Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,427
Location
West Oxfordshire
That's certainly a contributor - it's never measured though so how much?
It can't be measured as it is a constant variable depending on who is holding the rod and the how and when they are applying the load.
20% is very significant!
If you read the article, it states that 20% is a maximum achieved at when casting a long length of line. It is lower with a shorter length of line. Read the Grunde Løvoll paper for more details.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
It can't be measured as it is a constant variable depending on who is holding the rod and the how and when they are applying the load.
So we don't know whether the relative rod bend contribute a lot or a little.

We also don't know how and where the sweet spot for bending is; it seems to me that a slow rod will hinder good tracking by bending too much. We do know that distance casters prefer fast, stiff rods which obviously don't bend as much.

If you read the article,
Do try to be nice. You know I've read it because before you'd even found it, I'd already included it in the OP and quoted from it. You should have picked up by now that I read a lot. (And please don't say obvious next.)

it states that 20% is a maximum achieved at when casting a long length of line. It is lower with a shorter length of line.

Yes I know, I read it. 20% is still significant. And so is, say, 10% when there isn't such a long length of line.

Read the Grunde Løvoll paper for more details.
Stop it. If you've got something that you think can contribute, please just say it.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,599
You've just established empirically that a stiff rod is more powerful that a less stiff rod. Congrats.

If you have enough weight to bend it.....and we are talking about the 5% spring.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,599
So more thinking out loud

If you accept that a rod is mostly acting as a lever creating mechanical advantage then it's its length that is its critical attribute. Followed by stiffness. In most circumstances a bendable lever is a less efficient/effective lever.

In a rod's case we're saying rod power=stiffness=strength.

I imagine it being something like being able to lift a weight off the floor with the rod tip. The stiffer the rod the easier it is to lift the weight but the less notice you're given about imminent failure. Cranes don't bend (much). A 'rubbery' rod can't actually lift the weight at all, hence it has less power.

Increasing weight bends all materials more, so you find that in order to throw a heavier weight of line with your rod (either a short Skagit shooting head or 80' of long profile #5 line), you need a stiffer rod.

I think when you guys talk about feeling a rod become overloaded by the weight of line, you've got the same sensation; that rod can't lift that weight.

But we can't just use longer rods to cast further because three things are happening.

1. swing weight increases with the square of a rod's length (simplified)
2. extra length always adds extra dead weight
3. we are at the wrong end of the lever, that weight hanging outside the rod is working against us aided by mechanical advantage

All of this requires us to add more force in the cast as a rod gets longer. We seem to have found empirically that somewhere between 8' and 10' is optimal for a single hander as far as long casting goes. (Using two hands changes things).

So why don't we use a non-tapered ultra-stiff pole of real High Modulus carbon? Why do we use Intermediate Modulus carbon and tapered rods intended to bend?

I suppose there a few reasons, the main one being that we'd lose the 20% spring effect which not only adds useful force at a critical point it also helps us time the cast with feedback and makes it possible to play a fish without snapping the line.

Sorry but this misses the obvious, we could all cast further with a longer rod if we could rotate it at the same speed and force as a short one..but we can't.

I can cast about 85' with the top two sections of a 4 piece rod. that's half a rod, or a 4 and a half foot rod, can't do that with an 18' single hand rod.
 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,599
We do know that distance casters prefer fast, stiff rods which obviously don't bend as much.

They bend just the same but need more weight to bend them...which is what this thread is actually struggling to admit.

Andrew Toft took a photograph years ago mid cast with an 18' competition double hander, it was bent right into the butt like a banana.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,599
Why did he take an 18' competition rod to catch some trout?Seems a bit OTT ? After all this is a trout rod discussion is it not?

He took it to prove a particular point, similar to Tangled's thing about 'stiff' rods, they are only stiff relative to the weight bending them.
 

taffy1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
11,760
Location
Well within my comfort zone
I do appreciate that, but the action & perfornace from any rod can only be registered from that particuar angler, after all, we are individuals. No-one holds or utilises a rods capability the same as anyone else.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,599
I do appreciate that, but the action & perfornace from any rod can only be registered from that particuar angler, after all, we are individuals. No-one holds or utilises a rods capability as anyone else.

All they really do is bend.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
They bend just the same but need more weight to bend them...

So they don't bend just the same then do they? Some are stronger/more powerful/stiffer than others.

