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

[venturarodlure]

Originally Posted by Owen

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

Instead of just drinking more beer beforehand to compensate for any possible outside factor...

[chronzzz]

i totally understand i concept of LOST... not sure why others can't comprehend...

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Did you or did you not say LOST was trying to put equal loads on the guides. Did you or did you not say minor movement of guides back and forth was minor, and in a response addressing LOST? Did you or did you not claim that LOST was flawed because it was not redistributing akin to blank bending dynamics? Yes you did. What all of those points highlighted to me is that you do not have a handle on it.
And frankly I've seen nothing like the LOST setup anywhere else, so I'm not sure what you mean by not very original. Now in the last 2 years, however, I have seen bits and pieces 'appropriated' by others,,,, but funny how they never did it previously isn't it.
You are doing a lot of poo-poo'ing, but I'm not hearing a thing out of you regarding solutions or anything constructive either.

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by Arvin_OnTheIron

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

Point taken. I've a to-do to write up with nice diagrams and examples. I have had to do some very crude diagrams in the past for a few folks. Mostly tho, that single original pic I linked showing the first LOST with 3 different loading levels got the point across.

Originally Posted by venturarodlure

Instead of just drinking more beer beforehand to compensate for any possible outside factor...

Damn John, you're right,,,, BEER! That was the missing ingredient!.

Originally Posted by chronzzz

i totally understand i concept of LOST... not sure why others can't comprehend...

See the bulleted list I posted earlier. Mostly tho, I think they understand it enough to then find it threatening to themselves in some way. Consider the arguments. Mischaracterizations and personal attacks pretty much tell you the motives at work.

[DenisB]

Interesting discussion.
Same deal with cars
you can fuel 'em & drive em
you can bling them
you can focus on aerodynamics, suspension rates, chassis flex and all the highly technical bits in engine performance.
Bottom line..........they all go down the road & get from A to B if you don't abuse them.

What makes a better car depends on your perspective;-
-reliability, style, performance
and your judgement is very coloured by your understanding of the attribute you favour.
Note the emphasis on "understanding"

I like the way Doc says I don't need to know how or why something works........just that it does.

It takes someone to do the hard yards to identify why & how something does what it does for the rest of us to appreciate the difference.
Heck...........I guess if it wasn't for people like Dale Clemens & others publishing stuff ages ago we would all still be doing simple wraps .
Some of us appreciate complex wrap work , or weaves, others like bright colours or subdued colours...etc etc.........no big deal.
It took people like Owen Dare & others to develop highly technical programs like P2W etc to make life easier for the rest of us & once we are satisfied that it works we don't need to know how or why it does it...........just that it does.
Rod building engineering is the same.........different strokes for different folks.
If its not to your taste there is no need to belittle the attempts of others to develop ideas in the field.............get a life............ stick to those things you understand and appreciate.
Any rod that successfully catches fish is a good rod ...........some are just "gooder' than others and beauty/ appreciation is in the eye/hand of the beholder.

Kudos Dale, Doc , John, Scott Throop, Owen, Mark & others
love your work & attitude to rodbuilding & life in general.
What is appreciated most is your contribution to the evolution of rod building.
I don't see the pedantic criticism of Dave's concept contributing anything to rodbuilding.

Besides.........getting banned from RBO is a badge of honour for any freethinking rodbuilder with different ideas. The list of rodbuilders banned from that site ( or simply choosing not to post there) for daring to have a different point of view to the editorial content is significant.........so there is little benefit in judgement from that particular site.

The strength of BD in its rodbuilding & lurebuilding forums is there is NO EDITORIAL INPUT other than personal or non-contributory posts ( even off-colour language is tolerated) ............that strength is gained from individuals putting their stuff on the board for others to take or leave as they personally see fit. discussion rarely involves adversarial this is right or wrong............. its just " this is what I do" .If you benefit from it .........thats great..........if its not to your taste you don't have to read it and certainly isn't going to contribute anything if its just sour grapes and its not a sound technical critique of what has been presented.

