“Personal Perfect Rod” Recipe - Taylor make your rods

[Merlin]

Come on Bill,

We are just anxious to know about the truth. In the meantime, let me remember to the audience that deflection tests, and also frequency tests, including load, have been performed by rod makers both in USA and UK before the mid of 20th century. This is a characteristic of history, we repeat what others did before. The only new thing is that some of us have been able to model the fly cast and understand which are the key parameters, and among them, there is the loaded frequency of our tackle. Now we have the justification of the usefulness of the frequency testing.

If it takes a long time before you explain us blank selection, I would suggest we start betting on the "secret ingredient". That will keep the forum busy.

Let's start: gazeous, liquid or solid? Hmm, solid?

Merlin

[Merlin]

Gordy, Crunch, Bernd

I discovered in my old files the AFTMA fly line standard from 1981. Lines are rated from 1 to 21. From 15, the step is 50 grains and the tolerances remains plus or minus 12 grains. Line 21 corresponds to 850 grains (55 grams).

There was also an article telling that the change from size to weight (actually mass) was done between 1958 and 1960 by Myron Gregory and Art Agnew.

Where is that 21 feet # 21 that will help me catching a 210 lbs salmon?

Merlin

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi merlin

Sounds like a skagit line :p

cheers
Lasse

[gordonjudd]

If one looks at your excellent graphs in your post #101, I believe an unbiased observer would agree that the value of the blue line in the range of interest is about -5. It certainly isn’t 10, -10, or anything else.

Bill,
If we can agree that interpolation can serve as an "unbiased observer" then we can see from the plot below that the slope for the blue curve (k=.8 N/m) equals -5 for a ELN value of 4.9. For ELN around 3 (left end of curve) the slope value is -8.2 cpm/eln and for values around 7 it is -3.2 cpm/eln.

Thus with truth in advertising requirements that abound in today's world maybe you should change the title of this thread to be "How to pick your personal favorite 4.9 ELN rod that has a spring constant value of .8 N/m"

Then in small print you could add:
Results for other rod weights or spring constant values might vary.

Gordy

[Bill Hanneman]

Merlin,

... let me remember to the audience that deflection tests, and also frequency tests, including load, have been performed by rod makers both in USA and UK before the mid of 20th century. This is a characteristic of history, we repeat what others did before.

Yes, and one definition of insanity is to repeat the same actions and expect a different result. I believe I am taking a new and different approach.

The only new thing is that some of us have been able to model the fly cast and understand which are the key parameters, and among them, there is the loaded frequency of our tackle. Now we have the justification of the usefulness of the frequency testing.

Hopefully, others will be able to derive some usefulness from my “formula”. Personally, I am not interested in the mechanics of the fly cast (I just do it.) and have no idea how this information might be of use for your purposes. Nevertheless, I hope it is.

If it takes a long time before you explain us blank selection, I would suggest we start betting on the "secret ingredient". That will keep the forum busy.
Let's start: gaseous, liquid or solid? Hmm, solid?

An interesting idea, but the answer is “none of the above.
Nevertheless,, let me give you a clue. I claim that use of my “secret ingredient” will allow me to take any typical spinning or casting rod and convert it into a “fly rod” which will allow me to easily (but not necessarily with great pleasure) cast any fly line a distance of 30 ft. (40 ft. including leader).
-----------------------------------------------------------

Gordy,

... the blue curve (k=.8 N/m) equals -5 for a ELN value of 4.9.

Good, 4.9 is close enough to 5 for my purpose, which was to confirm, before I continued “cherry picking” that I was indeed in the right orchard.

Thus with truth in advertising requirements that abound in today's market maybe you should change the title of this thread to be "How to pick your personal favorite 4.9 ELN rod that has a spring constant value of .8 N/m"

Interesting, and how many individuals do you think would bother to read it?
Also, while I appreciate the suggestion, I believe it is a little premature for one to suggest a title for a book one has not read.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
OK Gang, Back to the subject.
Lets begin with basics and the “secrete ingredient”.
The first question to be answered is, “What is the “essential ingredient” that separates the typical modern graphite fly rod from any and all other fishing rods.
I await your “guesses”.

[gordonjudd]

OK Gang, Back to the subject.
Lets begin with basics and the “secrete ingredient”.
The first question to be answered is, “What is the “essential ingredient” that separates the typical modern graphite fly rod from any and all other fishing rods.
I await your “guesses”.

