Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
2,959
Location
Where I want to be
You shouldn't be happy with that. You no longer know what weight of line you are using on you '#5’ weight rod. The standard has gone.



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

At least while you are posting all of this you aren’t a danger to the wider public.
 

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
2,959
Location
Where I want to be
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.

Well I'm not counting myself in the list you've given there because I'm only here (on this thread) to throw cheap shots at you BUT do you not see the arrogance in that post?

The people who's views you are dismissing have come into contact with hundreds of Joe Pubic anglers and still they haven't seen the problem you claim exists.

Your problem is you don't know what you don't know but you think you know what you don't!
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
Well I'm not counting myself in the list you've given there because I'm only here (on this thread) to throw cheap shots at you BUT do you not see the arrogance in that post?

The people who's views you are dismissing have come into contact with hundreds of Joe Pubic anglers and still they haven't seen the problem you claim exists.

Your problem is you don't know what you don't know but you think you know what you don't!
Tangled has I think fallen down a rabbit-hole of his own making.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,020
You do know that I've read (and graphed the results of) all previous rod shootouts don't you? Did you want to say anything useful here, like why I should be interesd?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,020
Ha ha, I see. The geniuses have split #5 weight rods into 'power' rods and 'presentation' rods. That's hilarious. And also fabulous marketing.

Now you need not just multiple weighted rods, you also need multiple kinds of the same weighted rod for different kinds of fishing. Jeez, you guys will fall for anything and everything.

It does rather make a mess of this concept of 'one rod to rule them all', cast from the soft top or cast from the powerful butt. (I name this rod the Sage Kardashian)
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,786
Ha ha, I see. The geniuses have split #5 weight rods into 'power' rods and 'presentation' rods. That's hilarious. And also fabulous marketing.

Now you need not just multiple weighted rods, you also need multiple kinds of the same weighted rod for different kinds of fishing. Jeez, you guys will fall for anything and everything.

It does rather make a mess of this concept of 'one rod to rule them all', cast from the soft top or cast from the powerful butt. (I name this rod the Sage Kardashian)

As expected, all of this, 500+ posts, to arrive at the same motivation that corroded the cost of rods thread.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you import and sell cheapo rods from China.
 

bobmiddlepoint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
2,959
Location
Where I want to be
Ha ha, I see. The geniuses have split #5 weight rods into 'power' rods and 'presentation' rods. That's hilarious. And also fabulous marketing.

Now you need not just multiple weighted rods, you also need multiple kinds of the same weighted rod for different kinds of fishing. Jeez, you guys will fall for anything and everything.

Hasn't that always been the case?

You know the sort of thing, a 8' 5 weight for fishing single dries on river or an 11' 5 weight for three wets on a loch (both oddly working fine with a 5 weight). Or a stiff 10' 8 weight for firing Clouser minnows into the wind on the coast or a softer 10' 8 weight for sea trout flies at night where a stiff rod would rip the hooks out of a soft mouthed sea trout (both oddly working fine with the same 8 weight).

But of course you don't know this sort of thing because your fishing experience is somewhat limited although not as limited as your fishing understanding.


Andy
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,969
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
Ha ha, I see. The geniuses have split #5 weight rods into 'power' rods and 'presentation' rods. That's hilarious. And also fabulous marketing.

Now you need not just multiple weighted rods, you also need multiple kinds of the same weighted rod for different kinds of fishing. Jeez, you guys will fall for anything and everything.

It does rather make a mess of this concept of 'one rod to rule them all', cast from the soft top or cast from the powerful butt. (I name this rod the Sage Kardashian)
....welcome to the 21st. century, yes "its all marketing" and still, yet thus; all 5wt. rods must cast a 5wt. line.

When marketing/manufacturing/rod designer's fail; then that would be because their 5wt. rods won't cast a 5wt. line?

The rod rating system was/is a marketing aid. It is the rod marketing industry yard stick. 5wt. rod + 5wt. line = happy customer. And certsinly, the combination does what the industry/marketer/manufacturer says it will. If it doesnt - its not a 5wt. and it wont sell.

Do you think it possible that you trying to over complicate a simple thing?

You seem to be arguing a case for single hand trout rods to move toward a grain width variation scale of the two handed long rod rating system; which exists because of vastly varying untraditional relatively modern casting styles, and which, aims to capture scandi, through to skagit, shooting head - through short, mid, and traditional longbelly lines. That mixture of traditional and modern long rod lines and techniques does not really exist for short, light, single handed trout rods..

Everyone on the planet understands what a single hand 5wt. trout rod line requirement is; ...a 5 wt. trout line. For single hand trout rods, it is and has always been, very uncomplicated, and it is a marketing system that works!

🙃
 
Last edited:

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
977
You seem to be arguing a case for single hand trout rods to move toward a grain width variation scale of the two handed long rod rating system; which exists because of vastly varying untraditional relatively modern casting styles, and which, aims to capture scandi, through to skagit, shooting head - through short, mid, and traditional longbelly lines. That mixture of traditional and modern long rod lines and techniques does not really exist for short, light, single handed trout rods..
With respect Luke, you must be aware that single-handed rods ARE used in exactly the same way, with the same types of lines as you describe above. If a 'grain width variation scale', as you call it, is sensible for dh rods, it is surely sensible for sh rods. I think I have suggested this upstream multiple times. It's coming, to 'switch' rods already, and surely to other single-handers soon....
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
977
Do you think it possible that you trying to over complicate a simple thing?
I'm still here, punch drunk and reeling, but not out for the count yet, and I have a second wind so maybe I can go a couple of more rounds 😂.

So here goes; my impression is that @Tangled believes he is trying to simplify what he perceives as a complicated thing. He might refute your quote, above, and say something wordy to that effect.
He seeks a wondrous rating that instantly lets the tyro know if the particular rod he covets is a 'soft actioned, short range rod', or a 'fast actioned, long range rod', without, and this is important, wiggling it in a shop, and without relying on a system using line ratings because only 2/3 of lines are 'true', and the rest lie!!
I think this is what he wants, and I add this mostly for the benefit of anyone just joining, to save reading the same thing ad nauseum up stream.
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
977
Talking about rod ratings, does anyone else remember the old Shakespeare rating system they printed on their spinning rods? They used to print the chart in their catalogues.
It was very simple. First rod length in metres. Then a letter for rod action; A - fast, B- medium, C - slow. Then casting weight range in grams.
I remember my Dad's favourite pike rod was '2.4m B 40-60'. So an 8' rod, medium action, to cast 1 1/2 to 2 ounces. It was a good system, and very simple.
This would be fine on a fly rod - print it alongside the AFFTA rating...
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
Now you need not just multiple weighted rods, you also need multiple kinds of the same weighted rod for different kinds of fishing. Jeez, you guys will fall for anything and everything.
It would appear that it is only you who thinks that this is a bad thing...
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,020
^^^ that'll do. It's not a difficult concept.

The Yellowstone article, is another demonstration of the broken standard/no standard problem. They now say that there are two kinds of 9' #5 weight rods - who knew?!

They say that these two kinds of rods are Power rods and Presentation rods. They don't say how they know this to be a fact. They just say it.

I think it very likely that the ERNs of those rods (which of course they don't quote) would tell you which are which.

And - this for Ohanzee - yet again, the most expensive rods are not necessarily the 'best' rods. And yet again no really cheap rods included because they don't want to sell them.

“Also in the Presentation group, the amazing Fenwick Aetos at $199.95 placed above the $800-$975 rods from Scott, Winston and Sage!.”

Is the US Fenwick range our Greys rod? I heard that at lest one rod is the Greys GR50.
 

Latest posts

Top