IMO, no where is weight differences felt more, than on a fly rod! Guide train weights especially WILL effect the rods performance!

Being interested in keeping your rods lighter, is not an obsessions! That is an unkind opinion from those who differ.

Sorry Phil if that was unkind. It was never meant to be. I have learned a long time ago not to allow myself to be offended. If someone calls me an idiot or butthead or other...I usually laugh and then ask why. A man who I despise said at least one thing good. Many years a go Brigham Young said, "a man who takes offense when it wasn't intended is a fool. Also, a man who takes offense even when it was intended is also a fool." I don't others to buy or agree with that but I do. I believe at least a few people on here have obsessions. I have a few and I'm ok with it.

I think some of what we are seeing here is due to the fact that we have no way to objectively tell if what we are doing is significant to rod performance or not. For example, when using guides as small # 4 Fuji KT''s as running guides, is there a significant difference in performance (recovery speed/sensitivity) between titanium and stainless versions of the guides? I will probably get some answers, but I'll bet not one will be based on an objective measurement.

Let me ask this: If we had a way to measure the actual, real time, (not the artificially weighted CCS method) natural frequiency of a rod, first with titaniums, then with stainless guides, would this answer the question? I would think that the higher the natural frequency, the faster the response time and the higher the sensitivity.

It would also allow one to see whether the expensive high modulus blanks are any different with respect to natural frequency from the less expensive ones. Think RX6 vs RX8.

With expensive equipment finding the natural frequency of a rod is a piece of cake. But is there a practical way for all of us to do it witihout expensive specialized equipment?

You can measure relative frequency with the CCS method as long as the weight you add is the same on both rods and is in addition to the guides that are already there. And it will show that the rod with the lighter guides, albeit only a slight difference, will have a higher relative frequency.

........

But the CCS method is not pure. It is not a clean method that does not require altering the rod/blank in order to get a measurement. You have to add a weight to slow it down so you can count cycles vs time. This is certainly suspect. Hanneman, a truly brilliant person even beyond fishing rods, suggests the weight. He did this because there was no practical way for all of us to measure the true natural frequency. He was challenged at the time by other pretty smart people. But would it not be much better if the pure, un-altered, natural frequency could be measured? You call it "relative" frequency for a reason. Because it is not true "natural" frequency.

There was no valid challenge to his CCF. It works because it's objective and relative. If it doesn't work, then throw out your bathroom scale and tape measures because they're based on the same system. You don't need to measure natural frequency - you need to measure relative frequency. There is not such thing as "natural length or weight. These are system based on relative measurements which allows you to make comparisons as to whether something is longer, shorter, heavier or lighter than something else.

...........

Tom..as I have suggested previously, how many people will be able to determine the lighter difference. I have no idea what you all are talking about on the 3 previous posts but you mention a "slight difference." Previously you and other posters have referred to the weight difference as "huge." Common sense seems to tell me such a slight difference distributed evenly on a rod would be just that...slight. And, most likely unnoticeable to most people.

Then try it for yourself - wrap a rod with single overwraps. Use it. Now cut the guides off and rewrap with under and overwraps on each guide. Use it. The difference is absolutely huge. Or, do the CCF measurement. Natural frequency will tell you nothing, but relative frequency will allow you compare how those two rods differ in terms of rod speed (reaction and recovery) between two guide set-ups, underwraps vs no-underwraps, etc.

You can argue this until the cows come home or you can do the comparisons and decide for yourself. In most cases you won't need to take measurements - you'll be able to realize the difference in your hand.