Bill,
Let's nip this type of foolishness in the bud and have you make your case rather than putting your readers through an endless series of irritating questions and guessing games that are intended to show how smart you are and how dumb your readers are.

As Spolek pointed out in his 1993 Flyfisherman article everyone that is interested in this subject knows the use of modern materials has resulted in rods that have higher natural frequencies (and probably higher loaded frequencies as well). As Merlin noted that is no great secret, since manufacturers have been working to increase the frequency characteristics of their rods for over 50 years.

Going back even further Alexander Grant tuned the frequency of his "vibration" designed Spey rods back in the 1890's. His innovative designs enabled him to blow the competition away at the turn of the 19th century, as he routinely cast more than 50 yards in the distance casting events of his day.

Consequently, you have not "discovered" anything new in looking at the frequency of rods, so let's just cut to the chase and have you make your case on how you would go about selecting "Your personal favorite 4.9 ELN rod that has a spring constant value of .8 N/m"

You have put off explaining your method for 11 in pages of fluff in this thread, so it is time to "just do it."

Gordy

[Merlin]

Personally, I am not interested in the mechanics of the fly cast

A pity, I’m afraid, this would help your readers in building their rods. The line to rod fit is in there. I recommend that you read two articles about rod makers, one in FFM vol 10 #2 (jan/feb 1979, a long time ago) and one in Fly Rod & Reel 25th anniversary June 2004. Rod makers were interviewed; and there is a lot to learn from these articles. Let me illustrate this point. I had a friend of mine who was fishing with a Fenwick #6 and a #3 line. Crazy? This was linked to his casting style, he was just using a sharp stroke from his wrist, his elbow was nearly not rotating at all. The rod / line fit dilemma is in the casting style.

An interesting idea, but the answer is “none of the above”

My Goodness, is it spiritual if it can’t be material? As a Wizard, I am mostly interested; maybe I already have a recipe without knowing it (where is my magic wand?).

I claim that use of my “secret ingredient” will allow me to take any typical spinning or casting rod and convert it into a “fly rod” which will allow me to easily (but not necessarily with great pleasure) cast any fly line a distance of 30 ft. (40 ft. including leader).

I can do that also, but I prefer to design a fly rod directly. People deserve good fly rods today; we are not in the situation of the early days of rod building.

The first question to be answered is, “What is the “essential ingredient” that separates the typical modern graphite fly rod from any and all other fishing rods.
I await your “guesses”.

There is a long way to a pole rod for white fish (I was a competitor in that field). Stretching rod is impossible, so I guess we are back on the spinning to fly rod track. I would not advise rod builders to buy a spinning rod blank to convert it into a fly rod. Buying a fly rod blank is much more efficient, but if I had to do the job, I would. However, the result would be bad by comparison to existing fly rods, so the interest seems to me academic. Maybe we should open a thread about qualification of rod builders with questionnaires and practical work.

Put your cards on the table, Bill, you shall see we can help you in your respectable quest.

Merlin

[Bill Hanneman]

Fellows,

I would not advise rod builders to buy a spinning rod blank to convert it into a fly rod. Buying a fly rod blank is much more efficient, but if I had to do the job, I would.

If I remember correctly, that is exactly what I suggested to Gordy some time back because of the kind of performance he was seeking. He could not get it out of the “most efficient” fly blank available. So, get a spinning rod blank and “degrade” it’s efficiency to match the performance one wants.
A rod is a rod is a rod. If one considers efficiency to be something like power (ERN) divided by weight, fishing rod marketers know there is little demand for very highly efficient fly rods. Consequently, they sell them as spinning rods, for which there is a huge demand.

However, the result would be bad by comparison to existing fly rods, so the interest seems to me academic.

Precisely. except there is a small number of anglers who want this performance. Consequently, as in the case of the famous TCR5, Sage simply built an ERN=7 rod and put a number 5 on it to sell to this market. Of course, the average angler hated it and had to put on a heavier line (or a Feel Fixer :p ) to degrade its efficiency so they could enjoy fishing with it.

As Spolek pointed out in his 1993 Flyfisherman article everyone that is interested in this subject knows the use of modern materials has resulted in rods that have higher natural frequencies (and probably higher loaded frequencies as well). As Merlin noted that is no great secret, since manufacturers have been working to increase the frequency characteristics of their rods for over 50 years.

And it is also no great secret that increasing the frequency characteristics of a fly rod is not the solution to the problem of matching rod to angler. So you engineers are still at “square one”.

Consequently, you have not "discovered" anything new in looking at the frequency of rods,...

