The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

Mick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:21 pm Please excuse my ignorance Gentlemen and not wishing to deflect from the original post, but what do you mean by 'double built'?

I can help with that and I've found a diagram. In effect you build a blank in six sections as usual but then build a further six sections around the first. The idea being to have double the layers of the power fibres making the rod very strong and stiff.

Tengisgol wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:33 pm

Mick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:21 pm Please excuse my ignorance Gentlemen and not wishing to deflect from the original post, but what do you mean by 'double built'?

I can help with that and I've found a diagram. In effect you build a blank in six sections as usual but then build a further six sections around the first. The idea being to have double the layers of the power fibres making the rod very strong and stiff.

The inner layer is only around a quarter of the area of the outer layer, so you add about 25% more power fibres. However those are (a) replacing other fibres [in a single built rod] and (b) not as far from the center line, so they are not stretched/compressed as much when the rod is bent.

Putting those two factors together you can see that a 'double built' rod will fall a long way short of 'double strength'. Walker said it didn't seem worth the effort that went into the build, it might have seemed as if the rod was barely any stiffer or stronger.

I suspect though, the double built rod will keep it's spring a good bit longer than a single built - I'm not certain, but I think the power fibres don't re-absorb so much 'loosely bound' water and the inner 'power fibre' layer will provide more support for the outer, than in a single built rod. So over time, there'll be less softening of the core of the rod (compared with single built).

If I was a millionaire, I'd have one made!

Thanks a lot Gents!

JPC wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:05 am

Paul D wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:42 pm Think you'll find there was ever only one.

Not so sure, Chris claims to have original, the one Walker used to catch his 31/34 but if you read Mike Winter's excellent book "Along Fisherman's Paths" Mike mentions he has a MK111 carp rod which he used for pike fishing and heavy carp fishing. I presume (dangerous) Walker either sent him the blanks or perhaps an already built rod. Interesting regarding some of the other threads re Walkers use of MK1V's and MK111's.

Prof's (Mike Winter's) MKIII was one he built himself to the Walker tapers...

Skeff wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:52 am

JPC wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:05 am

Paul D wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:42 pm Think you'll find there was ever only one.

Not so sure, Chris claims to have original, the one Walker used to catch his 31/34 but if you read Mike Winter's excellent book "Along Fisherman's Paths" Mike mentions he has a MK111 carp rod which he used for pike fishing and heavy carp fishing. I presume (dangerous) Walker either sent him the blanks or perhaps an already built rod. Interesting regarding some of the other threads re Walkers use of MK1V's and MK111's.

Prof's (Mike Winter's) MKIII was one he built himself to the Walker tapers...

Skeff, do you know whether Prof's MKIII was double built like Walker's?

To be pedantic and to pick up on the OP and the thread title, as far as I'm aware there was never a B. James MkIII carp rod. As has been noted that was Walker's own enterprise and nothing to do with the Ealing based rod makers.

I'll raise you one though – Olivers made a very tasty MkV Avon.

[/quote]

Prof's (Mike Winter's) MKIII was one he built himself to the Walker tapers...
[/quote]

Skeff, do you know whether Prof's MKIII was double built like Walker's?
[/quote]

It was double built, yes... He was also experimenting with square (as opposed to hexagonal) tapers on a rod but i don't think he ever finished the blank.