these grips over 15 years ago. The urethane foam and the carbon skins have been around even longer. If there were any inherent problems with the materials or how they are combined to construct the grips, it would be well known by now. These grips have been used on everything from freshwater fly rods to heavy duty offshore trolling rods. In the last 15 years there have been no known defects with properly made grips of this type. And during this time many commercial manufacturers have begun making their own versions of these groups. I think if there was any problem with them we would know about it by now.

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

Perhaps I should have been more clear in saying that some, not all, chemical composition materials may have a shorter shelf life...

I know manufacturers are constantly evolving and changing their products and materials they are made from and sometimes they hit on materials that work well over long term, and other times, it winds up like I experienced it.

I can't speak for your product Tom, I've never used one as I not a fan of foam grips, nor carbon fiber grips. I am an old school cork dork! And I like it this way. I like to shape my own cork grips. No two are alike. My preference is based on the old Bass Pro power hump grip. It fits my hand well.

The foam-core, carbon-skinned grips are also shaped by hand, to whatever size and shape you wish. The rigidity of the foam is the main benefit. Some people confuse them with soft foam like EVA or hypalon. They're rock hard and very light.

Not everyone is a fan, of course, and people remain free to use what suits them, but for the record I do want to state that in the 15+ years since Andy and I introduced them to the rod building world, there has been no known deficiency with any aspect of these grips.

..........

I used to be a cork dork, but I now prefer CF grips. I have used them for about six or so years now. They are bullet proof, and still look brand new. However, a lot of people still prefer cork, another thing that makes a custom rod custom.
Norm

We've heard many reports of anglers breaking carbon grips free from blanks over the past few years. We've also heard of carbon grips crushing from the inside out (internal foam failure that causes eventual external carbon failure.) That doesn't mean it's a wide spread or well known issue with carbon grips. These problems appear to be caused by two factors, insufficient handle glue amount or application technique, and insufficient foam density used in manufacturing. Now for the shameless sales pitch: Forecast Carbon Grips use a higher density foam than most carbon grips currently on the market (>8lb foam.) This does add a little weight to the grip but we feel the added durability is well worth it and is negligible compared to weight differences in reels, etc. We've also had no reports of the issues above with Forecast Carbon Grips. Cork does feel nice in the hand, no doubt about it. But I don't think anyone would argue that cork's lack of durability and its dampening effect are serious drawbacks, not to mention the ever-shrinking availability and ever-increasing price of good quality cork.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

I am impressed and glad to see Batson Enterprises respond = thank you. As I stated earlier, and although possibly heavier than others, their 18lb/cf foam is an extremely fine cell foam which not only sands and shapes exceptionally well but also machines precisely and perfectly; much better than any other foam-core material I have used over the last 25 years. That may be more important in the rod building world than in the structural composite industry.
No doubt, there are numerous chemical compositions of foam-core materials. The most prevalent is probably (poly)urethane (including many sub-categories) and PVC, like the Divinycell I referred to earlier. Within the rod building world, I have seen and heard of “graphite arbors” but question the authenticity of the claim. Graphite would probably be the best when considering accepting and bonding to the epoxy matrix, but might prove to be too brittle to be considered an appropriate core material. Urethane and PVC are basically plastics and plastics basically do not lend themselves well to being bonded to. These foams rely upon their porous surface to increase the bonding area which produces a much higher shear-strength than peel-strength. Designed and applied properly, foam-core composites offer huge advantages in rigidity, material savings and consequently weight-savings.
Allow me to add to Batson’s CORRECT remarks of foam failure by offering knowledge gained from the composite industry concerning bonding to foam-core materials. Even with closed-cell foams, the outer layer of cells are open; millions of little “open cups” on the surface. Application of (in this case) epoxy results in the epoxy sitting atop millions of little trapped air bubbles within the, now, sealed-off cells, touching only the exposed, extreme outward edges of the cells. While vacuum-bagging may (minimally) help, it still does not allow the epoxy to replace the air bubble and penetrate to the bottom of the cells.To circumvent this, small diameter, very fine, stiff-bristled “rollers” (think bottle brush) were developed to “pop” the bubbles and allow the epoxy to migrate to the bottom of those millions of cells. The surface area of foam actually exposed to the epoxy dramatically increases = better bonding.
Is it required for foam-core / CF skinned grips? Possibly (even probably) not. Nonetheless, it is something to consider when building your own foam-core / CF grips. This may warrant its own, separate post = we’ll see.

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

I beileve Batson uses 8lb foam, not 18.

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

The foam cores that Mark is referring to are rated as 18# foam, but actually they measure in closer to 15# (I checked across multiple samples and they're consistent to <1g). Heavier foam is used for the raw cores which allow users to apply materials other than graphite + resin as the shell (shrink tube etc.) and still create a durable grip.
The foam used in Forecast Carbon Grips is rated at 10#. We realize the 10# foam has a greater density than what is used in competing grips, but we've been in this game a long time and have learned that overengineering pays dividends.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

Plus, grip weight is your friend when it comes to rod and reel combination balance.