Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

[ohanzee]

You essentially said that the rod will be poorer after 30'.

No I didn't, you don't get what 'progressive' means.

 

[andygrey]

No I didn't, you don't get what 'progressive' means.

Or indeed 'when to give up'...

 

[ohanzee]

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.

Any short cast will bend just the tip, you don't need to try, and when you make a long cast and the rod bends more.....?

 

[Tangled]

Yes...

This is what I said. My only use of 'optimum' was attempting to get you to define your use of it.

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.

 

[Tangled]

No I didn't, you don't get what 'progressive' means.

Yes I do. Now what?

 

[Tangled]

Any short cast will bend just the tip, you don't need to try, and when you make a long cast and the rod bends more.....?

ffs, Ohanzee, can you please read what I write or pack up.

 

[ohanzee]

Yes I do. Now what?

I think its plainly obvious to anyone reading that you don't, but it is entirely within your gift disagree.

 

[andygrey]

I think its plainly obvious to anyone reading that you don't, but it is entirely within your gift disagree.

The gift that keeps on giving...

 

[Tangled]

I think its plainly obvious to anyone reading that you don't, but it is entirely within your gift disagree.

Do you think it's a particularly difficult concept or something? Don't you remember me quoting how the CCS system copes with the concepts of 'progressive action' and 'Reserve Power.' Maybe a dozen times or so? And begging you to read the Article that came originally from Rod Builder Magazine that summarises it?

It's in the OP and has been at post #2 since December. Why not, you know, read it. If it's any help, I didn't write it.

 

[ohanzee]

Do you think it's a particularly difficult concept or something? Don't you remember me quoting how the CCS system copes with the concepts of 'progressive action' and 'Reserve Power.' Maybe a dozen times or so? And begging you to read the Article that came originally from Rod Builder Magazine that summarises it?

It's in the OP and has been at post #2 since December. Why not, you know, read it. If it's any help, I didn't write it.

You are not the first to bring the subject up, its not exactly a new concept, but I look forward to your improvements to rod choosing.

 

[Tangled]

You are not the first to bring the subject up, its not exactly a new concept, but I look forward to your improvements to rod choosing.

Incredible. You still didn't read it. So I guess you'll never ever get it, but you'll still pretend that you do.

 

[ohanzee]

Incredible. You still didn't read it. So I guess you'll never ever get it, but you'll still pretend that you do.

You want me to read on cc's? why? like you say its not complicated, you perhaps think I'm not familiar with the concept?

There is no argument left here, I have questioned and tried to add my bit, it falls on deaf ears, let us know when you have your new rod rating formula.

 

[Tangled]

You want me to read on cc's? why?

I dunno really. I just had this idea that you might like to understand that it's possible to objectively measure what you keep telling me I don't understand.

like you say its not complicated, you perhaps think I'm not familiar with the concept?

You've been doing nothing but banging on about it for pages. I know you know how it feels on a rod, I'm trying to get you to understand that it can be measured objectively.

There is no argument left here, I have questioned and tried to add my bit, it falls on deaf ears, let us know when you have your new rod rating formula.

This is weird. What is it you think I don't understand? RP, progressive action rods? What?

 

[loxie]

25 pages. Wow. Still no objective way to assess a rod's performance.

 

[LukeNZ]

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.

I thought the point of the discussion was wether or not all 5wt. rods are suitable in all cases, for a 5wt. line. I am saying yes they are; and my understanding is that you are saying, no they are not?

 

[Tangled]

I thought the point of the discussion was wether or not all 5wt. rods are suitable in all cases, for a 5wt. line. I am saying yes they are; and my understanding is that you are saying, no they are not?

I summarised the point of the discussion 20 pages ago, about 3 posts after explaining to you that you were missing point. Here:

Look, I know that everybody brings their own biases to discussions but it's really hard to believe that you actually read that thread at all.

To summarise what I'm trying to say - as much for those coming to this thread from new as anybody - this is it.

1. Lines no longer keep to their standard weights. At least a third of them are significantly overweight according to their AFFTA standard. None are under their absolute standard weight.

2. It's thought that this is happening because many modern carbon rods are labelled under their actual measured power.

3. Although rods do not have to meet any power standards at all, it's widely held that they do. A #7 rod is generally imagined to be more powerful than a #5 rod.

