L.O.S.T. post on Rodbuilding.org forum

[rodblder]

Originally Posted by Red Monster

That's just plain rude. What an asshole.

Who's the asshole here? I don't see where you've added anything constuctive to this discussion asshole. Can't even catch a fish with the bozo rod you built. I've built spiral wrapped rods for 15 yrs and catch lots of fish with them. And I don't ,like Dave, spout about how my method is better than all the other methods that have been proven in the field, not static tested like I'm sure your's was but doesn't catch fish.

I'm just sick of wanna be engineer Dave using 1000 words to try and sell his concept, confuse most folks according to all the pm's I'm getting, and say cause we don't understand him, that we are the ones that are wrong.


His is one method of spiral wrapping rods. All his bs about guide loading etc is just that, bs to try and make his method stand out from all the other methods that work just as well. I sat and read his crap till I couldn't stand it any longer and felt I had to put out a diff opinion. dave no longer attempts to sell his crap on the Rodbuilder.org board cause there are too many knowledgable builders there who laugh at him. I'm just trying to let the new builders know that the L.O.S.T. system is not the end all and shouldn't be treated that way. It isn't according to all the experienced guys I've heard from who think him AND his wierd rods are strange.

[E. Harry]

Any guide configuration for any blank, spiral or conventional, including Dave's Lost system, can optimize the distribution of the load on the guides for one set of conditions but it will necessarily then be sub-optimized for all other sets of conditions i.e. different loads and angles to the load. Where a rod builder places the guides on a blank is like a number of other things in rod building it involves trade offs. This means that there is no absolute answer to where the guides belong on any given blank.
Unlike Dave I do not believe that the load on the guides should be equal. I think that the load on the guides should be consistant with the blanks action in other words with the blanks ability to carry a load, less load on the guides toward the tip of the rod and more load on the guides toward the butt of the rod. I think that several of the systems that people have developed, including the static method, do a reasonable job of this. I do not think that the Lost system does a reasonable job.

[Red Monster]

Originally Posted by rodblder

Who's the asshole here? I don't see where you've added anything constuctive to this discussion asshole. Can't even catch a fish with the bozo rod you built. I've built spiral wrapped rods for 15 yrs and catch lots of fish with them. And I don't ,like Dave, spout about how my method is better than all the other methods that have been proven in the field, not static tested like I'm sure your's was but doesn't catch fish.

I'm just sick of wanna be engineer Dave using 1000 words to try and sell his concept, confuse most folks according to all the pm's I'm getting, and say cause we don't understand him, that we are the ones that are wrong.


His is one method of spiral wrapping rods. All his bs about guide loading etc is just that, bs to try and make his method stand out from all the other methods that work just as well. I sat and read his crap till I couldn't stand it any longer and felt I had to put out a diff opinion. dave no longer attempts to sell his crap on the Rodbuilder.org board cause there are too many knowledgable builders there who laugh at him. I'm just trying to let the new builders know that the L.O.S.T. system is not the end all and shouldn't be treated that way. It isn't according to all the experienced guys I've heard from who think him AND his wierd rods are strange.

How do you equate fish not biting with rod design? I retract my smart ass icon and replace it with DUMB ASS. Thanks for all the laughs!! You provide a nice contrast to the rest of the normal world.

[REP]

Well, this is too good for me not to play.

Jim, the reason Dave has not posted to RBO is that he, like me and many others (the list grows longer every day) did not bow down to the owner of that BBS as the great giver of all rodbuilding knowledge. Dave's ideas just weren't compatible with the Laws of Rodbuilding as given there, and when Dave pretty well stuck to his guns, that was more than the Oracle could stand. So he got banned, banished to the hinterlands, hopefully never to be heard from again, just like me and an ever-growing list of other builders. Fortunately, there's this BBS and many others where open discussion of different ideas is still welcomed. Now it seems some of the guardians of the Temple have come here to visit, eh?

I've had the privilege to have had many hours of back-and-forth with Dave on this very subject, long before he called it LOST. See, Gary and I design our rods through a series of static and dynamic stress tests that are specific to the individual blank. No formulas involved - just Clemens' old "here's a starting point, now go mess with it and see what you get". But of course, there's a certain crowd that feel the need to discredit Clemens' ideas too. Dave's idea of evenly loading the guides to prevent breakage are just as applicable to a spinning rod as to a spiral.

Emory will find this hard to believe, but I agree in part with what he said. When the rod bends under load, the load for each guide in the train changes along with the angles between the guides, and that makes the optimization of the load change as well. Now, I don't agree with a lot of what Emory has written either, but in his own way he's doing what Dave is doing - trying to explain the dynamics of how a rod works, in the hope that we can use the information to build better rods.

