Rod Material Evolution......

[hague01]

very interesting results and observations. Makers seem to make much play now on the weight of the rings.I felt with the ags air that i could change the balance/feel, which to me is the way it casts and feels in the hand by different reels ie lighter/ heavier/longer or shorter. It really was significant but only made a difference to where I was fishing.If I was in the margins it made no noticeable difference at all but if i wanted to give it some welly then a heavier reel worked better.Probably just me!

 

[Keith M]

Rods made from Carrots? They're still around, and seem to be doing pretty well according to this link:

About Us
– Carrot Stix

I was pointed to this link about Carrot fibre fishing rods by someone on another forum. And surprisingly they seem to be doing very well; although I don’t think I will be looking for a Carrot rod myself; definately not if it’s an orange coloured one anyway .

Keith

 

[hague01]

When I read these blogs about carrot rods I looked at the calendar to see if it was 1st April.
But I have now looked at the web site.Blow me down!

 

[sam vimes]

very interesting results and observations. Makers seem to make much play now on the weight of the rings.I felt with the ags air that i could change the balance/feel, which to me is the way it casts and feels in the hand by different reels ie lighter/ heavier/longer or shorter. It really was significant but only made a difference to where I was fishing.If I was in the margins it made no noticeable difference at all but if i wanted to give it some welly then a heavier reel worked better.Probably just me!

The Air AGS surprised me somewhat, it doesn't feel as heavy as the bare weight figures might suggest. This may hint at it being pretty well balanced. However, I have noticed that I've felt slightly fatigued when trotting with it at times. I initially put it down to the reel seat not suiting me and my centrepins particularly well, but now I'm not so sure. Still a good rod, though not my first choice for trotting.

The Normarks surprised me, I genuinely expected them to be far closer in weight to the Acolytes. I knew the Browning Sphere was light. I hadn't anticipated it being lighter than the Acolytes. I also expected the Maver Signature Pro Classic to be a little closer to the Acolytes of the same length.

 

[sam vimes]

I wonder if the "Bio-Nanocellulose Fibres" mentioned on the Carrot Stix website are equivalent to the "Biofibre" that Shimano have been using for years?

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

The company are now at a cross roads in their development stage of the root vegetable derivatives - all kinds, not just carrots.
But rather than make finished goods such as fishing rods, it appears they are marketing the granular raw materials for use in a whole range of different products instead such as paint additives, concrete, makeup, food and various composites.

They claim it is twice as strong as Carbon fibre when impregnated with specialised resins? but without any comparable specifics on weight and strength, it's impossible to verify what is being claimed.

The potential could be huge or it could be just a 'carrot dangler', I'm pretty sure it's not, but as anyone who has spent time being involved in the development of a product of some versatility will surely know; an obvious question would arise in the Marketing department... what market and products should we aim for first, and what direction should the company go?
The versatility of such a product might suggest 'everywhere' - and by virtue 'nowhere' fast - so the obvious answer would be to simply sell the raw material (MFC) to various manufacturers instead: Curran®

N.B We're not into manufacturing fishing rods but if we were, I'd certainly want to look into it and also composites and durable sustainably sourced/biodegradable packaging materials might be of some interest too.

Edit. Search Google for "Microfibrillated Cellulose" for more info

YouTube

I wonder if carrot rods would make night fishing easier? :w

 

[no-one in particular]

I am not sure where I get this from but I always thought the point of balance on a rod should be where you hold it with your hand with the reel attatched. I am not sure they ever do with me but sounds right.

 

[108831]

If Drennan varnished/epoxy'd their rods the gap would be the other way,it may explain in part the reason for occasional breakages(not at the very tip of rods),the coating probably offers a little protection from everyday knocks,that occur in shops as well as on the bank,that then cause possible weakness leading to catastrophic failure....

 

[sam vimes]

I am not sure where I get this from but I always thought the point of balance on a rod should be where you hold it with your hand with the reel attatched. I am not sure they ever do with me but sounds right.

Sounds intuitively right. However, I'd suggest that you try it for yourself. A heavier than usual reel and a big lump of bluetack/plastescene will do it. I have rods with factory fitted adjustable counterweights fitted. I've had a second hand rod that was modified with a (overly large) counterweight. I have tried it. It will vary a touch from individual to individual, but I would suggest that the balance point should be slightly forward of wherever you hold a rod. I very much doubt that you'll be able to find a rod that balances in the way you might think of without it being fitted with inadvisably used counterweights. Even fitting the heaviest of reels won't bring the balance of a short rod back to the reel seat/stem. That in itself should tell you that the manufacturers might have a slightly different idea of what constitutes the "right" balance point. It's not like they can't make a rod balance wherever they like.

