state of the art rod technology

[Guest avid]

I have been hearing comments lately about GLoomis rods being outdated in terms of technology.

I'm not sure what that means?

Can I hear from some of the rod guru's out there?

what non custom company makes a "state of the art" rod these days, and what are they doing that is so cutting edge.

thanks,

avid

[Alpster]

Hey Avid,

I Googled "state of the art fishing rods" and on the first two pages alone there are 10 rod companies that claim they are the "State of the art". LOL I also get a kick out of us average fishing guys (and even us rodbuilders) who talk about ROD BLANK TECHNOLOGY like I have a real clue about the "molecular density of carbon fibers" "graphite modulus & matrixes" and on and on. I think "state if the art is somewhat subjective" and your opinion is as good as most guys on these message boards IMHO. I do a rigorous scientific test to determine rod quality, I fish with the rod until I fall in love or hate it and get rid of it, LOL.  

[Guest the_muddy_man]

Hey Fellas Ronnie wrapped a Lamiglass (spiral wrapped) for me and it is eons better than anything else I have ever used I m taking it out Muskie Fishing next week on the Susqy!!!

 

[Guest avid]

I like your ultimate test Ronnie, because in the end that's what really matters.

But for example, when I bought my steez reel the salesman (very cleverly) brought over the matchig steez rod.  I gotta tell ya, it was georgous, light as feather, and felt like it was made for my hands.

But except for the split grips, and no cork foregrip, which aren't "new" or "technology" I was just wondering if there have been some genuine advancements in rod building lately.

to my mind, when Fenwick started making rods out of graphite, THAT was a technological breakthrough.

the split grips etc, seems more like design than engineering.

[RiskKid.]

I love my "old technology" Loomis and St Croix rods. That having been said the Airrus rods may indeed be using new technology. I have never used one but they sure are saying great things about them. I hear the owner of the company is really a great guy also. See this link........http://www.rodsbyairrus.com/rods_about.html

[flechero]

I think the terminology has been confused a little.  Since the 70's I think the biggest advances have come in the use of non glass based scrim.   What people are talking about, I think, will prove to be manufacturing technology... as an example, many of the rod companies still have people hand tacking and rolling sheets of material onto mandrels for blank manufacture...  whereas "new" technology may be an automated line or facility.  

If I'm just behind the times and there is some new technology out... you can just consider me old school, like Carl.  ....lol

Avid, just curiously, can you give me a source for your info, like who or which companies called the technology old?

[KU_Bassmaster.]

Slap some "bling" on a rod and you have a perceived "cutting edge" rod.

[Guest Bountiful_Waters]

I am self-confessing that I am one of the worst guys to get caught up in anything "new" and "cutting edge". I was brought up being told that you fish with a 5'-6' pole resembling a broomstick with binder twine attached to a bait in any color as long as it's black. I think I know better now, but still have to try everything. One of my buddies who works in a tackle shop put a St Croix Legend in my hand about 2 years ago and I thought I was dreaming. I thought there just can't be anything better. Now in the last two months I have bought two split handled rods and once again, I just can't imagine anything better. In the same breath, I have bought some things I would rather make shovels or anchors out of. Everyone obviously has their own taste in equipment and with the magnitude of rods out there, I think the manufacturers know that we are all built and think a little differently. I won't knock anyone for what they use, nor will I ever take sides (St Croix, Loomis, Fenwick). The only thing that has changed in the way of my buying is my budget since childhood. I guess once the kids are all gone, I will be buying poles made of gold, who knows. Gold might be a little heavy though, unless they make a 5ft rod!

[RoLo]

I have been hearing comments lately about GLoomis rods being outdated in terms of technology.

I'm not sure what that means?

I can't say that I've ever read that Loomis rods are outdated, but I'm aware of a Big Gray Area that may be construed that way.

In the rod-blank wars today, manufacturers have gotten caught-up in a modulus race. For example, the $160 Johnny Morris rod

boasts an 85-million modulus blank (that's off the chart)! Has anyone ever once seen a numeric reference for the tensile modulus

of an IMX Loomis blank? (I'm waiting...). In my opinion, if the number was astonomically high it would be readily available,

but I have a hunch that the number is surprisingly low.

Is That Bad?

I believe that sidestepping the modulus war may be a good thing. Though Loomis blanks may be a far cry from 85-million modulus,

no one doubts that they're far superior to Johnny Morris blanks. In order to tout high numbers, graphite fabricators

use hybridized processing and in-blank construction. They'll incorporate a very high-modulus core (brittle) with shock-absorbing

hoop fibers, or just the reverse, a brittle jacket with a shock-absorbing core.

In short, the numbers don't always represent the "true" tensile modulus of the blank.

