We tend to forget that rods are built to satisfy different criteria. For some, function takes precedence over the rod's other attributes. For others, form takes priority over the rod's other attributes. Those whose first priority is function will use a minimum of guide wrappings, a minimum of epoxy coats only on the guide wraps, and no paint or embellishment on the blank. Those whose priority is form will not hesitate to put several coats of epoxy, paint, decals and decoration on the rod blank. These two styles of rod-building have different goals and should be judged by how well each builder achieved his, not someone else's goal.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For some, function takes
> precedence over the rod's other attributes. For
> others, form takes priority over the rod's other
> attributes.

...and we have the third group. This group cares deeply about function and does the research for blanks and components.
Then will embellish this rod with trim bands and cross wraps, inlays...etc...etc.

I would love to see a white paper on the difference of a rod with one vs two coats of epoxy.
Sure I know there is a weight difference...but it about the difference of adding a snap swivel to a lure.
Builders forget that all the dynamics change when you add different lines and lures.

You don't necessarily have to give up one for the other. For instance, if you want a wood or exotic cork grip but don't like the weight of those pieces, core them with a rigid lightweight foam. If you like decorative threadwork or other similar embellishments - perform them on the bottom 3rd of the rod where that slight additional weight does little to affect rod speed or swing weight. There are all sorts of things you can do to balance things out so that you get outstanding performance even with many cosmetic embellishments.

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

If you use the TNF process you can measure quite closely how much what you are doing to the blank affects its recovery speed when built into a rod. From my data, I think you will be surprised how little what you do low on the rod affects it. As Tom suggests.

Not all of us are in that "We tend to forget. . . ." I never forget it, and I'll bet most on this forum don't either.

Imagine that .... adding weight in the lower end of a rod or behind the reel seat doesn't affect the performance of a rod that much.

Whodathunk it.

David , I know you would have thunk it, but now you can measure it. If you want to.

Gotta love it!

I did an experiment that I think fits this topic quite well. I have two rods that are built on the same blank. The builds used identical components, in the same locations on each rod. The only difference between the rods is the rear grips they have on them. I changed the grips on the one rod, so I took the opportunity, and added a 1 oz weight inside the butt of the rod I added the weight to lighten the tip weight of the rod.

One of the rods weighs 3.65 oz. The rod I added the weight to now weighs 4.75 oz. The experiment was aimed at trying to ascertain the tip weight of each rod. While what I set up may not be completely accurate, it gives an idea of how weight at the butt of a rod, affects its' tip weight. I checked the rods on their own, and the rods with reels on them. I have Curado 200 K reels on both rods

Using the same scale that I used to weigh the two rods, as a load cell, I set up a stand to rest the rods on, while I rested the tip of the rod on the scale. The stand consists of a stand alone rod rack that I have in my rod room, with a piece of 1x6 clamped to it, to bring it up to a height that was level with the top of the scale. I set the scale to grams, and laid each rod on the stand with the 1x6 butted up to a small nub that I use to close off the end of the thread barrel, on all of my rods, I then laid the rod's tip, on the scale

I'll first list my findings for just the rods themselves. The first rod I tested was the rod without weight added to the butt. Laying the tip on the scale gave a reading of 9 grams. I then tested the weighted rod. Laying the tip of the weighted rod on the scale gave a reading of 3 grams. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference, but it is definitely a difference that can be felt.

I then put the reels on the rods and tested them again. The first rod I tested was once again, the rod without the weight added to the butt. Laying the tip of the rod on the scale gave a reading of 3 grams. I wasn't able to test the weighted rod with the reel on with the set up I had because the tip would not rest on the scale. I couldn't even let go of the rod because it would have fallen off the stand I had fashioned. So I was presented with a conundrum. I needed a way that would allow me to move the weighted rod to a different position on the stand, that didn't require me to lay the reel upside down, on top of the stand. Laying the reel on the stand in that manner would have added an angle to the rod touching the scale, that might give a counterfeit reading.

I tried two methods. The one was to simply let the reel handle lay on top of the 1x6 to keep the reel from rolling over. I was afraid that may skew the results so I tied a piece of fishing line at the base of one of the handle knobs, and held it so the reel wouldn't roll over. Both methods showed the same results, so I went with the easier method of just letting the reel handle stabilize the reel.

I had to position the top of the 1x6 directly under the foot of the reel where it connects to the reel itself, in order to get a reading of 3 grams from the weighted rod. The difference in distance between the points of rest for each rod to obtain the same 3 gram reading, was 2.125" After determining where I had to rest the weighted rod to achieve a 3 gram reading, I placed the unweighted rod in the same position and placed its' tip on the scale. I got a reading of 10 grams. Only an increase of 1 gram, but you have to remember that the length of a lever determines its' mechanical advantage. By having to move the rod to achieve the same 3 gram reading, I increased the length of the lever by 2.125" which increases its' mechanical advantage.

