short range line recommendations

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,273
OK, I think we need to put down some markers on definitions here to help this discussion along:-

  • Action - The part where the majority off the bending of this rod is focused
    • Tip
    • Mid-Tip
    • Full
    • You can also include a 4th in a parabolic action where the bending is consistent throughout the length of the rod. This I think was a favoured taper for some older split-cane tapers and has a following...
    • Basically Action describes where the rod bends, not by how much for a given input
So far so good - and what is written in 'understanding' thread.

  • Speed
    • Fast
    • Medium
    • Slow
    • Basically Speed describes how much the rod bends for a given input, not where it bends.

This is where it goes pear-shaped for me (and others I've noticed).

When we say a rod is fast we seem to be always referring to where the rod bends. Tip action rods are fast, full action rods are slow.

Can a full action rod be fast?


There is a general conflation of the terms Action and Speed and of course the term Power.
Never a truer word said. But you can assume that I do understand that we use the term 'power' for a rod as a shorthand.

The use of the term Power is a useful shorthand and I use it myself as a quick and dirty way of describing a rods Speed but as I stated in a previous post, once you start to get into more technical discussions it is a flawed term. It's also arguable that the term Speed is just as flawed as to fully explain the physics behind fly casting, Power and Speed relate to the inputs from the caster and not the inherent characteristics of a piece of carbon... Speed and Power should really be replaced by 'modulus of elasticity', but it is a bit of a mouthful so 'bendiness' will suffice!
Stiffness is fine for me. (Oh dear....). And that is what is being measured by the deflection test in the CSS.

I say in the understanding thread that instead of the nonsense of using a non-standard IM numbers (IM6, IM8 etc) as a measure of Young's Modulus for the carbon, they should give us its absolute modulus. But, as usual, they keep it nice and vague but science sounding.

If I ruled the world I would also measure the stiffness of the finished rod (which would be the equivalent of the CSS). And there's no reason not to measure deflection over standard lengths of rod sections to produce an absolute measure of action.

Now, it's possible to have a Full Action rod that is also Fast, just as it is possible to have a Tip Action rod that is slow. Generally rods that are Fast are also Tip Action, and Slow Full action, hence the matching of terms between Speed and Action.
Ok, re my comment/question above. I can imagine a fast, full action rod, but it's not an easy to do and I don't know if they exist (it would be very stiff). A slow action, tippy rod is even harder to imagine.

This is why meaningful objective measurements of rods is such a tricky subject!

Certainly that's what they'd have us believe but I doubt that it's ever really been attempted; a rod is not an exotic piece of engineering.

I use the Tim Rajeff's video to show the difference between action and power in the "understanding" thread. You'll see there that he says that power is a measure of deflection (stiffness) and that that defines rod weight - it's # value. If that is so, then it should not be as subjective as it actually is. Hence continued confusion.

 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
48,777
This is where it goes pear-shaped for me (and others I've noticed).

When we say a rod is fast we seem to be always referring to where the rod bends. Tip action rods are fast, full action rods are slow.

Can a full action rod be fast?

Once upon a time a 'fast taper' was a taper that tapered fast, for example on a line it might have a level belly and a short 'fast' taper as a tip, cane rods used a similar expression to denote a quickly reducing taper.

Today, with the advent of carbon rods 'fast' became the term used to describe how quickly the rod recovers from being bent, high modulus carbons were able to recover faster so you could have a less stiff rod that recovered quickly, this fast recovery gives a more responsive rod/cast with less counter flex.

There is a lot of confusion between 'fast' and 'just stiff', a stiff rod will generally be fast, but you can use high modulus carbons and thoughtful taper profiles to make very light and responsive rods that are not stiff, the generally feel stiff and crisp without a line on but bend and recover with finite balance with the weight of line on.

An example is the Loomis GLS Max...yes its still for sale folks :D ..when it came out it was regarded as the fastest recovering rod on the market, I bought one, and was surprised to find it one of the most sensitive little rods I ever tried, in the hands of a the right person it can be that, cast with just the tip, or you can put a deeper bend in it and open up another level, stays crisp, I wouldn't regard it as a stiff rod.
 

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
3,118
Location
Devon
Once upon a time a 'fast taper' was a taper that tapered fast, for example on a line it might have a level belly and a short 'fast' taper as a tip, cane rods used a similar expression to denote a quickly reducing taper.

