In the workshop with Mark Tunley -YouTube

[Alan Whitty]

Hi guys,I've been watching a few of Mark Tulney's short videos recently and found them interesting,this particular one is very thought provoking(to me at least),he says rods are built the way they are for historical reason,explaining that a barbel rod blank would function perfectly with around six or seven rings without flat spots,now I would like to chat with him about this as yes the blank would have no flat spots,but the line would be be taking the shortest route between rings,which when under pressure would cause more friction/wear on both,we all know for casting minimal ringing is best,but not all fishing is about casting to the horizon,similarly a float rod has to have plenty of rings to function correctly,if you get time have a look at the vid and tell me your views please...

 

[mikench]

I considered Mark Tunley when I sought a Torrix barbel rod but something about him irritated me and he wouldn’t fit the reel seat I wanted on a 2lb tc variant.I went elsewhere. In my view if you have to have his rod design with or without what you want, it is not a custom rod. In addition he wouldn’t post.

 

[Alan Whitty]

Really,a bit like Andrew Field with floats then,he took no notice of the dimensions i wanted(6bb,which when he sent them out were 13bb,ten floats that were not cheap or correct),or the maximum shotting I required,even though I explained why I wanted these,his answer to me was that,thar was what everybody wanted,plonker!!!

 

[nottskev]

I've watched a few of his videos. His rods look very well finished, but often not to my taste. A lot have the matt/plain blank plus high gloss whipping combination, which I never go for if I can help it. Rods like that just don't look right imo.

Did he say what the "historic" reasons for more plentiful rings were, Alan? I first heard about ringing to keep the angles smoother back in the day when rings were all metal and wore quickly. Modern lined rings have way longer life and are lighter too, so I don't know why anyone would want to skimp on them. Just out of interest, I looked up a barbel-type rod in his collection 12' 2.5lb (ok, a bit heavy for barbel on many waters) and he puts 8 rings on them. I dug out one of mine, the heaviest, a 12' 2lb Torrix, and it has 12 rings!

I had a look at one vid on a 13'6" multi-tip feeder rod which has an odd combination of tips - one meant for use on buzzers, the others for bite indication. He gave himself some fulsome congratulations for coming up with the first multi-tip where the tips blend seamlessly into the blank. Odd that he's never come across a decent Shimano or Daiwa.

 

[Alan Whitty]

He says in the video that the manufacturers are several years behind the rod builders like himself purely as they are not into rod design,more into rod sales,I would have thought Mark Tunley is too,I don't buy rods for distance casting,I want fishing rods,ones that bend and not stiff broom handles which often casting rods are,I've sent him an email to question his thought on my belief that the sharp bends between few rings,no answer as yet,I'm hoping for an understandable logical answer,not a lofty one....

 

[Steve Arnold]

Glad to see others on this forum feel fewer rings is not necessarily a good thing! I have my views based on surfcasting and sea spinning for many years. Many shore anglers believe the "less rings for distance" is the correct way to build a rod, that is not my opinion for actual fishing.

That business of having minimal rings stemmed from casting tournaments where they cast heavy weights with rods of similar action to scaffolding poles. Sometimes they weigh about the same as well!

For an actual fishing rod that bends, and is built with lightness to hold all day, there are many other factors to consider. Spreading the stresses along the rod, reducing the friction caused by the line angled over the guide (hence "quietness") and improved lifting power when reeling in a heavy fish. All of these things can be improved by having a few more rings (guides) than is the current fashion.

Personally I feel rod makers who insist on less guides to be correct, it might just be that it shortens production time and is cheaper! When it's a custom build though, it is also disrespectful to the customer to ignore his wishes or even to belittle the customer!

I generally end up going the Fuji Concept method of fitting a guide set. Spinning rods often have Fuji guides set up in this manner, I feel it would suit barbel and carp rods equally well.

