Recoils or not Recoils?

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:20 am

Yes I can tell. I'm looking at MCF 3 and 5 appearing in the bottom leg. Its wavelength and amplitude.

One of my methods of rod assessment is to shock the rod on the backcast and watch the bottom leg of the loop. For example, the TCR 5 has a significant amplitude, short wavelength that runs along the rod leg. TCX6 has two which are also short. HT has less amplitude than both and longer wavelength. When I switch to Recoils the amplitude is less than H&H.

Sage XP5 has the better damping than Z-Axis 5. The Z-Axis produces more waves. The Helios's that I've cast have been excellent in this regard. D Norwich Evolution 5weight 2-piece. Etc etc. I've been doing this for a long time. 8-wieghts in the mid-price can often be OK. Whereas 5 and 6 weights in that price are usually significantly poorer.

But price isn't always a factor, there are some very expensive rods which have crap damping. That's marketing, not design.

Cheers, Paul

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:22 am

PS Big Snakehead today.. it's all about to happen!

Bloke · Post by **Bloke** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:30 am

Paul Arden wrote:It's not how it bends during the stroke Bernd, it's how the tip behaves after the stop. If you watch the bottom leg of the loop you can see a damping difference between Recoils Singles and H&H Singles. I've had the opportunity to see this first hand.

It may not matter to most people, and it certainly doesn't matter on a rod blank that doesn't damp well, but it makes a difference if you really look for it on the HT.

Apart from which I've broken and bent a lot of rigid rings, but never a recoil! We'll certainly try wire snakes, Lasse. That will be another interesting comparison.

Cheers, Paul

Paul
I have been doing a fair amount of work on tip damping recently....although I haven't produced the science yet I think the rod building community has misinterpreted the effect spining has...particularly when it comes to tip bounce. Thus far my research has shown that even mass produced blanks have unique spines most of which twist through the horizontal axis. This may suggest that placing guides on a constant plane is actually a disadvantage. Some manufacturers in the USA have recognised this already. So far, with unique spining I can alter the actions of a Bloke 9'8wt blank quite considerably and think that, in accordance to the AFFTA guidelines, can actually change the line rating. The Sage blank I built for Magnus you mentioned had very "unique" properties in this regard but Magnus asked me not to make this public.
I have also been testing my prototype 15' salmon rod which has no guides at all! Will advise!!
Mick

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:44 am

Tip damping first and foremost comes from the blank design itself. Its mass distribution and stiffness. Blanks do twist through the horizontal axis and it's possible that this can help cause them to fail.

and think that, in accordance to the AFFTA guidelines, can actually change the line rating

What AFFTA guidelines are you using for line rating?

Cheers, Paul

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:42 am

sms wrote:I build most of my rods (14 of them I've built), haven't had trouble with Recoils. Normal file works, you just need a bit of patience.

Unless you file through your thumb nail, that hurts and I nearly blubbed. Its why I bought a dremel

Sage use thin wire snakes across their range. If you go to the link below and follow the "MODEL SPACING CHART at the bottom", you can see the extent of their use:

http://www.sageflyfish.com/about/rod-building/

PS Paul - Can I have number 4 if you get eaten by a tiger

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:04 am

Tigers aren't a problem when you have a machete, Vince. Ti explained this to me.

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:16 am

Paul Arden wrote:Tigers aren't a problem when you have a machete, Vince. Ti explained this to me.

Don't trust him, he wants 1st dibs on your rod :p

Bernd · Post by **Bernd** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:33 am

Paul Arden wrote:Yes I can tell. I'm looking at MCF 3 and 5 appearing in the bottom leg. Its wavelength and amplitude.

One of my methods of rod assessment is to shock the rod on the backcast and watch the bottom leg of the loop. For example, the TCR 5 has a significant amplitude, short wavelength that runs along the rod leg. TCX6 has two which are also short. HT has less amplitude than both and longer wavelength. When I switch to Recoils the amplitude is less than H&H.

http://vimeo.com/42259632

Paul,
I have not really tried to identify/compare rod dampening by observing the wavelength and amplitude in the rod-leg caused by MCF3-5.
When you watch the video linked above we can see much more than our eyes would ever be able to see in normal speed. I think it's fair to say MCF3-5 are that small, we can't even see them in slow motion.

