First Rod in a Long Time

[troybuz]

I have not built a rod in a very long time, I guess I needed a break.
With all the new modern materials, it's been kinda fun.
If you followed by Carbon Fiber thread you'll see I had a little issue getting a clean cut on the fiber stock.
Moving forward, the rod I am building (actually two identical rods before I'm done) is made from a blank that is high modulus graphite with Titaniun woven into it. You should see the sparks fly when you cut it . It's a 9' 5 weight, 3 piece fly rod blank that I am building as a side drifter.
The guides are those holographic type American Tackle (really expensive) single footers...7 in total.
Here are some handle pictures. You will see that I added a brass gimble, a little for looks, and a little as a counter balance. The grip is 13" in the rear and 3" in front. If you look at the pictures you can see where the grip chipped out a bit, and you can see my trim wrap idea to hide and seal the chips.

Here's the handle as of today. The wraps with be Oregon Duck Green and Yellow!



Here you can see I am considering a trim wrap to hide and check the edge chipping.



A closer look at the cover up attempt (8 wraps)


Here's the Gimble. We wanted a true 14" butt section, but with a 16" stock piece of carbon, we needed to cut the piece into 13" and 3", so we added the Gimbal...added value, it will get us some extra butt weight!


Here's the front grip. I struggled with how best to trim the nose, and chose for the thicker winding check/ escusion, thinking it balanced the look????


These are the brutally expensive, somewhat cool, somewhat offensive Holographic guides...but you can fish braid with them


More as the project progresses.

[E. Harry]

If you are building the rod to be a side drifter I assume that you want it to have as much sensitivity as possible. Plus you said that it was a high modulus blank. If that is the case then I wonder why you would add all of that mass to the butt when added mass reduces sensitivity and has the same affect on rod performance as reducing the modulus of elasticity. Adding that mass to the butt to balance the rod does not seem to me to be the best trade off if you are building a rod that you want to have high sensitivity.

[troybuz]

I wonder why you would add all of that mass to the butt when added mass reduces sensitivity

The thought...and it could be wrong, is to get the rod to balance. Most og our side drifters are poorly balance, with way too much tip weight. The goal, and it's just guess work, is to get more weight low to take the weight off the tip. Side Drifting with a heavy tip sucks.
Again, just playing the "Hope this works" game.

[Derrel]

I've never fished with a rod that has that type of handle, but I do agree about the need for MORE weight at the butt-end of most longer (9 to 11 foot) rods in order to balance the rod right at the reel-foot area where most of the holding of the rod is done.

I've wanted for a long time to build a Tennessee handle style long spinning rod,which has very precisely-fitted solid graphite rings interspersed with cork rings, with a graphite ring-to-graphite blank connection every 1.5 inches or so,and using sliding aluminum rings to position different spinning reels to get the "perfect" balance depending on the weight of the reel in relation to the tip and guide weight that's in front of the reel.

These new, modern, graphite-bodied spinning reels are all so LIGHT that,in my experience, I have resorted to wrapping some flattened pencil lead around the butt on longer spin rods to get the just-right balance to make the tip neutral,and not tip-heavy. MORE weight but better balance seems to make a rod easier to fish for long periods of time. With the Great Lakes style spin rods,with the short rear butt and loooong foregrip, the balance is actually pretty good with no mods to the rod. The fulcrum effect of many factory rods is what tires a guy out,much more so than the total weight of the rod/reel combo, in my experience.

Looks like a beautiful rod will be made. Hope you post in the future about how it all works out.

[E. Harry]

I will agree that many, if not most rods, are tip heavy but to add weight, mass really, is too high a price to pay in terms of reduced rod performance to achieve a better balance.
Adding mass to the reel is not the approach that you want to take to balancing a rod either. All added mass whether in the reel or in the rod reduces the rods performance but if you must add mass it should be added to the very butt end of the rod because that is where it will have the largest affect and therefore the smallest amount of mass can be added to achieve balance.
Plus I would argue that you are fooling yourself if you think that adding mass to the butt of the rod really balances the rod in actual use. It only achieves a static balance not a dynamic balance. In other words, the second that you put the rod in motion the inertia that is the result of the added mass takes over or is dominant and the balance you got by adding mass is gone.