4. When the original AFFTA standard came out rods where designed around it's 30’ standardised weight. They were made to be loaded optimally at that weight and length of line. Now we have many different profiles of line and better rod materials and tapers and it's possible to create a stiff, powerful rod like the Sage TCR that in expert hands can start to be properly loaded with 60 odd feet of #5 line in the air and get better with more. But god help a beginner (or anyone) that takes that to his little river.

5. The idea that a rod should be optimally loaded at 30’ of line is still being passed around by amateurs and professionals and is probably still mostly accurate for ordinary fishing rods. But we can't actually know, because we're not told.

6. To show the absurdity of this I've pointed to two rods labelled by their manufacturers as #5, the Winston Bllx and the Streamstix T5. Power rating (ERN) 4.5 and 9! One an actual fishing rod, the other a casting tool.

7. It is perfectly possible to objectively measure many aspects of a rod - it's power and action - which can provide a baseline for anglers to base their rod selection from. I think it should be.

8. None of this is a substitute for trying rods and lines and finding one that suits your action, comfort and fishing situations. But this has become almost impossible now - if it ever was possible for most of us - making it even more important to get rods labelled properly.

 

[andygrey]

I summarised the point of the discussion 20 pages ago, about 3 posts after explaining to you that you were missing point. Here:

Look, I know that everybody brings their own biases to discussions but it's really hard to believe that you actually read that thread at all.

To summarise what I'm trying to say - as much for those coming to this thread from new as anybody - this is it.

1. Lines no longer keep to their standard weights. At least a third of them are significantly overweight according to their AFFTA standard. None are under their absolute standard weight

OK, happy with this

2. It's thought that this is happening because many modern carbon rods are labelled under their actual measured power.

So if rods and lines are 'increasing' at around the same rate, then what's the problem? This presumably points to them matching each other.

3. Although rods do not have to meet any power standards at all, it's widely held that they do. A #7 rod is generally imagined to be more powerful than a #5 rod.

'Generally' yes. Though there are specialist rods that don't. These are widely understood to be specialist and sold as such.

4. When the original AFFTA standard came out rods where designed around it's 30’ standardised weight. They were made to be loaded optimally at that weight and length of line. Now we have many different profiles of line and better rod materials and tapers and it's possible to create a stiff, powerful rod like the Sage TCR that in expert hands can start to be properly loaded with 60 odd feet of #5 line in the air and get better with more. But god help a beginner (or anyone) that takes that to his little river.

And we come back to the term 'optimal'! How can 'optimal' be described in objective terms?

5. The idea that a rod should be optimally loaded at 30’ of line is still being passed around by amateurs and professionals and is probably still mostly accurate for ordinary fishing rods. But we can't actually know, because we're not told.

There are a few people who have made a literal extrapolation from the AFFTA 30' standard into it being the 'standard length' of line a rod is designed to be 'optimal' at (there's that word again...)

6. To show the absurdity of this I've pointed to two rods labelled by their manufacturers as #5, the Winston Bllx and the Streamstix T5. Power rating (ERN) 4.5 and 9! One an actual fishing rod, the other a casting tool.

Yep, both designed to cast a 5wt line

7. It is perfectly possible to objectively measure many aspects of a rod - it's power and action - which can provide a baseline for anglers to base their rod selection from. I think it should be.

We have a system adopted by the vast majority of the industry, which according to the pretty much all posters on here, works. Putting the CCS numbers on the side of a rod would add more confusion than clarity for the vast majority of anglers. There is a pretty good data base available for all in the form of the CCS for anyone who is that interested.

8. None of this is a substitute for trying rods and lines and finding one that suits your action, comfort and fishing situations. But this has become almost impossible now - if it ever was possible for most of us - making it even more important to get rods labelled properly.

This brings us back to the actual reliability of grading a rod based on the CCS alone. People (myself included) have told you of our experiences with various rods and how their subjective performance is in some cases at odds with their CCS ratings.
Back to the TCR, it is labelled properly... a 5wt designed to cast long distances. If it was labelled according to its CCS rating then people may mistakenly buy it to cast a 7wt line. It's not designed to cast a 7wt and they would be buying the wrong rod...
In the absence of being able to actually test-cast a rod the internet is awash with independent rod reviews which can act as a good buying guide and is useful for novices and experts alike. I'd guess that most people will do a bit of research before buying.

It appears that you are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist...

 

[Tangled]

OK, happy with this

You shouldn't be happy with that. You no longer know what weight of line you are using on your '#5’ weight rod. The standard has gone.

