I
nternet gathering place for custom rod builders
  • Custom Rod Builders - This message board is provided for your use by the sponsors listed on the left side of the page. Feel free to post any question, answers or topics related in any way to custom building. When purchasing products please remember those who sponsor this board.

  • Manufacturers and Vendors - Only board sponsors are permitted and encouraged to promote and advertise products on the board. You may become a sponsor for a nominal fee. It is the sponsor fees that pay for this message board.

  • Rules - Rod building is a decent and rewarding craft. Those who participate in it are assumed to be civilized individuals who are kind and considerate in their dealings with others. Please respond to others in the same fashion in which you would like to be responded to. Registration IS NOW required in order to post. You must include your actual First and Last name and a correct email address when registering or posting. Posts which are inflammatory, insulting, or that fail to include a proper name and email address will be removed and the persons responsible will be barred from further participation.

    Registration is now required in order to post. You must include your actual First and Last name and a correct email address when registering or posting.
SPONSORS

2022 ICRBE
EXPO ON FACEBOOK
CCS Database
Int. Custom Rod Symbol
Common Cents Info
American Tackle
Anglers Rsrc - Fuji
BatsonRainshadowALPS
BRC Rods
Banana River Rods
Cork Specialties LLC
CRB
HNL Rod Blanks–CTS
CTS New Zealand
Custom Fly Grips LLC
Decal Connection
Flex Coat Co.
HFF Custom Rods
HYDRA
Janns Netcraft
Lucas Mfg Co.
Mickel's Custom Rods
My Rod Shop
Mudhole Custom Tackle
MHX Rod Blanks
North Fork Composites
ProProducts
REC Components
ReelSeatBlanks.com
Renzetti Inc.
Rod Builders Warehouse
RodHouse France
RodMaker Magazine
RodMaker Blog
Schneiders Rod Shop
SeaGuide Corp.
Struble Mfg.
Tackleworks
The Rod Room
Trondak U-40
Utmost Enterprises
VooDoo Rods
ZipCast

Pages: Previous1234
Current Page: 4 of 4
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Phil Ewanicki (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: May 22, 2021 07:54PM

An accurate rifle (with good ammunition) can shoot tight groups but will not necessarily hit the target. Accuracy (hitting the target) is entirely product of the shooter's skill - Just like accuracy in casting is entirely the result of the skill of the caster, NOT the result of the sinker, lure, fly, bait, bobber, line, reel, or rod.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Lynn Behler (---.44.66.72.res-cmts.leh.ptd.net)
Date: May 22, 2021 08:05PM

When it comes to real info, some of you guys are great at skating around it! See you at the range.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: chris c nash (70.40.87.---)
Date: May 22, 2021 09:49PM

Phil, you got to stop pretending that much higher quality and more expensive rods and firearms and many other things for that matter don't have a clear and decisive performance advantage over much much lower cost items . Go through the motions with a Loomis Asquith and compare it to a $200.00 fly rod of your choice . If you think the performance is similar and have a hard time distinguishing the differences that require actual measurements than there is truly no hope for you .

Every review I read about it from lifelong pro fly fisherman says it's the most amazing performance rod they ever tested and nothing compares . I can assure you just like myself they don't care whether others believe them or not , this whole topic is one of the most ridiculously absurd things I've ever made the mistake of commenting about .

How a rod is built greatly effects accuracy Phil , it's basic physics you may try to say it doesn't but it clearly does. A much smaller tip top on a rod will be far more accurate than a giant oversized tiptop just like a high end firearm will be far more accurate and consistent than a much cheaper firearm with a barrel that was made with less precise tolerances . These aren't opinions these are common sense facts .

What exactly is your goal here anyway , to keep insisting that the people who are perfectly happy with the way their rods perform are disillusioned and should be disgusted and demand different testing methods ? You seem to harbor extreme disappointment in the way rod manufacturers market their products . It's up to the individual to decide what works and doesn't work for them. I would never criticize others if they said they were perfectly happy with their rods performance . Most have said their rods perform just fine and they're happy with them as I did as well , that's a good thing .

When venting your frustration you must be much much much more specific . Testing two spinners with similar price points , rated the same , with identical layouts and spooled with the same line and reels casting within one foot of each other is to be expected .

