brittleness of graphite(s) vs. composite.

[jimmyjoe]

   I hope the rodbuilders here have information on this.

   I've broken two St. Croix Mojo Bass rods by hitting them against something. These are SC3 blanks, but it's unclear whether they're SC3 rolled in Park Falls or SC3 rolled in Fresnillo. In both cases, the damage was my fault. HOWEVER ...... I had 11 other rods, all graphite, that have never had any problems at all.  These include Avid and Avid-X as well as other brands. (One that broke a tip years ago has been sold long ago.) The Fresnillo blanks seem to be more brittle than the other rods, but maybe I'm imagining things.

   I also have a fiberglass rod. I used to have fiberglass rods, but I got rid of them when the "graphite is better" train rolled into town. I would like to note that since 1963, I have never damaged a fiberglass rod. Period.

   But fiberglass is heavy, and I'm getting old. The two don't really go together.

   There are graphite rods made to mimic the action of fiberglass, but I have no idea whether they are brittle or not. (I kinda suspect that they are, but I might be wrong. Please tell me if I am.)

   There are composite blanks used to make rods that mimic fiberglass, but I have no idea whether they are as durable as fiberglass, or whether they share the susceptibility to impact that graphite displays. I also don't know how much weight composite will save me over straight fiberglass. Looking at it the other way, I don't know how much heavier composites are than graphite.

   I'm going to get two new rods, and they are both going to be moderate action. One will be MH, and one will be M.  I don't know whether to go graphite or composite or fiberglass. I don't know whether to go off-the-rack or custom.

   So I need information. I need to compare the three materials, and I need advice on quality and durability.

   Can you guys help me?   Thnx.     jj   

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

Graphite isn’t brittle per se but I know what you’re referring to. The object of high modulus materials is to achieve sensitivity through a lower weight to stiffness ratio. The trade off is, they are less tolerant of high sticking and impact damage. Most of the blanks marketed as blend or composite use a mix of graphite materials and/or glass to achieve a desired action and power not necessarily durability as in resistance to rough handling. Moderate action rods aren’t usually built with the highest modulus materials so Whatever you pick will likely be a little “tougher” as an ancillary benefit. I wouldn’t stress too much over material outside of which one you like the feel of and will perform as intended. 

[spoonplugger1]

As an example only, because construction is as variable as the materials, Lamiglas made three blanks using the same mandrel but one was E glass, one was S glass, and one was their Triflex construction, E glass with a graphite overwrap in the butt section. The wall thickness of the butt sections changed obviously as the materials changed to keep the powers as close as they could. The S glass and Triflex blanks were virtually identical in weight, 3/8 of an ounce lighter than the E glass alone version in a 7 ft. Bass rod. The E glass version is still made, the MB 84 1E, the others were the S glass SMB 84 1E, and the Triflex CMB 84 1E.

Others have their own versions of composite construction that have been successful for decades, and used reliably in even the most demanding saltwater situations. Of course the all graphite United Composite rods have also been used in those situations reliably for decades also, same materials just used in an aviation inspired layup also gets a very durable rod, I have fly, bass, and saltwater rods all built on this blank construction that held up to 15+ years of abuse including bush plane travel, fly strikes, riding in the bottom of canoes, wilderness travel by foot, horse, ATV, and boat in all conditions, etc. with so far zero failures.

[jimmyjoe]

35 minutes ago, spoonplugger1 said:

As an example only, because construction is as variable as the materials, Lamiglas made three blanks using the same mandrel but one was E glass, one was S glass, and one was their Triflex construction, E glass with a graphite overwrap in the butt section. The wall thickness of the butt sections changed obviously as the materials changed to keep the powers as close as they could. The S glass and Triflex blanks were virtually identical in weight, 3/8 of an ounce lighter than the E glass alone version in a 7 ft. Bass rod. The E glass version is still made, the MB 84 1E, the others were the S glass SMB 84 1E, and the Triflex CMB 84 1E.

Others have their own versions of composite construction that have been successful for decades, and used reliably in even the most demanding saltwater situations. Of course the all graphite United Composite rods have also been used in those situations reliably for decades also, same materials just used in an aviation inspired layup also gets a very durable rod, I have fly, bass, and saltwater rods all built on this blank construction that held up to 15+ years of abuse including bush plane travel, fly strikes, riding in the bottom of canoes, wilderness travel by foot, horse, ATV, and boat in all conditions, etc. with so far zero failures.

 

   Thank you! Your post really helped me to put things in perspective.      jj

[bulldog1935]

The only rod I've ever broken is 13Fishing Omen (salty Green) ML, and it was because of a bad high-stick reaction when a redfish snagged my lure at the boat just as I was taking it out of the water - bad high-stick reaction set exactly when the redfish exploded - and a surprise warranty replacement from 13Fishing.  

