- Feb 6, 2010
It's a fairly easy summary...I go away for a few days and there are 6 new pages to go through. I opt to miss them out and go to the latest page of posts only to find they are a complete seamless transition.
It's a fairly easy summary...
Tangled says that rods don't match their given line ratings... then cites evidence that suggest that they do...
Tangled says that 'many many' people say the system is broken... then many many people tell him it's not...
It's shortest cast, 30'.
It's the only way you can, make it to cast its shortest distance and design in progressive strength to cast further as the line gets longer and heavier....so you can cast any length of line with a degree of balance.
A rod's shortest cast can't also be it's optimal cast but never mind.
Yes, of course. (That has got nothing to do with a rod being optimal at its shortest cast. 'Optimal' = best at. Either side of 'best at' is worse. You essentially said that the rod will be poorer after 30'. But like I said, never mind.)Can you not conceive of a rod that bends more at the tip and progressively less down the blank?
Yes of course. The TCR is a stiff fast rod, maybe you can 'tip cast' it comfortably at short distance but it's not something I want have to do all day. But again, it really doesn't matter what individual people can or can't do with it, it can be measured.So it can cast a short/light line with the tip and be progressively 'powerful' enough with the more you bend to perfectly balance a longer/heavier line?
This is the fundamental principle that makes rods work, and the principle means that you should have an optimal weight of line at any bending moment as you progressively bend more of the rod.
I think if you don't get that we may have found a rather large gap right at the beginning of your understanding.
I have answered many times in this thread.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.
That was Ohanzee not me. You need to ask him why the TCR is optimal at its shortest distance cast which is apparently 30'. I wish you luck.So having failed to define 'optimal loading', maybe you'd care to have a stab at 'optimal length of cast'?
....and when you cast each rod, it is no longer required to discuss the minutiae intelligently or otherwise. As after casting a 5wt. line with them all, you will get a more useful sense of which 5wt. rod you personally prefer for your 5wt. fishing.A rod's shortest cast can't also be it's optimal cast but never mind.
I've tried to get you to read how the CCS deals with rods with weak tips and strong butts like the TCR and the concept of RP several times but obviously you don't want to believe that it can be measured.
Here's the various CCS measurements for several rods. I'm not asking you to understand them and I'm not saying that these should be printed on the handle, I'm just pointing out that rods CAN be described in numbers.
TRS-3 5 : 4 : 9 5.1 / 62 5 4.0 9.4
RED FLY 5 : 4 : 12 5.5 / 62 7 4.6 12.0
Wayfarer 5 : 3 : 11 5.7 / 68 8 3.7 11.8
Super Sport 6 : 3 : 13 6.8 / 70 10 3.1 13.3
SLT 4 : 3 : 11 4.9 / 66 8 3.1 11.7
Z-Axis 5 : 3 : 12 5.7 / 70 9 3.1 12.6
FLI 6 : 3 : 13 6.5 / 70 9 3.7 13.4
VT-2 6 : 3 : 14 6.8 / 73 10 3.6 14.0
TCR 590 7 : 3 : 15 7.5 / 73 11 3.6 15.1
“ I shall leave the rest of these data for each of you to consider and interpret. However, since all of these rods are advertised and sold to anglers as “5-wt” rods, I trust you will recognize (1) my insistence that when you describe your rod as a 5-wt, you have not imparted any useful information. (2) When you describe your rod as Brand X, model Y, z ft, you have provided a bit of information to those few individuals who have experience with that particular rod. (3) When you provide CCS or URRS data about your rod, everyone in the world can understand what you are talking about and discuss it intelligently—if they are so inclined.”
OK, so let's suspend disbelief for a while and go with the assumption that fly rods are designed (or should be) to be 'optimal' with 30' of a line the conformed to the AFFTA standards.It failed to work many years ago when manufactures stopped using the first 30' of line as their design weight and a bit later when line manufacturers abandoned the AFFTA standard. Now it's a free-for-all.
Didn't want to attempt a definition of optimum that is used now by your preferred system then?You do not need to discuss this stuff if you don't feel you need to. But somehow you're still here missing the entire point of the discussion.
So every rod is at it's 'optimum' when if flexes by one-third of it's length with the associated AFFTA line weight?Didn't want to attempt a definition of optimum that is used now by your preferred system then?
I'm not at all surprised.
If we went back in time to when the 30' AFFTA standard was universally accepted and used, you would measure rod's deflection as the CCS, convert to grains and match that to the 30' AFFTA standard. That's then the number to be used on your rod to inform buyers of the rod's relative power.
I don't suggest we do that. Rod design and technology has moved on and there are more useful ways to quantify rods now.