Cost of rods

loxie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
414
Yes, it's about casting with rods at targets 25', 45', and 70' distance. So?
Well I suppose I prefer a fishing rod to a casting rod so the shootout definition of what constitutes better performance is irrelevant to me. I suspect I'm not alone in that. It is impossible to try to quantify what's a good or a bad rod in that sort of way.
 

original cormorant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
747
it's in the thread somewhere, if you want it, you'll have to go back a while.
There are 137 pages of this thread. A couple of times in the past few pages you've mentioned sexyloops shootouts. So far as I'm aware there are none on the sexyloops website, so where are you getting this from?
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
Well I suppose I prefer a fishing rod to a casting rod so the shootout definition of what constitutes better performance is irrelevant to me. I suspect I'm not alone in that. It is impossible to try to quantify what's a good or a bad rod in that sort of way.
Sure, there's more to a rod than how accurate it is as a tool. But this is something that can be measured and that the manufacturers make claims for And that seems fairly important?
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
There are 137 pages of this thread. A couple of times in the past few pages you've mentioned sexyloops shootouts. So far as I'm aware there are none on the sexyloops website, so where are you getting this from?
It's from the Sexyloops website and it's in this thread.
 

loxie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
414
Sure, there's more to a rod than how accurate it is as a tool. But this is something that can be measured and that the manufacturers make claims for And that seems fairly important?
accuracy of one caster with that rod can be measured against another. That is no guarantee that it will be the same for a different caster. The relevance of accuracy depends on proposed use. Accuracy with a 15' 10wt and a skagit plus 15' of T20 is very different to accuracy with and 8' 3wt. Casting is a much overrated part of fishing and rod sellers take advantage of this my making rods that are primarily for casting. I have cast fly rods a great deal and reckon I can cast pretty much anything well enough. I own quite a few rods, I've actually no idea how many. The rods I use are never chosen for casting distance or accuracy. Therefore, to me at least, any attempt to quantitively measure performance is irrelevant and gives no indication of value for money.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
accuracy of one caster with that rod can be measured against another. That is no guarantee that it will be the same for a different caster.
The results are an average of several casters.

The relevance of accuracy depends on proposed use. Accuracy with a 15' 10wt and a skagit plus 15' of T20 is very different to accuracy with and 8' 3wt.
From memory, the rods are all trout rods, mostly 9' #5. None are large salmon rods.

Casting is a much overrated part of fishing and rod sellers take advantage of this my making rods that are primarily for casting. I have cast fly rods a great deal and reckon I can cast pretty much anything well enough.
Me too. That's one of the points I keep making.

I own quite a few rods, I've actually no idea how many. The rods I use are never chosen for casting distance or accuracy. Therefore, to me at least, any attempt to quantitively measure performance is irrelevant and gives no indication of value for money.
I'd go a bit further and say that 95% of an accurate cast is down to the caster and only a few really good casters can make that extra 5% (or whatever) that might be in the rod make a difference.

What you're saying is that that you know what you like. You're one of the lucky ones that can find what you like. Most of us have to like what we know. This is why when someone comes here asking for a rod recommendation you get a pile of 'well I like my x'. It's subjective isn't it?
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
I didn't ask for secondhand stuff - I asked for a link to the page on sexyloops. I can't find one in my world.
If it's still raining tomorrow I might go looking for it; the link will be in the post. But I can tell you, it's the same conclusion. This post is actually about Yellowstone data.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
36,460
Both statements are true.
If 'steep diminishing returns' is objectively true based on your graph, then 'price does not predict performance' is subjectively misleading.

You can't have an absence of performance indicator if there are diminishing returns.

I hope you don't work in interpreting data!
 

original cormorant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
747
If it's still raining tomorrow I might go looking for it; the link will be in the post. But I can tell you, it's the same conclusion. This post is actually about Yellowstone data.
You stated that there were yellowstone, trident and sexyloops shootouts. Did you make up a sexyloops shootout? Were you quoting a friend of a friend? Is it a fake ?
 

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,566
Location
Devon
Out of interest... how would you ‘quantify’ value for money?
accuracy of one caster with that rod can be measured against another. That is no guarantee that it will be the same for a different caster. The relevance of accuracy depends on proposed use. Accuracy with a 15' 10wt and a skagit plus 15' of T20 is very different to accuracy with and 8' 3wt. Casting is a much overrated part of fishing and rod sellers take advantage of this my making rods that are primarily for casting. I have cast fly rods a great deal and reckon I can cast pretty much anything well enough. I own quite a few rods, I've actually no idea how many. The rods I use are never chosen for casting distance or accuracy. Therefore, to me at least, any attempt to quantitively measure performance is irrelevant and gives no indication of value for money.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
If 'steep diminishing returns' is objectively true based on your graph, then 'price does not predict performance' is subjectively misleading.
'Price does not predict performance' is a statement derived directly from there being no statistically valid correlation between price and preformance. For example you can not pick a random $800 rod and know that it will perform better than a random $400 rod.

You can't have no performance indicator if there are diminishing returns.......you wouldn't have any.
The data is essentially random, but as I said, I'm giving it the benefit of doubt because Excel thinks it can fit a line through it that isn't horizontal - the correlation isn't zero or negative, it's just not nearly enough to be regarded as a reliable result - regardless of the quantity of data points it now has in it. You couldn't publish it in a science journal.

If you prefer, I'll say you that statistically we can't be sure that you get *any* performance increase for an increase in price.

In either case it should be surprising; why is there not a large, measureable and obvious performance difference between a low cost and a high cost rod?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
36,460
If you prefer, I'll say you that statistically we can't be sure that you get *any* performance increase for an increase in price.

In either case it should be surprising; why is there not a large, measureable and obvious performance difference between a low cost and a high cost rod?
I think that would be more accurate, and no more than everyone has been saying in the thread.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
[
Out of interest... how would you ‘quantify’ value for money?
I wouldn't and I'm not trying to. Performance is a specific, objective measurement. We've had others, weight and distance for example - neither correlate strongly with cost.

There are other things that matter to individuals apart from performance of course - brand, quality of fittings, warrantee, colour, feel, pride of ownership, even high price ('reassuringly expensive'), but for a tool, performance surely has to be important? Particularly if the manufacturers are making claims about it.

All I'm trying to do here is show that premium rods are not the overwhelmingly high performance tools they are marketed to be. These days pretty much any modern carbon rod over a minimum price of, say £75 is going to be a very good rod decently made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atr

original cormorant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
747
Casting is a much overrated part of fishing and rod sellers take advantage of this my making rods that are primarily for casting.

The rods I use are never chosen for casting distance or accuracy.
A couple of interesting statements there.

First so what should be the primary function of a rod?

Second if you don't choose rods for casting distance or accuracy how do you choose a rod? Cosmetics, fish fighting, status?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
36,460
So you now accept that "price does not predict performance“ Sheesh...
My first post on it...28th Feb 2016..

If you know what your about you don't need to look at the brand, you can pick a rod up and know its value to you, its a tool to do a job and what you can do with it is far more important than who made it or what their economics are.
 
Top