[CRD4Liberty]

As E. Harry said, looking at the guides selection in the picture, quite a bit of tip weight could have been taken off the rod, and decreased the perceived need of additional butt weight by using different, lighter guides on the tip section. The holographic guides are pretty, but there was many guides in that price range or cheaper that would have made a lighter rod, especially in the tip.

[Cap'n Ron]

I think its purdy! Build it the way ya want it. Isnt that the point?

No sense hammering a guy who is doing a build for his own enjoyment about the performance characteristics of a rod that you will never touch.

[E. Harry]

I do not think that anyone is "hammering" anyone. I am certainly not. I think that we are just attempting to pass on what we think may be useful information that may help Troybus with his next rod build. Isn't the whole point of custom rod building to build a better rod and the point of a site like this to collectively pass information on that we think will help each other improve our rod building?

[troybuz]

I have an G Loomis 1141 GLX and I can tell you this rod is way better balanced than the "Way Expensive" Loomis.
A few things I have thought about. I don't know the guides name brand/ exact material, but I can honestly say, they are as lightweight as any guide that you can find.
Another inetresting thing worth discussion. With this composite handle, there are several ways to assemble it. I choose to use a series of dense foam arbors, which are very light. Additional weight could easily be added to the handle with either filling the hollow tube with glue or spun tape...and both those methods are commonly used....in fact recommended
I have not wrapped it out yet, but just with the guides taped in position for effect, the rod will be every bit as senitive as the 1141 GLX, but way better balanced. Honestly, I don't like the grip, but it'll be unique.
After camping this weekend I plan on finnishing her up.
Cheers.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by E. Harry

I do not think that anyone is "hammering" anyone. I am certainly not. I think that we are just attempting to pass on what we think may be useful information that may help Troybus with his next rod build. Isn't the whole point of custom rod building to build a better rod and the point of a site like this to collectively pass information on that we think will help each other improve our rod building?

Youre right. I was in a funk last night! Sorry.

[SailCat]

I believe you are absolutely on the right tack and correct in your thinking, troybuz. Adding weight to the but of a rod in order to properly balance accomplishes to things: the rod will actually feel lighter in the hand and will be more sensitive.

This in my experience and that of many people for whom I've built rods.

You're building a beauty, too!

[E. Harry]

SailCat,
I am sorry but that is not really correct. There are a number of variables that affect a rods sensitivity. I wrote an article that describes most of the significant variables in RodMaker magazine a couple of years ago. Balance does not have a significant affect on sensitivity. The largest or most significant variable is the mass because the mass determines the amount of inertia (resistance to change in position or motion) that the rod has. The more mass that is added the lower the rods sensitvity will be.
It can get a little messy to be discussing here but if you are interested in pursuing this further contact me by e-mail and I will go through it in more depth with you and I think at that point you will agree with me.

[StickFish]

Emory, doesn't the weight in effect decrease the harmonic frequency of the rod, and the lower frequency translates into lower sensitivity?

[E. Harry]

StickFish,
Yes, adding mass reduces the rods resonant frequency and there is a close relationship between the resonant frequency and the sensitivity of a rod. However, where the mass is added has a very large affect on the resonant frequency. Adding a little mass to the butt of a rod has much, much less affect on the resonant frequency than the same added mass would have if added at the tip of the rod but it can have roughly the same affect on the sensitivity wherever it is added.

[buzzerbaby]

ok that does it, I'll just run floats that way I can watch my bites and not have to feel them

[simpleguy]

Amazing banter guys. I have thought about building a rod myself someday and the blank slate you start with.......well I can now see the possibilities are endless.

Thank you,
Scotty

[seamslayer]

Hmm, you rod preformance and overall catch success would have increased greatly if you had made the rod purple and gold

[StickFish]

Purple and gold look awesome together. Especially with a purple Avet on top