I found that the balance point on the reel seat felt all wrong. You lose a hint of weight at the tip which actually causes a loss of control. Everything just feels a little too vague and uncontrolled. If you want to render a rod quite unusable, bring the balance point back behind the reel seat!

 

[Neil Maidment]

Interesting comparisons Sam.

When I got hold of the Normarks I inherited, I was surprised how "good" (light) they felt in the hand, particularly the Microlite Match 12' & 13' and Titan Match 13'. I was still impressed when I used them with various centrepins, typically the J W Young Purist and BJ models. The 4" Super Lightweight felt right even though the weight difference is really barely noticeable.

I enjoy using the various combinations but that is doubtless down to emotion, the rods were my late uncles, and I'm also no big fan of the Acolyte range at all :wh

 

[markcw]

I just saw the tail-end of the pre-carbon rods. When I started fishing, the older kids who let me tag along to the canal had glass rods. The two kids who took it most seriously had Mordex and Milbro rods. They all seemed to have an old cane rod or two in the shed, hand-me-downs from dads or grandads who'd mostly given it up. I used to be allowed to borrow one of these, and I caught my first few fish with a bit of line tied to the end of a 9' cane rod. One lad had a posh cane rod, a very different beast to the shed remnants. It was surprisingly light and had a springy, unexpectedly "live" feel if you waggled it. Maybe that feel is what the retro dudes rave about? I don't know, as that was the last time I held a cane rod.

I had a few glass rods over the next years: a Sealey Blue Match (lovely soft tip), a B+W CTM 12' ( respected make but horrible action), a Shakespeare International (came with a cracked joint, so I claimed a refund) and, my favourite in glass, a Shakespeare Sigma Canal which I used so much I re-ringed it twice. I also had a couple of leger rods made by the East Anglian Rod Co - they were fine, and no big issue with weight at 9' or 10'.

The first carbon rods I met were a revelation. But they were pricey, and cost £100+ in the early 80's. They were by no means all great - the first one I splashed out on - a handsome B+W jet-black creation - proved too stiff and powerful for any of the fishing I did, and I swapped it for a Sundridge Kevin Ashurst, much better for light lines. The step-change from glass to carbon was huge, and even thought the weights have been shaved down and designs improved, there haven't been any comparable new developments.

I thought shakespeare brought a carbon rod out around 1983 ,the price was £25, then later on came the boron rods like you I had a B+W but mine was a 13,', also shakespeare international spliced tip, and sundridge bathurst, In fact I saw him break the prototype across his knee on the Bridgewater canal, saying it was upto standard.

 

[seth49]

Remember when I was taught to cast a double handed salmon fly rod, he said the balance point of the rod should be where the handle and blank met at the top of the handle.

He always maintained that a properly balanced rod felt lighter in the hand, I tend to agree with that. Ive even added lead to the butt of the rod, does seem to work, not just fly rods either.

 

[108831]

Well i regularly use a 12ft titan 2000,i have never felt another rod of the same length(only other 12ft 2000's avenger and microlite versions)anything like close in weight and balance,a lot of that is the action of the blank and by Christ ive held a few,imo the acolyte,plus or ultra in 13ft have something missing,a slight wobble perhaps im not sure,still a nice action and a decent rod(in one piece,lol),but not the 'one'....

 

[sam vimes]

The Acolytes are what they are, an impressively light, and relatively inexpensive (in comparison to many of the rods people compare them to), allround (river and stillwater) float rod. They are also available from 11' through to 17'.

Putting a circa £200 Acolyte up against a Normark/Carbotec, that retailed for far, far more twenty years ago, or a Daiwa/Browning Sphere that retails at nearly twice as much now, is more than a little unfair.

Acolytes are not my favourite river rods. Nor are they my favourite stillwater rods. However, for those folks that only want one rod for everything, want it to be as light as anything out there, want a taste of the really high end stuff and spend as little as possible, they're ideal. It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they've sold loads, even if they don't think they are perfect. It shouldn't necessarily be a big surprise when some owners of the likes of Normarks, Carbotecs and top end Daiwas don't think that Acolytes are anything particularly special.

