Urrr... I'm a little bit confused about this.Here's all the Sage rods held in an old database I found.
View attachment 36525
You can see that the rods follow what I say is the normal progression and what most people would expect to see - increasing power with increasing # Rating.
Guess the odd one out in that ascending list - yup, the #5 TCR.
Totally out of rank order because it's been designed as a specialist tool (clue: TCR = Technical Casting Rod) to work outside what any reasonable person would say is the power rating for the rod. To do it, it has to work with the weight of at least 60' of #5 weight line out and probably more like 80 or even the whole line.
fyi quite a few of those rods are actually what I'd call 'true' weight rods. (ERN 5.5 = Rod Rating #5).
Only the VPS is lower than the ERN. Anyone know that rod?
All will become clearUrrr... I'm a little bit confused about this.
I suppose you won't believe it when I say that I really don't care how this comes out, if it turns out that everything's fine, that's great. I really don't care about "blowing my feet off", whatever way this goes is fine by me. I really don't have a position, I'm just arguing what I see and what others are saying..First you bang on about rods stated ratings NOT conforming to the relative ERN's... and then you post something showing that they DO conform (with the exception of the TCR, which we all know is a specialist rod and unlikely to confuse the 'average' buyer').
So in terms of providing evidence that the 'system is broken', is being manipulated by rod manufactures and we'll all being miss-sold rods who's 'power' doses't correlate with the CCS, it rather looks like their stated ratings match the ERN's!!
Kind of both barrels into the size nine...
This is the fundament misunderstanding that you seem incapable of getting past... the # number is NOT a relative measurement of their power. It is a guide to the weight of the line that the rod is designed to cast. It never was and never has been a measurement of 'power', paradoxically this is the crux of your rather confused argument. Some rods are designed to cast 5wt lines over a shorter/longer distances than others.
Yes, and why do the angling world know this? Because they are both designed to cast 5wt lines different distances...
So, you want to buy a rod to cast a 5wt line a long distance... which one do you buy? The T5 or the Bllx?
All will become clear
I suppose you won't believe it when I say that I really don't care how this comes out, if it turns out that everything's fine, that's great. I really don't care about "blowing my feet off", whatever way this goes is fine by me. I really don't have a position, I'm just arguing what I see and what others are saying..
I'm only interested in what's correct and I'd hope that was your position too.
So have a look again at that data. It's only 13 data points but it's an indiction. What I see there is a clear relationship between rod number and rod power, which I expected and I'm sure you did too, despite what you say above. It also shows what an outlier the TCR is in that normal progression.
As for rod power not relating to the CCS, no one is saying there is no relationship (straw men again). It's not random, that would be hopeless. The claim is that everything has shifted up a peg. Crudely, rods labelled #5 are nearer #6 and consequently lines have shifted up to match. You can see in the data that the ERNs, with the exception of one rod, are all either on the button - the XP for example - or overweight.
So far I've been reporting what is said extensively by various rod builders and industry gurus. It's the accepted wisdom that modern rods have become more powerful and are generally under-rated. with Sage being the leader. Hence the upward line weight drift.
But now I have some actual data. Hang on to your hat and your ideology. It's not Paul's stuff, that's still stubbornly broken, it's from the Rodcents database. About 470 entries. About 90 Sage entries.
Let's see what that turns up.
If you can separate me from the argument it would help, I'm just repeating what a large number of people in the industry are saying. I don't know enough to make this stuff up myself.I can see where you could level an argument, perhaps the same argument, at the Sage 'reserve power' concept,
this was a game changer in rod design and effectively led modern rods being sensitive enough to cast say..a 5 weight perfectly normally, and also make longer/heaver casts without overloading the rod.....they also by default cast heavier at short distances...this is a key point.
The TCR is an extreme of the same, it has a very fine tip and a butt section like 4x2, can I ask? do you know how to cast with just the tip of a rod and then cast with the butt?
If you can separate me from the argument it would help, I'm just repeating what a large number of people in the industry are saying. I don't know enough to make this stuff up myself.
Essentially, Sage recognized that if everyone else subscribed to the idea that a 5-Weight rod was “loaded” by an AFTMA #5 line and “over loaded” by a #6 line, they could construct a rod which would not be over loaded by a #6 line and call it a 5-Weight rod having Reserve Power. Truly a brilliant marketing plan, and it worked. Unfortunately, it set off a Power Race, and today, no one can define exactly what a 5-Weight rod is and how one can tell when a 5-Weight rod becomes a 6-Weight rod. Clearly there was a need to be able to objectively characterize all fly rods."