Andrew Toft took a photograph years ago mid cast with an 18' competition double hander, it was bent right into the butt like a banana.

Should we expect anything else?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
All they really do is bend.

All rods will bend when loaded.
Rods bend under their own weight - just not much.
Rods bend more when loaded more.
Weaker rods bend more than stronger rods with the same load.
The ERN measures how much the rod bends with an applied weight. It's a simple measure of the rod’s power/strength.
When a rod is swung it's loaded by both the dead weight of the line and the acceleration applied to it. (F=MxA). So it bends more.
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
One of the things I've been wondering (since the Helios discussion) is how accurate the ERN measurements of rods are and how consistent rod builds are.

The RodCents database has 5 entries for the TCR #5 - the most for any other rod, I guess because the competition guys are really interested is them.

6.75
7.10
7.28
7.40
7.60
Average=7.23

That's a large variance. I asked Lasse Karisson whether he thought it was measurement or build

"Build variance mostly, some might be measurment errors, but having measured a bunch of them, and having friends who have done so too, those numbers are sound. We have it down to what seriel numbers one should look for if one is looking for a particular stiffness."
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
4,467
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
One of the things I've been wondering (since the Helios discussion) is how accurate the ERN measurements of rods are and how consistent rod builds are.

The RodCents database has 5 entries for the TCR #5 - the most for any other rod, I guess because the competition guys are really interested is them.

6.75
7.10
7.28
7.40
7.60
Average=7.23

That's a large variance. I asked Lasse Karisson whether he thought it was measurement or build

"Build variance mostly, some might be measurment errors, but having measured a bunch of them, and having friends who have done so too, those numbers are sound. We have it down to what seriel numbers one should look for if one is looking for a particular stiffness."

Which of those would suit my casting style
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
Which of those would suit my casting style

For fishing? Probably none of them - unless you're after casting large distances into a head wind.

You be pretty bemused if you bought it as general allrounder for your little local river.
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
4,467
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
For fishing? Probably none of them - unless you're after casting large distances into a head wind.

You be pretty bemused if you bought it as general allrounder for your little local river.

This is the point, without knowing who or what a person wants then numbers are a guidance only.

As it happens I fish a 40 acre puddle where long casts into headwind are a must, as are shorter more delicate casts at times, this is/was also the case when I fish the Tweed.

My advice still stands, try before you buy rather than relaying on numbers :)
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
This is the point, without knowing who or what a person wants then numbers are a guidance only.
Sure, that's the entire point, the numbers should be a guide. In the case of a #5 TCR the number misleads. (But of course, it's a freak rod.)
As it happens I fish a 40 acre puddle where long casts into headwind are a must, as are shorter more delicate casts at times, this is/was also the case when I fish the Tweed.
I don't think I'd choose a TCR for either of those tasks would you?
My advice still stands, try before you buy rather than relaying on numbers :)

Well of course. Try before buy if you can. But regardless, let's have a system of numbers that mean what the stand for.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
I don't think Gary Coxon from Sage would agree nor those who've tried it :)
It's technical casting rod - used to win distance casting tournaments, you can use it for dry fly work but I seriously doubt anyone would or enjoy it if they did.
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
4,467
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
It's technical casting rod - used to win distance casting tournaments, you can use it for dry fly work but I seriously doubt anyone would or enjoy it if they did.

Rather it was designed for casting heavy flies on lighter lines but was so good the tournament lads and lasses took to it :)

You should contact the UK sage rep and get his opinion, his name is Gary Coxon
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,599
It's technical casting rod - used to win distance casting tournaments, you can use it for dry fly work but I seriously doubt anyone would or enjoy it if they did.

One fly very narrow loop because you are casting with just the tip(hence narrow loop) precise and for me personally perfectly enjoyable, but it remains a very extreme example.

A Helios 1 has a similar ERN, with a more gradual blank profile, I'd call that my perfect allrounder, you can feel fish of a pound and smaller and it will handle longer casts and far bigger fish.

I used to have a Winston T, right on the AFTM, a delight to cast, but less versatile, it would struggle to land some of the fish I have landed with the helios and it wouldn't punt a line as far.

Check up the cc's on a Sage One, that is about as versatile and all round a rod as I have come across, a 5 weight is all you will ever need for trout in the UK.

The point here is that a 'powerful' rod doesn't mean a compromise in feel, over levering fish, or casting short, they do both.
 

Latest posts

Top