What is a modern taper?

[Abg]

Morning all,
I keep hearing references to modern bamboo tapers but what does that mean?

Is there a definition for this?

I guess the simplest way to categorise this would be to say tapers by X are ‘classic tapers’ and those by Y are modern…

So Garrison tapers might be seen as classic but someone like Bjarne Fries, more modern…?

I expect things are not quite that simple!

Any help greatly appreciated.

Andrew

[Canewrap]

Your analogy of the Garrison vs Bjarne Fries is no doubt a good example if Bjarne was producing a rod that he came up with by modifying an existing taper. I frequently mix tip tapers from one maker with the butt taper from another maker or design the butt section from scratch by using a linear taper and then modifying it with a hinge or two (short almost no increase in taper sections). In my opinion, modern tapers are tapers that cannot be attributed to a specific 'golden age' rodmaker (I would define as pre the 1950s embargo) and is usually a mix of maker's styles. Oh, and the modern taper, as you referred to it, is not necessarily better, just different. And, because we don't have acess to all the tapers ever used, it's entirely possible that the modified taper is just repeat of someone else's taper from the 'golden age'.

[henkverhaar]

The only reasonable definition I can think of would be a taper that was designed to suit a contemporary fishing style (or terminal tackle or casting style). There _probably_ are taper characteristics that represent many of the rods from the say 1930 vs characteristics that represent current rods, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a similar taper wasn't made by at least someone in the 'golden age'. So I think that when looking just at tapers only it's hard to come up with what constitutes a 'modern' taper. Hence the fishing style definition...

[cdmoore]

Some other possible dividing lines and examples:

--rods using adhesives other than hide glue

--rods designed when silk lines were the norm vs rods designed when PVC lines were the norm

--rods designed before/after nylon tippet came to market

--rods designed using algorithms (EC Powell) or math (Garrison, Montagne, Satoh) to generate bending characteristics

--rods designed using hollowbuilding as a primary feature (Powell, Winston) or when hollowbuilding became prevalent (Montagne, Brandin)

--rods using ferrule materials other than metal

--rods designed to accommodate anglers used to or also fishing glass and graphite

There may other, earlier, better examples of builders, methods, etc., than those I listed.

[Canewrap]

I like cdmoore's approach to the question and I would guess it's probably closer to the intent of the question. If you just consider taper, it's a hard question to answer. I attempted to in my post above, but the more I thought about it after I posted that, the more I was sure I missed the real intent of the question. I think if you consider modern vs classic rodmaking construction techniques, it makes more sense.

[GerardH]

Is the question modern tapers or modern rods? If the latter, I agree with cdmoore's answer; but if the former, I think Canewrap hit it on his initial response.

[oddsnrods]

While no expert on taper design, I have noticed some makers, wanting to appeal to potential buyers, at times refer to their 'own, special or modern' tapers.

Ron Barch, in Best of the Planing Form (2) writes, in the taper design section:

' A well- respected rodmaker I know when asked about rod tapers, stated, "There's not much new under the sun." As I get a chance to cast a lot of different rod tapers, I would have to agree. Every once in awhile something comes along that really stands out from the crowd, but usually it's not the taper but rather the craftsmanship and cosmetics. Rod tapers are a personal choice, and a good caster can make almost any rod work, within its limitations of course.'

Malcolm

[henkverhaar]

While no expert on taper design, I have noticed some makers, wanting to appeal to potential buyers, at times refer to their 'own, special or modern' tapers.

Well, I have my own, special, homegrown taper as well (which I will go some length not to divulge - but could always be mic-ed of course ;-) ), but I won't go as far as claiming it is unique, or even modern, as I've discovered that some (granted, somewhat esoteric) old tapers are pretty similar...

[Abg]

Thanks all for the comments - I thought it would be more complex and no simple answer.

The question was specifically regarding modern tapers however I can see how modern building techniques could affect tapers.

Andrew

[DireWolf53]

Not being a maker I would submit that a modern taper would simply be any rod specifically designed to cast plastic lines.

[j.robillard]

I'm working on an original SB 290. Before stripping it down to bare cane, I cast it and fished it. It's a sweet 5-5.5wt rod. Compared to any of my bamboo rods (Garrison, Powell and Dickerson clones, plus some original Grangers) the action of the 290 felt more like my contemporary S-glass and medium to medium fast graphite rods. The 290 has flex midway into the butt section, but not too much and the tips are a little stiffer. As has been noted, it's a faster action, but still maintains enough flex and feel down the rod to give feedback.

In general, I'd say modern tapers lean towards faster actions, and rods are also lighter weight. That said, you can find rods of that sort from many decades back.

