Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
Sage research and development design engineer:.....''I think I have come up with a revolutionary new thing in fly rods, we make the tip the same and give it a progressive action so refined that as you put more line out, and it bends more, it handles the extra weight naturally...Reserve Power...its genius and will revolutionise rods''
"Let me quote from their literature. “Years of fly fishing experience had taught Don (Green, a founder of Sage) that fly rods should never run out of “power.” While there might be fishing scenarios where the full power and flex of a fly rod were not utilized by the angler, the best designs were those that always held power in reserve. Hence, the name Reserve Power was given to the new style of fly rod Don developed for extra long casts or for windy conditions. The name was abbreviated to RP. This was the first major series of fly rods that Sage released in 1982 and they quickly became the most talked about fly rods in the world.”

The success of fiberglass had been predominately due to its weight savings relative to bamboo, and now graphite offered even more. One manufacturer even advertised its rods “felt two weights lighter.” The net effect was one could construct graphite rods which were even lighter and stiffer than their predecessors, and the public liked that—but what to call them?

Without a system for rating relative rod power, but since the introduction of the AFTMA standards for fly lines, a fly rod had begun to be rated on the basis of its power relative to the weight of line it was designed to cast. This, however, was the subjective opinion of its designer rather than an objective measurement. While a 5-Weight rod was originally considered as one which was designed to cast 30 feet of an AFTMA No. 5 line, today, its only requirement is that the rod be labeled “5-Weight.”

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."

That was Dr Bill Hannerman, the guy that made the CCS.

Tangled: ''I don't understand so I'm calling that is mislabeled''.
I completely understand! Can you wrap your head around it being possible to understand but disagreeing with how that thing should be labelled if you're even remotely interested in standards? Perhaps not.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,844
"Let me quote from their literature. “Years of fly fishing experience had taught Don (Green, a founder of Sage) that fly rods should never run out of “power.” While there might be fishing scenarios where the full power and flex of a fly rod were not utilized by the angler, the best designs were those that always held power in reserve. Hence, the name Reserve Power was given to the new style of fly rod Don developed for extra long casts or for windy conditions. The name was abbreviated to RP. This was the first major series of fly rods that Sage released in 1982 and they quickly became the most talked about fly rods in the world.”

The success of fiberglass had been predominately due to its weight savings relative to bamboo, and now graphite offered even more. One manufacturer even advertised its rods “felt two weights lighter.” The net effect was one could construct graphite rods which were even lighter and stiffer than their predecessors, and the public liked that—but what to call them?

Without a system for rating relative rod power, but since the introduction of the AFTMA standards for fly lines, a fly rod had begun to be rated on the basis of its power relative to the weight of line it was designed to cast. This, however, was the subjective opinion of its designer rather than an objective measurement. While a 5-Weight rod was originally considered as one which was designed to cast 30 feet of an AFTMA No. 5 line, today, its only requirement is that the rod be labeled “5-Weight.”

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."

That was Dr Bill Hannerman, the guy that made the CCS.


I completely understand! Can you wrap your head around it being possible to understand but disagreeing with how that thing should be labelled if you're even remotely interested in standards? Perhaps not.

And again, it works, therefore its not a brilliant marketing plan, its brilliant design and we all benefit.

Or do you want to go back to what went before?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
Each to their own, stop denigrating them, a certain James might come along and blow your arguments b.t.w.
I simply described what they do. If I could cast 120m I'd probably probably be just as interested in doing it.
Most of the competition distance casters probably catch more varied fish species in a year than most anglers will in a lifetime!
I'm sure they do. They're not the people standards are for
Sure your argument aint with the actual name on the label?
I really couldn't care less about the name or the rod. Just the number.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
And again, it works, therefore its not a brilliant marketing plan, its brilliant design and we all benefit.

Or do you want to go back to what went before?

Absolutely nothing would change about the rod if it said #7 not #5 on it.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
Besides, is a pretty limp argument that they are not the people the standards are for, given they actually enforce those standards in their rules.

The standards were made so that average anglers could make safe buying decisions.
The point of what's being discussed here is that there is no standard for rods and the AFFTA line standard is now largely ignored because of it.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,735
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Absolutely nothing would change about the rod if it said #7 not #5 on it.
not so sure about that, given the #8 is generally recognised as a true #8!
Think the point about the #5 rod being able to launch bigger/heavier flies, as required, whilst also being adept at the aftma #5 average line range is the main thing, and does seem to confuse folk.
For me is ideal. Can fish light stuff at short range, but if I want, then the big lure out to horizon is possible.
Normally needs several changes of kit/rods/reels to do that, but if I can do it with one rod?
Who cares what the number is on the blank, or indeed its ern number!
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
All your beginners would be putting a 7 weight line on an Orvis helios 1, not a very clever outcome.
Only if it was measured as a #7. If it's 6.8 - and I have my doubts about that, it's actually a #6.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
not so sure about that, given the #8 is generally recognised as a true #8!
The only ERN measurement I have for the TCR 8 is 9.91 which makes it a #9+
Think the point about the #5 rod being able to launch bigger/heavier flies, as required, whilst also being adept at the aftma #5 average line range is the main thing, and does seem to confuse folk.
Yup
For me is ideal. Can fish light stuff at short range,
but if I want, then the big lure out to horizon is possible.
Normally needs several changes of kit/rods/reels to do that, but if I can do it with one rod?
Do you think the average angler would be comfortable using that rod?
Who cares what the number is on the blank, or indeed its ern number!
Me :) (And a lot of more knowledgeable and experienced people too of course.)
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
But Tangled, have you ever cast one?
As I've said, I've only used the Helios 2. Solidly for two days. It was fine, quite liked it. But then I like most rods. Except a Sage Xi which I detested; would have been better used as a harpoon.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,844
Me :) (And a lot of more knowledgeable and experienced people too of course.)

I think you would have a better case for a different rating system if you dealt with the very obvious gaps in your understanding, and stopped pretending they don't matter, everyone here understands the examples discussed and its very clear you don't, it presents a very unconvincing case.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,035
I think you would have a better case for a different rating system if you dealt with the very obvious gaps in your understanding,

Which are what? You do understand that NONE of this is my idea, I'm only telling you what many, many other far more qualified people than me are saying. Or do you? Do I have to dig out all the quotes from people saying the same things yet again?

It's a perfectly valid point of view backed by evidence.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,735
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
As I've said, I've only used the Helios 2. Solidly for two days. It was fine, quite liked it. But then I like most rods. Except a Sage Xi which I detested; would have been better used as a harpoon.
You now having a laugh?
You have spent pages and hours denigrating a rod you have never used?
A rod the average angler (to quote you) would be happy using?
And indeed (a lot more knowledgeable and experienced people too of course.)
To quote you again.
Either stop commenting on said rod, or get out there and try it, until then, your input is worth nothing.
Absolute mince. hot air, name bias, whatever, but to not have even used the beast?
WOW, OMG. GTFOH.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,844
Can anyone define "an average angler"? What do they look like?

Tangled has a graph for 'Angler Experience' and 'average angler'(AA) is an AA of 4.2, an AA 4.2 angler should be pared with a rod of ERN 5.0 and a line with a 30' head with a weight of exactly 140 grains, for casts of 30' only, for longer casts they need to switch rods to an ERN of 7.0 and cast between 30 and 60' only, but only after they improve their casting AA to 'competent angler' AA rating 6.4.
 
Top