Sorry, Gordy, that is not for you to say, as you really don’t have the slightest idea of what it is that I have discovered.

... so let's just cut to the chase and have you make your case on how you would go about selecting "Your personal favorite 4.9 ELN rod that has a spring constant value of .8 N/m"

I believe that after over 100 posts you have lost sight of the original intention of this thread. It is, Dr. Bill’s “Personal Perfect Rod” Recipe. This has nothing to do with any favorite of mine. Rather, it is a description of a process whereby a custom rod builder can be assured of producing a product which will be sure to please his client.
It is obvious few of you are really interested in the details of the process. Rather, all you want to know are the “secrete ingredients”. So be it. I’ll be happy to tell you, now that you can speak CCS. How to do it, i.e., the original subject of this thread, is another story.

Dr. Bill’s Secret Ingredients

Knowledge of how to determine ERN, ELN, AA, WL, CCF, TP, PR, CCF, and PPF

Knowledge of the fact a typical fly rod differs from every other fishing rod because it exhibits a CCF of about 83 cpm.

Knowledge of the fact one’s PPF can only be determined experimentally.

Knowledge of the fact one’s PPF changes with the angling situation.

Knowledge of the fact the most important function of the fly line is to serve as the means by which one adjusts the rod’s CFF to the client’s PPF

Knowledge of the fact one can predict how changes in ERN, ELN, or WL, will effect frequency by using the charts in Post #85.

Now you have something to chew on.

Best wishes,
Bill

[gordonjudd]

Of course, the average angler hated it and had to put on a heavier line (or a Feel Fixer :p ) to degrade its efficiency so they could enjoy fishing with it.
and
Now you have something to chew on.

Bill,
Anything that would consider adding mass to the tip of the rod to get a rod that feels better when casting is just the opposite of what any knowledgeable rod maker would do to get the most out of a fly rod blank.

I cannot think of anything that would be more detrimental to how a rod will unbend or how much counterflex there would be than adding a "feel fixer" mass to the tip of a rod.

Most custom rod makers are doing all they can do to reduce the mass of wraps, guides, and tip tops to get better performance, and your method appears to recommend doing just the opposite. If you can find one rod designer that thinks adding mass to the tip of one of his rods is a good idea, then let us know. I cannot think of a worse thing to do.

I thought you were joking when you said,

Personally, I am not interested in the mechanics of the fly cast

If you still think a "feel fixer" is a good idea and is part of your selection process for finding a perfect 5 wt rod, then what you say regarding your understanding of the physics of casting really must be true.

What is WL in your endless list of abbreviations, and how can it be changed to increase the loaded frequency of a rod? That is what would be appealing to most casters who routinely cast more than 30 feet of line.

Gordy

[Merlin]

Hi everybody

Since the logic of CCS is difficult to understand by Joes like me and remains hidden from public, let me introduce to you the CSS, the Common Sense System to tune blanks. To illustrate the methodology, I shall use the star of the forum, the TCR 590-4, which Jerry Siem designed to puzzle Dr Bill maybe.

We know frequency is a key parameter in fly casting, so we start from the dynamic testing described by Grunde at the beginning of the thread, and we take the dynamic characteristics of the finished rod: Stiffness K = 1.07 N/m and mo(rod) = 0.0026 kg, that is to say 2.6 grams.

Let also take its swing weight into consideration, and given the data provided in the MOI databank (thanks Grunde and Magnus), its SW is close to 71.6 g m2 (average for two rods).

Now let’s write the impressive equation that will help us to tune the rod:
Frequency (in Hertz) = 1/(2pi ) * square root [ K / (m + mo (blank) + mo (guides & wraps)) ]

m is the mass of line outside the guides, mo (rod) = mo (blank) + mo (guides & wraps) that I shall write like this: mor = mob + mogw. Now we have to identify those components of the equation. Here I come to your rescue with my own database and I tell you that mogw can be estimated at 1.7 grams for a 9 feet rod with standard guides. So we can deduct that mob = 0.9 grams. Is it really possible? Yes, it is. We can estimate the speed of the blank:

Blank unloaded frequency = 1/(2pi) * sqr (1.07/0.0009) = 5.5 Hz. Really fast but nobody fishes with a bare blank, so let’s forget that figure.

With 30 feet of #5 line (9.1 grams), the frequency is 1/(2pi) * sqr (1.07/(0.0091 + 0.0026) = 1.52 Hz.

