Kevlar rods

[Tigger]

You mention "Action" Ian.Before the turn of the centurey blanks were made with vastly different tapers and indeed combinations of tapers to get them to bend (the "action") in the required way for each job. Since then it seems that many blank manufacturers (especially cheaper massed produced Chinese ones) now use the same mandrel and just increase the number of wraps of cloth (ie make the walls thicker) to increase the test curves relying on this to enable the rod to do different jobs rather than using the old method. No coincidence that this came about the same time as so called "multi range" rods hit the scene! Also why the lower manufacturing costs (as well as the cheaper far east labour of course) has allowed good,usable rods to be now brought so cheaply. For those reletively new to angling may I remind you that the blanks alone for the Tricast rods I mentioned cost over £100 (and that was trade!)

 

 

Yeaph, so I suppose you do get what you pay for (the majority of time) when buying rods as in most other things. As you say the blanks alone of a quality rod don't come cheap. I would imagine you could get rods made of exactly the same quality blanks made to different standards when assembled depending on the quality of guides, whipping, reel holder, grade of cork, the standard of finnish and varnish etc etc and of course the wages for the actual rod builder.

[Phone]

Budgie,

 

It's like "best bait". Fatigue strength of carbon fibre begins to appear at 5×10⁶ load cycles. I guess if you did a 'ell of a lot of fishing ????

 

This is for the "quality" generally accepted as the "best" for fishing rods. Carbon fibre manufactured in a vaccum or in argon gas (etc) is much higher quality still.

 

Uses for the "really good" stuff can be found in F1 cars and space do dads.

 

Phone

 

Edit: sp

Edited October 26, 2013 by Phone

[robtherake]

When the Duo-lite Specialist was unpacked and put together it surprised me that the "lite" part of its name is misleading; in fact, side-by-side with an Avon Duo, there was no appreciable difference in weight at all. On the scales, the Avon Duo weighs in at 7.5oz, the Duo-lite Specialist slightly heavier at 8oz - work that one out!

 

It also seemed stiffer than expected. I put both rods together, added reels and threaded them up. With 7.5 oz of weight hanging from the tip of each rod the Duo-lite had a greater deflection but not by nearly as much as expected, considering that the test curve of the specialist is, at 8oz, half that of the Avon.

 

I may have to do a little back-pedalling here! Following my previous (admittedly, rather unscientific) "test", it occurred to me that the rods may not have been loaded enough.

So, back to the lab (kitchen!) and this time weight was added in increments until the rod started to lock up.

 

For the Specialist, this was 9oz; the Avon Duos both locked up at 15oz, so my initial assessment was probably way out and both rods seem to be pretty close to their stated test curve, assuming that the test is more representative.

 

So how could I be so wrong, bearing in mind that I've used both rods and my perception was that they are equally powerful?

The answer, I think, is in the apparent strength once the lower half of the rod comes into play. Although my second test indicated the weight needed to load the rod to the point of locking up, this doesn't take into account what the rods are capable of beyond this.

In a real life fight with a hefty opponent both rods bend well beyond what - for the purposes of my test - I accepted as the blank's limit, without any apparent distress.

A guy on another forum conducted a test curve experiment with his Duo-lite specialist and came to a figure of 1lb 10oz ! - I suspect his results indicate what the rod's really capable of at its extreme limit.

 

I suppose if I fish the rods side-by-side the differences between them will be more apparent; this is the obvious next step.

 

Edit - At the lock-up point, both rods displayed exactly the same fighting curve and amount of tip deflection.

Edited October 26, 2013 by robtherake

[Tigger]

The way I tested the test curve was to add a reel, run line through the guides and then tie the line to a plastic bag (asda ) and add the exact weight to match the rods rated test curve. I then wound down until the rod tip was a foot or so above the bag with the line tight and then lift the rod tip until the rod lifted the weight off the ground...the 1.75lb test rod lifted the 1.75lb weight off the ground at the correct angle of 90 degree, if it bent further before lifting the weight then it would have had a lower test curve than the one stated on it....this is how I was told to find the true test curve of a rod....for all I know it might be a load of nonsense but it sounds good .

 

There is this old chestnut to read through if you need to pickle your grey matter...

 

http://www.barbel.co.uk/site/articles/testcurves/test_curves.htm

 

Imo that's a crock of rubbish.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Tigger

[robtherake]

I did it almost the same way, Ian, but tied on a large hook and added weights until the rod locked up.

 

Because I'm not so tall I stood on a chair, which allowed me to keep the handle more or less parallel to the floor.

 

There's a guy who used to test rods for one of the monthlies. His method involved clamping the handle in a Workmate which stood on a table, then adding weight until the rod bent at 90 degrees from the horizontal. His comments often included the line, " Rod had a permanent set following the test". Now, he may have been following an established procedure by the book, but in doing so had stressed these rods beyond their powers of recovery. To my mind, his test didn't reflect an accurate representation of the rod's true abilities - had he done the experiment manually, as we did, he would have felt that point when the rod was nearing its limit. As it was, he was almost testing to destruction.

 

Edit - FWIW, bud, I think the barbel guy's more or less right! I wager that my Reactorlite float rods will have a measured test curve of less than a pound, maybe only half of that figure, but because the action's progressive it's possible to apply so much pressure beyond that point that you're physically shaking with tension. At their launch, the advertising claimed that the No 1 match could dead lift 2kg, no trouble; the heavier No 2 shifted 3kg.

 

Converting that into jolly old imperial gives a potential pull of almost 4 1/2 pounds for the lighter rod, and nearly 7 for the heavier, yet both behave like a typical float rod under normal conditions.

Edited October 26, 2013 by robtherake

[Phone]

rob,

 

I suspect they will all catch fish. A Euro rod has a "discomforting" feeling (which I can't really explain). Toward the end of my rod buying life I hardly ever paid attention to the "details". The feel and balance was the issue. I pretty much knew the capabilities of the target species of fish.

 

It's more like why I like the seats in a Ford Pickup better than the seats in a Chevy Pickup. "Just cause".

 

Phone

 

I notice they still talk about "spine". Do new fancy do-da blanks even HAVE a spine?

[Phone]

Anderoo,

 

duPont wasn't very forthcoming but there is no such product as a Registered Trademark "Kevlex". They "hinted" it was protected by patent but didn't say exactly.

 

Is there such a thing as a NEW (marketed by Fox) Fox "Kevlex" product (I seriously doubt it). It may have ended in a tif with duPont(???).

 

Phone

(I had forgotten I even ask them or why I ask them?)

[Anderoo]

Cheers phone, I'm not aware of any other 'kevlex' rods other than the old fox ones (which were around about the same time as their kevlar ones), so it may have simply been down to branding.

 

On the test curves, I remember seeing some topics on various forums about how the tc of the duo lites has heavier than expected when the rod was held one way but correct when it was held another. I'll try to find it again. Something like if the rod was clamped at the end of the handle before the load was added it was correct, but if the rod was clamped by the reel seat it wasn't.

 

Anyway, very nice rods!