Today, with the advent of carbon rods 'fast' became the term used to describe how quickly the rod recovers from being bent, high modulus carbons were able to recover faster so you could have a less stiff rod that recovered quickly, this fast recovery gives a more responsive rod/cast with less counter flex.

There is a lot of confusion between 'fast' and 'just stiff', a stiff rod will generally be fast, but you can use high modulus carbons and thoughtful taper profiles to make very light and responsive rods that are not stiff, the generally feel stiff and crisp without a line on but bend and recover with finite balance with the weight of line on.

An example is the Loomis GLS Max...yes its still for sale folks :D ..when it came out it was regarded as the fastest recovering rod on the market, I bought one, and was surprised to find it one of the most sensitive little rods I ever tried, in the hands of a the right person it can be that, cast with just the tip, or you can put a deeper bend in it and open up another level, stays crisp, I wouldn't regard it as a stiff rod.

don’t start complicating the discussion by referring to casting skill 😂
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,273
Today, with the advent of carbon rods 'fast' became the term used to describe how quickly the rod recovers from being bent, high modulus carbons were able to recover faster so you could have a less stiff rod that recovered quickly, this fast recovery gives a more responsive rod/cast with less counter flex.

Yes but I'm saying that the terms 'fast' and 'tip action', and 'slow' and 'full or through' action are effectively describing the same things about a rod. How does that go down with you?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
48,777
Yes but I'm saying that the terms 'fast' and 'tip action', and 'slow' and 'full or through' action are effectively describing the same things about a rod. How does that go down with you?

Sometimes they do sometimes they don't, it depends on who is describing, most of those terms are long defunct, how many 'tip action' rods have you come across? or 'slow' rods? or 'through action'?
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,479
Location
West Oxfordshire
Yes but I'm saying that the terms 'fast' and 'tip action', and 'slow' and 'full or through' action are effectively describing the same things about a rod. How does that go down with you?
As I said above (and feeling quietly smug to be backed up by none other than Tim Rajeff on this!), Action and Speed are 2 different characteristics. If you want to break it down to it's simplest possible terms, then they become 'Where a rod bends' and 'How much a rod bends'.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
48,777
As I said above (and feeling quietly smug to be backed up by none other than Tim Rajeff on this!), Action and Speed are 2 different characteristics. If you want to break it down to it's simplest possible terms, then they become 'Where a rod bends' and 'How much a rod bends'.

Better to think of action and speed as 2 different characteristics, to not is a world of pain and very long forum threads.
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,479
Location
West Oxfordshire
So far so good - and what is written in 'understanding' thread.



This is where it goes pear-shaped for me (and others I've noticed).

When we say a rod is fast we seem to be always referring to where the rod bends. Tip action rods are fast, full action rods are slow.

Can a full action rod be fast?



Never a truer word said. But you can assume that I do understand that we use the term 'power' for a rod as a shorthand.


Stiffness is fine for me. (Oh dear....). And that is what is being measured by the deflection test in the CSS.

I say in the understanding thread that instead of the nonsense of using a non-standard IM numbers (IM6, IM8 etc) as a measure of Young's Modulus for the carbon, they should give us its absolute modulus. But, as usual, they keep it nice and vague but science sounding.

If I ruled the world I would also measure the stiffness of the finished rod (which would be the equivalent of the CSS). And there's no reason not to measure deflection over standard lengths of rod sections to produce an absolute measure of action.


Ok, re my comment/question above. I can imagine a fast, full action rod, but it's not an easy to do and I don't know if they exist (it would be very stiff). A slow action, tippy rod is even harder to imagine.



Certainly that's what they'd have us believe but I doubt that it's ever really been attempted; a rod is not an exotic piece of engineering.

I use the Tim Rajeff's video to show the difference between action and power in the "understanding" thread. You'll see there that he says that power is a measure of deflection (stiffness) and that that defines rod weight - it's # value. If that is so, then it should not be as subjective as it actually is. Hence continued confusion.

I think we are in violent agreement about (most of) this.
What we are yet to bottom out is your claim that rods are designed to be at their optimum casting 30' of line, which did seem to morph somewhat into - rods SHOULD be designed to be at their optimum casting 30' of line.
 

Scotty Mitchell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
1,529
Location
The Kingdom of Fife
Once upon a time a 'fast taper' was a taper that tapered fast, for example on a line it might have a level belly and a short 'fast' taper as a tip, cane rods used a similar expression to denote a quickly reducing taper.