Don't forget before this rod performance topic even started it was already well known and accepted that THERE IS NO PRODUCTIVE WAY TO PRECISELY COMPARE BLANK PERFORMANCE , the CCS is the best we got at this point . Want to know why it's also unlikely ?
BECAUSE VIRTUALLY NOBODY CARES , it's not important to them . How many times do you see thread topics that start out with " Totally disgusted with rod performance , I got ripped off by manufacturer ' ................... NEVER .

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Aaron Petersen (12.144.64.---)
Date: May 24, 2021 07:51AM

The trouble is quantifying accuracy as there is no industry standard test for accuracy in rods like there is in other outdoor sports such as firearms and archery. Without one you can't quantify either side of the debate. So points become moot and it is merely opinion which is fine. We can respect each others opinions even if they differ.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Phil Ewanicki (---)
Date: May 24, 2021 09:39AM

Makers of tennis racquets, golf clubs, bowling balls, etc. do not advertise the "accuracy" of their products, probably because the users of these products are too sophisticated to believe advertising hype that money can buy a product that will steer a tennis ball inbounds, or a golf ball into the hole, or a bowling ball into the pocket.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Kent Griffith (---)
Date: May 24, 2021 11:11AM

I disagree Phil.

Tennis racquets are measured and sold for increased accuracy. There are entire articles on just this very subject about some racquets are more accurate than others.

[tenniscompanion.org]

Best Tennis Racquets for 2021 [Buyers Guide]

Find out how to choose the best tennis racquet and what which racquets you ... like the feel of the hit more. but, i do get a little better accuracy with the pure strike.

[www.thetennistribe.com]

6 Best Tennis Racquets For Advanced Players (2021)

This means you can use a smaller frame that will provide extra control and accuracy on your shots. The best option below will be the Wilson Pro Staff.

Same thing for golf clubs and guns...

[www.tennessean.com]

Pick the right golf club to improve your accuracy
Nancy Quarcelino

So Phil, from what I can tell, the accuracy of the various products is a huge selling point, especially for those claiming to be the best in their category. Rods are no different. And, in golf clubs, that accuracy revolves around spining of the club.

[thesandtrap.com]


Shaft Spining, Splining, and PUREing: Black Art or the Ultimate Tweak?

Working on the premise that no two shafts are created equal, a relatively new tuning method seeks to deliver consistent feel, flex and performance throughout a set of clubs.

Bag DropThere are many variables in a golf shaft. Some are designed and engineered by the manufacturer – stiffness, flex point, and weight. Other factors, however, become the province of aftermarket clubmakers and fitters who can adjust length, trim tips, and match frequency to suit your swing speed, tempo, and ball flight.

Over the last six or seven years, another way to tune shafts has emerged that proponents say best matches feel across a set, tightens shot dispersion patterns, and optimizes performance. Detractors, on the other hand, say it’s unnecessary and expensive. Most manufacturers say their shafts don’t need it.

Complicating the picture, it’s a practice that goes by several names and actually can be performed in a number of ways. In this week’s Bag Drop we’ll try to shed some light on shaft spining, splining, and PUREing.

When I first brought up the idea of writing about shaft spining, my clubmaker urged me to avoid it, citing the fact that there is such a wide difference of opinion among clubmakers and shaft makers as to how it should be performed and if it’s even necessary. But since he’s done it to my last two sets or irons and I’ve seen and felt a remarkable difference, I decided to do a little research on my own. Here’s what I found out:

The Premise
The practice begins with the notion that no shaft, graphite or steel, is manufactured perfectly round or with a perfectly uniform wall thickness. The result is a hard spot running the length of the shaft called a spline or spine. By orienting the spline in a specific relationship to the head, the flex and performance of the shaft can be optimized.

It’s the same process I and other custom fishing rod makers have used for years with fiberglass and graphite rods. You bend the rod blank and roll the butt across the floor. You feel a “bump” and that’s your spline. This is then aligned opposite the guides.

Some early critics of this theory pointed out that unlike a fishing rod during a cast, the orientation of the spine in a golf shaft changes throughout the swing. Those who developed the technique, however, countered by showing with frequency analysis they could actually change shaft flex from stiff to soft depending on how they oriented the spine.

