hey quirky question, but I'm playing around with changing rod action on a cheap medium action fly rod (trying to make it faster) I'm considering cutting a tiny bit off the tip to stiffen it and even though that would actually slow the action im hoping that i could also extend the but to counteract that and push the flex point higher up the blank. Has anyone played around with anything like this? or know if this would achieve a faster action rod?

Are you trying to speed up the action or make the recovery faster, or both?

both if possible, but mainly the action

Theoretically, I think you can affect the action with your plan. Not sure how much, but if you can do CCS numbers you can simulate it before you cut it by temporarily adding the butt extension and loading the rod a few inches down from the current tip. CCS is pretty easy to do, and you don't really need the big 4 x 8 sheet of pegboard.

Simply extending the butt should make the action faster, I think, so try just doing that before cutting the tip.

Regrding recovery speed I don't see how to simulate it, and I think that theory would predict it slowing the response, but am not sure. Mass will go up, so will stiffness. And the tip will be a little heavier, which probably means slower recovery speed. Again, how much? If the recovery speed would be increased, I doubt if it would be significant. I'm predicting it will go slower rather than faster, if it changes.

Maybe somebody has already tried this and will respond. If they have they probably have not been able to measure response/recovery speed.

Extend the butt about a foot and move seat and grip back..test before glue up..

The only way to make that rod faster in action is to extend it from the butt.

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

What Tom said is correct. The blank may recover a bit faster with a shorter tip, but the action will slow down. You can change a blank a whole lot (especially a fly action) in a hurry when trimming the tip. I wouldn't suggest modifying the tip unless you're prepared for the blank to ultimately end up in the blank extension/spare sections bin.

-Geoff

I have lived by the adage, that if one wants a blank to have a different action or power or any other change in the blank - purchase a new blank that is designed with those changes integrated into the blank.

Over the years, I have seen many many great rods absolutely ruined by a "change" made by someone in search for something different or better.

If you wish to have a rod blank that is different than your current rod blank - purchase a new blank that has been designed into, and built into the new rod blank.

Best wishes.

p.s.

An awful lot of rods that have had changes made to the tip - i.e. trimming the tip of the rod - cause the rod to be relegated for use as a pool cue. i.e. trimming the tip - effectively ruins the rod.

However, your rod, your choices, your changes.

Take care

roger wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> An awful lot of rods that have had changes made to
> the tip - i.e. trimming the tip of the rod - cause
> the rod to be relegated for use as a pool cue.
> i.e. trimming the tip - effectively ruins the rod.



No truer words have ever been spoken!

Agree with Roger. But this is a cheapie. Will be fun to see how it changes.

I have to respectfully disagree with the post above against trimming blanks. Some of the most interesting builds I've seen are based on modified blanks. After seeing countless custom builds from a broad array of builders over the years, I consider the ability to create a unique application-specific build by trimming a rod blank to be one of the telltale indicators of rod building mastery. Another key indicator that usually identifies a quality builder is the ability to generate custom guide spacing when necessary to accommodate specific grip, reel, and line configurations.

-Geoff

Michael

You are in a win win situation. Trim the tip, if it dosen't work out store the experience and when the next post about trimming the tip comes you can chime in and share your experience with pride.

If it does work out you can post the results also with pride.

Go for it.

I always remove some of the tip from the blank. Because I do not know how the manufacturer has terminated the tip. I trim back just enough material to insure that the tip looks flawless and structurally sound.
I have never had to trim more than 1/4 inch..

I will bow to anyone who can notice the difference in action/performance with 1/4 inch or less removed from the tip. Especially when that part of the blank is inside the tip tube.

Have fun.

John

I think there is a big difference between trimming a RS RX10 or a Point Blank and trimming a cheapie. If I want top performance, there are hundreds if not more premium blanks out there to choose from . And I won't alter them.

Trimming a blank at the butt or the tip will slow it down. Sometimes that is desired but from what you want to do, it will not make the action faster. Adding length to the butt will make it faster in appearance. If you do anything to take away or add to the blank it will change the performance. Its your rod, do it anyway you want. We really never know exactly if changes will attribute to a desired performance enhancement or not and you will never know unless you try it.

It would save a lot of time and space if people who tinker with rod blanks divulged the results of their efforts in feet/inches. What else is at stake, besides that "soulful feeling" - which not all of us notice?

Lance, I respectfully believe that under the defintions of slow/fast action, (not recovery speed) you are wrong that extending the butt will not make the action faster. The rod will be longer, and no longer anything like it was before, but when measured with the CCS protocol, it will be faster.

Think of it this way, suppose you would put onto the butt section of the rod an infinitely rigid section of about 3 feet, then flex the rod to 1/3 its new length. The AA has to get higher, which by definition is a faster action.

Phil, I don't think that all builders do CCS measurements, and in this case, he is asking advice and has not altered the blank yet. Yes, when he does, it would be nice to see the old vs new numbers. I don't remember you publishing any line weights of all those "magic" imported cheapie lines. Are they all accurate to their advertised weights? Come on, Phil, let's see your data.

Mike: The importers didn't advertise their line weights in grains, grams, or ounces - but then nobody does. They just call them "eight weights" or the like. I double haul - every cast - so my preferences would not please the great majority of fly fishers.

I haul my spinning rods and casting rods to the lake then I haul them home, so i guess you could say i prefer to double haul myself. Haven't noticed any effect on the action on any of my rods by double hauling them around though.

Phil, the lines do have weights, and the AFFTA has standards. How about publishing how those lines comply to the standards? It's not that hard to check them. I'm not asking for your preferences; I'm asking for your data. Walk the talk.

Michael: The manufacturers-vendors of fly lines do not publish the actual weight of the first 30' of their fly lines in ounces, grams, or grains. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this. F.Y.I the numbered "weight" of the head of a fly line is a range of weights, not a single weight. If you wish to know the actual "weight" of one of your fly lines you should weigh the line yourself and remove all doubt. I used to test-cast lines for a manufacturer so I have a basket full of fly lines, now all weight-forward, none lighter than a 6 wt. I fish salt water these days so long casts are standard fare. I usually carry more than 30 feet of line in my false casts and most of my casts are over 60 feet, so my casting style and line selection would be of little use and less interest to the great majority of fly fishers.