This is much too fast for the average Joe, so we aim at retuning that down, to something like 1.36 Hz, which is the frequency for 30 feet of #7 line (12 grams).

It means that the total mass to be taken in the equation above is 12 + 2.6 = 14.6 grams, and we have to do that with the line (9.1), the rod (0.9) and the rest (guides & wraps). It is clear that mogw must be equal to 4.6 grams. This is a lot more than 1.7 grams, what are the solutions at stake? Well, not a very long list: heavier guides for sure, maybe oversized, longer wraps, varnish or paint on the tip, but please no extra weight at the tip top (which I suspect the “feel fixer” is). What are the consequences? Well, we shall face a larger swing weight. For the original rod, the rule of the thumb for a 9 feet rod gives 17 g cm2 (my database also) for the guide contribution, so we have to expect 46 g cm2 now, which will bring the total to 100.6 g cm2 (original rod 71.6 = 54.6 + 17 and new rod 100.6 = 54.6 + 46). That represents 40% more, a lot indeed. We are going to get a stiff clumsy rod. Your natural tempo will slow down by 20% to compensate for the extra swing weight, and you will lose performance if you do not put more energy in the cast. As a rod builder, I would not sell that awkward stuff.

A much better solution would be to opt in for a 490-4 blank, but it does not exist unfortunately. Its stiffness would be something like 1.07/9.1*7.8 = 0.92 (see the link with the line scale?). What could be its mo? From my experience, it would go down to something like 0.77 grams. Let’s see what the standard fittings would give:
1/(2pi) * sqr (0.92 / (0.0091 + 0.00077 + 0.0017)) = 1.42 Hz: still a little bit fast, but retuning with slightly heavier oversized guides and extra wraps to reach mogw = 2.6 would be possible. We would get 1.37 Hz for the frequency with 30 feet of #5 line. In terms of swing weight, the blank would be some 10% lighter (extrapolated from Sage data) and the total swing weight would achieve 54.6 * 0.9 + 26 = 75.1; just 5% higher than for the TCR 590-4. That’s palatable. It means that the simplest way is to shift for a blank of comparable action but less stiff. You knew it from the start…

Now let’s make a short comparison between CSS and CCS. ERN is a stiffness scale comparable to K. ELN is a line scale comparable to m. The indicator which is closest to mo qualitatively speaking is AA, but you cannot convert it into a usable number. So what do you do? You interpolate values from a graphic supposed to represent some kind of average rods. This is an approximation really, less efficient than CSS which drives you on the spot. And to make the calculation, you can take the solar pocket calculator you found as a gift in the last washing powder box you bought.

Merlin

[grunde]

Merlin,

Guess Tom can tell us more about the difference in frequency between blanks an finished rods

:pirate
Grunde

[Merlin]

Grunde

For sure I will appreciate.

mo is a stange characteristic in fact. Before I conducted some new (computer) experiment, mo was for me a synonym of mass distribution along the shaft. When the mass is more on the butt (tip action rod), mo is smaller and when there is significant mass in the tip (butt action rod), mo is higher. Clear.

Last week end I started from a mid fast, mid flex rod, nothing too particular, made with a single modulus. Since various graphite fibers have nearly the same density, I tested two options. First one, the tip flex option by increasing the modulus in the butt, and decreasing the modulus in the tip, and just the opposite for the second one. I was thinking that mo would not change since the mass distribution along the shaft remained unchanged in both cases, only the stiffness profile had changed.

All wrong: mo went down for the "tip" option, and went up for the "butt" option. Wow, that reminded me that in the past I was using 1/mo and called it the "action parameter". Intuition or luck? mo is also relevant of the flex profile of a rod.

Merlin

[Tom]

Merlin,
The blank frequency of the TCR seems very high?
5,5hz is extremely fast.Are you sure this is the case?
I remember the old thread by Torsten (nice thread by the way )
"Spring Constant - Fly Rod Evaluation.
If you care to read it,here it is:
http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/cgi-bin....76;st=0
Look at the test I did on the SAGE XP blank.On page page 6, post number 56.



Cheers,
Tom.

[Merlin]

Tom,

It is likely this value of 5.5 Hz is overestimated given the precision of the data. Since the division is made by a small number, the uncertainty is large. Estimation works better for finished rods.

I shall give a look at your the document you mention.

Thanks for your comment

Merlin

[Bill Hanneman]

So what do you do? You interpolate values from a graphic supposed to represent some kind of average rods. This is an approximation really, less efficient than CSS which drives you on the spot. ...

Estimation works better for finished rods.