There are lots of reviews on the Batson blanks, all positive, they would
indeed be my first choice if I did not have my own blanks. May be of
interest;

http://globalflyfisher.com/reviews/rods/rainshadow/

For your purpose I would not go above IM7 blanks at the most and
preferably IM6. This gives a slight weight penalty, but is more than
compensated by robustness.

May also be of interest, although written some time ago, the information
is still relevant;

Thomas Young, an English Doctor and physicist, coined the term "Modulus"
in the early 1800´s. The term is used as a constant in equations, as
"Young's Modulus", to calculate specific properties of certain materials.

In simple terms, it may be seen as a mathematical description of a
material's property of resistance to bending.

Calculations using this are essential for developing the fibres used in
many modern composite constructions. The fibres, such as carbon fibre,
boron, glass fibre etc, provide the stiffness, at the same time reducing
the weight which using other materials would involve ("standard" carbon
fibre is about 30 % of the weight of aluminium, and roughly 250%
stiffer) and the epoxy resins used hold the whole thing together.

So what does this have to do with fishing rods?, and why is the term
"Elastic Modulus" so often bandied about?

IM6

It has to do with them, insofar as the term may be applied to the
materials used in their construction. IM6 Graphite for instance. IM6 has
a modulus of about 35 million, although many rod manufacturers use
fibres of much higher modulus. IM6 is actually only a trade name for
Hercules fibre in any case, Hercules being the largest producer of
carbon fibre.

However this may be, the fibres used in rod construction are only a part
of the story. The taper, wall thickness, and of extreme importance, the
weaves and resins used, and the actual manufacturing process are at
least as important. In actual fact, of even greater importance than the
modulus of the fibres used.

Rod designs vary considerably, and this may be controlled by any and all
of the factors above. Using a suitable design, resins etc., practically
any rod action may be obtained, anything from a floppy noodle, to as
stiff as a poker. This really has little to do with the modulus of the
fibres used, and is mainly the result of other design factors.

Although higher modulus fibres may be used to produce stiffer lighter
rods, they may also be used to produce noodles if desired.

Light, heavy, stiff, soft

Although light rods are generally desirable, they do have some
disadvantages. Some light rods will not load very well at close range,
as they lack the mass to "pre-load" themselves, which a cane rod for
instance has, and will not "cut the wind" very well, and will often not
be very robust. Differences of half an ounce or so, or even quite a bit
more, between various otherwise similar rods, will not really make much
difference in terms of practical fishing either. Rod length is more of
a factor here than rod weight. Rods of about nine feet are usually more
or less optimal for most people. With much shorter rods the weight is
not even a major factor.

Whether you choose a stiff rod or a soft rod depends, (or should) mainly
on what you want to use it for. Nowadays, this is not considered as
important as it once was, as other technological advances in lines,
leaders, floatants, sinkants, etc. have made it less of a problem.
Casting techniques have also improved greatly, and a good caster can
produce wide loops or tight loops, indeed, some can even produce "sexy"
loops at will. Once upon a time, all this was simply not the case, and
specific rod actions were deemed essential for specific applications. It
is still a good idea to choose a suitable tool for your particular
application though, and not just rely on "feel", or advertising hype.

From cloth to blank

Back to modulus.The modulus given by the fibre manufacturers only
applies to the fibre used, which comes to the rod maker in the form of
special "matting", or ""graphite cloth" and once this has been built
into a composite (sometimes also rather inaccurately referred to as
"laminates"), it no longer applies, as the actual "modulus" of a
finished rod (to which the term is not really sensibly applicable in any
case, although it could theoretically be applied), is not dependent on
the fibre used, but more on how it is used in the construction,
wrapping, resin bonding, etc.

Hollow blanks are made by wrapping very carefully measured pieces of the
matting around a steel mandrel. This is then coated with special resin,
and "baked" in an oven. Manufacturers keep their exact processes secret.

When finished, the mandrel is withdrawn, and used again for the next
batch of rods. Usually fairly large batches of rods are made at a time.
How good the finished rods are, depends on how good the design is, and
on the quality control of the resulting blanks. There are often a
number of rejects in each batch, due to cloth imperfections, and various
other problems.

Many marketing departments have swooped on the term "modulus", and use
it quite indiscriminately for all sorts of things, basically none of
which have to do with the properties of finished fishing rods. It is
basically hype.

So, does modulus mean anything?

It is not possible to compare fishing rods in any meaningful way by
calculating their elastic modulus, and using the elastic modulus of the
fibre used in their construction as a basis for such "calculations" is
just nonsense, and will really tell you nothing useful at all about the
rods in question.

The quality of modern composite fishing rods is dictated primarily by
the manufacturing process used, the quality control, and the hardware
and cosmetics. Practically any modern blank, even Far East "cheapies",
will make decent fishing rods if good procedures and materials are used.