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

I remember challenges on this forum to Hanneman's frequency work, adding weight to determine a "relative" frequency. I find it very hard to argue that a method which artificially adds weight to a blank to determine a "relative" frequency is better than or even as good as (valid) a method that measures the natural frequency of an un-altered blank. Hanneman only added weight because he recognized that there was no practical way of finding the true natural frequency without sophisticated equipment. He argued that adding weight to bring the frequency down to where it could be observed without sophisticated equipment was valid in comparing ("relative") frequencies. But he recognized that it was just a substitute for measuring the "real thing." I say this based on his writings. Keep in mind I'm only talking about his frequency work, not the power and action work of his CCF. I am not challenging that at all. And I'm not challenging his work on frequency, only saying that it was limited by the technology of the time. And arguing that a practical way of measuring the natural frequency of a blank without adding artificial weight to it would be a really valuable development.

But this is only important if there is agreement on the argument that performance is related to natural frequency. Is a higher frequency blank a better blank? More responsive? Faster recovery? More sensitive?

Wrapping a few inches past the end of the guide foot ( Which well over 90% of builders do if you look through the photos section ) which will also be covered with additional epoxy is accomplishing essentially the same thing as using a heaver guide train . Sure you can choose a lighter weight guide train which is a smart move but if you do the above you have just taken away all of that lighter guide trains advantages . Remembering simple things like that is not difficult.

On an offshore rod fighting in a chair no biggie but on lighter stuff you're severely handicapping your rods performance potential .



Don't confuse obsession with builders who just happen to be much more tuned in to what it takes for ultimate rod performance vs those who take other aspects of rod building more seriously . There's no question in my mind that many favor appearance first and foremost over every other aspect of rod building but I would never call them obsessed because it would be degrading them personally .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2021 08:22PM by chris c nash.

Then find the natural frequency of the two rods set up as mentioned. Of course, you have already said there is no easy way to do this without buying expensive equipment, so that seems out of the question.

Or, you can perform the CCF on those two rod set ups, get the CCF relative frequency numbers and have your answer. The higher number will indicate a faster rod speed and it will end up being the lighter of the two. Adding what you call "artificial weight" to the rod will have no impact on the relative nature of the numbers, as long as the same weight is added to both set ups. If what is being sought is which set up has the faster rod speed, then the CCF will do that for you. The numbers themselves don't matter - it's their relativity to each other that matters.

So you have something you cannot easily do, if at all, or you can use a system designed to do exactly what was asked here - will the lighter rod have a faster rod speed? The CCF will do provide that information.

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

Sorry Tom, I am such a non believer, right now I have no desire to spend my time even trying your test. I build only with high end components and I never wrap more than 1/8th inch past the guide foot. Nash mentioned 90% wrap an inch or two past the guide foot....why? I can see that adding weight but that's not why I don't do it. I just like shorter wraps. I figure if something is not broke, don't fix it. My rods look very good and fish very good.

You can continue to assume or find out for certain. Which you do is entirely up to you.

...........

If I "have already said there is no easy way to do this without expensive equipment" I didn't mean to. What I intended to say was that there was no such method when Dr. Hanneman was working on frequency so he developed a way to somewhat accomplish the goal. And the validity of it was in fact challenged.

"Re: Question for Emory
Posted by: Emory Harry (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: January 10, 2010 09:00PM

Bill,
The way I measure a rods or blanks resonant frequency, or natural frequency or first harmonic whichever you prefer to call it, is to lock down the butt of the blank or rod, deflect the tip and then release the tip and let it oscillate through a light beam that is focused on a photo transistor. The output of the photo transistor I connect to an oscilloscope and an electronic counter. The oscilloscope lets me view what is occuring and the counter gives me an accurate digital readout of frequency. I do not really need both a scope and a counter either one by itself would make the measurement but I have both so I connect both up.

If you remember back when you were developing Common Sense Frequency you called me a couple of times and we had a couple of long conversations about the approach that you took. At the time I had recently finished making a couple hundred frequency measurements for a physicist at HP Labs in Palo Alto. He attempted to add a series of weights to the tip of a rod to slow the oscillations down so they could be counted by eye. The theory was that by measuring the resonant frequency with each weigh and then pluging these values into software that he had developed that would do a mathamatical regression back to zero weight he could tell without any equipment what the actual resonant frequency was. He had planned to make the software available to everyone free. The problem is it did not work. The relationship between added weight and resonant frequency was too non-linear for his regression math and we got answers that were all over the map and basically useless and we were unable to come up with a different model that worked.
As a result of this work I do not believe that there is a simple or useful relationship between resonant frequency and weight added to the tip of a rod that will accomplish what you are trying to accomplish with Common Sense Frequency.
I think that what loads a fly rod or any other rod and determines the velocity of the tip or the resonant frequency when loaded by a line or a lure is not weight at all it is inertia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2010 09:03PM by Emory Harry."


