Rod tech/quality - Old Vs New

[badfish79]

I'm always curious about this. With all the advancement in materials in the last 10-15 years, do you think current day entry and mid level rods are as good or better than a mid to high end rod from 10 or 15 years ago? Example, original Shimano Crucial vs an SLX of today.

[casts_by_fly]

Absolutely. Technology trickles down. Something new comes out and it’s only available in the top of the line because it’s expensive being first. Over time the technology gets cheaper and trickles down to lower end product lines. Also consumers want the next best thing. What better way to upgrade your second best lineup than to give it first best technology. Of course that only works if you have something new for first best. 
 

in practical terms, you  can get entry level rods now ($100 bucket) that are better than $250 rods from 15 years ago. Yes, the top of the line from years ago will still be awesome, but the top of the line comparable now will be better. 

[bulldog1935]

Can't say anything about the models you picked, but the key in modern rods is getting weight down - they achieve the same strength and bulk modulus using less total material.  

Previously, rods were made using linear fiber held on a mandrel with a scrim wrap, and soaked in resin.  

Now they use fewer linear fibers, helical prepreg tape, nano resins.  

An MM IM6 rod weighed 5 ounces, while the same rod taper made with Toray prepregs is down to 3 ounces.  

Then as now, the quality comes from attention to detail, not the tech.  

[Tennessee Boy]

Every time I look for real evidence that a higher end rod delivers the same performance with less weight I fail to find it.   For example,  look at rodgeeks.com which is St Croix's rod blank site.  They sell the "Carbon 4" 7 ft MH Fast blank for $99.  It's made in St Croix's plant in Mexico and it weights 2.55 oz.   They sell the "Carbon 5" 7 ft MH Fast blank for $190.  It is St Croix's SCV blank and is made in their plant in the US.  It weights 2.5 oz.  So it's 0.05 ounces lighter (about 1/5 the weight of my wedding ring) but it also has lower lure and line weight ratings. 

 

Carbon 4 - Line rating of 10 - 20 # - lure rating of 3/8 - 1 oz.  

Carbon 5 - Line rating of  8 - 14 #  - lure rating of 3/8 - 3/4 oz. 

 

So what am I really getting for an extra $91?  

[bulldog1935]

@Tennessee Boy - easy, you're paying US labor vs Mexico labor.  

Though off topic from the question, which was tech over 10 to 15 years.  

The difference in Carbon 4 (IM8) and Carbon 5 (IM9) is the specific modulus of the fibers used.  

 

Old = Obsolete is a marketing ploy, known to marketers as "The Snow Job"  - if they can't convince you what you bought last year is obsolete, they can't sell you this year's new stuff.  It has nothing to do with quality, but what you will swallow. 

I can think of lures I present more naturally with heavier IM6 and even S-glass, and catch more fish than the same lure fished on newer lighter-weight rods.  In many ways, the lighter tackle is more fun to fish, but isn't always more productive.  

[MickD]

1 hour ago, bulldog1935 said:

quality comes from attention to detail, not the tech. 

Tech has a great deal to do with the better rods today.  The materials, the processes, designs, it's all tech.  But yes, without a great quality control system, tech can do nothing of value.

[Tennessee Boy]

3 hours ago, bulldog1935 said:

@Tennessee Boy - easy, you're paying US labor vs Mexico labor.  

Though off topic from the question, which was tech over 10 to 15 years.  

The difference in Carbon 4 (IM7) and Carbon 5 (IM8) is the specific modulus of the fibers used.  

Actually,  I made a mistake.  The two rods weigh the same.  So  the IM7 gives you slightly more rod at the same weight as the IM8.  It’s the Carbon 2 that weighs 0.05 oz more with the identical specs as the Carbon 4 made in the same factory.  
 

That’s definitive proof that for $37 I can get a higher tech rod with the same specs that weights 0.05 oz less.  However,  there is a footnote that says the measurements may vary slightly. 🤭
 

To the OPs question,  the point I’m trying to make is it’s hard to find definitive proof that recent advances in technology have produced a rod that will make you a better fisherman.  However,  modern marketing hype is much improved.  Everyone will want the new magical proprietary carbon fibers and the modern computer designed rod tapers that are only available in the latest models.

[ironbjorn]

Today's $100-$150 rods that get knocked for "not being sensitive" cracks me up because they're on par with high end rods from 10-20 years ago. Makes me wonder how anyone ever caught fish. 

[WRB]

I think rod technology over 15 years hasn’t changed by leaps and bonds. 3M Nano resin is older then that but Pure Fishing bought the rights to use 3M Nano resin in fishing rods limiting competitors use. scrimles rod lay up technology isn’t new either but more labor intense limited use to higher end rods.