The rod is stunning light in hand, Toray graphite, composite construction using layers of helical (spiral) graphite cloth.  The purpose of this construction is to use the least amount of material possible, both fiber and resin - to get the thinnest wall for the lightest weight possible.  

 

My two MM rods are Legend (S) Glass spinner and Crowder IM6 casting.  Both seem indestructible, but St. Croix has done a remarkable job making the Legend Glass lighter in hand than the Crowder IM6.  

 

I go way back in fly rods.  Joe Kennedy Fisher was famous for making the lightest-weight, fastest taper glass rods.  He never went past IM6, but his graphite rods were all as heavy as his glass rods, because he never trusted graphite.  So there's some truth to graphite being brittle.  At some point, you have to trust the rod maker has designed the rod to do the job - and buy good warranties.  

[spoonplugger1]

Fisher has been gone for many decades, IM6 was the first graphite developed where the modulus went up over 25% and so did the toughness to a lesser extent, others before were as high, or higher modulus, but were also more prone the fracture under load. IM7 was slightly higher modulus, same toughness, IM8 slightly higher modulus again. IM9 lower modulus similar to IM7, but tougher. There was no IM10 no matter what you see advertised and even if it was you'd have no idea what you are getting as modulus has nothing to do with the numbering system Today's graphites and especially the resins to bond them are far superior to anything from that period, but you get what you pay for, the latest stuff is way more expensive than decades old stuff, just like the latest 5G phones are more expensive than a flip phone. Fisher didn't have the program written by the Boeing engineers that let him know what every inch of his rod's power and stress would look like before he built it like Gary Loomis had, there was a reason G Loomis grew so fast originally and I believe the first to use IM6.

[MickD]

Modulus went over 25 %.  25% of what?

[jimmyjoe]

  

19 minutes ago, MickD said:

Modulus went over 25 %.  25% of what?

 

   He probably made a typo. I'd think that he meant 25M, for "million modulus".     jj

[spoonplugger1]

What was the standard modulus used back than? The same still used in the RX6 blanks from Batson, G1000 blanks from Lamiglas, etc.

[jimmyjoe]

  This article might clear things up.

 

   https://marklassagne.com/bass-fishing-articles/fishing-rods-the-confusing-difference/

 

   Notice Young's modulus of IM6 (40M or million) and the modulus of S-fiberglass (only 12 million).

 

   This paper from Toray (Tokyo Rayon) has a little more information. However, I'm not sure how useful it is. They don't cross-reference the Hexcel terminology.

 

   https://www.toraycma.com/page.php?id=661

 

   This entry (4th post) adds the confusion of "ton"

 

   https://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/topic/655750-how-to-interpret-blanks-specs-like-imx-24t30t-tc2tc3-etc/

 

   These different articles reference IM6 as variously 33, 36 and 40 million Young's modulus. With inconsistencies like this, no wonder there's so much confusion! Add to this the fact that the Young's modulus of a material has almost no bearing on the quality and characteristics of the product in which it is used, and you can see why you really need to find a manufacturer that you know and trust and simply stick with them.

   However ..... I'm still wondering about brittleness. I don't know where different rods stand in light of this problem. What's the term to describe resistance to fracture, anyway?  Is it simply "toughness"?        jj

 

  

[bulldog1935]

It was $600 and $700 fly rods that led the way in pushing modulus on the public.  Joe Fisher happily retired his business in 2004 (not quite many decades), after a career supplying rod blanks for Hardy, Sage, Scott, Thomas & Thomas, and Winston.  He actually built a rod plant in California, and shipped it to England for Hardy (that was many decades ago). 

I bought my last Fisher Sterling in 1998, and my buddy bought a couple of the last Presidentials while he still could.  (I later picked up another Sterling, Emerald, and Natural on ebay - buys too good to pass.)  T&T and Hal Bacon sold the last blue Fisher blanks.  

 

The fly rod modulus history is at least part marketing hype (and under-rating line weight to appear fast in Ted Leeson rod reviews), but by the time they got to Graphite IV, the blanks were so harsh and painful to cast, all subsequent graphite in fly rods has reduced modulus and concentrated on dampening.  

The importance of modulus in a fly rod taper directly relates to rod length.  Generally, below 8' length, cane and S-glass make a better rod (for practical purposes, cane and S-glass have the same modulus).  E-glass makes the best progressive taper below 7'.  Those limitations are all about graphite brittleness - the rod needs enough material to have minimum strength and toughness, and the modulus limits how light that can be.  That may change with helical fiber layers and solid-tip.  While you can duplicate any 9' graphite taper in cane and glass, it's pointless, because all you gain is thickness and weight.  