In the opinion of rod experts who know far more than myself, the sweet-spot for tensile-modulus is somewhere

between 40 and 45-million modulus. In lay terms, that's embraces rod blanks from IM-6 to IM-8, where IM = Intermediate Modulus.

For this same reason, I often extol the virtues of lower modulus blanks like the Daiwa Light & Tough (IM-6).

            We're all aware that high-modulus means a lighter blank with greater sensitivity.

However, lower modulus offers greater latitude (handles a wider weight range) and also boasts a lower rate of blank failure.

To get away from high-modulus graphite, big-game anglers (blue marlin - giant tuna) have all but given up on graphite,

switching back to epoxy fiberglass blanks. For the sake of comparison, glass blanks range between 6-million & 13-million modulus,

but provide ugly-stick characteristics. So in the final analysis, some companies have got into the numbers game, others have not.

But the companies that tout the highest tensile modulus aren't necessarily producing the most desirable blanks.

Roger

[Guest DavidGreen]

state of the art: the level of development (as of a device, procedure, process, technique, or science) reached at any particular time usually as a result of modern methods.

Oh this is a good one....

[flechero]

Oh this is a good one....

Yes, and I'm getting sucked in...

Has anyone ever once seen a numeric reference for the tensile modulus

of an IMX Loomis blank? (I'm waiting...). In my opinion, if the number was astonomically high it would be readily available, but I have a hunch that the number is surprisingly low.

Rolo,

I think that we'd all be surprised by how high GLX and IMX are... also how high the strain rates are. I think that if the #'s were published, it would take exactly one day for some other company to begin promoting their 1K higher modulous rods. Just like the whole IM6, 7, 8, 9, 10... everyone has to one up the other even though there is no actual standard. Loomis, St. Croix, CTS and a couple others avoid the whole mess by not saying.

I am SURE that other companies have sent Loomis rods to the lab for analysis... If IMX or GLX were "surprisingly low" or anything but very high, I believe it would be published all over the place and duplicated by the cheaper brands looking for validation.  There are other ways to measure a blank so I feel confident that a few people out there have the numbers.

-keith

[Guest the_muddy_man]

I just got a 145 modulus IM 70 Blank Its a single strand of carbon fiber Im gonna get Fletch to put some guides and a handle on it  

[Long Mike]

Hey Keith and Roger, can you guys explain to an ignorant old fart (no, not Muddy - me) exactly what the significance of a high or low modulus is?  I assume that a high modulus means that the rod is stiffer.  e.g. I've got a MH BPS Extreme that proudly claims a 60 million modulus.  Also, how is modulus measured?

Thanks.

Mike

[Guest DavidGreen]

Here is  little ditty that Andy Dear owner of Lamar Mfg wrote awhile back on the rodbuilding.org forum...

Good evenin' folks,

I may be about to open a SERIOUS can of worms with this thread, but what the heck.....here goes anyway. Being in the blank distribution business, I get asked A LOT about the construction and makeup of the various graphite rod blanks that I sell. And, I have to say that whenever somebody asks me about modulus I just cringe! Here is why; It seems that about 90% of the folks that email me want to know what the modulus is of the blank(s) they are considering buying. When I ask "Why do you want to know that" they can't really give me an answer....they're just convinced that higher the IM rating is better. Here is how the conversation usually evolves:

Mr. Customer: What modulus is that blank made from?

Andy: Well, if you must know, it's about 40million Msi

Mr. Customer: What does that mean?

Andy: Well, it means the blank is made from the material you have come to know and love as IM6

Mr. Customer: Oh, that's too antiquated...I only fish with IM7 and higher.

Andy: Really? Did you know that the difference between IM6 and IM7 is not the modulus it's the tensile strength?

Mr. Customer: Really?

Andy: Yeah REALLY!

Mr. Customer: Eh Hhhmmm....erreer, uh, oh....well uh....well Bass Pro Shops says...

Andy: Forget Bass Pro shops...let's look at the numbers (at this point Andy whips out his trusty data chart that illustrates the differences between the different fibers that actually have IM designations). Here take a look at this. This comes from a chart put together by the folks at Hexcel (http://www.advancedcomposites.com/technology.htm)

The number on the far right is the modulus of the fiber, and the number in the middle is the elongation to failure or stretch.

Hexcel IM4 600 40

Hexcel IM6 760 40

Hexcel IM7 780 40

Hexcel IM8 790 44

Hexcel IM9 920 42

Mr. Customer: You Mean all this time I thought I was getting a higher modulus fiber with the higher IM rating, when what I was really getting is a fiber that stretches more?