Dave is not trying to "sell" anything. Yes, he's an Engineer, and sometimes he drives me crazy with his analysis of stuff that I might not think needs analyzing. But when you dismiss his theories just because he's an Engineer, one has to wonder what your alternative is. It sounds like the Archie Bunker theory of rod building - thinking "makes my heaad hurt". Have you ever questioned what different designs and layouts can do to a rod's performance? Emory, Dave, and a whole bunch of others do exactly that. I guess Gary and I are somewhere in the middle - not as scientific as they are, but certainly interested enough in any new ideas to try them. Speaking of Dave's disertations, have you ever read Emory's stuff? That'll put you to sleep, trust me. Emory doesn't like Dave's idea, but I think he respects Dave's efforts. Gary and I have done our own share of experimenting and gathering real, repeatable data (that's called doing the science) and we've never had a rod break under load unless the stick itself was defective. Oh, sorry, I forgot - anything beyond a simple "put the guide here" formula is "hiding behind Engineering talk". But I don't want to bore you, so I won't try to explain it here.

This BBS can get pretty rough at times. But purely personal attacks are still relatively rare. As Doc and others have said above, it's pretty obvious you have a personal issue and agenda here. It does nothing to add to our knowledge, unless you think tearing someone else's ideas down is somehow productive. On this BBS, there's room for all sorts of ideas. Remember the old Victrola ad? Maybe you need to get back home to the "other" BBS, where all you have to do is listen to the master's voice.

Uncle Russ
Calico Creek Rods

[CPO retired]

Glad to see someone on this posting has stated a factual statement of what is going on. For Gods sake, Dave is just taking an engineering approach to try and make the best rod that he can make and is trying to share that information. Sure its a little hard for some to understand but we should at least try to understand what he is doing. Bottom line is this, we all try to build the best we can and we share that information with others so all can improve their work. Those who want to think that they are the masters of the craft will never grow beyond the point that they are. Just a little observation, there are no master rod builders, some just think they are.

I look at a lot of the work that many of the posters on this board submit and am amazed at the quality of most. Remember, fancy thread work alone does not make a great rod, making the rod correctly first and then making it look good is what gets people to want a custom rod in the first place.

Those who want to continue to learn and then want to share that information with others is what makes our craft grow. Those who want to set back on their rumps and complain about what some have submitted are normally sitting there because they are not able to grow their craft but simply want to have someone tell them where to put the guides and then wrap the rod. These people call their work custom, I call it wrapping a rod, the same as a factory rod, not custom at all.

Those people who own different boards and who restrict ideas such as Daves because they can't understand it and want to make people think that they are the master of all rod building and others should bow down to them are really those who restrict the ideas of advancing the craft (many think that these people are the masters of the craft-they are not by any means). Those who buy that crap are those who will never help advance custom rod building but just follow along doing what these people say to do without ever thinking on their own.

There are many ways to make a custom rod, sharing ideas help us make better rods. just because you can't understand others ideas is not a reason to damn the idea. Try to understand it, you might learn something.

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by E. Harry

Any guide configuration for any blank, spiral or conventional, including Dave's Lost system, can optimize the distribution of the load on the guides for one set of conditions but it will necessarily then be sub-optimized for all other sets of conditions i.e. different loads and angles to the load. Where a rod builder places the guides on a blank is like a number of other things in rod building it involves trade offs. This means that there is no absolute answer to where the guides belong on any given blank.
Unlike Dave I do not believe that the load on the guides should be equal. I think that the load on the guides should be consistant with the blanks action in other words with the blanks ability to carry a load, less load on the guides toward the tip of the rod and more load on the guides toward the butt of the rod. I think that several of the systems that people have developed, including the static method, do a reasonable job of this. I do not think that the Lost system does a reasonable job.

Hey Emory,,,,, I think we are largely in agreement here. You have mistaken a few points tho, I never said I was looking for the loads to be equal across the guides. In fact I thing that largely impossible to attain. Take a look at the loading data I've been collecting and posting for awhile now. Do those look equal? No.

And if you consider the sequential guide loading I go after with LOST, remember that is driven by the blank as it bends.

I'd say you are mischaracterizing LOST in your description, because it really is doing exactly what you prescribe. As I've said many times, it is static testing of a spiral,,,, and the LOST bits are component mods to actually let that static testing come much closer to that of the blank than otherwise.

With a spiral's transition, what you will find is that you have moderate to severe problems in trying to attain any loading distribution similar to the blank. And also because of the transition, the line path unloaded can never be perfectly straight. Improving those issues is exactly what LOST was designed to do.

........

And while you go on about me testing at horizontal, you also note that no one angle is all angles. I agree. You can not optimize for everything. But if you consider that a rod has potential usability from 0 to 180 degrees, 90 is the median. And if you get a decent load distribution at 90, then you will have a more balanced result across the usability spectrum. (Note: while 90 degrees is the median point in terms of angle, the guidetrain load at 90 degrees is a tad over 70% of max for a particular line load,,, not 50% as some folks might at first think)

What you are going to find on an untuned spiral is moderate to severe inability to get load into the guides around the transition section. At any angle, even 90 degrees. It will only get worse as you incline up. Tune it, ala LOST however, and you will retain more distribution of the loads further into that incline.

....