So if rods and lines are 'increasing' at around the same rate, then what's the problem? This presumably points to them matching each other.

Incorrect. What we know is that at least a third of lines are overweight. So some are increasing and some aren't but we don't know which are which. And we don't know which rods are underrated and which ones are true. We have no way of knowing how rods relate to line anymore.

'Generally' yes. Though there are specialist rods that don't.
These are widely understood to be specialist and sold as such.

I had no idea that specialist rods existed until a few years ago. How do you know that this is 'widely understood?'

And we come back to the term 'optimal'! How can 'optimal' be described in objective terms?

As I keep explaining, 'optimal' doesn't have to be explained in objective terms and in the CCS it isn't.

The AFFTA was originally designed for the weight of line to be 'optimal' for a rod at 30’. That optimal was said to be for the average caster without a haul. I have in my mind the gentleman angler, with bendy rods casting delicately to the rising trout 30’ away. Not the urban, carbon laden, power-caster of today.

Was that optimal? I don't know, possibly, but it was subjective. But it needn't be subjective at all. If what is required is a set of objective measurements defining a rod, they are easily acheived and the CCS is one way of doing that. It says nothing about being optimal it's simply a set of relative measurement defining power, action and frequency.

So I do not claim anything optimal. But you do. When Sage tell us that a rod is designed for a #5 weight line that is a subjective decision that will vary for each individual that tries it. So how is it optimal? Define your optimal.

There are a few people who have made a literal extrapolation from the AFFTA 30' standard into it being the 'standard length' of line a rod is designed to be 'optimal' at (there's that word again...)

And again, you make an assertion without evidence. How do you know how many people still think that the 30’ applies? I know quite a few. And it still does apply for some rods and also for almost all to some extent. We know this because on average #7 weight rods are more powerful than #5 weight rods. We just don't know which are and which aren't from their label.

We have a system adopted by the vast majority of the industry, which according to the pretty much all posters on here, works.

How typical do you think the four or five posters here are of anglers generally? We have 3 professional casting instructors, one New Zealander with as many rods as I have nails in my shed and a weird bloke that got interested in rod numbers during a pandemic. We do not speak for Joe Public.

Putting the CCS numbers on the side of a rod would add more confusion than clarity for the vast majority of anglers. There is a pretty good data base available for all in the form of the CCS for anyone who is that interested.

Putting the equivalent ERN on a rod would be an improvement on what we have now, but it's not what is needed.

This brings us back to the actual reliability of grading a rod based on the CCS alone. People (myself included) have told you of our experiences with various rods and how their subjective performance is in some cases at odds with their CCS ratings.

The CCS is more than just ERN. It can, if you wish unpick the entirity of the rod by section and for the real casting freaks and rod builders, that's what they use it for. But I don't think the CCS is the answer. If we could only pick one number to replace the number now on the rod I think the ERN is the best choice but I think we can do better now.

Back to the TCR, it is labelled properly... a 5wt designed to cast long distances. If it was labelled according to its CCS rating then people may mistakenly buy it to cast a 7wt line. It's not designed to cast a 7wt and they would be buying the wrong rod...

And they can buy it now mistaking it to be a fishing rod. But there are far, far more fishing rods than casting rods so which method is more wrong? But I don't think ERN is the answer.

It appears that you are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist...

There you go again, pretending it's just me.

This has been a problem for at least 20 years. If I hadn't read about the people that do have a problem, I wouldn't have known. If there wasn't a problem the CCS wouldn't have needed to be invented and the rod building world wouldn't be using it every day. You wouldn't see articles written about it and you wouldn't get professionals still teaching the 30’ rule. And the AFFTA line standard would still be a standard. It's not me, I did not invent this stuff.

Have you wondered how all those rod brands that buy-in blanks and completed rods for the Far East to sell under their name submit an order for them? Do you this it says

1,000 x 9' #5 in green?

Or do you think the order might be stuffed full ERNs, AAs, CCFs, grain weights, MoIs, or their equivalents?

How do you think they test them on receipt? by getting Bert to wave them around out back? They must be measuring their rods if only for quality control. We just need some of that and start properly relating rod labelling to grain weights and line profiles. Or something even better.

 

[ohanzee]

And we are off again

Tangled do you get commission per post?

 

[Tangled]

Tangled do you get commission per post?

I humbly volunteer my support to the angling fraternity.

But I am but a novice, I lift my hat to your 42,708 posts.