Food for thought

[Bruce Van Deuson]

As long ago as the six-strip bamboo fly rod was invented, it seems to me that if you take any rod of a given length, butt size, tip size and line weight, there would only be so many workable tapers which could be incorporated. This leaves the question...can there really be any truly proprietary tapers at this late date?


Bruce

[bluestar48]

The late Bob Norwood looked at this and concluded, not really.

He wrote an interesting paper which is included with his Taper Analysis and Design program

titled "Are there any new tapers?".

Bill

[Fcs]

I agree there are probably no really new proprietary tapers for six strip rods.

There are however a lot of new developments in other rod design areas, such as hollowing, ferrules, adhesives and guides. There are and will continue to be new taper design theories and methods, and understanding of existing tapers (such as the Marinaro tapers revealed by the research of Whittle and Harms.) And (imho) work to be done on tip design and cane evaluation. Plenty of questions for us amateur (and professional) scientists and engineers.

Frank Stetzer

[Bruce Van Deuson]

And don't forget the use by Hexagraph of a composite, synthetic cane.

Bruce

[SamNielson]

Is this available anywhere?

The late Bob Norwood looked at this and concluded, not really.
He wrote an interesting paper which is included with his Taper Analysis and Design program
titled "Are there any new tapers?".
Bill

[penta-spey]

I agree with what Frank is alluding to. That is there are many developments external to the actual tapers that tapers can yet be optimized to. Case in point fly lines for spey rods. For example : How many published tapers exist that are optimized for new short head scandi fly lines that have appeared on the market in the last 10 or 15 years? Probably zero.

[Canewrap]

I agree that coming up with a truly new taper is unlikely, but there are plenty of taper derivations that held in private hands and in some cases have been lost when the rodmaker quit or passed on. What I mean by derivations are when you have a specific length and line weight taper that is well known and liked, but to get the same feel in a much shorter or longer rod often takes some experimentation and a little tweaking. Those variations are not published anywhere. To give you an example, I love the Driggs taper, but don't have much use for a 5wt in that length, so to get close I've done some number manipulation and will build the rod. But, I'm sure that after I cast the rod I'll have some tweeks to get it closer to the feel I want. No, this not truly a new taper, but if I take the rod to a gathering and someone wants to build their own copy, I'll need to give them my numbers and not simply tell them to just take a Driggs taper (which taper would be my question) and extend it 10 inches.

To answer the other part of the OP's question I would say that you can't copyright tapers, but out of respect for someone that shares their variation/developed taper - it would be wrong to start mass producing rods that are based on a taper you were asked to hold in confidence or to publish said taper anywhere. Remember, often it was hard work on the part of someone to develop that variation.

[Mike McGuire]

If as the OP suggests you simultaneously pin down tip dimension, butt dimension and line weight, the range of possible or at least likely tapers is pretty restricted. Freeing the just the butt dimension takes you from parabolic to tip action rods at the same line weight. It also allows for a butt swell which will stiffen the grip with respect to the rest of the rod. Another possibility even with all three limitations is a discrete step in dimension at the mid point ferrule as is seen in Dickerson rods. These things all make for quite different but useful tapers.

Mike

[carl otto]

In order to properly apply hollowing to bamboo rod construction (and all of the nuances associated with the same) those folks who are true rod designers have had to develop new rod tapers to obtain the performance with the rod lengths and line weights they designed for. Imagine if one solid built a Hidy or Brandin hollow design, put all classic hardware on it, what would you have?

Are there any rod tapers that are proprietary?

Carl

[samsonboi]

How could there be? Sell a rod, someone measures it, it's out there.

[RyanAK]

There are certain gentlemanly customs that I believe should be followed with regards to copying another maker’s taper. There are sub-categories of my feelings on this, but I don’t think that’s what this thread is trying to get at.

Within the material and math, yes there are a finite number of tapers. It’s what a maker does with that taper that makes the rod. The variables of a rod are so limitless that we often say that no two rods are alike... even those built on the same taper with identical hardware and materials. So... the taper is only part of it.

You don’t necessarily even need someone else’s taper to make a rod. The guy that’s happy making clones of classic rods might... here are the numbers, set your forms, go. Nothing wrong with that. But rodmakers who are also designers often only look at other tapers to learn and then develop what rod they want from there... either mathematically, empirically, through computer assisted engineering... whatever.

Once you understand the principals of what a fly rod does, some historic taper from the Internet, a book, or taken off of a rod means less to a maker that also wants to make their own rods.

“Proprietary” has commercial and legal connotation, so I refer back to certain polite norms that my belief system tells me should be followed. I could copy a Gnomish or Thramer taper... but it wouldn’t be right. And it wouldn’t be a Gnome or AJ rod.

R

[stoneflyer]

I am of the view point that there are still newish tapers to be used and discovered. There are quite a significant number of permutations possible with the following tip, ferrule and butt dimension: .070”, 14/64 ferrule, .320” . Now if we change one of these numbers, again, significant taper permutations.

If the argument is used that tapers fall into a basic family or profile and have already been used and discovered, why the overwhelming concern that we “hit” our numbers when making a known taper?

Similarly, we hear “a few thou here and a few thousand there” makes a big difference in a the way a rod behaves. Reason would follow that these little permutations make for different rods and hence different tapers. In my eyes there is a lot to be tried and discovered.