Ok, I might try to extra "shock" the rod.

Anyway I think if you compare TCR, Z-Axis, XP, HT, you are comparing apples and oranges. These rods have completely different ERNs, AAs, MOIs and so on.

If you cast Alejandro's broomstick you probably will find the best dampening with your method, agree?

That is because it does (almost) not bend at all. So there won't be any watchable MCF3-5.
Comparing the HT (pretty stiff) with the XP (much softer)... of course the HT will have less MCF3-5.

If we compare rods in dampening I think comparing rods of the same ERN and AA would be better?

Otherwise I already could tell you a lot of rods that would show much less MCF3-5 than the HT.

From the rod building side of the story I think the best blank will be the one which has the desired ERN, AA while having as less material along the blank as possible (especially along the tip section). Still it should not break and have as less diameter as possible too.

How is the difference in dampening on your method if you switch to a less line weight? Have you tried that?
Try the XP5 with a 2 wt. line and the HT with a 7wt. line and tell me what you see.

Yet I do not really trust your method

:p .
Anyway I will give it ago on the weekend.
Greets
B

p.s.: I hope your mobile phone still works inside the tiger?!

Bloke · Post by **Bloke** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:28 pm

Paul Arden wrote:Tip damping first and foremost comes from the blank design itself. Its mass distribution and stiffness. Blanks do twist through the horizontal axis and it's possible that this can help cause them to fail.
and think that, in accordance to the AFFTA guidelines, can actually change the line rating
What AFFTA guidelines are you using for line rating?

Cheers, Paul

Paul
Between 13.10 and 14.10 as the lowest and highest acceptable..
M

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:01 pm

Hi Bernd,

TCR5 and Comp 5 are fairly similar AA and ERN. For this test I carry around 80 using pullback in the backcast. Trying to put the waves there instead of trying to take them out. Of course this is a comparison of some of the best blanks. It becomes much more visible when you start to compare rods of different tapers and design in all classes.

The H&H and Recoil I'm comparing on exactly the same blank.

Vince, Mr T doesn't want number 4 because he has Chinese ancestry. Apart from which he has number 3

So you still have first dibs!

Cheers, Paul

VGB · Post by **VGB** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:17 pm

Paul Arden wrote:Hi Bernd,

TCR5 and Comp 5 are fairly similar AA and ERN. For this test I carry around 80 using pullback in the backcast. Trying to put the waves there instead of trying to take them out. Of course this is a comparison of some of the best blanks. It becomes much more visible when you start to compare rods of different tapers and design in all classes.

The H&H and Recoil I'm comparing on exactly the same blank.

Vince, Mr T doesn't want number 4 because he has Chinese ancestry. Apart from which he has number 3 So you still have first dibs!

Cheers, Paul

Its difficult to make damping comparisons in the hand, I would suggest that you set up for a CCS frequency test and measure the time to settle to a percentage of the initial deflection.

PS If I sent you some pork chops, would you carry them in your pockets?

Bernd · Post by **Bernd** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:05 pm

Hot Torpedo:
ERN 7.9, AA 72

I would say it is a bit stiffer compared to a 5wt. TCR and a bit softer compared to a 6wt. TCR.
AA is similar, yes.

Based on that I would expect little less bend on the HT and therefore little less cf.

Anyway I will run some tests the way Vince recommended.

The HT is the best rod anyway :p Well if you have the WHITE (Jedi) one and not casting for the dark side that is of course

!
Not sure which side of the force the tigers belong to, but I think your socks are the very best protection available for sure!

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:20 pm

Hi Bernd.
Thanks for the CCS data.

Hmmm,...come to think of the Hardy Angle TE rod.
Would have been nice to know the NF value here.

(The unloaded frequency)
I agree with Vince,to compare damping in a castingsituation
is useless.
Anyway,if you run some test,please let us know how
you clamp,and rig up the rod.
(Is it any possibility for the handle to flex in the set up?)

Tom.

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:55 pm

Of course you can compare damping in a casting situation. After all that's the purpose of good damping!

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:03 pm

The main damping parameter is the speed of recovery. Beyond that some unstability characteristics may come into play.

Merlin

The Archived Board

The Archived Board

Recoils or not Recoils?

Who is online