Login to view all forums
The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Cal, you guys almost always show a high degree of independent scrutiny of manufacturers' claims and of myths, which made it surprising that you didn't on the one point in the otherwise great review to which I took exception. Or so I thought, and still must think, since you are not responding with anything to back up the claim and I cannot imagine that any evidence exists to back it up. Moreover, there is ample evidence to the contrary in the everyday experience of rod users.
Consider a spinning rod, which is subjected to the same kind of twisting as it loads on the backcast as a top-wrapped baitcaster is when the baitcast rod bends toward resistance in front of the angler. Indeed, in a spinning rod, the twisting force could be more severe, because the guides often sit higher off the blank. This happens tens of thousands of times without the rod giving out. Why, then, should we think that a baitcast rod will have a shorter "life" if its guides are top-wrapped?
I indicated my interest in reading any evidence you have backing up the claim that spiral-wrapped rods prolong a rod's life. If you have some, why withhold it? If you don't, perhaps you could just say so.
Consider a spinning rod, which is subjected to the same kind of twisting as it loads on the backcast as a top-wrapped baitcaster is when the baitcast rod bends toward resistance in front of the angler. Indeed, in a spinning rod, the twisting force could be more severe, because the guides often sit higher off the blank. This happens tens of thousands of times without the rod giving out. Why, then, should we think that a baitcast rod will have a shorter "life" if its guides are top-wrapped?
I indicated my interest in reading any evidence you have backing up the claim that spiral-wrapped rods prolong a rod's life. If you have some, why withhold it? If you don't, perhaps you could just say so.
-
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:17 pm
- Location: In the belly of a shark
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
I'm with ya. If I'm pulling amberjacks off a wreck at 100ft deep I want a spiral wrap. But not on a bass rod that will spend more time casting than 'fighting'.Bronzeye wrote:I enjoyed the review, except for this poppycock:
"The guides are ... spiral wrapped around the blank. ...the performance benefits of eliminating twist in the blank when the rod is under load helps prolong the life of your rod."
Come on, Cal--we're all fishing top-wrapped rods that should have been retired long ago because blank twisting killed them?
I can believe that spiral-wrapped baitcasters feel better in hand when fighting fish, as I have fought many fish on both standard casting rods and spinning rods. But a spiral-wrapped rod--like a top-wrapped rod--is going to experience torque on every cast, when it is loading at the end of the backcast and the back-accelerated lure tries to pull the guides toward it; if torque kills rods then spiral-wrapped rods are doomed, too.
If you have some evidence to offer to back up the quoted claim, I'm all eyes. Otherwise, I figure it was just...a load.
It's a pretty bold move to go all spiral on a line of bass rods. Luckily with EDGE they have the custom option to order em in a regular guide train. Still... Just seems like it should be the other way around.
Also- These rods originally had alconite or recoil guides, no? I wonder if the $100 price jump had to do with switching to ti/sic...
-
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:17 pm
- Location: In the belly of a shark
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
I noticed that as soon as TW put em up. I've never seen that before either. I have no idea what that's about .Snidley wrote: On the longer rods I notice they use a reel seat with no trigger. Is this a new trend I've missed?
I was gonna get an 8ft cranking rod. I wanted a 8ft deep cranking rod with more sensitivity than my dobyns 805cb. But when I learned that I'd have to go 'custom' just to get a trigger, non-spiral wrap & non-recoil guides, I decided to go a different direction.
But I love the fact that they will build ya one any way you want. That's really cool imo
I still really want an EDGE rod tho. I think they look sick. Especially if you mount a black & red reel.
Also of note- I learned thru digging around the website that all of the long heavy action (swimbait spec) rods are IM graphite, not HM graphite. (Not sure which the cranking rod is, but I'm guessing it's IM too). From what I understand- it's the same graphite but with different scrim. (Could be wrong on that though).