Since a lot of makers stick to known tapers, I actually think there is a decent amount of opportunity to come up with new designs. Think about adding drops to ferrules, building on 2” Centers, staggered ferrules etc.

Lastly, casting Tim Abbott Rods at Canadian Cane every two years solidifies my conviction was that we haven’t yet exhausted all the tapers possible.

Adam

[Canewrap]

There are certain gentlemanly customs that I believe should be followed with regards to copying another maker’s taper. There are sub-categories of my feelings on this, but I don’t think that’s what this thread is trying to get at.

Within the material and math, yes there are a finite number of tapers. It’s what a maker does with that taper that makes the rod. The variables of a rod are so limitless that we often say that no two rods are alike... even those built on the same taper with identical hardware and materials. So... the taper is only part of it.

You don’t necessarily even need someone else’s taper to make a rod. The guy that’s happy making clones of classic rods might... here are the numbers, set your forms, go. Nothing wrong with that. But rodmakers who are also designers often only look at other tapers to learn and then develop what rod they want from there... either mathematically, empirically, through computer assisted engineering... whatever.

Once you understand the principals of what a fly rod does, some historic taper from the Internet, a book, or taken off of a rod means less to a maker that also wants to make their own rods.

“Proprietary” has commercial and legal connotation, so I refer back to certain polite norms that my belief system tells me should be followed. I could copy a Gnomish or Thramer taper... but it wouldn’t be right. And it wouldn’t be a Gnome or AJ rod.

R

Ryan, from my experience, you nailed it. There is definitely a deep level of wisdom in what you wrote.

[mer]

Good stuff Ryan. Legal/not Legal and right/wrong or ethical/unethical sometimes don't overlap. Most of us here are never
going to own an actual Payne/Gillium/Garrison/PHY/insert favorite past master here rod, so a modern "clone" is as close as we're ever going to get. Most of the good clones I've seen all are marked something like "Built by A, based on X taper" or something to that effect. That is honesty to me.

The trouble becomes when someone claims the rod is "X" (I believe AJ had trouble here with offshore folks duplicating the numbers and look of his rods and selling them as Thramer rods. Copycats).

One of the most interesting bits to me about the Vince Marinaro book was walking through a design. There was a sentence in there, roughly "if you are going to build a rod of a given length and weight, the dimensions fall within a range of numbers". If you keep that in mind and then go back and compare a bunch of rods you see the truth in that. Pick a bunch of 7ft6inch 4wts (Payne 100, PHY Perfectionist are 2), the numbers are different, but you can see overlaps and get a feel for the range. Now take the rest of the Marinaro design method: draw straight line tapers and plot the others around it. You wind up with some interesting pictures.

[jim royston]

My take is a little different. People who purport to have proprietary tapers that are influenced by so and so or such and such are suffering from a surplus of hubris. The parameters are controlled by length and ferrule size for all intents and purposes. To claim that you have reinvented the wheel by adding or subtracting a few thou here and there is a reach.
The most copied and "reinvented" rod is easily the Paul Young Perfectionist. Everybody makes one. Most call it something else. But a few thou here and there does not make it something else. It likely has a negligible effect and possibly a negative effect. The idea that somehow you have divined a rod that is superior to the original is only in your head.

[mrampant]

Now for another spanner, how about if you introduce bamboo ferrules? Now ferrules are not limited, and any size within reason as well as step up/down sizing along with staggered ferrules? It is like music..... to my ears/ fingers.
My AUD $.02
Cheers. Mark

[Gnome]

The GRW 11/7 is a flat average of 11 tapers and it only comes within 3 thousandths at one station of any of the rod tapers used and it is way different at all other stations with a difference of 5 thousandths or more. So I would say that it is a fairly unique taper when compared to its progenitors with the differences at the stations being as far apart from the existing tapers used for the flat average.

[Tim Anderson]

In some ways similar to what Jeff did with his GRW 11/7, before making my first rod, I graphed up many different tapers (as points, not lines) and used the trends of those clouds of point graphs to work out my own first taper. Since then, I have been modifying that original taper in many different ways to make rods with my own tapers. Are they proprietary? Not really. Do they resemble tapers made by others? Probably, but I don't bother to check. Are my rods limited by ferrule sizes. No, because I make my own carbon-fiber tube and spigot ferrules.

What I remained amazed about is how very small changes in my tapers can be recognized by expert casters. That suggests to me that there is still great opportunity for original tapers as well as for subtle and major modification of existing tapers.

Tim

[Gnome]

In some ways similar to what Jeff did with his GRW 11/7, before making my first rod, I graphed up many different tapers (as points, not lines) and used the trends of those clouds of point graphs to work out my own first taper. Since then, I have been modifying that original taper in many different ways to make rods with my own tapers. Are they proprietary? Not really. Do they resemble tapers made by others? Probably, but I don't bother to check. Are my rods limited by ferrule sizes. No, because I make my own carbon-fiber tube and spigot ferrules.

What I remained amazed about is how very small changes in my tapers can be recognized by expert casters. That suggests to me that there is still great opportunity for original tapers as well as for subtle and major modification of existing tapers.

Tim

Yep +1