 

I'll add the Japanese are building some incredible progressive tapers in salty UL Rockfish rods, and they use the same idea in BFS casting rods.  This 8'3" Yamaga Blanks rockfish weighs 2-1/2 oz, and casts 1/32 to 3/8 oz.  

 

In para tapers, spinning and casting rods, modulus is most related to weight and toughness.  Light in hand is always nice, toughness to take repeated abuse. But the reason the highest-grade offshore rods (more $600 and $700 rods) are E-glass and glass-blend, is because of graphite brittleness and improving toughness.  Admitted, offshore rod weight doesn't matter except in jigging rods.  

 

The way to look at rod taper and modulus is diameter and thickness change.  The rod taper is the change in bulk modulus over the rod length.  The bulk modulus at any point on the rod is proportional to moment of inertia (defined by diameter and thickness) and the specific modulus (diluted a bit by the resin content).  

 

Adding a Fisher ps - Randy Johnson, a former blank-maker in Mound House, currently makes new glass and IM6 blanks duplicating old Fisher - dba Retroglass Fly Rod Company.  

[mcipinkie]

What the heck does all of this mean to a guy trying to catch a fish?

 

I ain't writing a doctoral thesis on graphite moduli. 

 

Graphite is just more brittle and less forgiving than fiberglass.

[spoonplugger1]

I reiterate, graphite need not be brittle, the layup of the blank makes all the difference, and they have never used, or needed scrim, people say you can't build a graphite saltwater rod that will hold up and yet Graphite USA, now United Composites has done it for decades and have thousands of satisfied customers to prove it. We're talking all application including rail rods, bass rods, swimbait rods, trout rods, no longer fly rods, but I have 4 fly rods I use for times I can't afford to have a rod failure, the newest one is 15+ years old, the oldest over 20, I don't know how many times they have been used by others that blew their rod(s) up hundreds of miles by air, or boat from the closest rod shop. I have never had one fail.

CTS also uses this layup building rods and blanks out of New Zealand, I own two of them, one travel spinning and a 3 wt fly rod and have built many others.

[jimmyjoe]

   Well, I found out that the term I was looking for is, actually, "fracture resistance". That's a quantifiable characteristic of the graphite. The characteristic of the completed structure (in this case a rod) is called "impact resistance".

   As far as I can see, there's not a lot of info on this subject floating around because advanced forms of graphites and composites are used in the aerospace industries. I took that to mean "defense industries", but I may be wrong.

   I also saw a report (somewhere) that graphene can improve the fracture resistance of graphite materials, but I'm not sure that the paper had applicability to fishing rods. If that's the case, then some of the really-high-end rods that are being manufactured today with graphene added to them could be the answer to the problem. Considering their price, however, I'll wait for the trickle-down effect to kick in.  ? ? ?

    I called St. Croix yesterday. Understandably, they would not get too specific, but one of the impressions that I took away from our conversation is that the assertion by @spoonplugger1 regarding the importance of the layup of the blank has some merit. I need to get more information about that.

   One thing seems to be agreed to by all; no graphite construction in popular use can approach the durability and shock resistance of fiberglass. So if I want to save weight, I'm going to have to accept some significant compromises. What degree of compromise and in which area remains to be seen. In that sense, I'm no better off than when I started.  ☹️☹️☹️

 

   And the beat goes on ............                          jj

  

[MickD]

The only rod I ever broke setting the hook was a glass rod.  I had one of my Point 'Blanks pretty well wrapped around my trolling motor shaft this last year, and it survived.  I don't think that one can conclude that glass is always tough and graphite is always fragile.  There is much more to it.

[bulldog1935]

You can't change the intrinsic properties of the material of construction.  

You work with them.  

No one here is saying one MOC is absolutely better - if they are saying that, they're incorrect.  Each MOC has its proper use, and applications where they're better than other MOC.  Newer isn't better at everything, and never has been.  

In N+1 marketing, if they're going to sell you this year's rod, they must first convince you last year's is obsolete.  

 

Improper use will break Any rod. My dad had a habit of stepping on all the Falcon rods I bought him - he'd let his rod drop on the deck and go looking for the stringer, or they'd fall out of his horizontal rod rack while he was working with the boat - I didn't mind, it made birthdays and Christmas easy.  

 

You get more margin for error using a tougher MOC that's also properly made within its limitations 

It's exactly correct to say you can get a tougher rod from glass or IM6 - the intrinsic properties require using more material and that makes it heavier.  

