Apologies I've just realised that I put the joint in the wrong place on the Chapmans 500. Correct graph:
It's interesting to see how close the 500 tapers are to the Mk IV ones. The main difference is in the butt section.
Here's the comparison between the Ledgerstrike and the 500:
Again not a lot of difference in the tip section except for the very fine tip on the Ledgerstrike. The Ledgerstrike has a much more powerful butt section which looks very similar to the Chapmans Mk IV (see the green triangles on the Mk IV graph)
If these graphs aren't clear then please ask and I'll do my best to clarify them :ugeek:
Sean, for clarification, am I right in assuming that the "Mk 1V from rbfa" in your graphs is Walker's Mk 1V Carp rod ( measurements from Rod Building For Amateurs), and that Walker's Mk1V Avon doesn't appear in the graphs? Or have I got this wrong?
One thing your last graph shows clearly is that the Chapman 500 has straight tapers but that the tip section tapers more steeply. I wonder what would happen if a 500 was built with a compund taper at the tip, i.e thin the tip out so its dimensions correspond to the dimensions of the Legerstrike tip, from the point where they cross over on your last graph. Maybe this would make it as sensitive to bites as the Legerstrike, as discussed by Ryan in an earlier post.
Yes Alan, the first graph was originally done to compare tapers of various Mk IV rod flavours and so doesn't give the Mk IV Avon. The 500 is a recent addition to the graph, but an interesting one in that I hadn't realised that the tip had the same thickness as the 550 at the tip and ferrule.
I think that it's certainly possible to make a compound tapered tip section for the 500, and the Ledgerstrike tapers wouldn't need a lot of modification to fit. My own view is that going much below the thickness of the Ledgerstrike at the tip would make for a very fragile tip, prone to breaking if extreme care wasn't taken.
Nobby and I have discussed tip "heaviness" on cane rods in the past. Screw in glass quiver tips never blend well with cane, but thinning the tip down to get a better blend seems fraught with danger of a break.
Hi Alan, Sean, some very interestingpoints there.
I have been through this process myself a while ago whilst trying to design 11ft carp and avon rods, extending existing tapers didnt really work so i had to start from scratch. One thing which i soon discovered is that sensitivity in the tip is no necessarily achieved in the tapers of the tip end, but is created in the middle and butt section of the rod. If the middle and butt section of the rod are stiff this will make the tip section more sensitive, hollow building the butt section also helps here. In this instance i would be tempted to leave the top of the tip section as it is, but increase the rate of taper from say halfway down the tip section all the way through to the handle. As sean quite rightly says really fine tips are asking for trouble. A classic example of this style of building is the fjt roach rod, I make a stepped down version (redditch roach rod) which is sublime for trotting!
ryan
Sean, I take your point about the danger of making cane tips dangerously thin. I only discovered this forum a few days ago, but have already lost count of the number of people here who seem to have cane rods with bits missing off their tips! But it can be an advantage. I once bought a lovely Wallis Wizard off a dealer in Stoke on Trent for a tenner;going cheap mainly because it had a few inches missing off its tip. I spliced a suitable piece of cane into place, salvaged from another broken cane rod, bought very cheaply from the same dealer, and I ended up with a very servicable rod.
Ryan, you make an interesting point about tip sensitivity, which is obvious now you point it out. With a floppy rod, if a fish pulls an inch, the upper six foot of the rod will move and you may not notice, or perhaps think it's the wind. But with a faster tapered blank only the tip section will move, and be more noticable. This makes sense to me, and perhaps a point in favour of the Legermaster...
This rather touches on what I always imagined would be the ultimate float rod...one with a sensitive yet crisp tip and a through action.
I've now come to the conclusion that such a rod is a myth!
A through action always gives a 'floppy' feel so you can't have a fast, crisp and sensitive tip with it.
Perhaps that's why Milwards went with their Twin Taper Tip....a flexible tip that struck quickly, but even on the progressively actioned Swimversa you still ended up with a tippy rod that couldn't really handle a big fish if one came along. I had a Swimversa and tried to like it, just as the feller I sold it to did, but neither of us got on with it really.
I've often thought that another foot on the tip of the Chapamn 500 would make a lovely rod. Light in the hand, progressive action and a tip soft enough for roach, but I've never actually calculated how thin that tip would be if it were a foot longer on the same taper.
And it would have to be a full custom build with the middle section AND the tip extended by 6 inches each. It would probably throw the feel right out and wouldn't work at all...just another dream rod.
I've got an Aspindale Suredale, a 3 section, whole cane butt, 12 foot float rod with a very thin tip; it feel nice but is a tad heavy even with that thin tip. I've also got an identical rod that is ten inches short ( eBay of course )....no sensitive tip, but it's a far easier rod to hold all day. I have to constantly remind myself that just ten inches of rod tip, little thicker than a fly rod's, can have such an enormous effect when it's 12 foot up a fishing rod......
Rod tapers....it's not science, it's dreams and black magic!
I've got a carbon rod that seems to 'do it all'..13ft. hollow tip like a 1/4 oz. quivertip. A Greys rod, it's probably a Hardy blank, not even made anymore and I haven't fished with it in almost a year prefering to take a cane rod. Madness really. Fortunately I'm not alone........