Rods produced in America and Western Europe are more expensive than
those produced in Korea and similar places, simply because the cost of
producing them is much higher. Labour, materials, marketing, etc etc etc
are all more expensive.

Do you really get what you pay for?

There is indeed considerable controversy about cheap rods vs. expensive
rods. Some people maintaining that a cheap rod can not possibly be as
good as an expensive one, merely because of its very cheapness. This is
factually incorrect of course, certainly as far as composite rods are
concerned, any composite rod built anywhere to the same specifications,
under the same conditions, will be more or less identical to one built
anywhere else. The price of course may vary very considerably, even
though the rods are identical. The same applies to any manufactured goods.

There are now quite a number of very good cheap rods available. If you
put good quality hardware and cosmetics on a "cheap" blank, then you no
longer have a "cheap" rod. Also, the word "cheap" here is used in the
sense of the final retail price. It may have nothing whatsoever to do
with the actual quality of a blank.

Composite blanks are by their nature "cheap" products, as they may be
mass produced easily and consistently at will, once the specifications
are known. Pricing policies of various firms have little to do with the
quality of their blanks, although of course may reflect good quality to
some degree.

Comparing blanks

There is no generally accepted way at present of mathematically
comparing various rod blanks to one another in any meaningful or useful
way. Most anglers choose their rods absolutely subjectively, based on
how it "feels", how it "looks", price, manufacturers name, "modulus",
etc etc. Quantifying such things is an impossibility. Some good
casters, and quite a few anglers know pretty well what they want and
expect from a rod, but this is the result of long practice, quite a bit
of skill and knowledge, and is subjective in any case, although some may
pretty well agree on some things.

Some manufacturers, and a number of other interested parties have been
working on various systems of definition and comparison for some time,
but as far as I am aware, nothing of general application has yet
emerged. If you have never cast a rod, and have no other knowledge of
the subject, then it will not help you anyway, as there is no way as yet
to translate such system results into useful information. They all
require some prior knowledge.

For some new information on this and related mattes;

See “Common Cents” By Dr. Bill Hanneman



Money doesn't talk

If you think that a very expensive rod is better than some other less
expensive tool, then you must perforce buy the expensive one. One thing
is certain, it will not normally catch you any more fish than a cheapie.

Quite excellent rods which cost ten dollars ex-factory in Korea, or
Taiwan, are regularly sold in Europe and America under various brand
names, for well in excess of two hundred dollars, and sometimes a very
great deal more. The final price has little to do with the cost of
actually producing the rods, and certainly not with the raw material
cost or the inherent "quality". Transport, advertising, several
middle-men taking their profits, etc etc, all jack the price up.

This is also why comparing rods based on their retail prices is
absolutely senseless, as you have no way of knowing how this price was
set. It may have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the quality of
the rod.

Tools like rods, must not only be suitable for the application itself,
fishing of course, but have a whole range of other properties which
makes them more or less desirable for the purpose, and may be used to
determine their "quality" more accurately than any mathematical
equations relating to the stiffness or otherwise of materials used in
their construction.

"Useful life"

As far as I am aware, there are no absolutely conclusive studies about
the useful working life of various composite rod-blanks, but modern
resins, coupled with the manufacturing techniques now available should
produce rods which will certainly last a very long time. There is some
literature on the useful life of composites in aircraft manufacture, but
this is highly technical, and not a great deal of use, as any
conclusions drawn would have to be based on the use to which a material
is put, and theoretical projections of such behaviour, with regard to
composites built and used for other purposes, would be suspect at least.

Apparently, bamboo is susceptible to "going floppy" after a while,
presumably as the "springiness" of the power fibres lessens in use, to
put it simply. Similar effects in other materials are often referred to
as "fatigue". This will also occur with other fibres (like carbon
fibre), but will take much longer (in normal use), and be less apparent.
In fact it is unlikely that a difference may be found at all in normal
use, although it may be possible to measure one after a certain time in
use. I am not aware of anyone having done this however.

Although I have heard that this is often the case with bamboo, I have
never actually attempted to measure or quantify it. Bamboo is
interesting for a variety of reasons, and although I no longer have any
bamboo rods (at least not in use), and the only ones I ever built were
really quite awful, I still read a lot about it, and listen with
interest to any comments from experts.

I would have no qualms about using even the cheapest composite blanks to
build on, as all I would have to lose would be the time involved and a
few materials. Hardware etc may be used again, should the rod turn out
to be useless, or not up to expectations in some way.

One may also save a lot of time and trouble, take some casting lessons
in order to obtain the necessary knowledge and "feel", and simply walk
into a shop and buy the best rod one can afford, that one feels is
suitable, after trying it out. It is then most unlikely to be a
"lemon". What "modulus" fibres it may contain, is more or less
irrelevant, especially if it has a lifetime guarantee!

Tight lines! ~ Mike Connor