Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,986
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
I don't know about all day long - it's a competition rod - but, yes, that's what it's designed to do. And if it wasn't marked #5 there would be no issue at all.
Its marked as a 5wt. rod, because for its intended purpose it uses a 5wt. line.

It is becoming quite the circular debate.

But at least you understand now, why this is not a rod you personally, should buy, because you have read about it and decided you don't need to make consistantly long casts, and subsequently feel a take at distance, or positively set a hook at distance. This is a rod for doing that, with a 5wt. line.

I think a beginner, or average angler by your measuring stick as a point of reference, would recognise that a 5wt. Technical Casting Rod is either not for them, or is something they perhaps might get, to grow into?

🙃
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
Its marked as a 5wt. rod, because for its intended purpose it uses a 5wt. line.

Which line profile and what amount of #5 line and outside the rod tip is necessary to optimally load it?
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
Which line profile and what amount of #5 line and outside the rod tip is necessary to optimally load it?
Thing is Tangled, continually asking questions like this just serves to demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding in this whole subject.

So...

Firstly, this rod could be loaded to any amount of flex with any amount of line outside the rod tip. Loading is dependant on power input from the caster.

Secondly... define 'optimal load'?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
Someone has measured their real power.
Yes, several people, independently, using objective measurements.

Now that will be a remarkable achievement.
It's actually very easily done and has been for many years. Rods are engineered objects that can be measured. The tournament distance casters use the ERN, AA and CCF results to pick the exact rod they will use because even rods of the same model differ in power between batches.

Bit subjective, no?
No. These are measurements not subjective opinion.
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
Ditto



I'm not going round this again Andy, I refer you to the last 500 posts.
Tangled, you keep trotting out the term 'optimal loading' but have not been able to actually define what you mean by it. So I think it's a fair question and would probably help this discussion along if you answered it.
 

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
2,960
Location
Where I want to be
Pages ago (years ago in fact) I called Tangled out as a BS’er. It’s entirely possible he really doesn’t know he’s full of cack but he clearly is.

People will say this is a cheap shot and indeed it is. But a cheap shot is all he is worth. No amount of reasoned argument is going to get through on any subject.

His arrogance might simply be down to stupidity but either way...

Andy
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
Tangled, you keep trotting out the term 'optimal loading' but have not been able to actually define what you mean by it. So I think it's a fair question and would probably help this discussion along if you answered it.

Before the industry abandoned it (without telling anybody) the optimum weight was defined by the AFFTA and its predecessors at 30’ of the relevant recommended line.

The AFFTA has subsequently been able to define the optimal weight of line for double handed rods for differing line profiles, so what is it that makes it impossible to do it now for single-handed rods?

From the objective side of the argument, optimal weight is not a necessary concept. The ERN output of the CCS is a relative measure of rod power that tells the user in objective terms how powerful that rod is relative to others. (It also tells us other things about its action and responsiveness and can do it for different sections of the rod if that's what you're interested in).

The input by the angler can be varied according to his abilities and the weight of line also varied according to line profile and AFFTA weight. Nothing changes in the rod or the angler. What's changed is that the angler gets measured, objective information. Not just marketing puff.
 
Last edited:

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,986
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
Which line profile and what amount of #5 line and outside the rod tip is necessary to optimally load it?

Pretty sure it can cast a wide range of 5wt. line profiles, as most all 5 wt. rods can. Some will do better with some lines, and vise versa - relative to individual rod properties.

It will be optimally loaded with any amount of line out of the tip; if you mean by ‘optimally’, being able to cast and turn over an appropriate length leader for the amount of line being used.

The rod tip will take care of short casts, and progressively longer casts will utilise progressively more of the reserved flex. It obviously has sufficient reserve to propel a very long line, and hence TCR.

I don’t have a TCR 5wt. but I do have a Hardy Wraith 9ft. 6wt. I use it with a 6wt. line and imagine it would likely be a similar casting rod to the TCR. It can throw all of a weight forward line and a good amount of mono backing, with good loose line loop management technique.

It casts the same 6wt.line nicely close up too, with a thoughtful rod stroke, given that it is not really where it was designed to excel, but short casts are ok.

No idea what the graphs say about it, but it is a very firm, and so consequently, an ultra fast feeling rod.

It Sets a hook well at all ranges, casts streamer type flies short and far very well - it would be described by most who have some time on it, as a cannon. I wouldn’t degrade its performance by using either a 5wt., or 7wt. line as it is most versatile with a 6wt. line.

I imagine the TCR would be in that same casting category too.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
'Reserve Power' gives a more versatile and better rod with no compromise, with the AFTM line that matches what it says on the blank.

Pretty sure it can cast a wide range of 5wt. line profiles, as most all 5 wt. rods can. Some will do better with some lines, and vise versa - relative to individual rod properties.

It will be optimally loaded with any amount of line out of the tip; if you mean by ‘optimally’, being able to cast and turn over an appropriate length leader for the amount of line being used.
All rods can cast all lines to a better or worse extent.

