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.

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 =----

On Aug 15, 2:14 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
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

That is a very interesting and germane observation.Many anglers,
probably most, don´t "need" the gear they have, and virtually none of
them needs a new rod every year. Most especially so if they only do
one particular type of fishing.

Although it often upsets people to hear it, most would be perfectly
fine with "mid range" rods, or even cheaper Korean and Chinese rods,
( which are also mainly mid range), than paying top dollar for the top
rods. The reasons are also exactly the same as in the car analogy
which is often used. There is no point buying a Maserati or a
Lamborghini if you only drive a few miles to work in heavy traffic
every day, and are not even a very good driver, but people still do
it.

You will still get to work, and possibly more reliably and in a more
robust fashion, and of course a lot cheaper if you buy a Ford. escort
( or whatever the American or other equivalent may be).

For top performance, you are obliged to sacrifice other things, and
you may well not even be able to use that performance, so you
sacrifice the other things for no good reason, and end up worse off
than you were. An expensive rod might under certain circumstances,
catch you a couple of fish you might not otherwise have caught, but
ONLY if you can use it to its full potential. It might also cause you
to catch fewer fish because you can´t use it properly anyway. In
which case you would be much better served with a cheaper but more
robust and generally suitable rod.

The main ( sensible) reason for buying a new rod, if if you have
improved your casting to the extent that the rod you have no longer
allows you to extend your abilities ( assuming you desire to do so).

Much the same now applies to expensive and specialty lines. At one
time the standard advice was to "buy the best line you can afford",
but what is the best? The most expensive? At one time there was not
really much choice, and buying the most expensive one more less
ensured that you did indeed get the best available. That will not work
now. Also the standard advice to beginners is no linger quite so
easy. I tell my pupils to use a cheap line for the first season, when
they are learning,n and then to throw it away and buy a good one, once
they actually know what they want. The lines may not cast as well as
some more expensive models, although even most cheapies cast well
enough if cast properly, but they will likely be ruined in a first
season anyway, also from practising on grass, catching up in trees and
bushes, being stooden on, etc all things that beginners do a lot! Why
waste money on an expensive line for that? Long before you can use it
properly anyway?

--
Regards and tight lines!

Mike Connor

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

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