What has not really been answered is what I asked earlier: Is a higher frequency blank a better blank? More responsive? Faster recovery? More sensitive?

Dr. Hanneman came up with a practical means to do it and it worked. I'm not sure you know the history of the particular posting conversation you listed so I won't go into it. There was nothing wrong with the Dr's system. It was indeed relative in nature. It did and does what it was designed to do. The purpose was to determine which blank or rod had a higher or lower speed. The CCF does it without error. Keep in mind that CCF is not supposed to tell you how fast a rod is but whether it is faster or slower than another rod. And it does, and that's what this conversation was about. The question that Todd posed can be easily answered by the CCF.

To your last question, "better" is subjective of course. but a higher relative frequency indicates a rod that will be more responsive, crisper, faster (reaction and recovery) and more sensitive, than a rod with lower relative frequency.

........

Hanneman was practical. Harry was not. I remember that guy. LOL!

Todd

I do a short wrap (1/8 to 3/16 inch) past the guide foot. Why? Because for no other reason than that's all is needed to secure a guide in place.

If I gain any benefit from a short wrap, then lucky me!

If it gives satisfaction or confidence for those who like long wraps, then lucky them.

You ask why do folks wrap an inch or two past the guide foot? The answer is simple, its because they want to and they don't have to answer to anyone but themselves or their customers

Don't get me wrong I lean toward your side of the fence, but all I can do is offer an opinion and let the chips fall where they may.

Weight is not my top priority "Feels Good" is number one for me.

John


.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2021 11:28PM by John DeMartini.

When you dangle a a 20 gram lure from the line through your tip-top you have effectively added 20 grams to the tip of your rod during the cast. There seem to be a common delusion that the "power" of the rod unbending speeds the cast, which is not true. During the cast the lure or sinker is released before the rod begins to unbend, released at the time of maximum resistance, and you can't push on a rope.

Demartini. Ciao amico." Feels good to me." Exactly! I Like my rods to look good, be crisp and clean and feel good. All but one of my builds performed great. The one that didn't was a 3wt. fly blank that I built into a spin rod. It was just way too soft for my liking. I believe in Peter Pan and the 7 dwarfs as much as I believe that 2 grams of weight evenly distributed along the rod will make a huge difference that even novice or intermediate anglers can feel.

John said this above - "Weight is not my top priority "Feels Good" is number one for me." The rods I built 20 years ago I can't stand to fish with nowadays. They don't "feel good" any more. At the time they were fine and felt great, but not these days. The rods I build today feel better, and by leaps and bounds. Why? Well, the number one difference is that they're lighter. The guide styles, systems and their weight changed markedly. There are certain things I used to put on rods that I don't anymore. The rods I've built in these ensuing years balance better, respond and return quicker, are more sensitive and just plain "feel better." Weight reduction and distribution has much if not primarily all to do with the fact they feel better. Obviously it's possible to build a very light weight rod and do something that causes it to not feel good. But that's another issue.

The ideal rod would have zero weight. We'll never get all the way there, but the lighter the rod is typically the better it'll perform and feel.

Here's one more test anyone can perform if they want, although it takes some time and effort. If you have a painted rod, strip it down scrape off the paint and rebuild it unpainted. Unless we're talking about a heavier boat, per, trolling etc. rod, it'll be noticeably different in performance and feel built back without the painted. And yes, you can measure that difference in numbers as well.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2021 11:00AM by Tom Kirkman.