Now I am not smart enough to figure out if the 1 gram difference is due to mechanical advantage, and if it is, that's fine. But I have to think that the lever increasing from a length of 72.25" to 74.375" would have more affect on perceived tip weight, than 1 gram.

I guess the point of my experiment was to put some numbers, as archaic as they may be, behind my belief that weight in a build can be quite helpful in the function of a fishing rod. As far as the rods having a 1 oz difference in weight, I assure you that it can only be felt when not holding the rod in a fishing position. Otherwise the weighted rod feels lighter.

Anyhow, there it is ..... opinions on my testing and its' results are welcome.

David...I love your approach. Well done.

I have a couple of observations.
1. You added 1oz to one of the blanks and came up with 3.65 and 4.75 respectively. The second rod gained .1 oz (2.83 grams) somewhere.
This is one of the fallacies of testing with two different blanks....they may have the same model number...but there really not the same blank.

I'm not one of those people who adds weight to a rod. At the end of the day 4.75 is 1.1oz heavier than 3.65...by 30%. (1.1 / 3.65).
But...adding weight has its place and is something a lot of people do...this is why we have the weight kits.

>> Now I am not smart enough to figure out if the 1 gram difference is due to mechanical advantage, and if it is, that's fine. But I have to think that the lever increasing from a length of 72.25" to 74.375" would have more affect on perceived tip weight, than 1 gram.

Archimedes is smiling somewhere.
M1 is the weight of the tip of the rod.
D1 is the distance from the fulcrum to M1.
M2 is the mass on the other end of the fulcrum.
D2 is the distance from the fulcrum to M2.

M1 * D1 = M2 * D2 There is an equivalence between the mass and the distance on each side.
If you were to double the distance on one side you would need half as much mass to balance it out.

One thing we tend to forget about with this balancing act is that our hands and wrists are also exerting a force.
A class 1 lever is like a balance scale. A class 2 lever is like a pry bar.
When were using a fishing rod...we are essentially using a combination of a class 1 and class 2 lever.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2022 10:03AM by Chris Catignani.

Chris, thank you for the compliment. I truly appreciate it. It was a fun experiment to do. And while I personally knew the results would be telling, I wanted to share with others that might be considering adding weight to the butt of their rods to achieve a specific degree of balance.

I can understand your not being one to add weight, but you're evidently not repulsed by the idea. When the topic of rod and reel balance comes up, I see a lot of posts advocating placing the reel seat in a location that will result in a balanced rod and reel. I'm dead set against that for a reason that shows in my experiment. And that is the distance you have to move a reel seat to have a meaningful effect on rod and reel balance. In the case of my experiment it is opposite of what one would need to do without adding weight to the butt of the rod. I was trying to exert a force, so I had to move the pivot point closer to the butt of the rod.. The point being, moving a reel seat 2" or more closer to the tip of the rod, can or in my case, would make the rod difficult, if not impossible to use comfortably. And I won't use a rod that isn't comfortable to fish with. So why build one that way?

As far as the .1 oz the weighted rod gained. As I said, the rods have different grips, The unweighted rod has a 10" CFX carbon fiber grip on it. The weighted rod HAD split EVA grips on it with an extra trim ring at the butt cap. Prior to changing the grips on that rod, it weighed 3.85 oz. I changed those grips to split cork grips that I made. I didn't weigh any of the grips prior to putting them on. Logic would dictate that the .1 oz weight difference is in grip weight, and a little in the weight of the epoxy I used to secure the weight inside the blank's butt.

I did disprove something I thought though. I hadn't put cork grips on any of the rods I've built, until I started making my own cork grips. I thought EVA was lighter than cork, so if I wasn't using a foam core carbon fiber sleeved grip, I was using EVA. As I said, I had EVA grips on the rod before changing them to cork. Had I not added the 1 oz weight, I would have lightened the rod by .1 oz by using cork grips initially. Cork isn't as heavy as I once thought.

Oh and the math you posted .... if Archimedes was smiling somewhere, he is probably busting a gut now, because what you posted still proves I am not smart enough to figure it out LOL

Thanks again for the compliment. And thank you for the response.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2022 10:30AM by David Baylor.

