I know a bit about hexagonal and quadrate bamboo rods but see that Sweetgrass is also making pentagonal rods. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of the
pentagonal design?
best,
Jim P
best,
Jim P
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
JimP.fishnbanjosplace |
Pentagonal rods |
Lead | ||
|
I know a bit about hexagonal and quadrate bamboo rods but see that Sweetgrass is also making pentagonal rods. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of the
pentagonal design?
best, Jim P |
||||
|
|
||||
fishnbanjo |
#1 | |||
|
Probably not the best, or articulate, response but this is how I see it. A hexagonal rod is comprised of 6 segments that have been planed to 60 degrees and
they move up and down, left to right on an opposing angle and right to left in the same manner i.e. 6 planes 6 ways to move. A quadrate moves up and down and
side to side dictated by the 4 planes. A Penta rod is very different as the 2 angles are not identical and the tendency of the interaction of the smaller angle
adjacent to the larger angle allows the rod to act more like a cylinder, I know, it's as clear as mud..................
banjo
Fly fishing is my Quisisana (the name is Italian for "place where one heals one's self.") "...... SLG Visit my website about Bamboo rods... Fishnbanjo's Place |
||||
|
|
||||
softstick |
re: Pentas | #2 | ||
|
Jim, there are several other rodmakers who feature pentas. One is Mario Wojnicki who makes hollow pentas, the other is Kagerow who makes solid pentas. As has
been mentioned on the board before Mr. Wojnicki will tell you that it doesn't matter how many sides the rod has. What really matters is the taper. And his
hollow pentas are some of the best casting rods out there.
BUT, that is just some peoples opinions. IMHO you must cast a Wojnicki hollow penta and make up your own mind. Again IMHO I don't think there is a distinct advantage between hexes, quads, and pentas. It does really come down to the taper. Dan |
||||
|
|
||||
recane1 |
#3 | |||
|
I would love to see Mr. Wojnicki and Mr. Garrison have this discussion. Both masters seem to have their own opinions about the subject. Aaron |
||||
|
|
||||
paxlev |
#4 | |||
|
Have owned two pentas; one of which I still have and fish on occasion. Just don't care for the feel of the shift in torque from the back cast to the
forward cast. Feels like the rod is trying to break. Ric
|
||||
|
|
||||
mer |
#5 | |||
|
If I recall correctly (which I may not be) Garrison's primary issue with 5-siders was related to longevity; specifically how the stresses were distributed
throughout the rod and how they affected the cane. I believe he also conceded that a pentagon of the same cross sectional area as a hexagon was stiffer in
"one direction" (the backbone or spine theory of the 5 siders).
From a purely theoretical/engineering standpoint Garrison was most likely correct (I have not run through the calculations to verify them, because frankly I have all my engineering textbooks in the attic, don't feel like getting them down, but from what slowly bubbles up from the depths of stored knowledge, the reasoning and calculations in the book look plausible). In the real world, especially the modern one, careful adjustment of the taper and use of the appropriate glue will probably mitigate that aspect. I liken pentas to quads: a correctly designed taper, built correctly, in either configuration will probably be a fine fishing and casting instrument. However, it will feel different than fishing and casting a hex (I offer paxlev's post above as one bit of evidence); this difference is inherently neither good nor bad: it just is. Some may like it, some may not. Quads as an example tend to be very straight tracking, as if the four sides work to constrain the plane of motion to just two: front to back and side to side. Hexes need a bit more attention from the caster with respect to casting plane (easy to wander off course). Maybe it's the rule of "number of sides divided by two"; if so, then the 5 sides give you 2.5 casting planes which may explain the torque paxlev says he feels and doesn't like. I don't know if there are any real answers, but I guarantee that you will get a lot of opinions. Mine are above, based solely on my reading a lot of different references, my understanding of that data based on my own personal experience which limited to hexes and quads, but extrapolated to pentas. For the record, I find quads more tiresome to cast, maybe it's just my casting mechanics, but hexes feel more natural to me. While I would not be averse to trying a penta, I don't believe that I would actually purchase one for my own use.
This signature left intentionally blank.
Last Edited By: mer 06/25/2009 07:14.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
cross creek one |
#6 | |||
|
In "Advanced Bait Casting," Charlie Fox stated that he liked pentas, and planned to have his favorite Marinaro light bait caster duplicated in five
strips. I've never read whether or not he ever did that, or anything more about his like for pentas or any fly rods he might have had in that
configuration. Since one normally turns a bait caster 90 degrees for casting, I would imagine that a penta bait caster would require some changes in technique,
there being no flat or apex at that angle--I plan to make one someday, anyway, just to see how it would turn out. It might be perfectly suited to a spiral
guide layout, with the flat on the bottom.
-CC |
||||
|
|
||||