Just another 2C worth

[DocSki]

Leave it to the two Aussies to bring this matter back to earth. "Different strokes for different folks"------what a consept-------Some one should name it. Maybe Freedom---huh? Hope it catches on. Bye the Bye Thank You Denis

[Owen]

Lest it be thought otherwise....
My smart arsed comment earlier was not a commentary on Dave's theories, but an expression of my sadness that a subject that by it's very nature has so many variables as to be almost impossible to economically prove is being pursued to the point of personal attacks.
My only criticism of Dave's graphs (which I made in public) is that without a corresponding graph of a conventional rod using the same components, what are we looking at?
One could easily counter that using a different method may produce results better suited to a blank of a different kind, meaning to achieve the same result you MUST use different parts.
I understand the concept Dave promotes and I see the logic. Is it better?? dunno and don't really care.
I understand the logic in micro guides too.
I understand the logic is the spine vs straightest axis arguments too.
Strangely only one idea gets attacked so vehemently when you dare espouse it over whtever method has been annointed by a chosen few.

At the end of the day I know sweet FA about rod building. I don't have 10,000 builds and 100 side by side tests behind me to base my ideas on. I put some fancy thread work on that in reality can do nothing but degrade the performance of a blank.
In the end though I'll just use my limited logic to figure out what "advancements" I feel are worthwhile to incorporate into my builds and what I'll leave to others.
Non-acceptance doesn't mean better or worse. Remember VHS vs beta?
Gotta go mark the spine on a blank....

Then I might go fishin
Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

[Bada Bing]

4 pages of "you said this and you don't understand that and I understand but you said your cat's farts are smellier than mine." This is such a lame thread, I can't believe it's going on so long. It seems there's just two of you, ya'll oughta take it outside.

[Russ57]

Owen, it depends on how many beers and if they can piss over their shoulder or not. This might be a deep south american thang though.

You know, one thing that strikes me is what a crude solution a rod and reel is for catching a fish from an engineering standpoint. Can anyone show me a hoist or winch that has a flexible boom and multiple guides?

I submit we are all caveman thirsting for battle with our deep sea foes. Sure we may have the fine balanced and pretty spears. Still a more efficent means is easy to accomplish.

Face it...we want the fun/sweat/blood/tears. Otherwise we'd check into a 5 star motel, have lobster and drinks while getting a massage at the pool, please the wifey, and save money in the process. Ahh but what is the sport in that!

[DenisB]

Originally Posted by Russ57

I submit we are all caveman thirsting for battle with our deep sea foes. Sure we may have the fine balanced and pretty spears. Still a more efficent means is easy to accomplish.

Yep & Owen makes some of the nicest & prettiest spears and impalers going round.

[finadict]

Originally Posted by Owen

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

Yep!, But the one thats always overlooked is the Coanda effect when you piss too close to your own leg.

A fishing rod has to serve several different functions, and different dynamics are at play with each. A rod isnt just a fish retrieval tool, it has to serve as a bait delivery and presentation tool as well. Rods have to be strong and durable, yet lightweight. They have to have the right action to fight a fish, as well as the right action to cast effectively. Rods need larger guides and more of em to distribute load, yet they need smaller and fewer of them to preserve recoil for an efficient cast. They need to be pretty, yet still be submitted to some of the harshest environments on the planet. Rear grips need to be longer for casting leverage, but need to be shorter for fish fighting comfort and leverage. I could go on and on...

At some point over engineering and perfecting a certain aspect of a rods function, will take away from the effectiveness of another somewhere. Its impossible to build the perfect fishing rod in every aspect. I think the biggest engineering challenge is finding the happy mediums.

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by Owen

My only criticism of Dave's graphs (which I made in public) is that without a corresponding graph of a conventional rod using the same components, what are we looking at?
One could easily counter that using a different method may produce results better suited to a blank of a different kind, meaning to achieve the same result you MUST use different parts.

Ask and you shall receive. Remember I did the B&W pair, a LOST spiral and a conventional for a charity earlier this year. Same components, except for the guides. Here's the composite chart.
I was real pleased with the LOST result in this case, but on the conventional I could obviously have tuned the guides for those two dips better.
Still, I'm pretty happy with the comparison. The two curves are roughly similar. That is FAR away from what a short transition (or zero transition guide) spiral is going to yield without LOST concepts applied.

What I'm not capturing is the strength of the spiral effect. I think it safe to say that LOST yields the strongest spiral effect of any spiral tho, since the tall running guides are acting as long levers. That's certainly a big piece of why Doc noted it was very stabile in the Bud rod assessment elsewhere.