Andy: Well, in some cases you are, and in some cases you arent. The fact is though that the difference between IM6 and IM7 is nothing in terms of modulus, and compared to IM8 it's only slightly higher. Wow...look at that IM9 actually has a lower modulus than IM8...go figure Now, many companies are using fibers with a much higher modulus, like 57 and even higher, however these fibers don't necessarily use the IM ratings. So, whenever you see a fiber with an IM rating...BUYER BEWARE! THE HIGHER THE IM RATING, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE HIGHER THE MODULUS!!!

The point is this folks...just because you have a blank made from a high modulus fiber, doesn't means it's a good rod! And vice versa, just because you have a blank with a low modulus...even the original fiber blanks were made with (33 million) doesn't mean it's a bad or outdated rod. It's all about what the designer does with it.

I know there are some of you that may already know this, but judging from the amount of calls I get on a daily basis from folks who ONLY want IM7 or IM8, but can't really tell you why, I have to believe they don't really know what they are talking about at all. They've just been sucked into the marketing machine that leads people to believe that the higher the IM rating, the lighter and more sensetive the material, which is not always the case.

Be forewarned that there is A LOT more to graphite blank construction, performance, quality, sensetivity, weight etc... than just what modulus the fiber is. There are lots of other variables like flag patterns, and wall thickness, and resin systems, and mandrel design....It's all about the talent of the designer, and what he is able to do in terms of the sum of those variables...not just the friggin modulus!

Whewww...ok I feel better now...

My aforementioned explanation of modulus and IM ratings is by no means meant to be anything more than a brief primer for the folks who didn't realize what the differences with the IM ratings were. I hope this clears things up a bit, and I hope that some of you will chime in on this as well. Oh, here is a link to the Hexcel page for those of you who want to investigate the matter further. Do a search for IM6 and you'll get some interesting info. (if you're into that kind of techie junk).

[www.hexcel.com]

[www.advancedcomposites.com]

Now, this gives you some ammunition...next time you stroll into BassPro, and some yahoo tries to sell you a rod based on it's IM rating, ask him to explain to you why the higher IM ratings are better. When he replies by sayin' that the higher the IM rating means more sensetivity, less weight etc....just tell him that you have a blank at home made from IM2000, and see what he says.

Regards,

Andy Dear

Lamar Manf.

Can anyone say Marketing Hype...

Tight Lines All!  

[Lightninrod]

And, then there were fiberglass rods!

These rods are all built on fiberglass blanks but the film used to roll these blanks has been restructured and reformulated eliminating the majority of what Megabass refers to as the horizontal fiber mesh and instead, reinforcing the vertical fibers. The result is a lighter and even more flexible blank than traditional fiberglass rods.

In use

Megabass's Elseil and others

Megabass F4-610XDti Elseil: The Elseil is Megabass's High-Tech, extended length version of their popular, multi-application F4-66X Cyclone Destroyer rod. The additional four inches in length over the Cyclone is provided to afford the angler more casting distance as well as added leverage for hooksets. Additionally, the Elseil benefits from Megabass's Dti blank technology which consists of titanium wires fused to the outside of the graphite blank in a double helix, dna-like pattern. The use of exotic metals in this series of blanks is intended to reinforce the graphite and provide an added degree of power not available otherwise. All the rod's components are made by Fuji but designed by Yuki Ito, Owner, CEO, and Principal Designer of Megabass

If you're really interested in different ways rods can be designed, you might want to read this.

They are not just "bling"(God, but I hate that word!).

Dan

[Guest DavidGreen]

Sorry man not bying the hype anymore...

That is nothing more than some more well written marketing hype. Sounds like Mr.Itö has his hands in a lot of different marketing hype, just like the Alpha Itö and the so called R+ tuning on the spool break. That reel is nothing more than the Japanese version of the Daiwa® Sol, with a clear nose piece and side plate, so you can read the Engineered by Itö in it...

[.ghoti.]

Modulus, in this case, is I believe the modulus of elasticity, which is calculated by dividing the tensile stress by the tensile strain.

Or, the force applied divided by the deformation.

Or, more accurately,  (force applied X original length) / (cross sectional area X length changed). You have to measure everything, then calculate.

By the way, I did not just pull this off the top of my head, I had to look it up.

There are very few things in the physical world which are truly linear. With that as a given, you can see that playing with the numbers will result in a wide range of possibilities. Any particular material can be tested using various combinations of length, cross section and applied force, yielding a variety of possible outcomes.

Which number do you think they use?

And, keep in mind that the tesing involves straight line forces applied along the axis of the fiber, and has nothing to do with how the rod flexes.

So, what good is this number for our purposes? I would say none at all, and would commend Loomis and Airrus, among others, for refusing to play the "my modulus is bigger than your modulus" game.

