I'm just about to start putting together a fly rod. A 12ft 3/4. I will only put up detailed measurements if anyone can help otherwise I'll just ask a couple of general things.
I'm coming up with a fair bit of often contradictory advice. The information I have doesn't tally with the rods I have made by a variety of builders either.
1. Double Butt: On some very good casting rods the builders make them with a double butt ring. Two rings separated by only 15cm or so. I'm tempted to do this and have two butt rings of identical size should I decide to do this.
2. Does it actually make much difference anyway. If I just increase the distance by a fixed amount every ring: say 12 cm tip to second, then 14 second to third, 16cm 3rd to 4th etc. Some are advising that I just do this others say measure the action of the rod and vary according to the measurements.
Any advice gratefully received.
I should say that I have built rods before but have made the mistake of reading up advice. Anyway what are your views.
If anyone has a good formula for the ring spacing or can work it out from detailed measurements I'll post them here otherwise I won't.
Thanks
Malcolm
A double butt ring wont make much difference under normal circumstances. It may be worthwhile if you are double hauling heads for distance a lot, but that is not likely with a 12 ft 3/4 rod.
Personally I would try to match the ring spacing to the rod curve. This can ( and will) make a massive difference depending on the rod action, as opposed to just an incremental spacing scheme.
This may be useful to you;
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/stetzer/www/guideN.html (https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/stetzer/www/guideN.html)
This too;
http://www.rodbuilding.org/library/staticguide.html (http://www.rodbuilding.org/library/staticguide.html)
This is the method I used for most of my rods.
Detailed measurements and various fixed schemes wont do you much good if you are building a single rod on an unknown blank. The static system works well on any rod.
Some more info on that;
http://anglersresource.net/StaticLoadTutorial.aspx (http://anglersresource.net/StaticLoadTutorial.aspx)
Thanks Mike,
Those were two of the resources I read - the calculator in first link doesn't work as it happens but it's simple to do anyway and is a PITA as I'd have to reset it for each section or fiddle about to allow for theI'd rather play fiddle around on a spreadsheet.
To do the second one as they suggest I'd need to start with about 22 rings for the 297cm, before I started increasing the distance beween them as there is 297cm between the first stripper guide and the tip. It's OK I know I can get away with less! Intuitively that method would work best for the top 6 feet or so.
Quote from: Mike Connor on December 23, 2012, 06:42:03 PM
Personally I would try to match the ring spacing to the rod curve.
Well, while I don't know much about rod design that would make perfect sense to me. How to go about it is another matter as would it not change the curve to some degree at least?
Quote from: Malcolm on December 23, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
Thanks Mike,
Those were two of the resources I read - the calculator in first link doesn't work as it happens but it's simple to do anyway and is a PITA as I'd have to reset it for each section or fiddle about to allow for theI'd rather play fiddle around on a spreadsheet.
To do the second one as they suggest I'd need to start with about 22 rings for the 297cm, before I started increasing the distance beween them as there is 297cm between the first stripper guide and the tip. It's OK I know I can get away with less! Intuitively that method would work best for the top 6 feet or so.
The calculator still works for me, just tried it, mess on though as you say.
You can do it intuitively without a load of rings. If you know you want about twelve rings all told, set up the static curve and just choose the best placement on the curve. Where the rings exert the least downward force on the line.The main point is that you actually do have the natural curve of the rod. ( hence tensioning with cord from the tip ring).
I try to get the rings set up so that the line between the rings is about the same distance from the rod when the curve is set up. You are trying to build a "tunnel" of rings for the line to go through without any sharp angles. That's all there is to it really.
Quote from: admin on December 23, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
Well, while I don't know much about rod design that would make perfect sense to me. How to go about it is another matter as would it not change the curve to some degree at least?
The static method shown works. No, if the rings are spaced properly then the natural curve will not be altered to any great degree. That is the whole point.
Calculated systems only work if the properties of the rod are exactly known.
Placing rings incorrectly exerts more force on the blank, and also increases friction on the line. The static system always works for any rod.
You can not get the optimum "spacing", as the optimum would have no spacing, it would be a continuous "tunnel" through which the line runs. All ring spacing is a compromise. You just have to choose the best compromise you can find.
