BassPro Clearance SALE ad |
Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Graphite Rods Explained What is IM6 IM7 and IM8? Read the article to find out

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Graphite Rods Explained What is IM6 IM7 and IM8? Read the article to find out

    While looking around at another web site I found a link to this article about Graphite Rods. C Loomis explains the about rods and graphite rods.

    http://www.flwoutdoors.com/article.cfm?id=141123



    Hope this clears some things up for you all. It did for me to a degree. Now if all the other rod manufactures would give us the right infor hehe

    Regards,

    Moose1am

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Shreveport,LA
    Posts
    2,020
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Hey. Moose1am.......

    Thanks for the post. I've always wondered what all those ratings were. I had always thought the higher the IM#, the better the grade of graphite. I DID know if you got a ding on a graphite rod, it was all over for that one. I guess I'm too rough on them, I have broken too many high end rods and have gone to composites. (gets to be expensive) Still use my B&M rods though. Good post, Moose, and best of luck!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Keystone State
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Wait a minute - I'm confused (actually I'm convinced that's a well written article that tells us absolutely nothing)

    "How many times have you been told that the difference between IM6, IM7 and IM8 is the difference in quality standard, or that the higher the modulus, the more graphite was used to produce the rod?" This is how the article starts - Good question, and many times; including by the rod manufacturer themselves - Does this mean they are guilty of false advertising?

    "Loomis began by explaining that the identifiers IM6, IM7 and IM8 are the trade numbers used by the Hexcel Corp. to identify their product and is not an industry quality or material standard....." Good, I can accept that fact. But keep this in mind (it will come up later) Why do they have three different identifiers for one product. I'm assuming at this point it's the same product because of the statement in the first quote that IM6. IM7, and IM8 are not different qualities.

    " An acceptable strain rate for a fishing rod is 680,000 or higher. A graphite rod made from IM6 Hercules Fibers will have a modulus of 36 million and a strain rate of 750,000....." Ok, now what can I compare that to?

    "Intermediate modulus rods (33 million to 42 million) with high strain rates (700,000 or higher) still offer a lot of sensitivity and responsiveness and are quite durable" Well said - IM6 is an intermediate status rod. Now, what about the specs for IM7 and/or IM8?

    "The high-modulus, high-strain-rate, extremely light rods are usually a rod manufacturer’s high-end product. These rods are the ultimate in responsiveness and sensitivity, and they cost a lot more than the average fishing rod." Ooops - there's my answer. Would this be relating to the unspoken IM7 and/or IM8 graphite built rods? Must be - they're more expensive.

    Think about this article, or please explain it to me, because I obviously missed something. After reading the article I still don't know what IM7 and IM8 are. Are they just IM6 in disquise? After all, they aren't anything but identifing numbers. (To Id what?) they did a good job telling us some specifics about IM6, but did nothing to compare it to IM7 and/or IM8. And if IM6, IM7, and IM8 are the same thing (just an identifier) why are the rods priced differently? Take note to the last quote. Or are we getting shelled by the rod manufactures'?

    Someone got good information and forgot to share all of it in that article - or someone's doing what he(they) can to protect a secret by obscurring the facts.

    It doesn't seem that I don't believe everything I read does it? :D
    zigsjigs@att.net

  4. #4
    CrappiePappy's Avatar
    CrappiePappy is offline Super Moderator - 2013 Man Of The Year * Crappie.com Supporter
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,245
    Post Thanks / Like

    Lightbulb as I understand it ...

    the article says that IM6 is the general "norm" for a flexible, but slightly heavier rod. Go to an IM7 and the rod gets lighter and stiffer - and go to an IM8 and it's even lighter and stiffer.

    Take a look at these articles and you may have a better understanding of what all the terminology means :

    http://www.flyanglersonline.com/begi...ite/index.html

    ... this is a multi-part article about graphite fly rods, but the info translates to all graphite rod blanks. You may only need to read the first 3 or 4 parts.

    http://www.flyanglersonline.com/cst/cst010801.html

    ... this is a multi-part article/discussion on "modulus", by various rod company reps.

    As is stated in these articles (and known by those of us who have rods of several different brands) ... IM6/7/8 on one brand of rod, may not be exactly the same on another brand - just like a MH or ML rod of one brand doesn't feel or perform the same as a MH or ML of another. The number and type of guides on a rod changes it's action, feel, and weight (as does the type and length of handle/reel seat).
    The confusion seems to stem from the fact that there is no overall "standard" terminology for the makeup of the various rods. This is one reason why having "rod in hand with reel attached" is the best way to determine if the oufit is the one you want, for the application you intend to use it !! ............luck2ya ...........cp




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    What about fiberglass and E glass? What I have returned to after finally figuring out more fish and less breakage is the right way to go. Heck I may read the article now. thanks.

    hmmm... a broken rod stars in article. guess my old eagle claws still win.
    I guess if you can afford graphite and its 'upkeep' go for it. I will keep abusing the yellow rods.
    Last edited by blufloyd; 09-07-2004 at 06:52 PM. Reason: read article
    Likes downsouth LIKED above post

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Big Zig:
    I felt the same way after reading that article. That was maybe one of the reasons I posted the link to it. I must admit that after reading that article the title of my post should have been changed. Maybe that was why I put a ? mark at the end of my title in my post.

    I am going to read Crappie Pappies links and see if I can get more information.