The cost came down when domestic rod builder went off shore with the newer technologies eliminating patent infringements and lowering skilled labor cost. Few bass rods are made domestically under $200 today.

My 13 year old custom rods using state of the art Nano resign scrimless Lamiglass blanks MH+ JWR rods weigh 3.8 oz with a 2” fore grip, cost was $260 each made in USA.

How did we catch bass 30 years ago, with the state of the art of the day like Fenwick Techna AV and used our finger tips to detect strikes like you should be doing today.

Tom

[steve carpenter]

Back in the 70's I fished with a 5 foot 6 inch heddon fiberglass rod. I could sense often when a bass would inhale a lure. Broke my heart when it broke. I have much more expensive rods now, but most don'd compare to the feel I had with that rod. Maybe its the feel of the rod and reel in your hand and how it transmits to your brain that is important. Caught hundreds of fish with that rod😪

[greentrout]

The Most Sensitive Rod Money Can Buy

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

This is a really loaded question. It depends on comparing apples to apples, defining what a “better” rod is and applying value to the higher price. There have been advancements in blank materials, resins, mandrels, guides and other components. It all works together. The advancements over the past 10yrs have been real but not leaps and bounds. The value of those advancements is an individual decision. 

[Catt]

15 hours ago, badfish79 said:

Example, original Shimano Crucial vs an SLX of today.

 

The SLX isn't half the rod the Crucial was. 

[DaubsNU1]

I'm still fishing Cabela's branded rods purchased in the 1990's. Shimano reels from the same years. 

 

They seem to catch fish just fine.

[redmeansdistortion]

16 hours ago, bulldog1935 said:

I can think of lures I present more naturally with heavier IM6 and even S-glass, and catch more fish than the same lure fished on newer lighter-weight rods.  In many ways, the lighter tackle is more fun to fish, but isn't always more productive.  

My thought as well. 

 

Some of the higher end rod makers still use standard and medium modulus blanks for the sake of durability, and when using a higher quality fiber cloth with fewer flaws, a blank can be constructed from those materials that rivals the higher modulus stuff.  Most will notice this among high quality Japanese made rods.  Smith, M-Aire, Tenryu, and Anglo & Co. come to mind on that end, they typically use 24t and 30t (standard modulus and IM6) in their blanks, and those rods are very sensitive and light at the same time.  My 6'5" ML Smith Troutin'Spin is a great example of this, it uses 24t in the tip and 30t in the butt which results in a durable and light, yet very capable rod.  Many of these rods range from about $400 on up, but you're getting quite possibly the best quality blank and impeccable craftsmanship at the same time. 

 

In essence, a standard or medium modulus blank made of higher quality fiber will be superior to a high modulus blank of average quality.  On this side of the world, numbers get products off of shelves because of the prevailing mentality that more is better.  Many manufacturers offer high modulus blanks at very affordable prices, but if the quality of the materials used isn't above average, it isn't going to be a better rod than something of higher quality and lower modulus.  It'll be more brittle, but that's about it.

[Hulkster]

back in the mid to late 90s, the Loomis IMX and GLX were arguably the best blanks available and they both had a 'carbon scrim' as part of their building process. 

 

nowadays, you never hear about this. is this still used?? 

 

 

[QUAKEnSHAKE]

On 11/3/2023 at 1:52 PM, badfish79 said:

I'm always curious about this. With all the advancement in materials in the last 10-15 years, do you think current day entry and mid level rods are as good or better than a mid to high end rod from 10 or 15 years ago? Example, original Shimano Crucial vs an SLX of today.

$199 Shimano Cumara rod 2009ish IM10 blank with SiC guides.

Shimano Cumulus at $350 

What rods now compares at $100 let me know.

My beloved Quantum Smoke rod gen1 2010 $150 7' M/F 1/4-34 lure rating crisp blank weighs in at only 3.4oz.

Old Okuma Helios 7' rod 3.3oz

What rods with all the new tech are lighter with the same power and length that isnt whippy at the $100 price point.

 

NRX rods from 2010 were $475 what new rod is better than an NRX at $250-$300?

 

So no I dont believe entry to mid level rods$100-$300 today are better than mid to high end rods $300-$500 of 10-15 years ago.

The number one reason for this is high inflation a far 2nd is tech hasnt really improved all that much.

Are there any $100 rods with SiC inserts?

Alconite and SIC rings were more common on $200 rods now aluminum oxide is what you get. Example St Croix Avid. Shimano Curado $200 rod has fazlite comparable to al oxide. No great advancement in ring material. NRX+ still uses recoil sic guides