This is how it is done;
http://www.coloradofisherman.com/forum/index.php?topic=48521.0 (http://www.coloradofisherman.com/forum/index.php?topic=48521.0)
It is quite easy, fairly quick, and very accurate. No purely "calculated" system even comes close unless the rod properties are known exactly, and even then a static test will usually be better. For completely progressive rods some calculated systems do come close.
For very fast ( tip action) rods, very few rings are needed on the lower sections ( they dont bend much) and more on the tip section(s). It is always a compromise how many rings are actually used.
You can use various programs to calculate things, Like this; ( This is a direct download link)
http://www.farnorthrodsmiths.com/Downloads/GuideCalculator.msi (http://www.farnorthrodsmiths.com/Downloads/GuideCalculator.msi)
(Free software, runs on Windows)
This will give you a very good starting point, but you still need to do a static test. The results of a static test tell you what the blank is actually doing.
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2720/guidesd.jpg) (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/guidesd.jpg/)
Info here;
http://www.rodbuildingforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t6718.html (http://www.rodbuildingforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t6718.html)
http://www.rodbuildingforum.com/uploads/gallery424594030b420.jpg (http://www.rodbuildingforum.com/uploads/gallery424594030b420.jpg) static test
That brings up another point which is seldom addressed. The static test curve shown there is already beyond the optimum which is exactly 90°.
Any angle of the rod more than 90° increases the pressure on one section of the blank, and will often snap it like a carrot. This is why one should NEVER hold the rod up behind when fighting or landing fish.
You should NEVER EVER do this;
http://0.tqn.com/d/longisland/1/0/4/C/-/-/caleb-smith-man-fly-fishing5.jpg (http://0.tqn.com/d/longisland/1/0/4/C/-/-/caleb-smith-man-fly-fishing5.jpg)
if the fish lunges then the rod will probably break at the tip.
The optimum cushioning and the least pressure on the fish is when the rod is at 90° to the line.
Any angle between 0°...90° adjusts the pressure on the fish, and on the blank. The lesser the angle the greater the pressure on the fish, and the less pressure on the blank.
The maximum pressure on the fish and the least cushioning ( =no pressure on blank) is when the rod is pointing straight at the fish.
If the tip is bent down "backwards" forming a tight curve in the tip of the blank, the pressure on the blank is concentrated in a very small area, it is not distributed along the blank, and will often cause it to fail. Even when just threading line through the rings!
Never made a fly rod,but when ringing other rods I used to thread rings on a fly line and then attach them with electrical tape to the rod and flex it.Look for any obvious flat spots or angles that just look wrong. Never tried to measure anything as blanks I have used behaved differently,even when they were supposed to matched pairs.
Cannot think of any reason for using two butt rings except when using a multiplier for distance casting.
Quote from: burnie on December 23, 2012, 09:35:27 PM
Never made a fly rod,but when ringing other rods I used to thread rings on a fly line and then attach them with electrical tape to the rod and flex it.Look for any obvious flat spots or angles that just look wrong. Never tried to measure anything as blanks I have used behaved differently,even when they were supposed to matched pairs.
Cannot think of any reason for using two butt rings except when using a multiplier for distance casting.
That does not work well as the blank is forced into a curve by the ring placement. The ring placement has to be on the natural curve of the blank.
The main reason for two butt ( stripping) rings is that it reduces line slap when casting. It is usually only used on fast rods above #8 weights.
There is no point on a multiplier rod as there is no line slap.
On a fixed spool rod it reduces line coning very considerably and is more or less essential as is a much larger butt ring for the same reason.
This is the output from the calculator given above for a 12 foot rod with the specs shown;
(http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3474/workspace1011.png) (http://img577.imageshack.us/i/workspace1011.png/)
the "Taming Guide" is the second stripping ring above the butt ring. Designed to reduce line slap. Not necessary on light rods.
The calculator is running on Windows 7 in this case. You will automatically get the newest version from the link provided. V 1.4.2 at the moment.
davefromtheattic fitted a taming guide to a mhx blank a few years back. My understanding is that the tamer is "extra" and hence you would just place the other guides exactly where you would anyway.
In terms of spacing I feel you can't beat your own eye. :)
Quote from: bushy palmer on December 24, 2012, 08:19:02 AM
My understanding is that the tamer is "extra" and hence you would just place the other guides exactly where you would anyway.
In terms of spacing I feel you can't beat your own eye. :)
That is correct, the tamer guide is extra.
