Fishing The Fly Scotland Forum

Hamish Young

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #15 on: 21/11/2011 at 22:40 »
Active debate/discussion is a good thing chaps - keep it going :cool:

I should get to know split-cane rods better, not all of my experiences have been happy ones :shock

However, keep it going folks - must be a few more views/ideas :?

H :z3

Ben Dixon

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #16 on: 21/11/2011 at 22:59 »
Quote
For me..the most advanced 20th century rod (Helios does not count chaps) is the Norboron from Normark.

Quote
Fast taper, fuji SiCs right the way through, 24ct gold fittings, and most importantly, boron fibres to dapen any vibration and "wobble", something that very few manufacturers had sussed by that time.

If they'd lost the rather heavy gold stuff & blobs of weight right the way up the blank, they'd have had less of a wobble to get rid of  :z4

Quote
Magnus bought one with his own money Wink
  :z4 :z4

Ben

Rob Brownfield

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #17 on: 21/11/2011 at 23:04 »
Ben, fair enough...lol.

But I still think there is something in the use of SiC guides...more experiments coming up. I have two identical 9 weight blanks at home, one is getting Fuji Alconites, one with oversized snakes...would be interesting to see how you get on with then side by side.

You can be my "control"...

Ben Dixon

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #18 on: 21/11/2011 at 23:07 »
Ben, fair enough...lol.

But I still think there is something in the use of SiC guides...more experiments coming up. I have two identical 9 weight blanks at home, one is getting Fuji Alconites, one with oversized snakes...would be interesting to see how you get on with then side by side.

You can be my "control"...

You mentioned some Fujis as light as snakes a while back, what were they? I may be looking at building a tournament rod some time soon.

Cheers

Ben

Rob Brownfield

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #19 on: 21/11/2011 at 23:38 »
The new Fuji Alconite "Concepts".  Remember though, I was replacing very large, double leg snakes with very small, single leg Alconites....so on a light 5 weight, it would not be the same and the snakes plus extra epoxy would still be lighter, especially Recoils.

Forgot to say, the Titainiums are even lighter..but at £3-4 each they are not cheap by any means.

Ben Dixon

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #20 on: 22/11/2011 at 00:03 »
The new Fuji Alconite "Concepts".  Remember though, I was replacing very large, double leg snakes with very small, single leg Alconites....so on a light 5 weight, it would not be the same and the snakes plus extra epoxy would still be lighter, especially Recoils.

Forgot to say, the Titainiums are even lighter..but at £3-4 each they are not cheap by any means.
But they would be lighter than the standard small lined single leg guides on a Daiwa Osprey?

Cheers

Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #21 on: 22/11/2011 at 07:54 »
"There seems to be a thing amongst bamboo nuts whereby it's cool to like really wangy shit, similar to whisky snobs that will only entertain the real bogging stuff that tastes like fermented compost, because whisky should be like that."

Couldn't agree more!
I think this stems from misty eyed memories of halcyon days of silk lines and large trout caught only on a dry fly! What you have to remember is that at the turn of the century before last the same whiskey snobs were promoting steel cored or double built cane rods as a viagra style fix for the wangy rods that they were building.

No thought was put into tapers or the actual physics of what makes a rod work. George Edward MacKenzie Skues himself turned away from the crap we were turning out in this country in favour of Hiram Leonards lighter, crisper rods. This allowed him to refine his fishing techniques and revolutionise how we catch trout. Leonard passed on his skills to the likes of Ed Payne and Fred Thomas, both of whom have made such stunning work over the last century or so.

The tapers we have today all stem from Leonard. The floppy noodle shit all stem from builders without the skills to recreate the exacting measurements that are required to make a top class fly rod. I love my own bamboo rod to distraction, but it ain't a Garrison or a Payne.

John Gierach tells a lovely story about a little two weight that he really just can't cast until he tries downstream wet fly and it all comes together. Just like carbon rods, not every one is a winner.

"The lighter line rods felt O.K but nothing special, nothing different or astonishing about them and they were a bit soft & slow for my taste however that is a subjective thing."
That was what I found with my old Loomis. Great rod but at the end of a days fishing not the worlds greatest.
Horses for courses...

 :z1


 

Sandy Nelson

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #22 on: 22/11/2011 at 09:58 »
Its an interesting topic, because it is entirely subjective :z16 This is a good thing for seeing what people regard as turning points in their own experiences.

