Poppy's Spey Casting Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Don ff. O'Carroll

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #1 
I'm hearing good things about nano technology especially as regards a big reduction in the number of reported breakages.

A number of top rod makers are now using nano style technology such as Loomis, Sage, Hardy, Loop and Guideline (Reaction FRS built in the USA) and I'm sure many more.

Who else is using it or planning to next year (I expect all rod manufacturers will use it in time) ?

But what about other top brands such as Burkie and Meiser - are they using the technology or planning to?

I fancy a certain new rod but I'm not inclined to buy until the nano version comes out! (I've had too many rods break).

Thanks

Don
Daniel Haneline

Avatar / Picture

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #2 
The Bobster is using nano in some of his models as far as I know.

He mentioned benchmark rods to me as to the first ones to get it.

__________________
its not who you kno..
its how far can you throw
Poppy Cummins

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 739
Reply with quote  #3 
T&T and I believe the Echo E3 rods use nano.

One thing I've found that I don't like about it is the skinny ass reel seats some of these makers (not all) are using because with nano they can make a smaller diameter blank.

Manufacturers that are building rods costing upward of a grand should already know that many of their customers like classic reels and many classic reels won't fit on some of the nano rod reel seats.

__________________
Poppy=Red Shed Spey Rod Pimp http://www.redshedflyshop.com FRSCA-Founding Member How you get the line out and fishing is personal preference so as long as it works and is easy no one should care but the caster. MSB
Gene Larson

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #4 
I have no idea what "...nano technology" means, but at first blush, I don't think I like it.  At some point, we need to go fishing with what we've got (or, in my case, can afford) and be more concerned about the environment than what kind of toys we use in it.  
DaveEvans

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #5 
I am with Gene, what is it and why is it so good?  I know my favorite brand rods have been available for years and are still sold today, so new is not necessarily better.  
Rob Allen

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 24
Reply with quote  #6 
I am not a science geek  but   for those that are here is what nanotechnology is.  http://science.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology2.htm


 As a blank builder and the guy in charge of repairs I have to say that it is  good  stuff ( for the purposes of  avoiding breakage)


However the products  as they are available to us  are  not a direct replacement for our older materials  we cannot  switch over entirely  without  redesigning  every rod in our line up, which  we  are NOT  going to do. That would not make us  any friends  people love our rods just as they  are.   However  we are using nano resin materials  wherever they are needed  to reduce breakage and  even breakage  caused by abuse.


  What nanotechnology   does NOT  do  is  allow us to use less material and thereby make lighter  rods.  if  we did  that  we'd be back at  square  1  in terms of repairs.  the  stuff is not  impossible to break and  it  doesn't  turn  your  1000  dollar  rod into an indestructible  ugly  stick.   You rod  will still need to be  cared  for and used just as it  was before  but when you  do abuse it  there is less  chance that it will break.

great product?  yes  like  any properly used material
wonder cure  for  idiot moments?  unfortunately  no
miracle material to make  rods  lighter than air?   no


__________________
C.F. Burkheimer Blank Production Manager
Gene Larson

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #7 
Thanks Rob, for the link.  That explains a lot about the many facets of nano technology.  So, my first blush is different.  I think it has some very good possibilities for many things.  I would question whether the use of such knowledge is well suited for the purposes we are all here to learn more about. A fly rod made of carbon nanotubes may well be stronger and harder to break, but will it catch any more fish?  Will the cost of such a rod be worth it?  In over 40 years of fishing, I've never broken a rod while catching a fish and the ones I have broken have been due to my own stupidity.  Nanotubes aren't going to make me smarter.  
Paul Metcalf

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 66
Reply with quote  #8 
"nano nano". Mork
DaveEvans

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 109
Reply with quote  #9 
Thanks Rob
Jim Williams

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #10 
Beulah is also using it on their newest rods. That would mean the Opal single-handed and Surf models as well as the Onyx Spey rods.

I am sorry, but we heard the same laments when graphite was first introduced in the 1970's. Progress is always going to happen. You certainly have the choice to not jump on the bandwagon, but you will not stop new developments. I have been using the new Beulahs and have to say they are the finest rods I have ever cast. I say "hurrah" for new ideas and improvements.
Bob Rodgers

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 37
Reply with quote  #11 
The first and only “nano” rods I tried (prototypes) were offered by Redington. They were still in Florida then, this was before the sale and subsequent move of the company. I received three rods, two 9’ 12 weights for Tarpon, and a 9’ 9 weight for Bonefish. These rods were extremely fast, light in the hand, and cast like a bullet.
Unfortunately, the Tarpon sticks were as brittle as a glass rod, both of them exploded ...literally... you’d have to have been there to appreciate it, within 5 seconds after hooking a Tarpon.
The look on my client’s faces will be with me forever.[eek]
 
At that time, rod designers (Redington, too) were making a big deal about the ability of a given rod to lift a static weight. A few guides were posed with rods holding some absurdly heavy object off the floor, one photo I remember had a guide heaving so hard on an anchor that he looked like he was in danger of popping a vein. I’m not knocking lifting power in a big game rod, but the rods have a much bigger job ahead of them than simply lifting static weight. The only static Tarpon I’ve seen were dead.
 