A final point Emory,,, while I largely agree with your theoretics, I've a feeling you haven't done much hands on with spirals either. Especially the heavier, thicker blank, taller reel stuff where the loading issues are exacerbated and yet, where a spiral effect can have the most usable advantage. On the theory side I think we are largely in agreement,,,, but now implement it. That's the step I've taken, to get from theory to practice.

[E. Harry]

I think that maybe we should take a step back and look at just what the function of guides is. If we set aside the affect of the mass of the guides then the function of the guides on a rod is stress distribution and line control.
Maybe I am repeating myself, but in my judgement, the distribution of the stress on a rod changes with the changes in several variables mainly including the size of the load, the angle to the load and the angle of the butt of the rod relative to the water.
When you are using a rod for fishing all 3 of these variables may be changing. Which means there is no perfect position for the guides. If you optimize the location of the guides for the distribution of the stress on the rod for one set of load and angles it will not be optimum for any other set of those variables.
This says that the positioning of guides on a rod is a compromise or a trade off. It also suggests that the positioning of the guides is not really all that critical.
Does anyone believe that moving any guide on a rod, with the possible exception of the first guide, a quarter inch or a half inch one way or the other is going to have a significant affect on the performance of the vast majority of rods. I do not. Especially on the type of heavy salt water rods that are of the most interest here.

[bass_blaster]

I think if people(Dave) want to make rods so advanced that NASA would use them in space to fish for Aliens, then they should feel free to do so and feel free to let us know how their designing them. If I don't like something I see posted on this forum, I go read a different one or get back to work. Not everybody in the 90's thought that TV's needed to be ultra thin and bright, but I sure do love watching football on my 52" LCD tv. Some people want their work to be cutting edge, even if it might not be "necessary" to their craft. It's that kind of person that advances trades so that we can all eventually benefit from their science.

I haven't tried a spiral wrapped rod yet, and I've only been building rods for about a year now, but Dave and everybody else here have been posting information that I have used to hopefully accelerate my growth as a rod builder. Even if I don't use his LOST technique when I first try a spiral, it at least gives me something to think about when I'm working on my own method.

I appreciate all the information that is shared here, even if I might personally find it to be unnecessary. I enjoy seeing the work that everyone does and I love learing from what other people share on here, whether it's tutorials, or just pictures of what they make. Keep it rollin'.

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by E. Harry

I think that maybe we should take a step back and look at just what the function of guides is. If we set aside the affect of the mass of the guides then the function of the guides on a rod is stress distribution and line control.
Maybe I am repeating myself, but in my judgement, the distribution of the stress on a rod changes with the changes in several variables mainly including the size of the load, the angle to the load and the angle of the butt of the rod relative to the water.
When you are using a rod for fishing all 3 of these variables may be changing. Which means there is no perfect position for the guides. If you optimize the location of the guides for the distribution of the stress on the rod for one set of load and angles it will not be optimum for any other set of those variables.
This says that the positioning of guides on a rod is a compromise or a trade off. It also suggests that the positioning of the guides is not really all that critical.
Does anyone believe that moving any guide on a rod, with the possible exception of the first guide, a quarter inch or a half inch one way or the other is going to have a significant affect on the performance of the vast majority of rods. I do not. Especially on the type of heavy salt water rods that are of the most interest here.

Hey,,, we are pretty much in agreement again.
Yeah, there is no optimal for all things guide setup. But,,,, if you don't tune at say 90deg, then at 135 you can end up being absolutely horrible. Tuned at 90 however, and the 135 posture can be a whole lot better. In other words, a larger margin of safety results.

And again, a poorly setup guide train can actually apply work to break the blank. The longer the section not loaded, and the higher the loads on either end of that section, the more the compounding force builds.

But again, I think you mischaracterize LOST when you alude to it involving little guide position movements. While I do that in final tweaking, that is not key. The guide height is vastly more important than a little repositioning this way or that in LOST.

Between this and the last post you made, it is becoming obvious you have not grapsed what is happening in LOST, nor have you tried it. This is not a static tuning involving moving guides around for a slight tuning, nor is it trying to get equal amounts of load on all the guides. Step back and look again, and if that doesn't sink in, follow the fairly simple instructions I posted over at the Guild side 2 years ago and then LOOK at what it is doing.

[E. Harry]

Dave,
You missed the point with my comment about small movement of guides. My point was simply that guide positioning is not very critical. It was not a comment aimed at you or what you call lost.
I do not think that your insulting comments help you make your case. "Have not grasped what is happening with lost", give me a break. I do not see anything about what you call lost that is very complicated or difficult to understand or for that matter very original either. The only thing that is difficult to understand about the lost concept is all of the gobleygook and psuedo-engineering descriptions that you have used.

[Arvin_OnTheIron]

You know, a good engineer usually creates pretty diagrams to describe, explain, and understand things better. I'm just saying...

[Owen]

So when engineers have a pissing contest....
Do they calculate wind drift vectors , Coriolis effects and relative densities of urine?