Today, with the advent of carbon rods 'fast' became the term used to describe how quickly the rod recovers from being bent, high modulus carbons were able to recover faster so you could have a less stiff rod that recovered quickly, this fast recovery gives a more responsive rod/cast with less counter flex.

There is a lot of confusion between 'fast' and 'just stiff', a stiff rod will generally be fast, but you can use high modulus carbons and thoughtful taper profiles to make very light and responsive rods that are not stiff, the generally feel stiff and crisp without a line on but bend and recover with finite balance with the weight of line on.

An example is the Loomis GLS Max...yes its still for sale folks :D ..when it came out it was regarded as the fastest recovering rod on the market, I bought one, and was surprised to find it one of the most sensitive little rods I ever tried, in the hands of a the right person it can be that, cast with just the tip, or you can put a deeper bend in it and open up another level, stays crisp, I wouldn't regard it as a stiff rod.
The OP’s rod is also an example of fast, but not stiff.
 

Cooperman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Messages
59
Location
Leicester
If I may I would like to add my recent observations on Dr Hanneman’s Common Cents System. Which BTW only takes about 15 minutes of your time to verify line weight for your rod particularly if you use the quick calculator on the Sameo site.

I used the method to try and determine the best line for an unspecified wt 9ft Chapman Chess. Back in the dim and distant i.e decades ago I used a 7wt with it. 40 odd years later and a return to fishing, I needed to verify correct weight to buy a new line and thats when I came across the CSS. Note that after a break of 40 odd years I’m not an experienced angler so a means of measurement seemed the best option.

Consensus on here indicated that a 6 weight should be OK, thats what I bought despite CSS indicating the correct weight as a 4. It does I think need an experienced caster, not me, to see what’s best for the rod perhaps.

I have also bought an as yet unused Agility Rise 4wt which I’ve CCS tested and guess what ; it’s a 4wt, no surprises there.
It does though go some way to indicate the worth of the CCS system and maybe the Chapman Chess is really a 4wt.
The CCS system does also enable the true rod action to be determined. Don’t forget we inexperienced folk are unable to wave a rod about and say what the action is.

So I’m just posting in praise of the CCS as a measurable method, I know of no other which provides such a datum point.

Food for thought???
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,273
As I said above (and feeling quietly smug to be backed up by none other than Tim Rajeff on this!), Action and Speed are 2 different characteristics. If you want to break it down to it's simplest possible terms, then they become 'Where a rod bends' and 'How much a rod bends'.

I guess you missed what I was saying. Not surprising as this stuff is constantly being confused.

If you read what I have written in the 'understanding' thread you'll see that you just repeated what I said months ago about power and action; I'm not disagreeing with you at all on that - here:

Rod Power
Things get confusing at this point as the two terms ‘action’ and ‘power’ seem to be used interchangeably when people are describing a rod. I’ve seen a ghillie push my rod into the ground to get a feel for how much it bent and where, and declared it ‘powerful’. I agreed because I could chuck quite a big lure with it, but now I think all he was doing was seeing its action – ie where it bent.

Power, to my mind is a measure of overall stiffness, that is, how much the rod bends for a given weight not where it bends for a given weight.

Tim at Echo rods demonstrates this, but it leaves me with an unanswered question. Isn’t power really only a matter of the line weight value given to the rod eg a #7 weight rod is more powerful than a #5 weight rod but might have identical action?


The part you're missing is that if power is a measure of stiffness which can be measured by deflection, then as both I, Jeff, and even you now say, then rod weight #x can be objectively found simply by measuring that deflection.
 
Last edited:

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,479
Location
West Oxfordshire
I guess you missed what I was saying. Not surprising as this stuff is constantly being confused.

If you read what I have written in the 'understanding' thread you'll see that you just repeated what I said months ago about power and action; I'm not disagreeing with you at all on that - here:

Rod Power
Things get confusing at this point as the two terms ‘action’ and ‘power’ seem to be used interchangeably when people are describing a rod. I’ve seen a ghillie push my rod into the ground to get a feel for how much it bent and where, and declared it ‘powerful’. I agreed because I could chuck quite a big lure with it, but now I think all he was doing was seeing its action – ie where it bent.