I just got an Airrus rod. In talking with the owner of the company ( and, how cool is that? I placed an order, and he called me up to see that I got exactly what I wanted. Talk about customer service. ) he explained that the rod I wanted was a multi-modulus design. Different section of the blank have different modulus ratings. Not sure how you pull that off in a one piece rod, but I like the way it fishes. I'm thinking this is the next wave of rod building technology. I can see how a designer can apply different fibers, in a variety of modulus ratings, to different areas of the blank to create very precise, application specific actions.

I can't wait.

Sorry for the lecture. I couldn't come up with any other way to present this stuff.

Cheers,

GK

[Long Mike]

Thanks for the responses guys.  I figured that Modulus was a moving target, depending upon where it was measured along the length of the rod, and therefore, a meaningless term when evaluating the quality of a rod.  You proved it.

[RoLo]

Thanks for the responses guys. I figured that Modulus was a moving target, depending upon where it was measured along the length of the rod, and therefore, a meaningless term when evaluating the quality of a rod. You proved it.

Mike,

"Tensile modulus" began with good intentions, that is, the higher the modulus rating, the lighter & more sensitive the blank.

Over time however, two stumbling blocks were encountered.

1) Saltwaters anglers chasing game fish revealed to the angling community that "supra-high modulus" is not the end all and do all.

Since higher modulus is more brittle, when it's subjected to prolonged heavy loads it's more prone to failure (literally explode).

As a result, E-glass blanks are commonplace on sportfisherman that hunt for blue marlin and giant bluefin tuna.

2) The other problem, as Reel Mech aptly pointed out, is 'marketing hype'. To get a leg-up on their competition,

rod builders devise composite formulations and hybridized processing to artificially raise the advertised modulus.

That's why, as I've said, some manufacturers have entered the numbers game, while others are smarter than that.

Keith,

I'm not sure that you understood the point that I was making.

By stating that we might be surprised by how low the modulus of loomis blanks really are,

I was denigrating the need and superiority of ultra-high modulus, and not denigrating Loomis blanks.

I'll repeat, rod builders who know far more than me, believe that the modulus sweet-spot is between IM-6 & IM-8 (40 - 45-million).

What you're saying is just the opposite, you're saying that the Loomis TMI may be "surprisingly high",

which to me is making a case for Johnny Morris, and may be a disappointment to G.Loomis.

To put it another way, if G. Loomis blanks were in fact higher than 85-million TMI,

many anglers would lose a great deal of respect for their blanks, but I doubt that day will ever come.

Roger

[Guest avid]

.It's all about the talent of the designer, and what he is able to do in terms of the sum of those variables...not just the friggin modulus!

this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  

Also Dan was quoting a high end rod builder explaining what they did that was new and better.  I don't know if it's hype, but there rods are incredible.

the "sources" for my information are just gossip and bits I pick up on different forums.

Nothing of any definitive authority, but there do appear to be new ways of "what he is able to do" and that's the info I'm looking for.

More please.

[flechero]

Roger,

I did understand what you meant, I just have a different opinion. I think where we differ is that (for example) the Loomis and St.Croix high end rods use a high mod., high strain rate fiber... this material is not brittle as many people think. (the high strain rate fibers can bend like the lower mod. fibers without fracturing) The fragile nature of GLX and SCV comes from thinner wall thickness, not from brittle fibers, and as such, are more susceptible to nicks and scratches causing a failure. We are talking about a lighter, stronger more responsive fiber that can take the deflection of a much lower modulous fiber. IM6 rods would be just as fragile in a thin wall design such as the GLX.  The problem, though, is that the IM6 couldn't stand up on it's own in that thin walled design.

I would like to be clear that I think the combination of design, material and manufacturing process are more important than any element individually... but when design and mfg are good, I believe the high modulous rods win- every time. I do agree that many great rods are made of mid modulous materials. I have a few of All Star blanks that I will never sell, even on custom rods... they fish as good as IMX. They just happened to be good materials, great design and manufactured with all the planets in alignment. I can't explain it, I never owned a factory built All Star that felt like these.  I only wish I had a truckload of them to custom build and sell.

And for what it's worth, I'm mainly talking about worm and jig rods... anything that's considered all feel.

[jacksize]

i'm new to the sport so i really don't have much knowledge about the "tech" part of it. however what i find is that the lighter and stronger the better. stronger being that you trust the manufactured rod won't break when fighting a bucketmouth in the weeds.

thank jesus for christmas cause i'm interested in the american rodsmith's new rod. besides reading about it. i have no idea what this $199. rod is about. but with the combination of graphite, titanium, and

carbon fiber and of course the price tag, it sounds darn good.

if anyone out there has any experience or knows anything and mostly, justify the price, please let me know. thanks a 2 hundred. :-?