[Canewrap]

Now, that 290 you were fishing and working with is one of the notable exceptions to the blue-collar rods of yesteryear. That model, the H-I Tonka Queen, and the H-I Tonka Prince are rods that have maintained a timeless appeal. There weren't too many rods in the mass-produced rods that were that good and maintained a decent price point. In fact, a modern maker that based some of his work off of those models wouldn't go wrong. This is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a "modern" taper and thought maybe it should be tied more to modern construction methods, since things like radical hollowing, the Poor Man's Quad, use of space-age epoxies, and single foot quides, etc. have only been discussed and developed in more modern makers shops. I saw where someone said that we are the ones that live in the golden age of bamboo rodmaking and from a quality standpoint, I would say definitely.

[carl otto]

A fly rod , regardless of the material it is made of is designed to cast a line within specific weight tolerances. What that line is made of has impact on certain qualities of performance (shooting, guide size,...), but it is still the weight the rod is designed to cast. So to say a modern rod is one which is designed to cast "plastic" lines does not seem to be a qualifier for "modern". Does no one cast their older bamboo rods with "plastic" lines? Has every rod designed since, say 1960, been uniquely designed to cast anything other than "plastic" lines?

One would have to believe that since bamboo has come onto the market as a material to build fly rods from, in the some 150+ years it has been in use, with the large number of rod manufacturers (Payne, Winston, Thomas, T & T, Young, Dickerson, South Bend, Heddon, Leonard, Granger, Phillipson, etc.) in that time period, along with the numerous one off builders out there (Garrison, Jenkins,....), that the chance for someone coming up with a "new" solid rod taper is pretty slim.

I would class a "modern bamboo rod taper" as one that is hollow built, using all contemporary techniques and materials consciously used to support the taper design, along with the rod taper changes that the hollowing methodology allows to occur in the rod taper. E. C. Powell could be looked upon as the beginning of this "modern" rod design. In the past 30+ years a number of builders have greatly refined this thinking and applied it to achieving, lighter more responsive bamboo rods, not possible with a solid build taper.

Please read this definition carefully. One cannot take a classic taper, hollow it, without any other changes and say it is "modern". Although some classic tapers do work well towards that goal. It is combining the theory of what the hollowing is doing to the rod performance, along with using materials in the build supporting that, which creates a lighter more responsive rod, that physically cannot be achieved with a solid build.

Carl

[Don Andersen]

Tapers followed fashion. Once the rods were long, casts short, wet flies used. The rods got shorter and dry flies appeared followed by nymphs etc.
Rod rapers were developed to present the flies as the angler wished. And that’s just for trout. Salt and steelhead and away we go again.

Don

[BigTJ]

The tapers themselves haven’t really changed. It’s the application of them. Aggressive hollow building, internal hollow storing, and graphite ferrules open the door to a wider application of existing tapers. As do some of the geometries that weren’t widely applied before the 90’s. But at the heart of it the outside numbers, slopes, etc are constrained in an envelope between progressive and regressive - there are only so many possible combinations and they have pretty much all been tried by the middle of the 20th century at latest.

John

[carl otto]

I agree with John. In the last 30 years there have been a couple of serious students of rod design who have advanced the formerly less common hollow building beyond what the originators did. Yes, to reinforce with John, there are no new solid build tapers since the middle of the last century. The noted students however, have taken the hollow build work of E. C. Powell and others and applied themselves more exactingly towards a pursuit of refinement where every aspect of the hollow rod construction, hardware, wrapping, finishing, etc. is directed to supporting and applifying the dynamic structural aspect of the rod's performance promoted by the hollowing. Due to the "recent" time frame this has happened in I reiterate, to me this sets this work as being "modern" in support of the original question.

Carl

[penta-spey]

If a taper is a group of station numbers and associated specific rod thickness dimension then tapers have changed. Lighter building means the taper has/will change based on lighter building.

If a taper is a line shape from a basic graph of thickness dimensions verses station numbers then I would say tapers have not changed much. The taper shapes have long been established many moons ago.

[penta-spey]

So is a taper a general line shape or a group of specific dimensions?

[Tim Anderson]

So is a taper a general line shape or a group of specific dimensions?

In the case of my tapers, it's both. To develop and/or modify a taper, I start with a group of specific dimensions, graph them, look at the line shape, change dimensions (numbers) to make the shape pleasing to my eye (and to match my pre-conceived notions of how the rod might cast), and then iterate that process until I have the taper I want to make.

Are my tapers modern? Haven't really a clue, because I almost never compare them to existing tapers. And I only do that when prompted by others to check on an existing taper. Do I care if they are "modern?" Not really, the only thing important to me is how they cast and fish.

Tim

[BigTJ]

So is a taper a general line shape or a group of specific dimensions?

In my mind it’s a line shape that results in a characteristic rod action. If it’s specific dimensions then that’s a can of worms no two rods are exactly alike where do you draw the line? That’s how I see it but maybe others don’t agree.

John