Power, to my mind is a measure of overall stiffness, that is, how much the rod bends for a given weight not where it bends for a given weight.

Jeff at Echo rods demonstrates this, but it leaves me with an unanswered question. Isn’t power really only a matter of the line weight value given to the rod eg a #7 weight rod is more powerful than a #5 weight rod but might have identical action?


The part you're missing is that if power is a measure of stiffness which can be measured by deflection, then as both I, Jeff, and even you now say, then rod weight #x can be objectively found simply by measuring that deflection.
Where this falls down is when you extrapolate... by your definition a rod that has zero deflection has infinite power. Is this true?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,273
I think we are in violent agreement about (most of) this.
I think so too.
What we are yet to bottom out is your claim that rods are designed to be at their optimum casting 30' of line, which did seem to morph somewhat into - rods SHOULD be designed to be at their optimum casting 30' of line.

So let's try to bottom this out.

Tell me where the error is. These are very general statements, let's not quibble about marginal exceptions/outliers.
  1. a #x rod is designed to be used with a #x line
  2. a #x line is made by weighing the first 30' of line to the AFFTA standard
  3. at 30' of line outside the rod tip the rod will be working optimally for its design weight
  4. either side of this 30' a rod may also work well and even very well (we would all buy this rod)
  5. if a rod works optimally with significantly more or significantly less than 30' of line outside the rod (ie, it's performance is skewed) it is wrongly graded.
I suspect 3 is where we part company, but if it's because rod manufacturers often cheat or get adventurous then I'm going to cry foul. If we can agree on what should be, rather than what is actually being done, then we may be on the same track.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,273
Where this falls down is when you extrapolate... by your definition a rod that has zero deflection has infinite power. Is this true?
Of course we can make this absurd if you wish; it doesn't take much to prove that a broom handle is not the best tool to cast a fly (yes, I've seen the videos).

But if I was casting a 1lb weight I would choose the broom handle. There's probably an exponent in there somewhere but I'm buggered if I'm going to look for it.

Back in real life, we just both agreed with Tim Rajeff I thought, that the degree of deflection was a measure of power and that was related to the # weight?
 
Last edited:

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,479
Location
West Oxfordshire
Of course we can make this absurd if you wish; it doesn't take much to prove that a broom handle is not the best tool to cast a fly (yes, I've seen the videos).

But if I was casting a 1lb weight I would choose the broom handle. There's probably an exponent in there somewhere but I'm buggered if I'm going to look for it.

Back in real life, we just both agreed with Tim Rajeff I thought, that the degree of deflection was a measure of power and that was related to the # weight?
I'd risk a guess that it only appears absurd if you don't understand it.
If less deflection = more power, then by definition, No deflection = infinite power. That's physics for you! Plot it on a graph and see how it looks. You are the one asking for an objective measurement of fly rod power, but when presented with an anomaly with your theory you cry foul.
The physics of how a fly rod casts a line rely on it flexing, no one has really come up with a truly bomb-proof definition but the closest is probably 'A variable-ratio Class-3 lever', but one thing we can probably agree on is that it needs to be flexible.
If I was casting a 1lb weight, I would want a flexible rod, not a broom handle for the same reason why if I was casting a 1oz weight I would want a flexible rod.
It's late and I'm running out of steam but maybe have a think about why a flexible rod works better than a broom handle, and how stiffer doesn't always mean more powerful...
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,273
I'd risk a guess that it only appears absurd if you don't understand it.
If less deflection = more power, then by definition, No deflection = infinite power. That's physics for you! Plot it on a graph and see how it looks. You are the one asking for an objective measurement of fly rod power, but when presented with an anomaly with your theory you cry foul.
The physics of how a fly rod casts a line rely on it flexing, no one has really come up with a truly bomb-proof definition but the closest is probably 'A variable-ratio Class-3 lever', but one thing we can probably agree on is that it needs to be flexible.
If I was casting a 1lb weight, I would want a flexible rod, not a broom handle for the same reason why if I was casting a 1oz weight I would want a flexible rod.
It's late and I'm running out of steam but maybe have a think about why a flexible rod works better than a broom handle, and how stiffer doesn't always mean more powerful...
At the moment I think our time would be better spent looking at simplified general models rather than specific and extreme edge cases, and in any case my physics is not up to it.

You have agreed with Tim Rajeff that deflection defines power which defines rod weight, have you changed you mind?
 
Top