One project I had was with a light (very soft tip) boat casting rod rod which had been rung for a multiplier reel. I wanted to use a Shimano Ultegra 5500 XTC spinning reel on it and played around with Minima guides set up Fuji Concept style. Eventually I got it casting smoothly and could chuck 4 ozs around 120 yds-140yds. Not too shoddy for a 10' vintage carbon rod!

I even spent some time on a dark night to check the line flow with a video on my phone camera......

If you go to settings on YouTube you should be able to play the video in slow-motion.

Hope my views don't upset the commercial rod builders, no doubt the fewer guides route does a job. But I feel (quite strongly!) that a few more guides, correctly sized and spaced, makes a good fishing rod even better!

 

[@Clive]

Another vote for more rings. I cannot for the life of me why carp rods have to follow this stupid fashion.

 

[billy_know_baits]

I was told years ago by an experienced rod builder the rule for ring spacing is that if you turn the rod upside down and bend it to its full curve the line should not touch the blank. In theory it would cause more friction when casting, which then raises the question why does that not seem to be the case with float rods.

 

[Alan Whitty]

I believe ringing is one big compromise,you cast better with fewer rings,but fish better with more,float rods is another issue,in the main you are using a pretty light loading on the rod(2-4AA would be on the heavier side quite often),so even on a dry day the line would pick up moisture and as a cast is made the line would flick/slap the blank,causing friction of a sort reducing the efficiency of the cast,so minimising any contact with the rod is beneficial as I see it???

 

[Alan Whitty]

There is another video on leverage,which when you get into his theory makes sense to me,especially as I'm not a particular fan of a long rod for playing fish....

 

[Steve Arnold]

I just took a couple of screen shots from my video.

On the cast the line should funnel cleanly into the guide with no coils bunching or spilling over the frame.....

and on the retrieve there should be no sharp angles of line on the frame. This guide set uses three carefully selected guide sizes to "tease" the flowing line closer to the blank. From those three guides onwards they are small, light and can be all the same size. This arrangement suits medium to fast (tip action) blanks well. For slower (parabolic?) action blanks it is not nearly so important, but they are rarely chosen for their casting ability!

On the retrieve you want to spread the load on the blank, again no sharp angles as the line passes over the guide.....

There are some good, lightweight and fairly cheap guides becoming available now. They look much like the Minima shown here, but have a ceramic coating over the stainless steel. I have a couple of rods with these guides now, time will tell how they stand up to use.

If you want to see how nerdish this subject can get, just take a look at some USA forums....https://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/topic/731033-kr-concept-surf-rod-input/

 

[@Clive]

Whether we like it or not fishing tackle design is often by fashion over function. Catching carp by casting to the horizon became fashionable and so we got the five ring rods. And this is still the case even on stalking rods designed for close in fishing. To off set the issues Steve raises they make the first guide the size of the Birmingham Bullring and increase the rating to 3.5lb so they don't bend as much. Fashion over function.

 

[Alan Whitty]

I read posts on FM that long rods get more control whilst playing fish,but my findings are that longer rods are softer,so don't have the leverage to gain that control,creating problems when fish approach the net,I know Chris(Sam Vimes)says he finds the issue is more about the length of landing net pole....

 

[@Clive]

As I understood it, Chris was talking about the necessity to have a landing net pole long enough to avoid the rod being brought up to and beyond the vertical when it offers little control over fish. I agree with him in that once a rod goes much beyond a 45 degree angle you lose an increasing amount of control no matter what length the rod is.

And you cannot simply apply the principle of leverage on length of rod. The actual length of any rod changes dependent on how much it bends. For example a 12 foot through action Avon will be effectively shorter than a 12 tippy foot match rod under the same load because it bends from further down.

 

[Alan Whitty]

Mark Tunley suggests that a 10ft commercial style feeder rod fishing on the method is more powerful,putting more pressure to get carp in quickly than the same rod in a 12-13 ft option,then quoted it similarly for barbel and carp rods,whether its right or not is a matter of opinion,however he states its pure physics whether we like it or not???