Historically i suppose there has been several "Leaps" forward, the Brits were the first to laminate Cane but the preference was for greenheart so the technology went stateside and Sam Phillipe took it to the level of the 6 strip rod, now regarded as the norm.
Hiram Leonard as Euan Points out is a Key figure, He was the first to machine the strips making the rods more affordable and more easily adjusted, hence the proliferation of tapers to his credit. In turn his workshop apprentices became some of the most famous builders, like Ed Payne who was the first to really make the rods "Pretty"
Later, Young, Dickerson, Garrison, etc did different things with tapers and ferrules but never made any blinding leaps.

Post war, Fiberglass appeared in several companies, about the same time, this made for a cheaper medium and less intensive process, making rods more affordable and coupled with PVC lines the world of Flyfishing was becoming more accesible to ordinary people.

In the late 60's graphite started to appear, again the Brits started it , but the yanks moved it on to the levels we now expect. To my mind the turning point for Graphite would probably be the Sage Graphite 111 RPL rods and Loomis IMX in the mid 80's they created a new benchmark and have made the companies reputations they way they are now, everything since has been a  development from there.

Other notable moments may be Sharpes doing Imprenated Cane to make it more durable and cheapen the process and perhaps Scott being the first to do a hollow ferrule on a graphite rod, hence making multi piece rods viable.
Normark using Boron for increased strength, and so on, i think most manufacturers have added something unique to the Mix that we now take for granted. :z16

Materials have been the biggest developments of the last 6o years as most rods are still built to roughly standard tapers as laid down by the laws of physics, its the way the materials are used and where they are placed in the layup that makes the differences.

I would expect the rate of change to start to slow, in fact i think it has been slowing since the 80's.

So onto my Key moments in History.

Casting my cousins Red Diawa 9ft6" 7wt in 1983, it was awesome compared to my milbro and could chuck size 8LS White Chenilles and Black tadpoles for what seemed like miles :z7 I still associate the song "Radio Gaga" with that red fly rod :X2

A natural progression through various 9'6 and 10ft 7/8 wts, A Bob Church Rutland stands out as a favourite for rainbows as does a Shakespeare Radial for the river. Later an 8ft president also brings back fond memories :z3 and my first foray to a lighter line it was a 4/5.

But my epiphany was in 1998 when i had sold all my tackle due to apprenticeships and Redundancies and found myself in Falkirk trying to survive with Sandra and Dan. I got a Sage 8'9" 3wt LL blank made with Graphite 111 (a cancelled order at sportfish) and saved up for the componants in stages, i spent many hours researching weight, balance, etc and when it was finally built it was the most amazing rod i had ever cast, not the fastest Sage ever made, but still my favourite. :z14

So i make it into the 20th century just :z18 with mid 80's Technology and an american company, a sign of the times i guess.
All my rods are American these Days even my Bamboo and i've just bought a Fibreglass rod to play with next season so perhaps i'm looking to see what else i may have missed out on by being born in the 70's :z7

Sandy

Rob Brownfield

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #23 on: 22/11/2011 at 21:33 »
No thought was put into tapers or the actual physics of what makes a rod work.

Not sure I can agree with that.

Richard Walker spent years working out tapers, actions, casting characteristics for both cane fly and carp rods in the 60's. His letters have been published and much of his research can be accessed from these letters. Not only did he work out tapers matmatically, he designd the plains for shaping the cane, the "moulds" for the tapers, lighter ferrules to speed up recovery and lighter rings. He really did uderstand cane. Thats why Hardy/Farlows jumped at the chance of using him as a consultant.

He later went on to design tapers for Hardy in glass and Carbon. He was an engineer by trade and really did understand materials and actions. His classic Hardy Farnbough Fly Rod was probably the best rod he designed..and I truely mean designed, not just waggled a few blanks about and chose one.

Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #24 on: 23/11/2011 at 06:26 »
Rob,
By the sixties people like Richard Walker were getting into the physics but I was referring back to the late 1800 through to 1920 or so. This was the time of Skues and his "unorthodox" methods.

You are right though, Walker is one of the pivotal figures in this time line. His work in glass was excellent and it was probably due to him that the transition from bamboo to carbon went the way it did.

 :z1

Will Shaw

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #25 on: 23/11/2011 at 18:39 »
The Walker-effect on UK rod design is interesting, he definitely moved coarse rods out of the dark ages from the 50's onwards.  Apparently, though, he persuaded Hardy to limit the amount of graphite in their blanks, and made this specific in their patents, thus robbing them of a serious competitive advantage! Doh!

Ref: Ben's comments about cane lovers liking "whangy shit". WC Stewart was very specific about trying to get the stiffest rod he could - he hated wobbly rods. To be fair he was in the era of ash/willow etc.

Me? I'd nominate Loomis IMX and Sage RPL as game-changers of their time.