The lightest-weight rod you can possibly make - the least amount of material - uses composite graphite cloth layers for reinforcement.  If you want this (done right), you pay for it.  

Higher modulus graphite has higher strength, greater stiffness (doh), but also has lower toughness - intrinsic to the MOC.  

Until recently, they never used scrim for structural support, but always had to use it to hold the long fibers in place on the mandrel until they cast the resin.  Even in highly sanded and polished rods, you can see ghosts of the scrim.  Now they use spiral fabric for both scrim and structural advantage.  

[spoonplugger1]

Graphene isn't really new, there are generations of it and it has been tried by all the big names. The absence of it's use tells me something. Saw something recently about CTS' impressions of it, don't remember the reason, but they aren't going forward with it. Quick look see, keeping it simple, blanks became more brittle and worse they became super great conductors of electricity, just what you want in thunderstorms among other things.

[Mike L]

On 1/7/2021 at 10:27 PM, mcipinkie said:

What the heck does all of this mean to a guy trying to catch a fish?

 

I ain't writing a doctoral thesis on graphite moduli. 

 

Graphite is just more brittle and less forgiving than fiberglass.

Some of theses guys aren’t just another pretty face!  ?

 

 

 

Mike

[jimmyjoe]

   Because of the pandemic, numerous of my e-mails aren't being answered. I understand that perfectly well. I'm going to either call some people or wait until later in the spring, whichever works better. This issue has my curiosity piqued, but I realize it's not a life-and-death situation. I'll get back if (and when) I find out more.       jj

[MickD]

On 1/7/2021 at 10:27 PM, mcipinkie said:

What the heck does all of this mean to a guy trying to catch a fish?

Not much.  Most of us tend to overthink this rod spec stuff.  Please forgive.

 

[bulldog1935]

It ain't like it ain't been going on for 4000 years. 

Judging by stone inscriptions dating back to 2000 BC, fishing rods go back to ancient Egypt, China, Greece, Trinidad and Tobago, Rome and medieval England.

 

Dr. James A Henshall, Book of the Black Bass, 1881

 

Bluegrass 33 reel and Chubb Henshall bass rod, both from 1910 - Doc's formula for the rod was first published in an 1876 article.  

some people are feely, others are analytical, and may have both the education and experience to see through the hype -- personally, I've always thought the feely part was creepy.   

In my case, 40-year career in mechanics of continuous media (this discussion is right up my alley), and my fishing career began a dozen years before that.  

And if you weren't watching, Forrest Gump never grouched and felt threatened when others understood and he didn't.  

 

The title of this forum page isn't fishing, but rodbuilding, and the question is about damage tolerance in rod blanks.  

Injecting off topic gripe into an intelligent discussion between contributing forum members is a well-demonstrated, though poorly intentioned MO.  

Edited January 10, 2021 by bulldog1935
for below

[mcipinkie]

Man, It's the second week of  January, and we're already into this type of discussion.  I know someone has got to be working on a thesis of some kind, because we ain't talking about fishing. 

[jimmyjoe]

1 hour ago, mcipinkie said:

Man, It's the second week of  January, and we're already into this type of discussion.  I know someone has got to be working on a thesis of some kind, because we ain't talking about fishing. 

 

   We?  Have you contributed anything constructive?  There are two sorts of people in the world; those who build up and those who tear down. If you cannot be the former, it's still best not to be the latter.       jj

[Bluebasser86]

1 hour ago, mcipinkie said:

Man, It's the second week of  January, and we're already into this type of discussion.  I know someone has got to be working on a thesis of some kind, because we ain't talking about fishing. 

Nobody is forcing you to click on the threads and read it. Some folks enjoy delving into the more analytical aspects of things. I'm not that deep so I haven't been following along, super easy to do. 

[spoonplugger1]

Mcipinkie,

Sure we are, fiberglass is durable but heavier, less responsive, less handy in some situations. I have glass, composite, and varied graphite. If you have a fishing situation where strong, large fish are involved that are going to put your gear and you at your limit, what if you have a graphite rod,, much lighter and handier that will get it done for decades, what do you bring? If your trout fishing brush laden streams where accuracy and casting space is all important, which do you pick, a very fast reacting, abrupt graphite rod, or a slower loading glass rod that gives you a bit more time to get it right on the spot. If it's a tight line, tip down presentation, is graphite still as important, how about slack line presentations, tip up? Which is more likely to keep a light hooked fish on, or treble hooked fish?

I don't keep myself up at night worrying about this, but if I haven't done it, how can I recommend, or recognize what others may need? My name is on every rod, even my own, it means something.