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Mine has several differences from the original model, but they've had TiSiC from the start. Apparently they had K-Series guides at one point, and a hook keeper. My rod has standard sized Fuji SiC guides, not the midmicros. Mine doesn't have a hook keeper either.spookybaits wrote:I'm with ya. If I'm pulling amberjacks off a wreck at 100ft deep I want a spiral wrap. But not on a bass rod that will spend more time casting than 'fighting'.Bronzeye wrote:I enjoyed the review, except for this poppycock:
"The guides are ... spiral wrapped around the blank. ...the performance benefits of eliminating twist in the blank when the rod is under load helps prolong the life of your rod."
Come on, Cal--we're all fishing top-wrapped rods that should have been retired long ago because blank twisting killed them?
I can believe that spiral-wrapped baitcasters feel better in hand when fighting fish, as I have fought many fish on both standard casting rods and spinning rods. But a spiral-wrapped rod--like a top-wrapped rod--is going to experience torque on every cast, when it is loading at the end of the backcast and the back-accelerated lure tries to pull the guides toward it; if torque kills rods then spiral-wrapped rods are doomed, too.
If you have some evidence to offer to back up the quoted claim, I'm all eyes. Otherwise, I figure it was just...a load.
It's a pretty bold move to go all spiral on a line of bass rods. Luckily with EDGE they have the custom option to order em in a regular guide train. Still... Just seems like it should be the other way around.
Also- These rods originally had alconite or recoil guides, no? I wonder if the $100 price jump had to do with switching to ti/sic...
For me, I use this rod for striper fishing, as well as bass, so the spiral wrap actually gives me a great deal of leverage when they're making deep runs. I can certainly tell a difference. I have no clue if it has anything to do with the longevity of the rod, but I figure there's a reason that probably 95% of custom builders use the spiral concept.
-
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:49 pm
- Location: Townsville, QLD. Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Well I thought the spiral wrap was to enable less guides on the last 1/3 of the rods, less weight and a crisper tip. Hence for a bass rod the improvement should be in its casting ability.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
TT Reviews are like op-ed pieces - filled with a mixture of science and subjective experience. As a physician scientist, I regularly encounter questions that we just dont have an exact answer for- because its never been studied directly. And even if it WAS studied does not imply the evidence is fixed in stone. So, I never discount the importance of extrapolation of thought based on experience and anecdotal evidence. I think your holding people to ridiculous standards - suggesting every statement be backed with a p value of 0.05.Bronzeye wrote:Cal, you guys almost always show a high degree of independent scrutiny of manufacturers' claims and of myths, which made it surprising that you didn't on the one point in the otherwise great review to which I took exception. Or so I thought, and still must think, since you are not responding with anything to back up the claim and I cannot imagine that any evidence exists to back it up. Moreover, there is ample evidence to the contrary in the everyday experience of rod users.
Consider a spinning rod, which is subjected to the same kind of twisting as it loads on the backcast as a top-wrapped baitcaster is when the baitcast rod bends toward resistance in front of the angler. Indeed, in a spinning rod, the twisting force could be more severe, because the guides often sit higher off the blank. This happens tens of thousands of times without the rod giving out. Why, then, should we think that a baitcast rod will have a shorter "life" if its guides are top-wrapped?
I indicated my interest in reading any evidence you have backing up the claim that spiral-wrapped rods prolong a rod's life. If you have some, why withhold it? If you don't, perhaps you could just say so.
- Gone Phishin
- Pro Angler
- Posts: 1969
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:08 am
- Location: Wisconsin
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
GLX crankin' rod perhaps?spookybaits wrote:I noticed that as soon as TW put em up. I've never seen that before either. I have no idea what that's about .Snidley wrote: On the longer rods I notice they use a reel seat with no trigger. Is this a new trend I've missed?
I was gonna get an 8ft cranking rod. I wanted a 8ft deep cranking rod with more sensitivity than my dobyns 805cb. But when I learned that I'd have to go 'custom' just to get a trigger, non-spiral wrap & non-recoil guides, I decided to go a different direction.
But I love the fact that they will build ya one any way you want. That's really cool imo
I still really want an EDGE rod tho. I think they look sick. Especially if you mount a black & red reel.