That too is correct, but you need to know the natural curve of the blank in order to do it. preferably threaded with easily visible line. Also, most people prefer to have some basis or other for the number of rings used and their placement.
Quote from: bushy palmer on December 24, 2012, 08:19:02 AM
In terms of spacing I feel you can't beat your own eye. :)
That would be my feeling. I seriously wonder if it makes a huge difference to an angler as long as you take typical ring spacings off a typical rod of the same length. Sounds like the "tackle voodoo" nonsense you see with fly lines in particular, designed to confuse, hike prices and open wallets! :lol:
Quote from: admin on December 24, 2012, 08:25:33 AM
That would be my feeling. I seriously wonder if it makes a huge difference to an angler as long as you take typical ring spacings off a typical rod of the same length. Sounds like the "tackle voodoo" nonsense you see with fly lines in particular, designed to confuse, hike prices and open wallets! :lol:
It makes a considerable difference to how a rod casts, especially a fly rod, and what loading it can accept. Any rod will work with just a tip ring, but it wont accept much loading then. Incorrect spacing can cause a lot of problems.
I'd like to see some hard evidence Mike. As long a ring spacings are "sensible" and the line does not slap about or spin round the rod I doubt it makes a lot of difference to the angler. These things are subjective and anglers seldom agree on anything when it comes to tackle other than it works for me or it doesn't. I think we can all agree that there are few subjects over which so much utter shite is written than fishing and fishing gear. I suppose it's good for the trade though. :lol:
Quote from: admin on December 24, 2012, 08:37:02 AM
I'd like to see some hard evidence Mike. As long a ring spacings are "sensible" and the line does not slap about or spin round the rod I doubt it makes a lot of difference to the angler. These things are subjective and anglers seldom agree on anything when it comes to tackle other than it works for me or it doesn't. I think we can all agree that there are few subjects over which so much utter shite is written than fishing and fishing gear. I suppose it's good for the trade though. :lol:
You can see the hard evidence in the line transitions between the spacings when the rod is at its natural curve, the more acute the transition the greater the friction and the more force is "wasted" (= does not go into the cast), as the line tries to bend the rod. That is not subjective, it is a matter of fact. Incorrect spacings will also cause other problems.
Using the spacings from an existing rod of the same length might be OK if the blank has a similar action, if it doesn't it will cause problems.
This has nothing to do with any trade or voodoo or general bullshit. It is simply a way for somebody with an unknown blank to set up a rod properly.
If I was building a 9 foot rod today, I'd simply copy the ring spacings from one of my other 9 foot rods. The spacings are all so similar anyway, pretty much identical in fact, I very much doubt I'd notice the difference a few mm either way would make. But there is no way to prove or disprove this. Like just about everything in fly fishing it is subjective. I'm with bushy Palmer - if it looks OK it probably is. Perhaps these things make a difference to competitive casters, but to angers? I doubt it.
Tackle makers must have nightmares about the day these things become objective, because it would be the ruin of them. :lol:
Just to clarify what I meant Mike:
I do follow the charts in the first instance however, when you have the guides taped in place ( I just use masking tape) and put a line on it- your eye will tell you very quicky if any of the rings need moved.
Thanks everyone, Lots of information there - calculations; programs and spreadsheets. Information overload, working it out by eye: which is the basis of one of the static measures. I think I'll probably go with intuition and bias it towards the tip. It shouldn't stiffen the bank too much as all the rings apart from the strippers are single leg lined Fujis. This is something that may surprise you: according to Steve Parton the weight difference to a rod between a full set of Fuji lined single leg rings and comparable snake rings is 0.004g with no disernible difference in the rod action despite the fact that single leg rings have only half the bracing effect. He proved this by doing a blind casting test with very experienced casters.
Quote from: Malcolm on December 24, 2012, 01:30:23 PM
single leg rings have only half the bracing effect.
That was my next question, already answered - thanks. :D
Quote from: bushy palmer on December 24, 2012, 10:49:56 AM
Just to clarify what I meant Mike:
I do follow the charts in the first instance however, when you have the guides taped in place ( I just use masking tape) and put a line on it- your eye will tell you very quicky if any of the rings need moved.
Indeed, once you have the basic spacing you can easily see where any problems are. The great advantage in using two lines is that the cord from the tip tenses the rod in its natural curve and you can easily see if the second line has any abrupt transitions. If you just use one line through the rings then that can pull the rod into a bad curve.