Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

ed_t

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
5,415
The TCR is like a 6 inch 5 weight grafted onto a 7 weight, cast off the tip and you get laser loops, put out more line and it beasts it, but the blank is now bending a bit more so the loops get a bit bigger.

I don't know any other rod(Orivis hydros maybe? Scott S3?) that does that by design alone.
Check out the Century Eliminator sea fishing rods. A glass tip in a high tech carbon blank.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
So I can throw a line further on a bendy rod, than my mate can on a stiff rod, does that make my rod more powerful?

No, it makes your mate a poorer caster than you - at least with that rod.
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
Tangled said:
Yup, If it throws the line further, it makes it more powerful.

This is somewhat at odds with the article you linked featuring the T5...

I am increasing unclear of the points you are trying to make. You're ignoring 90% of what I'm saying and picking up on marginal or unimportant issues that you don't seem to understand properly.

What is it that you're trying to say with this post?
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
I am increasing unclear of the points you are trying to make. You're ignoring 90% of what I'm saying and picking up on marginal or unimportant issues that you don't seem to understand properly.

What is it that you're trying to say with this post?
You state that if a rod throws a line further, it is more powerful. The T5 is the most powerful' rod in the test you cited but doesn't throw the longest distance.
Simple enough explanation for you?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
You state that if a rod throws a line further, it is more powerful. The T5 is the most powerful' rod in the test you cited but doesn't throw the longest distance.
Simple enough explanation for you?

It would have been even more helpful, if you'd mentioned what test you were talking about (and even linked to it).
I assume it's this?


And if you'd not also not taken a general and obvious statement that a rod that can throw a weight of line further than another one is the more powerful rod and make it absolute law.

But you are now grasping at straws.

Anyway, there's something in your question that's worth answering, though I suspect it's answered in the article. I'll have to read it again, you've just gone back a few hundred posts.

It would also be great if you could bring your own evidence sometime.
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
It would have been even more helpful, if you'd mentioned what test you were talking about (and even linked to it).
I assume it's this?


And if you'd not also not taken a general and obvious statement that a rod that can throw a weight of line further than another one is the more powerful rod and make it absolute law.

But you are now grasping at straws.

Anyway, there's something in your question that's worth answering, though I suspect it's answered in the article. I'll have to read it again, you've just gone back a few hundred posts.

It would also be great if you could bring your own evidence sometime.
When I do bring in my own evidence in the form of personal experience... you summarily dismiss it.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
In the Sexyloops article the researchers set out to objectively test the 'common assumption' that the stiffest rod cast the furthest.

  1. They used 8 rods that had been already established as good distance rods.
  2. They had the same line for all rods - XXD tournament line
  3. All 8 casters were national standard tournament casters
  4. Four casts were allowed each per rod
  5. No practice was allowed
  6. They measured ERN to establish stiffness but did not use Action (AA)
Results
Unfortunately, despite it being their hypothesis, they don't really conclude anything about stiffness and distance from their tests, they seem preoccupied with the fact that #5 rods can be almost any ERN.

But if you take their data and attempt to correlate ERN and distance from it some very odd results appear.

In these tests
  • there is no statistical correlation between furthest distance cast and ERN (r=0.09)
  • there is a reasonably strong correlation (r=0.46) with average distance cast and ERN. But it's negative! ie the lower the ERN the better the average distance cast!
I think they missed something very important here, the lower ERN rods produced the most consistent results which means - as they say - that the casters adapted to them the easiest. By not allowing any practice, I think they compromised the test. With more time to adjust to the harder rods, it's possible that different result would be found. For example the TCR achieved the longest cast with three of the casters but also two of them made their shortest cast with it.

The highest ERN (9.0) rod, the Streamstix T5 - came last on average distance which is a surprise given it won the last distance competition with 34m. Again I'd say that was practice with that rod and line.

We're dealing with extremes here and in the tests there was not much between all the rods and casters; differences are marginal. But it's certainly an interesting result and it sounds like that Orvis is a pretty good rod.

They do find one solid conclusion - the person holding the rod is more important than the rod, which I guess no-one would argue with.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
When I do bring in my own evidence in the form of personal experience... you summarily dismiss it.

I know that's what you think I do, but I don't, I treat it as what it is, an opinion about something from someone who should know. If I had a dozen of those and some control over what was being spoken about it would amount to really good evidence. As it is, it's interesting.
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,986
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
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.
Rod power is its efficiency to transfer input energy to the line.

A more powerful rod therefore; is the one that for the SAME input energy - transfers the most of its input energy to the line (within a rod weight bracket, if you will. Apples with apples).

🙃
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,829
It's not magic. If an average angler wanted to fish 'normally' with that rod he'd need to put at least a true #7 line on it. It works with a specialised long profile #5 line only when you've got at least 60' of line aerialised - I haven't done the numbers, but that would be my guess at when that stiff, fast rod would begin to work and you could feel it.

It's a specialised casting rod for experts, which is perfectly fine. All that's wrong is that it's demonstrating the problem with the rod rating system.

This is the sort of answer I'd expect from someone that had never seen that particular rod and is prepared to wing it based on what he has recently heard..'I have not done the numbers' is a buffers phrase.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
This is the sort of answer I'd expect from someone that had never seen that particular rod and is prepared to wing it based on what he has recently heard..
Instead of waffling, why not tell where I'm wrong and why.

'I have not done the numbers' is a buffers phrase.
Assuming you mean bluffer, again tell me why I'm wrong. Do you think that rod could win casting competitions with 30' of line out or would you expect maybe 2 or 3 times as much? Would that amount of line outside the rod tip be better handled by a rod with an ERN of 7.2 or 5, all other things being equal?
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,986
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
Rod power is its efficiency to transfer input energy to the line.

A more powerful rod therefore; is the one that for the SAME input energy - transfers the most of its input energy to the line (within a rod weight bracket, if you will. Apples with apples).

🙃
@Tangled

...soooo, from what we know above, for a 5wt. competition/distance casting rod that is clearly as you state, "going to have 2 or three times more line out routinely, by design; then it may well only be suitable for a novice with a 6/7wt. line - if you have no intention, or requirement of putting a 100ft. or more of 5wt. line out.
But that rod is a 5wt. performance rod, for a 5wt. line. Its tapers and test curve have been optimised to be that rod - with a 5wt. line.

🙃
 
Top