If you find graphite 'classifications' like IM6..IM7...IM8 a complete mystery, Garry Loomis explains it all here

http://www.flwoutdoors.com/article.cfm?id=141123

Guests - this sponsored link will vanish when you log-in. Click here to register for free.

Great article argyll.

Now to figure out the GLoomis nomemclature of GL2, GL3 (better and more $$), IMX (best and most $$)

Thanks - that was really interesting and something learnt, that's for sure.

Now to figure out the GLoomis nomemclature of GL2, GL3 (better and more $$), IMX (best and most $$)

Aw shucks, they're just the licence plate numbers on his limos.

Great article!!!!!!!!!! What is with the Kevlar composits?

HOPPY4

Thanks, Gerry, interesting reading. Loomis of course make some superb blanks and rods!

There are pros and cons of the various types of graphite (called carbon fibre in the UK). In fact, most of the UK blank manufacturers use more than one type of carbon in a rod. This is probably because we use longer rods with more sections than in the US, where such a combination will make more of a difference.

Many of the rods I designed myself in my days in the tackle trade contained 3 types of carbon. Such a rod is said to be made from a "multi-modulus" blank.

There are basically 3 ways you can change the action of a carbon rod. By using different types of material, different wall thicknesses, and by making the blank on a faster or slower tapered mandrel. There's a bit more to it than that, but these are the 3 main variables.

Varying all 3 of these parameters at the same time makes it easier to optimise the design of the blank. Indeed, there may be 2 or sometimes even 3 types of carbon in each section. Additionally each section will often have a different taper.

There's also a lot of confusion about what are called "compound taper rods". Many erroneously believe that compound taper rods have through actions. In fact, this is one that even many tackle shops get wrong! A compound taper rod is simply one with a taper that isn't constant - it doesn't tell you anything about the action of the rod at all!

[ 19. May 2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Steve Burke ]

Thanks Steve, some welcome additional information. My thoughts about carbon rods is that the real cost is in the labour element and the quality of the guides, reel fitting and handle and not the cost of the carbon.

Is that broadly true ?

I ask, because whilst not pointing the finger at any company in particular, I've always had the feeling that rod builders build minor and sometimes cosmetic differences into rods to justify having a 'range'
ie the material and labour cost of building a Loomis GL2 blank might not be necessarily be very much different from building an IMX or GLX. If true, then it occurs that a perfectly serviceable GLX type rod could be made for GL2 prices.

Incidentally, Gary Loomis sold his business to Shimano a couple of years back and its already beginning to show in a lesser quality of guides being used on some models. Their blanks are still made to the same formula though

[ 19. May 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

Trouble is Loomis only want to know you until things go wrong. Have a Loomis rod break and they don't want to know. They are not a popular company in these parts.

I've never had a problem with them chevin. I broke the tip of a 6 weight GLX a few years ago and they arranged a replacement in 24 hours from their then main dealer in Surrey. I think I remember paying the postage only, although I had the option to collect it for no charge.

[ 19. May 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

Argyll, what you say is partly true, at least as far as the labour costs go in the West. However, there's not a huge difference in the price of the fittings.

There can however, be a big difference in the cost of the carbon. This is both between the various types of carbon, and also its quality.
I'm not just talking here about what rod or blank manufacturers charge, but the cost of the raw materials themselves. This was very evident when I was negociating to buy carbon cloth from the manufacturers to have rolled into my own blanks.

Design costs also have to be factored in. This takes time, and therefore money.

The other big cost of course is marketing. Many of the big names pay a lot for advertising, and of course many anglers, especially the less experienced, are prepared to pay a lot more for a "designer label". There's nothing wrong with this of course, but often those of us who have been fishing a lot of years choose our gear according to how well it functions rather than the name on the tackle.

Having retired from rod making for almost 6 years I'm not up to date with the current state of the market. However, I suspect that the Far Easterm makers have recently taken great strides in catching up Western manufacturers. They may not have yet caught us up, especially for hi-tech applications like long range casting, but the design and quality of Far Eastern rods certainly appears to have improved in recent years.

One thing doesn't appear to have changed though. Far Eastern imports at the top of the market still seem grossly overpriced compared with lower quality items from the same supplier. Indeed, they sometimes cost more than UK rods - that certainly won't be of lower quality!