Also of note- I learned thru digging around the website that all of the long heavy action (swimbait spec) rods are IM graphite, not HM graphite. (Not sure which the cranking rod is, but I'm guessing it's IM too). From what I understand- it's the same graphite but with different scrim. (Could be wrong on that though).
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Suppose a reviewer explains the absence of triggers on the handles of some the new rods by asserting, as an unqualified fact, that putting a trigger grip on a casting rod shortens its life.Gblaze wrote: TT Reviews are like op-ed pieces - filled with a mixture of science and subjective experience. As a physician scientist, I regularly encounter questions that we just dont have an exact answer for- because its never been studied directly. And even if it WAS studied does not imply the evidence is fixed in stone. So, I never discount the importance of extrapolation of thought based on experience and anecdotal evidence. I think your holding people to ridiculous standards - suggesting every statement be backed with a p value of 0.05.
I know of no evidence indicating that is true, and I think it is a safe bet that you don't and that nobody else does, either.
Without strong evidence that rods without triggers have longer lives than those without triggers, would you consider it responsible for the reviewer to assert that "fact" to readers considering spending more than $500 on a rod? Naturally, such people would want to protect their investment, and the assertion--as a fact--that going with a triggerless rod would extend the life of their investment would be potentially significant to their decision as to whether to buy this line of triggerless rods or some other, more traditional rod of a competitor.
Now, in the case of the claim that spiral-wrapping prolongs the life of a rod, I did not merely call for evidence of that, I drew attention to elements of our common experience that show the evident absurdity of the claim. Our rods are subjected to twisting forces every time we cast them, and nobody has ever wistfully commented on this board about having to retire a rod because it had been twisted one too many times.
I suspect that Cal's assertion was a throwaway comment, included in the review without much thought and without evidence to back it up. He's a busy guy. We all make mistakes. The thing is, when the mistake claims an advantage for one kind of rod manufacturing choice and is made to people factoring every detail in deciding whose high-end rod to buy, the mistake matters and should be corrected when it's pointed out. Nobody holds Cal, other TT staffers, or board members to a standard of infallibility, but we're all interested in having the best information we can collectively advance.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
I looked at GLX crankin rods and they appear to have a traditional trigger handle setup. Perhaps there could be an explanation of the comment? As far as acid wrapping I for one having used one, think that there's a difference. If my thoughts about it converge with Gary Loomis's thoughts about it then I'm very confident there's something to it. By the way breaking casting rods with a fish on is NOT an uncommon occurrence with salmon and steelhead as well as saltwater fish as well. As a matter of fact the first acid wrapped rod that I'm aware of was the Fenwick Great Lakes trolling rods from the "70's-80"s. They are still coveted by some trollers around here. Further to that a manufacturer of downriggers makes (or made I'm not sure) a casting trolling rod-reel setup that put a casting reel on the bottom of the rod (positioned like a spin reel) allowing for a spin rod style guide setup all to protect the rods tip when big Kings were on the line.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Here's a guy that believes in Acid wrapped rods for sure. http://www.acidrod.com/acidrods.html
Here's a pic of the Walker Downrigger under slung baitcast reel http://www.walkerdownriggers.com/wtd-300.html
Here's a pic of the Walker Downrigger under slung baitcast reel http://www.walkerdownriggers.com/wtd-300.html
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Its an op-ed peice not a peer-reviewed article being published in NatureMedicine. Take a chill-pillBronzeye wrote:Suppose a reviewer explains the absence of triggers on the handles of some the new rods by asserting, as an unqualified fact, that putting a trigger grip on a casting rod shortens its life.Gblaze wrote: TT Reviews are like op-ed pieces - filled with a mixture of science and subjective experience. As a physician scientist, I regularly encounter questions that we just dont have an exact answer for- because its never been studied directly. And even if it WAS studied does not imply the evidence is fixed in stone. So, I never discount the importance of extrapolation of thought based on experience and anecdotal evidence. I think your holding people to ridiculous standards - suggesting every statement be backed with a p value of 0.05.
I know of no evidence indicating that is true, and I think it is a safe bet that you don't and that nobody else does, either.