 

[nottskev]

I thought shakespeare brought a carbon rod out around 1983 ,the price was £25, then later on came the boron rods

I thought shakespeare brought a carbon rod out around 1983 ,the price was £25, then later on came the boron rods

With nothing better to do on another cold day, I googled around, and it seems that the Shakespeare catalogue for 1979 has a President Supermatch. Described as "featherweight", it weighs in at 9oz (252g) for the 13'. That would make it beefy enough to kick sand in the face of Sam Vimes' Aerocast porker (219g). Sorry for mixing the meaty metaphors. The price is £129, and I think we had to wait a while longer for the £25 carbon rod. You're right about the Mach 11 Boron - that did come out in 1984, just as George Orwell had predicted.

 

[sam vimes]

With nothing better to do on another cold day, I googled around, and it seems that the Shakespeare catalogue for 1979 has a President Supermatch. Described as "featherweight", it weighs in at 9oz (252g) for the 13'. That would make it beefy enough to kick sand in the face of Sam Vimes' Aerocast porker (219g). Sorry for mixing the meaty metaphors. The price is £129

The Bank Of England inflation calculator makes £129 in 1979 the equivalent of £641 in 2018.
The £400 of a high end rod in 2000 would equate to £661 in 2018. There's not many coarse/match rods about today with RRPs in excess of £500.

I think we had to wait a while longer for the £25 carbon rod. You're right about the Mach 11 Boron - that did come out in 1984, just as George Orwell had predicted.

I have my doubts that a £25 rod in the early eighties could be anything better than carbon composite. Tackle trade blag for fibreglass with a minimal carbon/graphite content. An awful lot of dodgy composite has been passed off as carbon over the years. My first carbon rod, sometime around the mid 80s, was a Shakespeare Omni Carbon Match. It was dismal, as inexpensive as possible, yet still more expensive than £25. £25 in 1983 is the equivalent of just shy of £83 in 2018. Conversely, £25 in 2018 would be just over £7.50 in 1983.

P.S. the £200(ish) of an Acolyte would equate to £120 in 2000, £106 in 1995, £89.50 in 1990, £67 in 1985 and £47.50 in 1980.

 

[nottskev]

Talking of dodgy composites..... (Someone was regretting the lack of posts on here. Be careful what you wish for.) In 1985 I splashed out on a new leger rod to take on holiday to Ireland. I paid about £18 in North West Angling Centre and came away with one that definitely matched that description. It also featured a cork handle that soon crushed under the reel fittings, six inches of that most dodgy of dodgy materials, duplon, at the butt end and a threaded top eye to screw your tips into. With a sloppy action, it could lob a feeder up to 30 yds.

Moving on 30 years, that cheapo rod is still here, although somewhat er evolved. With a couple of inches chopped off the tip, and 18" off the butt, and the remains of the butt pulled through and glued into the severed cork handle of an old Shakespeare Sigma, and some home made tips from cut down Shimano wand tips that fit on like Tricast tips via sections of old pole number one sections, the resulting bitsa is a peerless 8' 6" brook rod that is perfectly balanced and ideal, with 4lb line, for chub on brooks streams, ditches and the like. It even caught a few barbel - by accident - on the Dane. I actually prefer it to one I had made on an expensive Harrison fly blank. The composite material turned out to be perfect for the job - like the toilet paper, it's soft but strong. It has never seen the inside of a bag, and survives the battering that fishing in jungle involves.



I enjoy a bit of fishing diy, and wonder why it's not more popular.

 

[Mark Wintle]

I paid £91 (RRP £112) for a B&W John Dean stick float rod in 1981 and £120 (RRP £140) for a 13ft Boron Mach 2 in Feb 1984. By 84 I was on good wages. Later I paid £241 (RRP £345) for a Titan 2000 in 1991 (a good week of winning money at matches covered that one).

I weighed my ABU Mark 6 earlier and got a weight different to the catalogue of 14.5oz so must have had strong arms back then! I dod use it occasionally and it catches fish as it did in the mid 70s.

 

[hague01]

as someone who didn't hold a rod for 50 years til I retired so missed all rods from 1960 to 2010 I am enjoying this and learning too. Please keep it up guys!

 

[sam vimes]

£91 in 1981 equates to £343 in 2018.

£120 in 1984 equates to £379 in 2018.

£241 in 1991 equates to £508 in 2018.