I can feel it on a built rod. A rod built on the straightest axis simply feels "crisper."

So you might go back and do the same test on a built rod which will now have the additional weight of guides to carry. The guides will exacerbate things to the point where the quicker recovery of the stiffest axis may become more apparent.

.......

roger wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sam,
> Thanks for introducing a new word to my vocabulary
> --- Spline
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> )
>
> I did not know what that word meant in the field
> of Mathmetics.
>
> Thanks again.


That word originated about 40 years ago by a TYPO and people still refer to it.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People who build on the straight-stiffest axis at
> least have some hard data as a reason for building
> that way. People who build on the spine have
> nothing other than opinions from a variety of
> sources none of which have never proved it or
> supplied data to show that building on the spine
> makes a better rod, stops rod twist, or makes for
> more accurate casting. They are the ones that need
> to step up and provide data to back up THEIR
> statements. That is what started this
> conversation--- somebody said they thought Fenwick
> built good rods but when they stripped one down it
> was not built on the spine. But like always
> happens they did not and cannot provide any proof
> or data as why a rod built on the spine is better.


About that Fenwick rod, was it a casting or Spinning rod originally?

Dennis Danku Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sam, If you need anything to keep you busy I have
> plenty of overstock I can send you,blanks,
> reelseats, guides,thread. I've always wanted to
> fish Florida for Bass also.My email is open, give
> me a shout. Stay well.


Good man Dennis!

If most blanks are represented by the 6 we tested then over 80% of the blanks have less than a 3 % difference in TNF due to orientation, and are as straight as these which had no "straightest axis" that I could detect, and we use guides like I do which have a total weight of less than 1/10 oz with most of it in an area of the blank that is not affected much by guide weight, then I think spine/axis orientation's effect on "crispness" can pretty much be ignored by most of us mortals.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If most blanks are represented by the 6 we tested
> then over 80% of the blanks have less than a 3 %
> difference in TNF due to orientation, and are as
> straight as these which had no "straightest axis"
> that I could detect, and we use guides like I do
> which have a total weight of less than 1/10 oz
> with most of it in an area of the blank that is
> not affected much by guide weight, then I think
> spine/axis orientation's effect on "crispness" can
> pretty much be ignored by most of us mortals.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

I tested 200 blanks in total. There was a measurable difference although minute. Whether or not your 6 blanks represents "most" blanks I cannot say. But just as you found, there is a difference. I did not find the difference between blanks to vary much blank to blank so 200 may well have been overkill, but the manufacturers wanted these tests done so I went to great lengths to ensure they got the most precise results I could provide.

With so many builders splitting hairs over grams of weight, sensitivity, casting accuracy, etc., etc., even taking your difference of just 2 or 3 percent and tossing it out as not worth worrying over takes us back to what else isn't worth worrying over. For some none of it is worth worrying over, for others it's worth losing sleep over. All that can be done is to present the data and let the builders decide what to do with it.

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

The only data I have to offer are responses from the folks who inspect and handle my rods.

When I hand my rod for inspection 90% of the time this is what happens.......

1) They shake it, whip it, bend it from the tip and comment on the stiffness and the light weight.

2) They hold their head up look down their nose at the butt guide rub it with their thumb and comment on its' clarity an evenness.

3) AND FINALLY and the most critical response comes when they sight down the rod, wiggle it and comment on how straight the guides are aligned.

The remaining 10% of the folks are not really into fishing and give a quick glance at the rod and politely comment on the quality of craftsmanship.

If you haven't guessed........ I build on the straightest axis.

Have fun

I Never let anybody touch my rods let alone shake it , whip it or God forbid bend the tip .

Chris, if you build for customers you might have a different reaction

Despite all that effort, and with all due respect, I would sincerely doubt that in a well controlled, double-blind test you or anyone else could determine any difference in a random sample of the 200 blanks on which you ran CCF. The mind is inherently biased, and the placebo effect most profound. And "crispness" is a descriptor that has no verifiable or scientific basis in measurable fact, but rather is a totally subjective inference.