Without strong evidence that rods without triggers have longer lives than those without triggers, would you consider it responsible for the reviewer to assert that "fact" to readers considering spending more than $500 on a rod? Naturally, such people would want to protect their investment, and the assertion--as a fact--that going with a triggerless rod would extend the life of their investment would be potentially significant to their decision as to whether to buy this line of triggerless rods or some other, more traditional rod of a competitor.
Now, in the case of the claim that spiral-wrapping prolongs the life of a rod, I did not merely call for evidence of that, I drew attention to elements of our common experience that show the evident absurdity of the claim. Our rods are subjected to twisting forces every time we cast them, and nobody has ever wistfully commented on this board about having to retire a rod because it had been twisted one too many times.
I suspect that Cal's assertion was a throwaway comment, included in the review without much thought and without evidence to back it up. He's a busy guy. We all make mistakes. The thing is, when the mistake claims an advantage for one kind of rod manufacturing choice and is made to people factoring every detail in deciding whose high-end rod to buy, the mistake matters and should be corrected when it's pointed out. Nobody holds Cal, other TT staffers, or board members to a standard of infallibility, but we're all interested in having the best information we can collectively advance.
The point is there is no mistake - its opinion - but it is not too far fetched - since I have heard the exact same claim used for saltwater rods. It might not be obvious over a single season of fishing - but it could be true over 5 years??
While I grant you power jigging a tuna is different then hauling a 5# bass to the boat - I actually think your concept that casting a lure exerts the same twisting forces that a 5# smallie or 15# striper exerts ( and I use my regular blackbass rods for these fish) is non-sense to me. Where is your "evidence" for that? If your going to be so insistent that proof be provided for assumptions then where did you get that idea? Did you test it? Can i see the data??? Does this sound familiar?
- Im 100% convinced that assumption is BS. The ONLY place it clearly does apply is in the swimbait community - and here hucking 10+ oz baits on XH bass rod blanks DOES create enough twisting forces that spiral wrapping makes a huge difference. I think it is very situational - and the real answer is it depends on the conditions and the fish your going after. I would be willing to bet if you were fishing for peacocks on the same bass blank and one was spiral and the other was standard ---Cal's claim would prove true. But in the end- he isnt submitting the review so the ignorami can pick it apart - he is providing us with his objective/subjective take on the rod.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
I'm not an engineer however my spiral wrapped casting rod was a much better caster than a traditionally wrapped casting rod of the same length. Granted my rod was a 10'6" one and I threw mainly large #4 and #5 sized spinners, 3/4oz spoons and large slip floats known as "pikers" rigged with pencil lead. However I believe a properly constructed acid wrapped rod does not exert a twisting torque on the blank while casting and the torque on a traditional guide setup on a casting rod is alleviated by the twist created by acid wrapping the blank even in a bass rod. Only long time experience or scientific testing would be able to prove the veracity of a claim to better long term durability of this setup on bass rods BUT I'm sure that Mr Loomis and Cal as well have an extraordinary level of experience at the very least.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
So to set the tone correctly, what i'm about to say is not meant in any kind of argumentative fashion.... just laying the case out.
Whether you feel it or not, whenever you catch a fish on a conventionally wrapped rod, the force of the fish pulling at the end of the line pulls that line to one side of the guides or the other making the blank want to rotate. You can see this effect by setting up a rod with a reel on it so that it's propped up in some kind of holder that does not restrict the handle from turning, run the line through the guides, drop the line down a foot or two and put a weight at the end of the line, the rod will likely rotate so the guides are on the bottom.
Of course the blank is strong enough to withstand this pressure, but it's not really designed to. Rods are designed to bend in a parabolic fashion to apply pressure on the fish and tire them out. Rotating the guides around the rod so they're on the bottom eliminates this rotational pressure on the rod, so the blank does not have to withstand the pressure. Because the blank is not fighting this force, it will operate more efficiently, not be subject to any unexpected micro fractures in the graphite filaments, and therefore last longer.
That's all. You can choose to believe it's irrelevant and that's perfectly fine.