This bit is more or less what I said, but it makes a similar jump into opinion that you do,
concluding that 'no one can define'...I don't share the opinion.
PossiblyI would suggest the RP concept was one of the biggest improvement developments we have seen in recent years,
in avoiding my question I'm assuming you don't know why.
I accept that the TCR is an exceptional rod. More so now that I've seen some actual data. (More work to do yet though.)
And just for the record, I'm not doing down these rods, it seems universally accepted that they're ground breaking rods. But that's independent of how a standards-based system should be run.
As for the casting bit - of course not, I'm here representing the average caster and for good reason.
I didn't avoid you question I said that I could not use the rod the way that you infer that you can. And I doubt many can. I just see that as irrelevant when discussing rod standards. The rod will be the same rod whether we have a general standard that is effectively applied and understood or not.
This is geting a bit mental is it not?Everyone can, and they do, if you make a short cast you only use the tip, if you make a long cast you bend more of the blank.
A rod that casts a 5 line perfectly at 30 or 40', and then casts the equivalent of a 7 weight at 60 or 70'(which is what the extra length approximately weighs) is not wrongly rated, its well designed, that is exactly what you want for its purpose.
I wouldn't bother with the TCR, it was never intended as a mainstream fishing rod, 'tactical casting rod'?
An Orvis helios has a similar ERN, it makes a better example, you would say the 5 weight is a 7 weight, but most, including your average caster would say it gets a bit lumpy with a 6 line, the definition of a true 5 weight maybe?
Let me explain why, generalising just a bit, rods used to bend at the same recovery rate all the way from but to tip, after RP and similar advances rods now bend at different recovery rates at different point along the blank, if you cast with the top half of the rod you get a narrower loop than you do if you cast by bending the whole rod, you also get more power by bending into the butt of the rod, straight forward to understand I think.
The key bit is that in making a short cast you are automatically using only that top half of the rod, lets call it the 5 weight bit, and when you bend the rod further you progressively find more power, and stability with a longer and heavier line, lets call that the 7 weight bit.
Now, put a 7 weight line on that same rod and...it overloads the tip, so its rated a 5, and works best with a 5, because it only becomes a 7 when the line is long enough to weigh the same as a 7.
This is not marketing, its what happens, you or any average caster can see and feel it.
It's a shame that the brilliant, and to me, educational and enjoyable opening threadThis is geting a bit mental is it not?
Any rod will cast any line, is just what line casts better on any rod?
The OP is as near neutral as I can make it. It's 99% factual. I don't think there's any speculation (that isn't labelled as such) in there and, in fact it has been improved by these discussions - believe it or not!It's a shame that the brilliant, and to me, educational and enjoyable opening thread
has descended into this.
All this advice and people still purchase rods without trying them.
The theory of a rod storing power is a bit of a misunderstanding I'm afraid. There is some contribution to line speed from the spring effect but this is somewhere under 20% of the actual energy transferred into the line during the casting stroke.@Tangled
I think the best definition for you, of a rods power, is - ‘the total amount of energy a given rod can store’; and that is; a result of rod design, and caster technique.
Because of rod design taper profiles, and wall thickness, material, resin types, ferrule types, etc..., and the dispersion there of; then, the total of that power (energy) can be stored in different amounts, at different points/areas, of the rod.
So you can understand now, that; a rod that stores a lot of energy is not necessarily only good for casting the heaviest lines. This, because it may not (for arguments sake), store half of its energy say - in the the first half of the rod..
The rod designer decides what he wants to create, relative to the total energy storage, as well as, where it is stored in the rod. Thus, the rod ‘personality’ is created, for its intended use/user and line wt. profile.
Obviously, all the stored energy is generated by the person casting the rod. And, how much of it is stored through design and technique IS the rods power, in that casters hands of course - some may extract more, and some less..
This IS obvious to you now perhaps; as if you knew all this prior, there would have been no need for this “understanding” bendy stuff thread..
I think you are probably bored in lockdown, and thought you thought you might have seen a wheel that has not been invented yet, perhaps?