Tom, I can wrap my brain around the paint concept but not because of weight. If a blank is totally covered/wrapped in a substance I can understand the blank/rod responding different but not due to the extra weight. More of an "extra' layer with no real purpose.

It's absolutely the extra weight. Nothing else about the paint other than the weight it adds would cause the rod to respond differently. It doesn't add any stiffness so the painted blank automatically drops in stiffness to weight ratio over a non-painted blank. It's the additional weight.

And for those who may not be know this, a painted blank will typically be 5% to 7% heavier than the non-painted blank in the same model.

.........

Well one thing we know with certainty , no matter how much you try to explain how weight in any form is the # 1 enemy of rod performance you can only do so much in attempting to explain it . People have made it very very clear where they stand on the issue. Some thankfully admit that building the lightest possible rod is not a priority to them . Others thankfully admit that they can't wrap their head around the concept and will never be able to tell the differences and then you even have people who think additional weight is a good thing .

Although this thread is going around in circles I think it will be a very useful thread that many in the future will read when searching through the archives .

Todd Andrizzi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom, I can wrap my brain around the paint concept
> but not because of weight. If a blank is totally
> covered/wrapped in a substance I can understand
> the blank/rod responding different but not due to
> the extra weight. More of an "extra' layer with no
> real purpose.

So,.... if it isn't the weight of the paint that makes the rod respond differently, what is is?? The color???

It's not just fishing rods where weight is the # 1 enemy to performance , Moto GP bike teams and race car teams do every and anything to shave off a 10th of an ounce here or there and these machines are heavy . Any additional weight is a curse and often mean the difference between winning and losing. You think the average joe will be able to tell the difference if an eighth of an ounce is shaved off a race car ? Any weight in any form located anywhere is detrimental to performance.

Of course it's the color Mike! Pinks are lighter..blues are heavier. I can think the paint coating hardened and completely covering the blank could possibly change the stiffness or flexibility. paint is a hardened layer with no purpose other than color. I don't know that paint can change the physical properties of a blank but I can grasp that more then...once again....2 grams of weight evenly and properly distributed along a rod can make "a world of difference" to the beginner, novice and expert fisherman or, that it would be a "huge" difference to these anglers. Maybe it's my ignorance to roadbuilding or to life in general. Perhaps I am a dumbass and that's why I love life so much. And...Mike, remember...pink is light and blue is heavy!

No, paint will not make the blank stiffer - it will make the blank effectively softer (slower speed) because it is adding weight that the blank then has to carry which thereby reduces it's stiffness to weight ratio. That's the long and the short of it in a nutshell. If that basic concept isn't understood there's not really any further use in continuing this.

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

Todd, does it really matter if you believe this stuff or not ? I mean you have stated you're very happy with what you build and everybody else has said they're very happy with their rods . I think it's a huge win for everybody .

I use a simple turn if a person covers an entire rod blank with a substance like thread coating epoxy.

This process turns a nice blank into a "SLUG" of a blank.

Very heavy and terribly unresponsive and virtual no sensitivity.

No Chris, it really doesn't matter at all to me what others do. I would hope people do what they believe is best not only in rod building but in all parts of life. However, if someone says something that is confusing to me then I most likely will ask why and try to find an answer. I would love to see a true study done where any angler regardless of skill level could determine the performance of a rod that is 2 grams lighter than another rod built on the same blank. If it is such an issue, there should be some studies of some kind including human judgement.

Todd : If it is such an issue, there should be some studies of some kind including human judgement.


There is NO ISSUE . never has been an issue it's basic common sense Todd . On another note, any chance you're related to Phil E ?


Here's the problem , Tom has already repeatedly mentioned that the thing to do is if you're really interested in this topic is to do the tests that he explained how to do to find out for yourself . You have repeatedly shot down those recommendations and want others to do it for you , that's not going to happen and the main reason is because nobody has a problem with understanding this topic and are already very pleased with their rods performance .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2021 06:01PM by chris c nash.

Roger, why does the sensitivity decrease if the entire rod is "covered" in epoxy? Because there is a layer of material between the angler and the blank? Why then, does a layer of paint "covering" the blank not produce in a very, very less degree the same thing? Tom said covering the blank with a material only changes performance due to weight. How can people say that? you can't pick and choose. If covering the blank with epoxy decreases sensitivity then covering the blank with paint has to do the same thing just to a very lessor degree.

We can be done with this. I don't believe even 1% that what Tom said...any angler would be able to determine a 2 gram weight difference. Or Nash saying, 'the difference is between night and day." I would be able to comprehend somewhat if they were to say, a very good, experienced angler could tell a very slight difference in 2 grams. I still call @#$%& on this but it doesn't matter. I wished I could see it the way you do but I am being sincere and honest and I absolutely don't buy it.