Whether you feel it or not, whenever you catch a fish on a conventionally wrapped rod, the force of the fish pulling at the end of the line pulls that line to one side of the guides or the other making the blank want to rotate. You can see this effect by setting up a rod with a reel on it so that it's propped up in some kind of holder that does not restrict the handle from turning, run the line through the guides, drop the line down a foot or two and put a weight at the end of the line, the rod will likely rotate so the guides are on the bottom.
Of course the blank is strong enough to withstand this pressure, but it's not really designed to. Rods are designed to bend in a parabolic fashion to apply pressure on the fish and tire them out. Rotating the guides around the rod so they're on the bottom eliminates this rotational pressure on the rod, so the blank does not have to withstand the pressure. Because the blank is not fighting this force, it will operate more efficiently, not be subject to any unexpected micro fractures in the graphite filaments, and therefore last longer.
That's all. You can choose to believe it's irrelevant and that's perfectly fine.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Cal, thank you for your statement of why you believe a spiral-wrapped rod will last longer. I have no question about anything but your next-to-last sentence. From context, I take it that you are saying, "Because the blank is not fighting this force, it will operate more efficiently, not be subject to any unexpected micro fractures in the graphite filaments, and therefore should theoretically last longer."
Snidely, you stated that " I believe a properly constructed acid wrapped rod does not exert a twisting torque on the blank while casting." I submit that no matter how rod guides are wrapped, there will be twisting torque during any cast hard enough to put a typical casting bend in the blank. Consider the traditional way of casting a righty baitcaster: at the start of the cast, the handles of the reel face the sky, and the guides point to the left of the rod. Spiral-wrap that same rod, and the tip guides will point to the right of the rod. Now the caster accelerates the rod backward. The lure resists acceleration, so the rod bends toward the lure and the line tries to twist the guides toward the lure (whether those guides are on the right or the left side of the rod). During the backcast, the rod straightens as the lure flips over the rod and now, as the rod loads and is driven forward on the forward cast, the rod torques in the opposite direction toward the now-trailing lure. The degree of bend that develops in the rod can be quite deep, depending on the weight of the lure and the power of the cast; it is often as deep as--or even deeper than--the rod ever holds a sustained bend in fighting an average bass. (This sounds surprising, I know, but watch your boat partner casting and fighting fish, or watch some fishing videos, and I think you'll see this. One might even see the potential for unexpected microfractures to develop in casting, if that's what happens when rods are subjected to torque.)
Now, if you held a standard-wrap baitcasting rod in a nontraditional way--say, with the guides facing the sky at the start of the cast--then the torque would only happen as you swept the rod back, and would be the same direction of torque exerted by a pullling fish, but to a lesser degree for light lures on a stiff blank and definitely for a shorter time.
If one were to cast a spiral-wrapped baitcaster with the guides pointing down at the start (as in a spinning rod), then there would be no torque while initiating the backcast, but as the rod loaded for the forward cast there would be the same kind of torque one gets in fighting a fish with top-wrapped guides. And this would be happening every single cast, not just the few times during a trip one caught a fish big enough to put a comparable bend in the rod.
Does the length of time a rod experiences torque have more of an impact than the frequency with which it is subjected to torque (if there is any impact at all)? Apparently, nobody knows. If evidence does become available, most of us will probably read it at this site first.
And that's the last I have to say about this.
Snidely, you stated that " I believe a properly constructed acid wrapped rod does not exert a twisting torque on the blank while casting." I submit that no matter how rod guides are wrapped, there will be twisting torque during any cast hard enough to put a typical casting bend in the blank. Consider the traditional way of casting a righty baitcaster: at the start of the cast, the handles of the reel face the sky, and the guides point to the left of the rod. Spiral-wrap that same rod, and the tip guides will point to the right of the rod. Now the caster accelerates the rod backward. The lure resists acceleration, so the rod bends toward the lure and the line tries to twist the guides toward the lure (whether those guides are on the right or the left side of the rod). During the backcast, the rod straightens as the lure flips over the rod and now, as the rod loads and is driven forward on the forward cast, the rod torques in the opposite direction toward the now-trailing lure. The degree of bend that develops in the rod can be quite deep, depending on the weight of the lure and the power of the cast; it is often as deep as--or even deeper than--the rod ever holds a sustained bend in fighting an average bass. (This sounds surprising, I know, but watch your boat partner casting and fighting fish, or watch some fishing videos, and I think you'll see this. One might even see the potential for unexpected microfractures to develop in casting, if that's what happens when rods are subjected to torque.)