A long time ago I was taught that devices like fishing poles are class three levers. My old-time reference books say the same: The fulcrum is on one end of the pole, the load (lures, sinkers) on the other end of the pole. Force is applied to the fulcrum end of the pole. This arrangement compounds the speed of the objects at the end farthest from the fulcrum: lures, sinkers, worms, bobbers, etc.. The biggest result of moving the fulcrum (reel handle) closer to the rod tip will be to decrease the speed of your rod tip, and therefore decrease the distance of your cast.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A long time ago I was taught that devices like
> fishing poles are class three levers. My old-time
> reference books say the same: The fulcrum is on
> one end of the pole, the load (lures, sinkers) on
> the other end of the pole. Force is applied to the
> fulcrum end of the pole. This arrangement
> compounds the speed of the objects at the end
> farthest from the fulcrum: lures, sinkers, worms,
> bobbers, etc.. The biggest result of moving the
> fulcrum (reel handle) closer to the rod tip will
> be to decrease the speed of your rod tip, and
> therefore decrease the distance of your cast.

In a class three lever...the force is located between the load and the fulcrum.

In the example we have been discussing, with the weight in the rear (which is behind the fulcrum) and the added force of the hand and wrist (behind the fulcrum), it would not be a class three.
Technically, a fishing pole COULD be a class three lever if you held it by the butt cap.

The fulcrum in a one-hand bait or spin casting rod lies between your little finger and the tip of your thumb. The motion of the lever (rod) rotates around this point, and the thumb that conveys energy to the rod exerts that energy between the lever's fulcrum in the middle of the caster's hand and the load at the rod tip - unless you cast like one would throw a baseball. If you held the rod by its butt cap to cast your elbow would become the fulcrum - and this arrangement would still be a type three lever. BTW: The force which double double-haul fly casters use to propel their fly casts comes from their free (non-rod) hand, which makes the rod-arm elbow (not the wrist) the fulcrum of a type-three casting lever, and in doing so doubles or triples casting distance.

Phil,
A great explanation.

That is why, when I use both hands to cast, I can cast so much further.

One hand on the butt of the rod, and one hand around the reel seat.

So, as you are thrusting forward with the hand holding the reel, you are effectively pulling back on the butt of the rod, which causes a very large increase in the tip velocity of the rod tip and thus the lure or bait is accelerated at the same time, resulting in a much further cast.

-------------------------------
I learned this from a friend while we were fishing for Walleyes on the Mississippi river. We were anchored and casting to wing dams. Every time that my buddy cast, there was a whistling sound from the tip of his rod and he would consistently cast many yards further that what I was getting with my typical one arm/hand cast. But after explaining the situation to me, I was able to duplicate the whistling sound of my rod tip going through the air, and the same long distance that he was commonly getting.

Take care

Phil...your changing the subject...aka strawman argument.
The setup we described in the OP, and the scenario that Roger so eloquently described, are examples of class one levers.

Here is a little mnemonic to help you get it straight
FLE-123.

FLE is the lever part in the middle.
Class 1 - Fulcrum is in the middle.
Class 2 - Load is in the middle.
Class 3 - Effort is in the middle.

When your two hand casting, like you and Roger mention...The load in on the tip of the rod, The fulcrum is on the reel seat (aka middle) and the effort in on the end of the rear grip.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These two styles of rod-building
> have different goals and should be judged by how
> well each builder achieved his, not someone else's
> goal.

I was under the impression that a custom rod was for all intent to be built to your customers spec. Would that not defeat the point of the builder achieving his goal over the customers goal?

I have found over the years there are a couple of different types of people that build rods, those that have the ability to build a rod with embellishments (or without embellishments) and make it a perfectly functioning rod, and those that can't. Usually the ones that can't build an ornate functioning rod, will start conversations like this. I have also found that many times your customer does not have the ability to out fish either type of build. There are very few fisherman that are good enough to feel the shortcoming of a fishing rod, most that can will opt for the plain highly functioning rod over the ornate. The average fishermen is unable to feel the difference, so build what you want, be it ornate or plain, but build it the way your customer wants.

^^ Two thumbs up!

Much more of a form than function thing ..... I built another grip. I still have some contouring to do that I'll wait to do after I ream it.

I tell ya one thing ..... that rubberized cork is some tough stuff. Even 80 grit sand paper doesn't touch it that much. May have to hit it with a chisel again, just to save some time and keep the heat down in it.

Anyhow .... here's another grip that is more pretty, than it is functional.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

It's functional ..... it's just not light weight lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2022 04:46PM by David Baylor.

You make it light. Core it.

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

Hello David.

Can you Bore it and use a foam insert?

PS Tom you type faster than I do!


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2022 06:49PM by Robert A. Guist.