12-12-2009, 05:09 AM
shig quote- I may have a misunderstanding of a fast rod, but what I envioned was a blank that was rather rigid for the first 75%-80% of the length then a rather quick reduction in rigidity to the tip. If you take the top half of this, you still have a section of "backbone" but the overall percentage of the blank that flexes is much larger. Think of a short, slow/med action rod instead. Now I agree if you take a medium to slow action rod and cut it in half, you'll end up with a butt-flex noodle which is not normally a good thing.
If I've even come close to disparaging anyone's choice of gear, I aplologize. I was just responding openly and honestly to a request for comment. As Pon continued to post follow ups, I obliged with further ponderings, that's all...
[quote pontoonman]
Thanks for the eval. SHig. I think that this niche pack rod area has never been solved, that's why we keep seeing repeated attempts with various quick fixes. Your solution for a 4.5 ' rod seems like the best idea yet, but could someone go commercial, with money back guarantee, and still make a profit? The ice fishing rods are also a possible solution if they have enough stiffness and are compact enough. I have built my own homemade 2 piece 3.5 foot spinning solution which works well for what I like to do. Those would be my proposals that are better than anything commercial at this time. Still on the lookout for ever smaller, lighter and more compact. Some of the videos with the nimrod were pretty good, but could have been staged in such a way to sell.
[/quote]
I've owned various telescopic rods from low end China mart to about $40 or so. Not a good solution- collapse of section while fighting a fish to very fragile sections that crack or crush easily. Need to pack 3 to be sure one works when you get at destination-and they're too long. Maybe there's a high end product some would know about. The 6 section rods are heavier and have flexability issues because of so many connectors, plus they're way too long and assembly/ disassembly is problematic. That's the way I see things for us spelunking types anyway, what do you think?
Pon[/quote]
I know the problems with telescoping. I recall as a kid we liked to whip them into full length, and on more than one occasion we ended up hopelessly jamming them open. Tried heat to unstick once and I managed to burn out the resin and ended up with raw fiberglass and a bad case of the itchies. As for multiple piece rods, I think that the technology today has negated the old school problem with flat spots and weight due to early ferrule design. All high end fly rods are offered in 4 or more piece configurations, and nobody complains about ferrule issues any more (except perhaps for the occasional stuck one that could be prevented with the use of wax).
Take a look at this: http://cgi.ebay.com/IM6-7-Pc-4-5wt-8-Foo...5637db1e1a
No name blank, sure, but each section is about 14". Pretty darned short. I think the top 4 sections would make a really fun UL spin rod. MAYBE a bit slow/noodly so tip speed for really light lures may not be super high, but for dunking bait or lobbing heavier (1/16-3/8 oz) lures, it may work fine.
I am actually tempted to do just that. I'm a full-on fly snob now, but it does have some allure...
Hey Pon, describe for me the conditions you are fishing. Fish type/size, bait/lure, line weight, casting distance, reel type, size concerns, hook size, etc. I really would like to better understand the priorities at work here...
_SHig[/quote
The more you remove from the butt section of a fly rod, the faster the action will be. You can take your 3 pc. fly rod, put a reel seat, grip and install new guides on the mid and tip section and what do you have? A piece of crap to fish with. It wasn't designed that way. It was designed as a 3 pc. Have you ever wondered why hardly anyone builds a fly rod shorter than 6'? Graphite just doesn't cut it. It's too stiff. You will find some short rods in glass, but not plastic.
[signature]