That’s a great article. Being afflicted with the engineer’s disease myself I can relate. My recent obsession with learning to build a bamboo rod can probably be linked somewhat with the natural progression of the disease. Two specific events come to mind that probably triggered this current relapse. The first was the day a couple of years ago when I took my late fathers 9’-6" Granger Victory rod out of it’s dusty tube and admired the light brown color and jasper wraps and the workmanship. Eventually curiosity prevailed and I found his Flueger reel and line and took it out in the yard to cast. My reaction was much the same as the authors experience with the West Bend. What a club. However, a few months later I had the opportunity to fish a nice little 7’-0" boo trout rod owned by a friend. What a difference. That little rod seemed to cast itself and fit my style to a tee. Almost like it knew what I wanted. The quest was on.
Just as an added note to that article, I too have cast more quality vintage bamboo rods and also more modern glass rods. Let me be first to say that I was not intending to fault either material as inferior to graphite, in fact, quite the contrary. I like slower rods. But the comparison between those two rods stands for what it is and is also intended to show the difference between static and dynamic ratings. By the way, Magnus Angus is Chief Reviewer for “Fly Fishing and Fly Tying” magazine. He is held in high esteme in Scotland where he resides and both he and Grunde Lovell are mathematical geeks like myself.
Godspeed,
Bob
I think the rod in the article was a South Bend #57. West Bend makes appliances. It was a cheap mass produced rod. Of course, a 9 foot bamboo rod is going to be heavy. It’s not really fair to compare it to a Sage.
Bazakwardz
You are absolutely right. I don’t know how I got my directions that screwed up.
As I said before, the intent was to compare the methodology of measurement to the “feel” of the two rods. The point being that although the static measurements of the two rods were nearly identical, the dynamic qualities were vastly different. And using the MOI dynamic measurement, they should be vastly different. That being said, the ERN number should not be relied on for the only method of rod measurement. Some may be tempted to rely on the ERN number too heavily.
There were no graphite rods in 1950 to compare to. The FLi is, by todays standards, a moderately priced graphite rod. If you know of any moderately priced ($25 or less when you adjust for inflation) 9 foot rods built in 1950 that would be a better comparison, I will try to find one. That also would make an interesting article. I don’t think the answer would change much but it would be fun.
Thank you for the directional correction though. There are still people out there who remember. I also have a collection of old skeleton fly reels. The change in technology there is equally amazing.
Godspeed,
Bob
Bob, Good points. I certainly recognize that the intent of the article was NOT to denegrate bamboo, just to illustrate the difference. I looked into the commoncents system a while back and understand that it has a real value in comparing different rods but doesn’t tell the whole story. The article makes this clear.
Thanks;
Sorry about the tone of my previous post. I just meant to make the point that some of the old glass and bamboo rods cast very well. The shorter, lighter rods are generally a better choice.
I guess that supports your argument that a lower moment of inertia is preferable.
baxakwardz,
Cool handle BTW.
There was nothing offensive, either in tone or fact, about your posts. In fact a lot of rods in that period were very castable. I don’t think people fly fished at extreme distance in those days. I have tested several older Orvis rods that were in the 7 foot catagory and they are a pleasure to cast at short distance - for which they were intended. They were expensive, even then. I am very interested in historical stuff. If anyone knows of longer fly rods intended for 70-80 foot casts in those days, I would truly like to know.
Godspeed,
Bob
Dr. Bill Hanneman (we go back a long way) was here a few days ago. He has greatly expanded his quest and conclusions. Look for info soon (some out now). New names, numbers, words and thoughts.
These are Sili-Flex Medallion rods from their 1956 catalog.
A 3A shooting head would be the equivalent of an 11wt and weigh about 350 grains.
I’m sure they could easily cast 80 feet
MF90SH-2, 9 foot, 2 piece for GAF silk or GAF nylon and 2A and 3A shooting heads
MF95-2, 9? foot, 2 piece for GAF sinking lines and 2A and 3A shooting heads
dudley,
Do you have that catalog? What did a Sili-flex cost back then? Inflation since 1956 would be around 9/1. How much did it weigh?
I know a Hiram Leonard green heart rod with a split bamboo tip cost about $25 in 1877. That would be over $500 in today’s dollars.
Doing a little reading, it seems distance casting started in the 30’s. Musta taken a real man to throw an A line with a heavy rod, let alone a 3A shooting head. Might as well put a Jitterbug on it. More than I could handle, I am sure. I think I’ll start a history trivia thread. Might be fun. Or we could just steal this one. G
Bob
Bob
In 1956, the Medallion line ran from $60-$75…not including the gold plated Presentation Medallions that listed at $225!
Regular Sili-Flexes listed at $37.50-$45… the largest of which was a 9’ for a GAF (wf 9 )
Obviously, Sili-Flex (along with Phillipson) were the high end rods of the day
:shock:
Bob, to my understanding, the older 9’ rods like the South Bends, H&I’s, Monte’s, Grangers etc. were all “wet fly” type rods for salmon, steelheads etc. Your Payne, Leonards, Orvis’ etc were smaller dry fly rods with a 180 degree difference in casting (and comfort & weight) I love slower rods like today’s glass, and modern cane rods which doesn’t weight much, but I also love the BIIx rods from Winston.
I think people wanting to get into bamboo try the old heavy slow clubs and get discouraged. They have to remember the other end of the spectrum when it comes to older cane rods.
BTW great article. I enjoyed it very much.