Check out the Century Eliminator sea fishing rods. A glass tip in a high tech carbon blank.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.
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.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?
When I do bring in my own evidence in the form of personal experience... you summarily dismiss it.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.
Rod power is its efficiency to transfer input energy to the line.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.
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.
Instead of waffling, why not tell where I'm wrong and why.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..
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?'I have not done the numbers' is a buffers phrase.
@TangledRod 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).