Chris, That made me laugh out loud...am I related to Phil. That was funny. I like Phil. He's my bro.

I love Phil also , never new he was your brother though .

Nash, one comment on your Moto theory. It's true that bikes are being made to be lighter but it doesn't matter how light a bike is if there isn't a good rider on the seat. A good rider on a heavier bike will smoke a bad rider on a light bike. The same goes for cyclists. I biked for a long time...still do just not as fast and far. people spend several thousand dollars on lighter bikes thinking they will be a better and faster rider. it's @#$%&. Again, the rider riding the light bike needs to also have strong legs, heart, big lungs and a strong mind or the light bike doesn't mean a lot. my road bike weighs about 17lbs. There are lighter bikes for sure. I got a new mtn. bike not long ago and didn't want to spin the extra $2500 for a carbon frame. So, my mtn. bike weighs a lot...maybe 30lbs. I'm not even sure how much a light mtn. bike weighs but I can tell a difference between my road and mtn. bike...but its almost double. Now...if the mtn. bike were even 2 lbs heavier...I doubt I could tell a "huge" difference. Double the weight...yes for sure a difference. 2 lbs....nopoe.

I don't think some on this forum understand how little weight it takes to degrade performance. On rods and mountain bikes.

Instead of speculating on how much weight can make a significant difference, testing will define it. If one has the dedication to do the work that will really answer the question.

Nash..Phil isn't my brother bro....I just like the dude.

Everybody should go back and read Todd's original post that started this thread. It was never about if a fisherman could detect the difference that a 2 gram hookkeeper mounted at the handle would make. It was specifically about whether saving weight even just a few grams would make a difference. Injecting qualifiers along the line muddies the original question of the thread. And if Todd doesn't like the answers that's fine but weight, even a few grams will make a difference that can be felt and noticed in use. I think Tom mentioned the effect was cumulative and that saving a little here and a little there eventually adds up to a real difference in feel and performance. If he's wrong then everything that has been done in blank & component design over the past few decades is also wrong. To what end then? Advancements come in millimeters not feet.

The easiest and fastest test one can do is:

1.) Fit a mandrel into the end of a blank.

2.) Mount the mandrel horizontally in a vise butt end against the side jaw of the vise. Record the tip position to some reference point

3.) Add a small weight to the tip and measure and record the deflection of the tip. Do two or more different weights to have more than one data point.

4.) Remove the blank from the mandrel paint the blank then slide it back on the mandrel and repeat steps 2 and 3.

5.) Compare the data to see what the difference is.


Physics beam equations tells us the blank will bend less after painting because when the paint permanently bonds to the blank, the blank increases in size by the thickness of the paint. When the blank gets larger the moment of inertia (I) gets larger and the blank will deflect less.

Well of course a less skilled rider on a lighter bike will show little performance increase compared to a rider who's at the top of their game . Same with fishing rods , give an outstanding performance rod built for maximum distance to somebody who is an average caster at best and I can guarantee that person WILL NOT be able to tell a difference between their rod and the rod that's much more capable . DO NOT make the mistake of lumping everybody into the same group because if you're doing that no wonder you're confused , each individual is very very different and to think that a person should be able to distinguish differences on the same level of somebody who has decades of experience is crazy . This is normal with many different things like Audiophiles for example , they can detect the most subtle of differences in sounds while the majority of the population cannot . Tell one of those people that since you yourself can't tell the difference you think he/she is full of it.

John DeMartini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The easiest and fastest test one can do is:
>
> 1.) Fit a mandrel into the end of a blank.
>
> 2.) Mount the mandrel horizontally in a vise butt
> end against the side jaw of the vise. Record the
> tip position to some reference point
>
> 3.) Add a small weight to the tip and measure and
> record the deflection of the tip. Do two or more
> different weights to have more than one data
> point.
>
> 4.) Remove the blank from the mandrel paint the
> blank then slide it back on the mandrel and repeat
> steps 2 and 3.
>
> 5.) Compare the data to see what the difference
> is.
>
>
> Physics beam equations tells us the blank will
> bend less after painting because when the paint
> permanently bonds to the blank, the blank
> increases in size by the thickness of the paint.
> When the blank gets larger the moment of inertia
> (I) gets larger and the blank will deflect less.


John - the diameter does get larger, but from a much lower modulus material so the stiffness does not increase at the same rate as the weight increases. In this scenario weight outpaces stiffness and the blank will bend more and oscillate for a longer period of time. You can wrap the blank end to end with lead wire and also increase the diameter. Do you think the blank will then bend less and oscillate for a shorter period of time? Do the test - I think you are going to be surprised.

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