Re good rod, bad rod - KyleDruey
--part1_4b.13e5fd53.291cd838_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Peerless PowerPakt 8' 6" 5wt 3pc - The taper of this rod seems very
interesting, and the action Barry describes is appealing. Anyone else know
anything about this rod? Is this rod considered a classic?
I am new to bamboo rods, but as I get a little more in to it I am finding
stress curves to be very helpful. This rod peaks about 1/3 of the length,
dips down and troughs, then has another peak of roughly the same height at
about 2/3 (see attached file). Maybe I don't know enough just yet but this
would seem to be a fun rod to cast - and fish!
I agree with the comment that was made regarding this list having a very low
flame level relative to other lists (visit the homebrew digest list some
time). You all have a great list here.
Thanks,
Kyle
In a message dated 11/08/2001 9:20:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
writes:
>
> Onis -
>
> I've been struck with the way you can have two experienced casters, who
> describe the behavior of a "good rod" in similar terms, but who prefer
> different taper styles. One may like straight tapers like Garrison's, the
> other may be talking about very compound tapers like a Phillipson, or a
> so-called "parabolic" rod (one that flexes a lot in the butt while having a
> relatively stiff tip and mid section). I think an individual's body
dynamics
> must have a lot to do with the tapers he or she prefers, so I suspect it's
> as much a question of a good match between a person and a rod as it is
"good
> rod, bad rod."
>
> My personal answer to "good rod" is a taper that, when cast gently, flexes
> mainly in the top third of the rod, but when pushed for more power flexes
> rather deeply into the butt. At least that's how I experience them. The
ones
> I like have tapers like the Phillipson 8 1/2 ft 5 wt PowerPakt. When you
> graph these tapers (with distance from the tip along the x axis and
> flat-to-flat dimension along the y axis) you get a line with a
> characteristic shape. Just about where each ferrule is located you have a
> steep section (an area where the shaft is getting thicker at a faster rate
-
> that is, a stiff area). Just before and after these steep areas are
> relatively flat areas (where the rod does not thicken as quickly - these
> areas flex more as the energy of a cast travels down the rod shaft). These
> are VERY compound tapers, compared to Garrison-like tapers where the line
on
> the graph goes up at about the same slope the whole way (after the first
few
> inches), or a "parabolic" rod where the line is like a long low hump, which
> approaches a flat line in the butt. To me, the different shapes of these
> lines are easy to translate into the action of a rod, which I find
difficult
> to do when looking at stress curves. Anyway, that's my idea of a good rod.
>
> I haven't seen comments on this on the list, but I think these tapers I
like
> lend themselves to 3-piece construction because the extra stiffness at the
> ferrules actually helps. Other tapers might not work so well in 3 pieces
and
> would be better in two or even one piece. But I don't think a taper of the
> kind I like would be much better as a one-piece rod, because as I said the
> ferrules seem to help. This is just my impression, I haven't tried it.
Those
> on the list who like one-piece rods - what kind of tapers do you use for
> them?
>
> Barry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:k5vkq@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:22 AM
> To:
> Subject: good rod, bad rod
>
> I would like to start a new thread. I've been working on a taper and have
> been revisiting the archives. This time something occurred to me. What
> differentiates a good rod from a bad one. In looking at the stress curves
> of different rods, most show the greatest stress near the tip but some show
> the greatest stress at the butt. Some are designed to distribute the
stress
> evenly across the rod. Some have a uniformly increasing diameter with
> various slopes to the change while others have the "parabolic" change.
Some
> are "smooth" tapers while others have multiple radical changes in slope of
> the taper.
>
> What I am getting at is that looking at the curves, basically any "stick"
of
> bamboo would fall into near/on one of these tapers. There is a pretty wide
> latitude between the "fast" rods in the archive and the "slow" ones. In
> other words, give a monkey a knife and some strips of bamboo. Let him
> whittle them and glue the results together and (within reason) it would fit
> within the range of tapers in the archive when matched to the right(?)
line.
> So, what makes a good taper?
>
> Regards,
> Onis
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <>
> Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97])
> by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILINZA39-1109002039; Fri,
> 09 Nov 2001 00:20:39 -0500
> Received: from wugate.wustl.edu (wugate.wustl.edu [128.252.120.1]) by rly-
> za01.mx.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA17-1109002027; Fri, 09
> Nov 2001 00:20:27 -0500
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by wugate.wustl.edu (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) with SMTP id
fA95KHN29492;
>
> Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:20:17 -0600 (CST)
> Received: from umhs-mail01.missouri.edu (umhs-mail01.health.missouri.edu [
> 161.130.112.185] (may be forged))
> by wugate.wustl.edu (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) with ESMTP id
> fA95JuN29373
> for <>; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:19:56 -0600 (CST)
> Received: by umhs-mail01.missouri.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.
> 19)
> id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:20:00 -0600
> Message-ID: edu>
> From: "Kling, Barry W." <>
> To:
> Subject: RE: good rod, bad rod
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:19:59 -0600
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Reply-To:
> Sender:
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09/990901/11:28 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
>
>