Now, if you held a standard-wrap baitcasting rod in a nontraditional way--say, with the guides facing the sky at the start of the cast--then the torque would only happen as you swept the rod back, and would be the same direction of torque exerted by a pullling fish, but to a lesser degree for light lures on a stiff blank and definitely for a shorter time.
If one were to cast a spiral-wrapped baitcaster with the guides pointing down at the start (as in a spinning rod), then there would be no torque while initiating the backcast, but as the rod loaded for the forward cast there would be the same kind of torque one gets in fighting a fish with top-wrapped guides. And this would be happening every single cast, not just the few times during a trip one caught a fish big enough to put a comparable bend in the rod.
Does the length of time a rod experiences torque have more of an impact than the frequency with which it is subjected to torque (if there is any impact at all)? Apparently, nobody knows. If evidence does become available, most of us will probably read it at this site first.
And that's the last I have to say about this.
Re: The Search For One : Guess Who's Back Building Rods?
Bronzeye wrote:Cal, thank you for your statement of why you believe a spiral-wrapped rod will last longer. I have no question about anything but your next-to-last sentence. From context, I take it that you are saying, "Because the blank is not fighting this force, it will operate more efficiently, not be subject to any unexpected micro fractures in the graphite filaments, and therefore should theoretically last longer."
Snidely, you stated that " I believe a properly constructed acid wrapped rod does not exert a twisting torque on the blank while casting." I submit that no matter how rod guides are wrapped, there will be twisting torque during any cast hard enough to put a typical casting bend in the blank. Consider the traditional way of casting a righty baitcaster: at the start of the cast, the handles of the reel face the sky, and the guides point to the left of the rod. Spiral-wrap that same rod, and the tip guides will point to the right of the rod. Now the caster accelerates the rod backward. The lure resists acceleration, so the rod bends toward the lure and the line tries to twist the guides toward the lure (whether those guides are on the right or the left side of the rod). During the backcast, the rod straightens as the lure flips over the rod and now, as the rod loads and is driven forward on the forward cast, the rod torques in the opposite direction toward the now-trailing lure. The degree of bend that develops in the rod can be quite deep, depending on the weight of the lure and the power of the cast; it is often as deep as--or even deeper than--the rod ever holds a sustained bend in fighting an average bass. (This sounds surprising, I know, but watch your boat partner casting and fighting fish, or watch some fishing videos, and I think you'll see this. One might even see the potential for unexpected microfractures to develop in casting, if that's what happens when rods are subjected to torque.)
Now, if you held a standard-wrap baitcasting rod in a nontraditional way--say, with the guides facing the sky at the start of the cast--then the torque would only happen as you swept the rod back, and would be the same direction of torque exerted by a pullling fish, but to a lesser degree for light lures on a stiff blank and definitely for a shorter time.
If one were to cast a spiral-wrapped baitcaster with the guides pointing down at the start (as in a spinning rod), then there would be no torque while initiating the backcast, but as the rod loaded for the forward cast there would be the same kind of torque one gets in fighting a fish with top-wrapped guides. And this would be happening every single cast, not just the few times during a trip one caught a fish big enough to put a comparable bend in the rod.
Does the length of time a rod experiences torque have more of an impact than the frequency with which it is subjected to torque (if there is any impact at all)? Apparently, nobody knows. If evidence does become available, most of us will probably read it at this site first.
And that's the last I have to say about this.
this entire diatribe is pure conjecture - i dont cast that way - I will need more proof . Please re-edit every sentence so it reads - I theoretically believe...blah, blah, blah---- until such proof is provided
I get it now- you just like holding others to standards you dont/cannot follow yourself.