Question fly rod evolution
 

Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?

Just curious.

Question fly rod evolution
 

"mdk77" wrote in message
ups.com...
Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?

Just curious.

Is that like a version of Yahoo Instant Messenger?

john

Question fly rod evolution
 

On Aug 14, 10:03 pm, mdk77 wrote:
Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?

Just curious.

well, for certain applications, like delicate, short line casting
on small or tight waters, im6 is still the best material for effective
delivery of a dry fly.

wayno

Question fly rod evolution
 

On Aug 15, 4:03 am, mdk77 wrote:
Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?

Just curious.

Basically, yes. Rods with carbon fibre of ever increasing modulus were
built, This has a downside, in that the thinner and lighter the blank
walls are, the less robust the blank. Also, very light rods are bad
windcutters, and have more or less zero intrinsic loading, so are
useless at short range. The older rods with lower modulus fibre were
better at this, the old fibre glass rods are still better, and cane
( bamboo) is usually better still. With a good cane rod, one can cast
only the leader, as the rod has sufficient intrinsic weight to load
itself. The older IM6 rods were usually pretty robust as well. many
new rods with very high modulus fibre are prone to easy breakage.

Very fast light rods (fast = stiff, in this context) will not load
very well with only a small amount of line out, and this makes them
less useful for short range. Also, it should be noted, that the
finished blank depends not only on the modulus of the fibres used, but
the type and thickness of pre-preg (Impregnated carbon fibre cloth),
mandrel design, epoxy resin, and manufacturing process.

It is possible to make rods with very soft actions, or very stiff
(fast) actions, form the same carbon fibre. Usually however, rods
using very high modulus carbon fibre are built lighter ( as that is
the main reason for using such a high modulus fibre), but wont stand
any rough usage.

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

Question fly rod evolution
 

Sorry, I have problems editing with this crappy software.

The trend for quite a while has been towards lighter stiffer more
powerful rods, most especially for long casting, but of course this
too has a downside. If you get a "cannon", it will be useless at short
range, unless you use heavy heads or similar, which will also preclude
any delicate presentation.

For general fishing, a rod with im6/Im7 carbon fiber may "generally"
be assumed to be a better tool. Some of the "high end" rods are only
realyl suitable for very verfy good casters, who are also looking for
distance. For very much fishing, this is however rather pointless.

For a long time now, many have been obsessed with distance, and this
can only be achieved with very fast powerful rods. Quite a few of
these things are awful fishing tools though.Quite apart from which,
most people are quite unable to load them with the rated lines.

I have used quite a few, but I certainly would not buy one, nor advise
anybody else to.

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

Question fly rod evolution
 

They are also more expensive of course.

This has also had the effect of "moving" some "standards". At one
time if you asked more or less any group of fly-anglers what rod they
used most, they would have told you, without much hesitation, a #6
weight. Now, many people would say a #5 weight, or even a #4 weight,
which have become increasingly popular, as indeed have even lower
weight rated rods. Not long ago, it was impossible to obtain a #3
weight rod at all. Now, things like #2 weights, #1 weights etc, are
available.

If you were able to handle some of the older im6 #6 weights, and a
few of the newer #4 weights you would discover that some #4 weights
are now as "powerful" as the old #6 weights used to be, although they
can not handle the same total weight of course.Nor will they cast as
far. The distance one can achieve is a result of line momentum which
is mass * velocity, so the lesser the mass the lesser the momentum,
and the less distance can be achieved.

The achievable momentum with any given combination is mainly dependent
on the skill of the caster, but it also depends on the weight and
configuration of the line.

This why beginners, and many others, find it easier to cast a rather
heavier line. ( or better still, a head! :) ) The head works because
the mass is concentrated in the head. The rod loads much sooner, even
with a small amount of line outside the tip, because of course it is
heavier per foot. The toatl weight however is less than the total
weight of a full line at the rod rating.

Some of this starts to get very complex very quickly, as it is largely
subjective as well. Contrary to what was recently stated here, there
are no standards for fly rods. The only tackle subject to a standard
is fly line. The rods are built , and quite arbitrarily given a
"weight rating" by the manufacturer, or one of his testers.

With some rods, a very good caster might rate the rod as a #5 weight,
another caster might rate it as a #6 weight, and a not too good caster
might even rate it as a #7. This is because only very good casters can
cast very light lines properly. It requires perfect timing and skill
to load a fast stiff rod using a light line. But of course, those who
can do it, rate the rod for the line they are using. Which is another
reason why many anglers, and not only beginners, often have
considerable trouble loading thei rods properly when they use the line
rating recommended by the maker.

Enough for now, before someone throws a fit........................:)

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en

Question fly rod evolution
 

By the way, rods are not high modulus, the fibre used in their
construction is!

see here;

http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-on...c_modulus.html

TL
MC

Question fly rod evolution
 

mdk77 wrote in news:1187143425.516939.209290
@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?

Just curious.


To some extent, I like to think that recent "improvements" in graphite are
nothing more than a way for the industry to get you to buy something you
already own. Then I try the Winston Borons, and think those are a huge
improvement. Do I "need" it? That's another story.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Question fly rod evolution
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:03:45 -0000, mdk77
wrote:

Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?

Just curious.

Quit worrying about what the sales department writes on or about rods.

Depending on your usage, "IMfiberglass" or "IMbamboo" are sometimes the
best things a rod can say, and IAC, "IMwhatevernumber" is not an
infallible measure of rods. If you really wish the whole story, Google
up either or both of "Hercules graphite" and/or "Hexcel graphite" with
the term "fishing rod" and bore yourself to tears. Basically,
"IM(number)" started as a name, admittedly related to a physical
property, for a specific manufacturer's product line/series (Hercules)
of raw material, which IIRC _they_ no longer even make.

Buying a rod based solely on "IMwhatever" is much like buying a car
based solely on which of many alloy/classification/property descriptor
numbers the fenders are made. The main difference being is that rod
"makers" have managed to turn it into a reason to cause people to
upgrade to the "NEW AND IMPROVED!!" model whereas carmakers haven't
(yet), although some have tried a similar scheme overall - Lincoln
Mark-whatever, Datsun/Nissan 240, 260, 280, 300, whateverZ, etc.

TC,
R

Question fly rod evolution
 

To directly answer your question, there was a time when IM6 was the
-Only-graphite available. Now it's kind of like Starbucks- each fancy
word will cost you.


--
stumpy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
stumpy's Profile: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...hp?userid=1915
View this thread: http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulleti...ad.php?t=12232


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----