Garrison Tapers

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (BigTJ) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:08:56 GMT

I'm now really glad I spent all that hard work on my engineering degree and PE it's worth it now I can understand this thread. I find this stuff really interesting, and it's given me inspiration about how to understand the physical characteristics of bending stresses in a fly rod. Thanks guys.

OK now to add fuel to the fire, Bob Milward showed pretty convincingly that Garrison's underlying assumptions are flawed because fly rods do not bend like beams, relatively...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (bobnorwood) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:52:08 GMT

I think it is correct to say that all of Garrisons Tapers are simliar in design, but there are some small differences for example the 193 is the fastest taper design. The larger rods tend to have more flex in the butt and are a little slower.
The differences between the E tapers and the regular numbers is that they are slightly stronger, the E taper is larger. Just look at the regular and the E type and subtract the two and you will see this. I don't think that I could tell the...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (nwdlj) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:27:58 GMT

yep, gotta agree...that concept of god revealed in nature and what my right hand feels when it holds a aggregation of bamboo, cork and metal, parses all the math that I need to know while I pursue this beautiful obsession of fishing the fly...dj

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (mer) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:18:39 GMT

See, the math involved is just another language that is being used to describe the beauty of flyfishing, although strictly speaking, the math and moments and beams are actually talking about what is happening to the rod as it it being cast. Is it for everyone? Heck no. Does it let someone gain a better understanding? Perhaps. Is it actually a way to pick up chicks? Absolutely (not) Just remember Engineers are by definition weird...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (swalker9513) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:57:41 GMT

Wow! I'm an artist/philosopher/theologian. I haven't understood anything written on this thread--other than y'all. Good stuff though. I truly admire people who do understand this. I've always thought flyfishing was aesthetically beautiful. I didn't know there was so much math involved. So, if anyone would like to discuss the character and nature of God, I'm in.

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (nwdlj) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:13:53 GMT

In my late night insomnia, I do like to go back and read older threads...I like the way y'all (a nice tribute from Mr. Paducah to my home language from where I grew up) think about this stuff...and being a rocket scientist, I understand everything everyone stated...but I will say one thing is that the best parser for all this calculating is my right hand, what feels right with it has the right calculating done to it...keep on writing and I'll keep on reading...dj

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (J W Foster) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:54:18 GMT

Hi FB The reality part was the question about tip deflection..I think I received another definition as an answer. This does relate to rodmaking and Garrison.. Regards Jerry

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (fishbum) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:52:09 GMT

J W Foster wrote:
FB, Wow, neat stuff..
Now the reality test.. looking at Garrison stress curves. Lets say a Payne 100. The tip stress is high ( max for the rod), If I interpret what you wrote, does that mean that is the maximum deflection point, we know that isn't true? Conundrum, the problem with using static modeling with a truly iteratively dynamic function, one not fixed to 10" and 5".

...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (J W Foster) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:55:04 GMT

FB, Wow, neat stuff..
Now the reality test.. looking at Garrison stress curves. Lets say a Payne 100. The tip stress is high ( max for the rod), If I interpret what you wrote, does that mean that is the maximum deflection point, we know that isn't true? Conundrum, the problem with using static modeling with a truly iteratively dynamic function, one not fixed to 10" and 5".

Does Beam theory yield a workable constant for comparison and design, yes, is it the correct...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (J W Foster) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:14:25 GMT

WBINN
Interesting in that you don't have to read this thread, this is free info and as far as it goes is very good. Now for your questions the answer is Yes and Yes. Gee, can we make better cars than Volkswagons? Do you plan on making replicas or clones? We all honer the masters because they were masters of their craft, rodmaking, not taper making. All they required was a workable taper that people liked and it was converted to food. I might even wander out on a limb and suggest that...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (jayhake) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:32:47 GMT

I heard over my police scanner that Markus just called the FBI hostage rescue team. He wants his thread back. :0

Actually, a very interesting discussion, if only I could understand all of it.

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (wbinn) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:38:34 GMT

Judas!!! I knew there was something I forgot to get when I started collecting tools to build bamboo rods. AN ENGINEERING DEGREE!!! If debating engineering principles and physics amuses you folks, great! But how many of you can say you utilize these debated principles in designing better casting cane rods? And if you do, does the rod end up drastically different than one already designed by one of the old masters?
WBINN

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (J W Foster) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:31:52 GMT

I sure hope thats a dynamic constant

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (fishbum) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:23:46 GMT

Blue Quill wrote:
Fishbum,

1) It's not my proposal, it's physics. 2) When the rod is bending, E increases or decreases depending on what is happening to the cross section of the rod at the point it is being measured.

How can a solid rod of any diameter, of any length, made of any incompressible material, tapered or not, bend without ovalizing in cross section at some point? How else do you...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (fishbum) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:37:52 GMT

Oh, you are going to get more. I have been all afternoon writing a reply. Hint, think spring constant.

Stay tuned.

fishbum

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (J W Foster) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:03:10 GMT

Chuck, Troy

The best Engineering discussion I have seen on the principles of rod design. You have centered your discussion around, Hooke, Young. I think you touched on Ovalation. And you mentioned a parabola. I think you probably used this term as a generalization (?). All the above is relative and is the loading aspect of why a rod works. Half a rods action during casting. Isn't the final half of the cast now dependent on MOE? This is the aspect of Garrison that isn't...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (Blue Quill) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:22:32 GMT

Fishbum,

1) It's not my proposal, it's physics. 2) When the rod is bending, E increases or decreases depending on what is happening to the cross section of the rod at the point it is being measured.

How can a solid rod of any diameter, of any length, made of any incompressible material, tapered or not, bend without ovalizing in cross section at some point? How else do you think it can bend? It has to get shorter on one side and longer on the other to allow it to...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (fishbum) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:33:33 GMT

Blue Quill wrote:

Regarding the side-ways pieces (orienting of grain question), It's exploiting the orientation of the section and assigning a dimension based on its E at that point under dynamic load. Look at it this way; If you hold a rod vertical and bend it, as the rod bends into a parabola the fibers follow the parabola, but the orientation of the fibers to the vertical section are more and more perpendicular as you...

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (bluejayee) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:48:01 GMT

Hi Guys, Well, that was invigorating. Very Socratic. I read it, I re-read it, I compared it, it was interesting, it was entertaining and it was relevant to what I and a lot of us do. I personally will have a hard time sort of 'keeping all that in mind' as I go from here but this is a reference point we can use. It's sort of Wikipedian. Jay Edwards

Re: Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (Blue Quill) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:08:28 GMT

Hi Troy,

I think the really amazing thing about Garrison's taper-design methods are a few lines translated by Carmichael that couldn't give justice to what he (Garrison) was able to conceive as a foundation to the rest of his formulas. I don't have Carmichael's book in front of me, but Garrison is simply quoted as saying something like,"First I had to establish the nature of bamboo as a material and how it behaves in hexagonal section". Whatever...

Garrison Tapers

feeds@yuku.com (magguscdc) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:00:28 GMT

Hi,

I like Garrison tapers very much and fish myself a 202E taper. May be this is a beginner question, but I would like to know what this "E" stands for? Where is the difference between a Garrison 202 and a Garrison 202E taper.... As far as I know there are also 209 and 209E and 212 and 212E tapers....

Are the 209 and 212 tapers similar to the 202, but for higher line weights?

Thank you for your comments in advance.

Markus