Spine finder, straightest axis method and CCS are all well-intended but overall imprecise and often inaccurate methods of measuring. Michael Danek in frequency measurements in my mind is getting closer to the truth, and frequency has been used for years in golf shaft measurement and evaluation to determine, with extreme precision and verifiable data, shaft flex ratings and flex patterns. Flat line oscillation and frequency would be the way to best test a rod blank, a graphite tube, for the measurements you truly seek, and eliminate tall the above equivocation. And it would not be hard or very costly to do.

BUT, while used extensively in golf, and measurable to minute tolerances, while people SAY they can feel a difference in their shaft's performance due to its orientation of axis, there exists no definitive double blind study I'm aware of that truly supports that conclusion. So the debate continues.

Find a laser pointer device light enough to place on the end of a rod tip (I am not aware of one), secure the rod butt in a horizontal clamp, pull down the tip and let it oscillate up and down, and rotate the blank until the laser oscillation pattern (the frequency) is perfectly straight up and down, and you will have accurately found your axis.

All the rest is approximation, and may not matter much, if any, in a well made blank.

Phil Erickson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chris, if you build for customers you might have a
> different reaction


Good point, you're right , I only build for myself.

david taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Find a laser pointer device light enough to place
> on the end of a rod tip (I am not aware of one),
> secure the rod butt in a horizontal clamp, pull
> down the tip and let it oscillate up and down, and
> rotate the blank until the laser oscillation
> pattern (the frequency) is perfectly straight up
> and down, and you will have accurately found your
> axis.
>
> All the rest is approximation, and may not matter
> much, if any, in a well made blank.

That is a great approach, may be a bit of reflective tape or paint on the tip and performed with a light shining on the tip in a dim light setting may work.

Excellent! Thanks for the suggestion.

Have fun

Another builder has developed a video TNF approach that works great. A little more tedious and requires more equipment than the TNF using an Android device, but very precise.

I agree with David's opinions on this subject. If there is little or no difference in the numbers, it's hard to argue that there is a difference in performance.


Regarding the wiggling of a blank or finished rod I don't see any value in that at all with the modern graphite blanks and light guide trains I use.

I never have any bias going in on the tests I do for the manufacturers. It is the results from those tests that create my position - not the other way around. For instance, my research on blank breakage now hangs in the warranty departments of rod manufacturers around the globe. It was impossible to have any bias going in, as none of this stuff was known. Sometimes you suspect things but it is the testing that either confirms your suspicion or requires you to change it.

Any good custom rod builder can glue a tiptop on a blank and feel the difference between that and the naked blank. At least until you start talking about very heavy power blanks. And it's worth remembering that the little things by themselves don't mean much, but added together many little things do make a difference. The original question was had I done any tests to prove my statement that building on the stiffest axis results in higher rod speed than if you built on the softest axis. Yes, the tests were done and results proved this to be so. Saying that the difference is not enough to matter does not overcome the fact that the difference is indeed there. Whether or not that difference is worth worrying over is up to the individual rod builder.

By nature of being a relative system of measurement the CCS is not at all imprecise, unless the person taking the measurements is imprecise.

...........

I spend a lot more time over wrap color selection, reel seats and guide choices. To me the blank is going to change big time with bait selection for casting and spinning rods and even fly rods when that line hits the water. Everything gets heavier, a lot heavier.

Stan Vogel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

"To me the blank is going to change big time with bait selection for casting and spinning rods and even fly rods when that line hits the water. Everything gets heavier, a lot heavier".


Most builders understand that and it's the reason they build as light as humanly possible .

David, please email me. thx.

If one day I should fail to make it thru the pearly gates. I'll likely be forced to read spine threads for all eternity. Amen

Amen Lynn

When the first subject of a spine came out, it was when the early fiberglass rod were introduced. Those rods had a very pronounced spine. Today with very thin carbon fiber scim and improved fiberglass the spine has no influence on either casting or fighting fish!

Much ado about nothing!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2023 11:30AM by Phil Erickson.