Those Redington’s showed, in a very dramatic way, that they were incapable of absorbing shock. When the first one blew up on the hook set, I was watching the fish and therefore had to concede that my client may have been  a little too aggressive. But I put the other in the hands of an experienced fisherman who had landed dozens of Tarpon with me, watched carefully as he hit the first fish, and was rewarded by the sight of another nano rod going off like a grenade. Go Pro wasn’t on the scene yet, but I’d watch a continuous loop of that all day.[rofl]
 
To the company’s credit, the 9 weight has landed a boatload of bonefish and a few steelhead and never broke. I still have and use it, and it is a cannon.
I believe that Redington’s failure was their quest to make the lightest 12 weight ever, and sacrificed toughness to get there.
When I called them to tell them of the breakages, they once again told me all about the static lift tests the rods had survived.
They were way less than happy with my report.[smile]


Best wishes,
Bob
 
AJ Morris

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 129
Reply with quote  #12 
I'm not sure anyone is lamenting the latest advances in rod materials so much as questioning how much difference they actually make. I would suggest that the materials schedule in a given rod is only part of the equation. A skilled rod designer could use the most pedestrian of materials to build a sublime work of art. Likewise, a real klutz can take the most technologically advanced stuff available and build a worthless tent stake. (Looking back at quite a few of the rods I've cast in the last couple years, it seems that plenty of people are hard at work on that already... [rolleyes])

Speaking only for myself, I tend to be awfully skeptical when I hear the term "technology" these days. It's much like the "all natural" food advertising of a few years ago: an industry buzzword that tells you precisely dick about what you actually want to know. Call me what you will, but I can never escape the gut feeling that anyone who bought a rod on technological considerations just got hosed.


__________________
"...the more I see the less I know..."
Erik Schirmer

Avatar / Picture

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #13 

I know this is an older thread, but I was inspired to reply.  I am new to this forum so thank you for the great information provided the good reads in this forum.

One must be aware of marketing hype, especially when the market has been relatively stagnant for decades when it comes to new materials for making rods.  In and about the seventies graphite came to fly rods, which revolutionized the industry.  I remember vividly as a young man in the late seventies going from the Fenwick glass six weight rod that I grew up with to a Scott Power-ply four weight and wow, possibly more profound than when Lenard brought Tonkin cane to bamboo rods.  I do not know for sure because I was not around back then.

We must remember that a fly rod is a tool first and foremost.  The material is fashioned into a spring and made into a rod used to cast a line of a given weight to present a fly in such a way as to inspire a fish to eat it.  Fishing is the goal, not casting.  Fishing brings joy to one’s heart.  Casting is only part of the means at which we achieve our goal, a joyful heart.  As I am new to spey casting I find it an additional means, which enhances my enjoyment overall.  It’s just plain fun to do and a lot easier than double hauling heavy shooting heads. 

With all that said, taper and bonding agents have a greater affect on the rods performance for a given material than anything else, taper being first and foremost.  Men have been messing around with tapers for thousands of years, from the first willow stick attached with sinew tied to a bone hook, to the latest nano tube structure super-duper especial graphite of today. 

I am always leery of the newest latest greatest marketing hype, because I have been fly fishing for all of a half century and it seems every couple of years somebody comes out with a rod that is lighter and faster than the previous.  How light is light enough and how fast is fast enough?  The differences, if tangible at all, are very subtle at best.  If you listen to the hype, my forty year old Scott is useless to fish with today, not so!  I would be fishing it today if it did not break and Scott did not cancel the life time warranty but that is another story.  I will never buy another Scott rod.  The real differences have been in refining tapers and bonding agents, which is where most of any weight saving is at, truth be known.

In my opinion, if nano technology makes that much of a difference, it may not have been out long enough to truly refine the tapers.  However, it has been out long enough to know that it does not make that big of a difference.  Besides, next year when they come out with the “new and improved” you will be stuck with an “old has been” that is no good anymore, requiring you to buy their new rod.  The bottom line is, do not worry about what the rod is made of and pick a rod that puts a smile on your face to cast.  It will enhance the experience of fishing which will bring joy to your heart.


__________________
One does not know what one does not know.
Rick Jorgensen

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #14 
Erik - my original Scott G 904 built in SF was stolen from my truck 15 years ago. 2 years ago I finally found one for sale on Kiene's site - another one from their SF era. I can't tell you how happy that made me. If I could only have one trout rod - this would be it hands down!!!!  I also have their 903 and 802 that I made up from blanks[smile]
Tom McCoy

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #15 
When they come up with tailgate-resistant-technology (TRT) let me know.  That has been my leading cause of broken rods.
__________________
Bruce and Walker North America - Pro Staff
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.