Is there any evidence that rods built with certain blanks and certain components will cast farther and/or with more accuracy than rods built with other blanks and components? Most serious anglers value performance over appearance, but advertisements for rod blanks and components do not reveal how their products perform. Why not? Maybe they all perform alike!

Just the soulful ones. What does your research tell you?

Phil, you know the answer to your question ! Just another example of you trying to stir the pot.

I have found that the advertisements for fly rods, wine, and tennis racquets provide the most evidence supporting superior performance/quality.

Empirical results may be the only evidence.Let me know how you make out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2022 02:14PM by John DeMartini.

My first build was using a cane pole that carpet was rolled on and my last build was on an NFC Xray blank which way out performs the cane pole and a lot of other builds.
Steve

yes

Alex or Tom, can we possibly add a block button so an individual viewer doesn’t have to see certain posts or authors of their choosing? Am tired of the same redundant waste of bandwidth, garbage from the same individual on a continuous basis.

I feel your pain. The best thing to do is just not bother reading posts from other users that you know are not posting anything that would interest you. That's about the best you can do.

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

do Nanolite inserts cast better/farther than Alconite inserts? do oranges taste better than applies? are Fords better than Chevys but not as good as Dodge? is my favorite Chinese blank better built than your favorite Chinese blank? Inquiring minds want to know...NOT!

Unless there was a single "tester" or test method used on every combination/permutation of blanks, reel seats, guides and layout configurations, manufacturers will continue to use whatever subjective language they like in order to convince the consumer their product is superior to another. This is evidenced by the myriad new "words" and "scientific" jargon that usually accompanies a new product release



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2022 09:06PM by Daniel Grundvig.

I would tend to put "accuracy" in the angler skill category...not the rod property category.

The only video I've seen that shows superior performance is the side by side wear test on monofilament line using Fuji Torzite vs SIC. The Torzite was far smoother, and didn't wear out the line nearly as fast as did the SIC guides. Other than that, you just have t try different hardware, guide layout, and whether to use the spine, straightest axis, or whatever floats your boat. After several rod builds, you'll find what you like.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF

Thanks, Robert. I was not aware of the Torzite test comparison - a useful bit of actual, physical information for a rod builder. I built my first rod in 1958. In the intervening 64 years I have found precious little useful information (versus advertising hype) about rod blanks, rod components, and their physical performance. As for spine, axis etc. - as long as the rod components are firmly attached and don't move around during a cast the rod will cast to the same spot, regardless of spine or straightest axis. A competent caster will quickly compensate for a rod's point of aim, just like he compensates for the wind.

There are many examples of rods that perform much better than their counterparts, but you must be careful to compare apples to apples. For example, an ultra-high modulus blank with an extra fast action may be great for tossing lures (or flies) to Rainbow Trout, but would be next to worthless for a downrigger Kokanee rod!

As for components, there are many high quality components available to the custom rod builder. One example is the Microwave guides from American Tackle. They have been proven to be extremely effective and efficient. Others may prefer the Fuji micro guide systems for the same reasons. The guide materials also play a big part, as there are some that are much lighter (Torzite) and braid tolerant. I prefer the Nanolite inserts from American Tackle, as they are an excellent insert for braid and are also lighter than most standard ceramic rings. For Fly guides, I prefer snake guides, and have expounded in prior posts about those of Snake Brand. Simply said, they are easier to wrap and of the highest quality. One version has a patented finish called E-coat that while it looks like chrome but has no chromium in it, and it has a natural luybrosity similar to brass which helps the fly line shoot through the guides.

While I realize Phil is asking his question to generate reactions, it is a valid question that helps to understand the reason there are custom rod builders. We don't save money building our own rods, but we get rods with a laser-focus on our specific application with much better components than an off-the-shelf mass-produced rod.

I can think of two priorities in rod building: (1) function and (2) appearance. Both are fine pursuits, but their goals are quite different. One priority (function) can be measured objectively in feet and inches. Appearance cannot be measured, and no amount of vituperation will change this. I'm more interested in a rod's performance (facts) than my feelings about that rod - but I have no animosity toward those who judge fishing tackle primarily by its looks.

Components are measured and tested in numerous ways, most of the information is just not published.

As the only ceramics manufacturer among ALL components OEMs, I can assure you there is a difference in ceramic materials. Everything from specific gravity (weight by volume), thermal conductivity (smoothness), hardness, fracture resistance are all measured and tested extensively. Silicon nitride is the very best on the market for nearly all physical characteristics with the exception of hardness. Lots of components companies name their ceramic rings they purchase from others with great names, they are still only a handful of high-performance ceramic materials on the market. Here is a link to our catalog, on page 24 we list most of the different materials available with physical characteristics of each.

[sea-guide.com]

In addition to offering all ceramic material information, SeaGuide offers all the specifics on frame weights, ring weights, and tube weight and length to the public. I tried and failed to upload a PDF of all of our frame weights, ceramic weights, tube weights, etc but could not get it to work. I sent the attachment to Tom K, perhaps he can help?

Rick Hall
Global Sales Manager
SeaGuide Corporation
406-750-2122
www.sea-guide.com

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Robert. I was not aware of the Torzite
> test comparison - a useful bit of actual, physical
> information for a rod builder. I built my first
> rod in 1958. In the intervening 64 years I have
> found precious little useful information (versus
> advertising hype) about rod blanks, rod
> components, and their physical performance. As for
> spine, axis etc. - as long as the rod components
> are firmly attached and don't move around during a
> cast the rod will cast to the same spot,
> regardless of spine or straightest axis. A
> competent caster will quickly compensate for a
> rod's point of aim, just like he compensates for
> the wind.
Curious to what your first build was during that time frame.

I managed to find and order a six-foot, two-piece fiberglass blank with help of a local gas-station owner. I don't remember where the other components came from. I built it into a spin rod. I figured out how to ream out and shape cork grips equipped with slip-rings and whip-finished rod windings. It's not rocket science. I think I covered the windings with spar varnish. I used that rod successfully for over 25 years until I capsized my canoe in a river and . . .

That's cool and pretty nice rod i bet for that
time period.

Phil, what is the point of your last comment within the context of your original post?