But we expect rod builders to build rods that work best at some load. That's why there are so many rod ratings and line weights..

So what weight is it?
 

Dingbat

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
5,492
Location
Switzerland
Thing is Tangled, continually asking questions like this just serves to demonstrate your fundamental misunderstanding in this whole subject.

So...

Firstly, this rod could be loaded to any amount of flex with any amount of line outside the rod tip. Loading is dependant on power input from the caster.

Secondly... define 'optimal load'?

This loading thing is something that creates confusion - some people seem to equate loading with storing energy in the rod to be released on the forward bit of the cast.

Loading for me is feeling when the line is in a position to be optimally cast forward. I can cast just as well as Lefty with a broomstick, or the next best thing a TCR/TCX, but its no fun because you don't feel anything and have to concentrate more to avoid wrapping errant line around your face.

Some chap did some calculations a couple of years ago and posted them on the forum, 10% of casting energy stored in the load? Hardly worth talking about especially since that would seem to be a "theoretical" maximum.

I've wondered whether one could not imagine a rod as a spring - not in tension/compression Hooke's law "mode" but when you bend it backward along that axis.
 

wjg

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
244
Location
PEI
I've wondered whether one could not imagine a rod as a spring - not in tension/compression Hooke's law "mode" but when you bend it backward along that axis.
Like those baseboard door stops that make that annoyingly cool noise when you flick it sideways!
Thanks for the thread Tangled. I "learnt" some. I remembered a Reddington 5 wt I haven't had out for too long. And the luddite I am discovered that when you click down the wheely thing on my mouse I can make the page scroll at a rate relevant to the bs vs fact speed.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,829
Which line profile and what amount of #5 line and outside the rod tip is necessary to optimally load it?

You really are not listening, even as the most extreme example we can call on, 30' of a 5 weight used delicately delivers a single dry fly just fine, that's why it carries the label..5 weight.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,829
All rods can cast all lines to a better or worse extent.

But we expect rod builders to build rods that work best at some load. That's why there are so many rod ratings and line weights..

So what weight is it?

Its the minimum weight it can cast, this leaves your reserve power for longer casts, its really that simple.

And as you point out all rods do it to a better or worse extent
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
Before the industry abandoned it (without telling anybody) the optimum weight was defined by the AFFTA and its predecessors at 30’ of the relevant recommended line.

The AFFTA has subsequently been able to define the optimal weight of line for double handed rods for differing line profiles, so what is it that makes it impossible to do it now for single-handed rods?

From the objective side of the argument, optimal weight is not a necessary concept. The ERN output of the CCS is a relative measure of rod power that tells the user in objective terms how powerful that rod is relative to others. (It also tells us other things about its action and responsiveness and can do it for different sections of the rod if that's what you're interested in).

The input by the angler can be varied according to his abilities and the weight of line also varied according to line profile and AFFTA weight. Nothing changes in the rod or the angler. What's changed is that the angler gets measured, objective information. Not just marketing puff.
A lot of guff but still no answer to the simple question of define 'optimum loading'?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
A lot of guff but still no answer to the simple question of define 'optimum loading'?
And you still don't get it.

An objective measurement system doesn't require an optimum load to rate a rod, it simply ranks rods in terms of relative power. That's all it need do.

I remembered some time in the distant past reading a frustrated Bill Hanneman having this very discussion with someone on the Sexyloops forum. It took me a while to find it again. He finished with this

"NO! NO! NO! NO!
There is no such thing as a 10wt rod. As long as anglers continue to use such a designation the CCS has no interest in discussing the properties of fishing rods."

I think it was his last post. Like me, he was trying and failing to make the point that rod weight has now become an arbitrary designation. Unlike me and you, he was/is a very clever engineer.

It's your subjective system that decides that a rod is 'optimum' with, say, a #5 line. Despite not knowing anything about how that was derived, who decided it, what line profile it's supposed to be 'optimal' with, what absolute weight of line it had been judged at or how one brand's rods can be compared fairly with another's.
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,986
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
All rods can cast all lines to a better or worse extent.

But we expect rod builders to build rods that work best at some load. That's why there are so many rod ratings and line weights..

So what weight is it?
For the only comparable rod I have cast to the TCR; my 6wt. Hardy Wraith it definately covers all the ground from very short to very long casts with a 6wt. line.
So I would call ot a 6wt. And your TCR is similarly performing as a 5wt. so that is why it is rated as a 5wt. That one line covers the largest range of castability.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,027
For the only comparable rod I have cast to the TCR; my 6wt. Hardy Wraith it definately covers all the ground from very short to very long casts with a 6wt. line.
So I would call ot a 6wt. And your TCR is similarly performing as a 5wt. so that is why it is rated as a 5wt. That one line covers the largest range of castability.
You see, you can't answer the question. A #5, #6 or any other line size only has a defined weight at 30' and these days not even at that.

If you ask me what weight my Loop Cross double hander is optimal with, I can tell you for 3 line profiles in grams and grains. What I don't know is how those values have been quantified but they have.
 

Latest posts

Top