A Murky Rules History
Back in 1990, Robert Colbert, a Michigan welder, took a close look at his golf pro daughter’s club shafts and found splines. After aligning them in a consistent fashion and seeing a remarkable improvement in feel and performance, he patented the process.

Immediately, the USGA issued a notice that this violated its rule on shafts and their bending and twisting properties. But soon after, embroiled in Ping square grooves litigation and afraid of another litigious front, they compromised and said only manufacturers could spine align shafts and only as long as they didn’t advertise the fact.

This effectively put Colbert out of business and, because of the costs involved, kept spine alignment out of the game except for surreptitious clubmakers wise to the idea.

Years later, Richard Weiss, a wealthy Miami-based entrepreneur and late-in-life golf professional, purchased the rights and went on to convince the USGA that the process should be legal if it merely made the shafts consistent.

Thus, in 1999 the USGA ruled the process legal. Here’s the USGA quote explaining the rule:

This Rule effectively restricts shafts from being designed to have asymmetric properties, so that however the club is assembled, or whichever way the shaft is orientated, it will make no difference to the performance of the club.

However, most graphite shafts have a small “spine” running along the length of the shaft which does make them bend a little differently depending on how they are fitted to the head. This is generally regarded as being “within manufacturing tolerances” (see preamble to Appendix II) and therefore not a breach of Appendix II, 2b. Manufacturers of clubs may orientate or align shafts which have spines for uniformity in assembling sets or in an effort to make the shafts perform as if they were perfectly symmetrical. However, a shaft which has been orientated for the purpose of influencing the performance of a club, e.g., to correct wayward shots, would be contrary to the intent of this Rule.

But, of course, there is still nothing to stop the unscrupulous from positioning splines to counter or promote hooks and slices… something the USGA has specifically ruled out. But really, how would anyone know? Seems like a pretty grey area to me.

PUREing
Weiss went on to found SST, Inc. (Strategic Shaft Technologies) and call his method “PURE shaft alignment.” Thus PUREing (Plane of Uniform Repeatability) is a proprietary process owned by SST and licensed to about 42 different clubmakers in 18 states here in the U.S. They also maintain a tour trailer to service pros on the PGA Tour.

SST Tour Trailer
While SST offers their PUREingp process to PGA Tour pros, most manufacturers provide some form of spine alignment.

Two of their licensees are notable: Hot Stix Golf based in Scottsdale, AZ has received much press lately on the success of their club fitting business and has begun to go national with a mobile tour. The other is GolfSmith which offers the service through their website.

Two shaft makers have bought into the process. UST offers it with some of their shafts. Royal Precision, at least until their recent acquisition by True Temper, made it available with their Rifle shafts. But other shaft makers like True Temper and Nippon have publicly said their shafts don’t require the process.

What makes the PUREing process unique is the manner in which they identify the spine. Using a device with rollers hooked up to data-collecting sensors, they can provide a print out of the analysis. SST claims the process is accurate to within one degree. They also claim other methods can only identify the quadrant of the shaft where the spine exists.

Splining and Spining
Outside of SST’s patented process, spine alignment has been practiced for years by hundreds of clubmakers across the country. Virtually every manufacturer’s tour trailer offers the service to its contracted PGA Tour pros.

What differs among them is the manner in which the spine is identified and how the spine is positioned relative to the clubhead. Some use a frequency analyzer, some roll the shaft in some fashion, some use deflection boards. Some position the spine at 12 o’clock, some at 9, some even at 6. As my clubmaker warned, it’s clear as mud. Which, I guess, makes it at least a brown art if not a black one.

Nonetheless, all methods seem pointed at helping the shaft arrive at a more consistent position at impact. Due to gravity (and other factors), a shaft bows down at impact. Aligning the spine the same way across a set helps with that consistency and can contain the downward deflection. It also helps achieve a more consistent degree of flex from club to club.

The overall process is pretty standard. The grip and clubhead are removed from the shaft. The spine is identified and marked and then the club is re-assembled with the spine in the proper orientation.

In the End…
Despite some shaft makers’ protestations, spine alignment has become an accepted tuning method on all the professional tours and among a growing legion of amateurs who, like me, have experienced the benefits of the process.

That’s it not more widespread probably has to do with cost. PUREing runs about $45 a club with independent clubmakers and fitters charging about the same.