21st Century: Helios definitely stole a march. At the moment I think there are loads of fantastic rods out there, from Shakespeare's Odyssey (how do they do that?) to Zenith/Proaxis, NRX, ZXL, Guideline's stuff, etc, etc. They're all brilliant but I don't think anything jumps out from the pack.

I think we're in an era of tiny incremental improvements at the top end. The biggest change I think we're seeing right now is a step-change in quality of mid/lower end rods.

W.

Ben Dixon

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #26 on: 23/11/2011 at 23:00 »

Me? I'd nominate Loomis IMX and Sage RPL as game-changers of their time.

21st Century: Helios definitely stole a march. At the moment I think there are loads of fantastic rods out there, from Shakespeare's Odyssey (how do they do that?) to Zenith/Proaxis, NRX, ZXL, Guideline's stuff, etc, etc. They're all brilliant but I don't think anything jumps out from the pack.

W.

Yup, IMX for sure, also RPL.  Sintrix / NRX and Helios are definitely game changers and could be put down as serious break throughs.  Shakespeare rods are more than superb for the price, an interesting angling Will, I presume you are aware of the reasons behind the question  :z4

Ben

Hamish Young

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #27 on: 24/11/2011 at 11:25 »
My observation is every time someone has come out with a new method of construction or introduced a new material into fly rods (up to the end of the 20th century) they've generally failed to fully capitalise on it's benefits and it's been left to the competition to make the best use of it. Orvis vs Sage is a good example with graphite. Although Fenwick (arguably) were the first to bring graphite technology into rod construction their rods were weak and prone to failure. So it was Orvis who introduced it into fly rods in 1974, but the range of rods Orvis produced were designed to reflect the best properties of their previous (and concurrent) split cane (sorry, bamboo) rods and did not take full advantage of the properties of graphite. Although others did try to make full use of this material (notably Lamiglas), it was some eight years later that Sage (or the Winslow Rod Co. as it was originally) that took the material to new heights with the Reserve Power range - or RP as we know them now.
So I agree, the RP range were a leap forward, but some years from when graphite first came on the scene.

Within a decade, everyone seemed to be using the material - with different levels of performance, however :z7
There was boron at the same time.... but that's another story.

It seems to me that the introduction of a new material has generally been very expensive by the time the finished product is in the hands of the 'ordinary' angler. But as the use of the technology becomes cheaper, a few years down the line, the 'ordinary' angler can afford the newer materials. Neatly, that suggests to me that some older technology has reached the very pinnacle of what is achievable with it before it's 'retired' or re-branded somehow in a 'classic' range.

Today, I'm not so sure that as many years would go by (as arguably it did at the time of graphite introduction) without the new technologies quickly finding their way into far better mid and lower priced gear. The market potential is so significant that no manufacturer of fly rods (other than those who insist on making grass noodle things  :z7 :z4) can afford to ignore the potential in new material. That's good news for 'Joe Angler'.

For me, going back to the very beginning of this thread, the significant rods of a generation up to the end of the 20th century were:

1. Greenheart - has to be the Grant Vibration range.
2. Split cane/bamboo - tricky. Although others might disagree, I think the Palakona range are right up there.
3. Fibreglass - errrr....... undecided.
3. Graphite - Sage RP although arguably Lamiglas were the first to make it really 'work' as a material.
4. Boron - well, boron/graphite - Winston

Interesting stuff, will have to look into this a wee bit more I think.

H :z3

Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #28 on: 24/11/2011 at 17:57 »
H,

Can I presume all the contributors involved with this post will get a credit in the final draft of your thesis? :z7

"3. Fibreglass - errrr....... undecided."

Just remembered a name from the depths of my hard drive brain - Tom Morgan. Tom still makes fibreglass rods, some very good ones from what I read. Formerly the owner of RL Winston Ltd he did more with glass than anyone could be bothered to. Here's a link from Tom about his history
http://fiberglassflyrodders.yuku.com/topic/1320#.Ts6EjLJKN0M

John Gierach tells (another) lovely story in Fishing Bamboo about Tom meeting a carbon rod builder at a party.
So if you think glass is ass go and check out
http://www.troutrods.com/

Many did glass, none did it like Tom  :z16

 :z1

Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #29 on: 24/11/2011 at 18:05 »
"Many did glass, none did it like Tom"

Actually someone did, and it was this chap that the Gierach story was about.

JK Fisher - look him up under glass fly rod God.

These names are popping up in my heed tonight when I should be focused on work. This is way better than working  :z7

 :z1

 




Barrio Fly Lines - designed in Scotland - Cast with confidence all over the world

Barrio Fly Lines

Designed in Scotland

Manufactured in the UK

Cast with confidence all over the world

www.flylineshop.com