    Basically I came away with the knowledge that the IM6, IM7 and IM8 where only relevant in the one manufactures factory and that they applied to no other manufacture.

    Modulus and Breaking Strenght were the factors that mattered most and the G Loomis either by design or by neglect failed to relate those IM # to the strenght of the rods. It's was implied somewhat I guess as CP suggested but not really clearly stated in the G loomis article.

    We are to assume that IM8 is better than IM6 but then again I can't see any where that the Loomis guy actually says that IM8 is lighter than IM6 nor did I see where he said it was stronger. It's implied by only by the increasing numbers. After all we would not number them higher if they were the same now would they? We really don't know for sure what the numbers actually mean.

    I have the artilce that CP gave the link to but I will go read it now and come back and talk more about this subject after I read the article.



    Quote Originally Posted by Big Zig
    Wait a minute - I'm confused (actually I'm convinced that's a well written article that tells us absolutely nothing)

    "How many times have you been told that the difference between IM6, IM7 and IM8 is the difference in quality standard, or that the higher the modulus, the more graphite was used to produce the rod?" This is how the article starts - Good question, and many times; including by the rod manufacturer themselves - Does this mean they are guilty of false advertising?

    "Loomis began by explaining that the identifiers IM6, IM7 and IM8 are the trade numbers used by the Hexcel Corp. to identify their product and is not an industry quality or material standard....." Good, I can accept that fact. But keep this in mind (it will come up later) Why do they have three different identifiers for one product. I'm assuming at this point it's the same product because of the statement in the first quote that IM6. IM7, and IM8 are not different qualities.

    " An acceptable strain rate for a fishing rod is 680,000 or higher. A graphite rod made from IM6 Hercules Fibers will have a modulus of 36 million and a strain rate of 750,000....." Ok, now what can I compare that to?

    "Intermediate modulus rods (33 million to 42 million) with high strain rates (700,000 or higher) still offer a lot of sensitivity and responsiveness and are quite durable" Well said - IM6 is an intermediate status rod. Now, what about the specs for IM7 and/or IM8?

    "The high-modulus, high-strain-rate, extremely light rods are usually a rod manufacturer’s high-end product. These rods are the ultimate in responsiveness and sensitivity, and they cost a lot more than the average fishing rod." Ooops - there's my answer. Would this be relating to the unspoken IM7 and/or IM8 graphite built rods? Must be - they're more expensive.

    Think about this article, or please explain it to me, because I obviously missed something. After reading the article I still don't know what IM7 and IM8 are. Are they just IM6 in disquise? After all, they aren't anything but identifing numbers. (To Id what?) they did a good job telling us some specifics about IM6, but did nothing to compare it to IM7 and/or IM8. And if IM6, IM7, and IM8 are the same thing (just an identifier) why are the rods priced differently? Take note to the last quote. Or are we getting shelled by the rod manufactures'?

    Someone got good information and forgot to share all of it in that article - or someone's doing what he(they) can to protect a secret by obscurring the facts.

    It doesn't seem that I don't believe everything I read does it? :D
    Regards,

    Moose1am

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Keystone State
    Posts
    637
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "That means marketing has unlimited means with which to present modulus. Since there are no industry standards that I am aware of, there is no way to compare apples to apples, i.e. the modulus of say IM6 to one manufacturer will not be the same as the modulus of IM6 used by another manufacturer."

    Sounds to me like the industry needs to start regulating things. My first question after this little paragraph is; Who's going to start claiming they have the more superior IM6 graphite?

    "I am neither an acknowledged nor professed expert in the field of graphite. I am not an engineer, a materials mechanic or a chemist. But, I have been involved in the fishing rod industry for almost 25 years as a private label rod maker. I have been involved almost exclusively in the manufacture of fly rods for the past 10 years. I have long questioned what modulus means. As I understand the term, it is simply a designation of any material's capacity to withstand deflection, or bending without breaking"

    Finally someone who doesn't profess to be an expert, but base off of personnal experience - I'd look at his rods just based off that statement.

    "The search goes on. ~ Jim Lapage, Orvis"
    Yes it does Jim, yes it does.............

    crappiepappy - good reading, thanks for the links. I have an understanding of the construction of graphite rods, but the article Moose linked lead us to believe it would dispell the myths around the subject - and IMHO failed in doing so. To us as consumers, the construction process and physics enginneering of rods is a wash - they are already built, we just need to know what to look for in a quality rod. I'm a firm believer that you get what you pay for - but if this "standard" of graphite construction varys from manufacturer to manufacturer, it's not a "standard" at all.
    I picked up my BPS catalog this morning and went to the G.Lommis rods - there is no mention of IM-anything in the descriptions of any of their rods. St. Croix was the same way, they use SC1, SC11, and SC111 to compare their rods - here again; Who's using the superior materials?
    The Shakespeare rod I just bought (10'6"), was purchased because of feel and design - what I was looking for. The rod "claims" IM8 graphite blank and part of my decision was based off that claim. Now I don't know if it should have even been in the equation. Do I like the rod - yes. Does it matter that the rod was under $80.00? Heck yeah, I can afford that. How can we, as consumers, know that the $125.00 IM8 rod is any different from an $80.00 IM8 rod? After reading everything that's been linked here - I can't, and you can't trust the manufacturers' to compare their products because there is no standard!!

    Have I ever told you about Zaino? Now there's a product you can trust.
    zigsjigs@att.net

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

BACK TO TOP