The trick, it would seem, is to either go with SST’s process or find and rely on a reputable, experienced clubmaker who knows what he’s doing and can explain to you the method behind his particular madness.

If it’s affordable for you and you are serious about your game and your equipment, spine alignment is definitely worth looking into.

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

And I agree and insist for all of my fishing rods as well! Spine and casting accuracy are associated! And you do not see any references to straightest axis idea in golf club manufacturing. I think Gary Loomis nailed when he said on camera that he wants his rods to load up straight in the backswing or, that spine was more important than straight for this based on physics. Gary Loomis insisted! I'm still there as well.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2021 11:17AM by Kent Griffith.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Aaron Petersen (12.144.64.---)
Date: May 24, 2021 12:18PM

Kent,
Great high effort post. That was educational. Still I have one question. Unlike a fishing rod, a golf club shaft is flexed during the swing on the same axis every time in the perfect day on the course. But rods, especially inshore/stream/bass, are cast several different ways throughout the day. Roll cast, overhead, bow and arrow... So is spining still effective even if you aren't loading up your spined axis consistently? Because accuracy is consistency and repeatability. The theory makes sense in say a surf rod where there is no obstruction and the cast can be replicated every time.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Kent Griffith (---)
Date: May 24, 2021 12:44PM

For me the only casting situation that matters is the deep loaded backswing. Other ways don't load up the rod enough to matter to me. So I build for the backswing straight loading as Gary Loomis describes at 2:30 mark in the following video: [youtu.be] .

I want that deep loaded backswing to be consistent every cast. If I do not use the spine, then physics dictates rod resistance to bending in ways it is resisting will cause side skewing. I don't want that. So I have to draw the line and find the most important priority for me to build with and this is it.

Straightest axis does not matter. Greatest dead lift capacity does not matter. I could not care less about these ideas.

Soft side of overall rod bend goes straight up where I want it to be and use it for my purposes as described by Gary Loomis clearly in the referenced video. This to me is standard 101. And clearly golf clubs are no different and dependent upon the shaft's bend characteristics for improved golfing performance and accuracy.

--------------------------------------------
>
> Nonetheless, all methods seem pointed at helping
> the shaft arrive at a more consistent position at
> impact. Due to gravity (and other factors), a
> shaft bows down at impact. Aligning the spine the
> same way across a set helps with that consistency
> and can contain the downward deflection. It also
> helps achieve a more consistent degree of flex
> from club to club.
>
> The overall process is pretty standard. The grip
> and clubhead are removed from the shaft. The spine
> is identified and marked and then the club is
> re-assembled with the spine in the proper
> orientation.
>
> In the End…
> Despite some shaft makers’ protestations, spine
> alignment has become an accepted tuning method on
> all the professional tours and among a growing
> legion of amateurs who, like me, have experienced
> the benefits of the process.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> It also
> helps achieve a more consistent degree of flex
> from club to club.

And a fishing rod is no different. This is precisely what Gary Loomis is counting on and what I am counting on as well. Straight and dead lift are irrelevant to me. Bend consistency is paramount to all else.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2021 01:46PM by Kent Griffith.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Aaron Petersen (12.144.64.---)
Date: May 24, 2021 01:45PM

Thank you for the response. It makes sense for you. When I deep load a backswing I typically am not looking for pinpoint accuracy. Of course the type of primary fishing I do usually involves fanning over an area and covering water when I cast like that. That is why I personally stopped spining. I saw no benefit on the water for how I fish and noticed a rod that the tip was not in line and it bugged me more than the potential performance. When I spined I never bought into the finders and such. I just bent it and rolled it. Now I build on the straight axis tip up and love it this way. The only published scientific data we have suggested no real performance gain. However science is about questioning and seeing if the hypothesis holds true. It would be nice to see more studies on rod spining from other groups to see how their results affirm or contradict that of the current published study.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: For those who insist.
Posted by: Phil Ewanicki (---)
Date: May 25, 2021 01:41PM

There is NO, none, nada, published experimental data on which fish poles are the most accurate casters. Rather than fish-pole merchants being too modest to reveal the superiority of their product I trust the obvious conclusion - "accurate" fish poles and the Easter Bunny share the same credibility. Opinions vary - but not the truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous1234
Current Page: 4 of 4


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Webmaster