 

[nottskev]

It's not hard to agree that longer rods are less suited to playing big fish that fight hard. But does anyone say otherwise? With shoal-size fish, roach dace and so on, "gaining control" of the fish is hardly an issue, and the advantage in controlling the line and float can outweigh any disadvantage. I've had long rods since they first became available, with several 15' or 17' rods. The 17's are often too long for a particular job, tending to be a bit cumbersome and slower to wield, but I can't say I recognise any problem controlling or landing fish and using standard 2.5 - 3m landing net poles.

Even with fish in the next band up, so to speak, like medium size tench and chub, I find the 15's fine and I go to several places where eg keeping hooked fish out of the bankside snags etc is a virtue.

I wouldn't used these rods for carp and barbel, especially in the featureful places I like to fish. I agree that shorter rods are the way to go, for several reasons. I wouldn't say longer rod are generally better or worse - I think it all depends on what you want from them and on the situation. Winding in a stream of 5lb carp from a swimming pool asap - Mr T's criterion - isn't really one of mine.

 

[Steve Arnold]

As I understood it, Chris was talking about the necessity to have a landing net pole long enough to avoid the rod being brought up to and beyond the vertical when it offers little control over fish. I agree with him in that once a rod goes much beyond a 45 degree angle you lose an increasing amount of control no matter what length the rod is.

And you cannot simply apply the principle of leverage on length of rod. The actual length of any rod changes dependent on how much it bends. For example a 12 foot through action Avon will be effectively shorter than a 12 tippy foot match rod under the same load because it bends from further down.

The other problem with lifting the rod at too high an angle to the line is being "high-rodded". Where this happens the rod tip is being pulled back down its length, carbon in particular does not appreciate this and will snap!

I know this well from boat fishing for pollack, you hook a smallish one and think you can just swing it in. Well, even a small pollack may have one last dive in it. With the rod tip so high the tip gets pulled down suddenly and .......catastrophe!!!!

With a long freshwater rod you need a long landing net handle to avoid this happening!

Going back to rings - too few rings has the same effect by pulling the carbon tube back on itself, particularly with fine tips. That's one reason for so many guides on a quiver tip rod.

 

[Alan Whitty]

Kev,yes they do,even a 15fter compared to a 13 has less control over a chub,equate that down to an 11fter and control is,or should be quantifiable,so as long as depths are fishable and float control is good the options are obvious,apart from personal preference...

 

[Steve Arnold]

Mark Tunley suggests that a 10ft commercial style feeder rod fishing on the method is more powerful,putting more pressure to get carp in quickly than the same rod in a 12-13 ft option,then quoted it similarly for barbel and carp rods,whether its right or not is a matter of opinion,however he states its pure physics whether we like it or not???

I have heard these second hand quotes of Mark Tunley on another forum. So stated as "gospel" I packed that forum in! I guess these quotes from such a guru must be accepted as gospel by some?

At one time I had a disagreement with another "custom rod builder" who had described a fishing rod as a simple lever.

Well, it's NOT!!!

For casting it's a complex mixture of lever, spring and trebuchet. For reeling in a heavy weight it's a mix of (variable) lever and spring. When I say "spring" I mean a leaf spring type.

Some of the better mass producers of rods seem to have an understanding of this, Daiwa are pretty damned clever IMHO. But some of the custom rod builders have built a reputation for wrapping a rod nicely and have little knowledge of what a rods components are actually doing. Their physics (or even experience/common sense?) appears to be lacking.

I do like my fishing rods, but most of them can be improved.

 

[@Clive]

The physics part of this only apllicable IF the rods have the same power and action. If you do the test curve experiment, then measure from butt to where the rod goes vertical, that is its effective length under load. A tip action rod of the same overall length of a through action rod will have a greater effective length.

The greater the effective length, the harder it is to pump a fish back to you as the leverage is greater. But it will be faster to react when striking. That is why specimen hunters favoured through actioned Avons and match men preferred tip action rods for smaller fish.