Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,427
Location
West Oxfordshire
^^^ 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.
Would you say that this review is a better guide for buyers than simply listing the CCS ratings?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
Would you say that this review is a better guide for buyers than simply listing the CCS ratings?

Why are you so binary? Do you not think that both are possible?

Is not a correct rod power rating AND a good review a better approach than an incorrect rod power rating and a good review. Just in case, on the off chance, someone missed the review?

I don't know, you and your straw men and false choices. I think I'll write an Understanding Critical Thinking thread starting with Logical Fallacies.
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,427
Location
West Oxfordshire
Why are you so binary? Do you not think that both are possible?

Is not a correct rod power rating AND a good review a better approach than an incorrect rod power rating and a good review. Just in case, on the off chance, someone missed the review?

I don't know, you and your straw men and false choices. I think I'll write an Understanding Critical Thinking thread starting with Logical Fallacies.
It's quite a simple question Tangled...
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
It's quite a simple question Tangled...

It certainly isn't. It's a loaded question, you're deliberately presenting a false choice. Of course it's possible to have both the correct power and a review.

But if you make me choose, I want the correct power rating please because most rods will not be reviewed, and if they are, they might not be looked for or found if looked for.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
You are making a convenient judgment of the difference between a loaded question and a difficult question...

Couldn't be simpler actually.

Here's a simple proposal for you now that we seem to have found a common realisation that manufacturers ARE actually making two kinds of rods based on relative power but labelling them the same.

Sage Kardassian #5/6.8

ie this is a 'Power' rod and we recommend a #5 line for it. (This, of course assumes the line AFFTA standard is actually fixed - no cheating.)

Winston SoppyGit #5/4.5

ie this is a 'Presentation' rod and we recommend a #5 line for it.


It would be better to convert the ERN to grams/grains but baby steps.
 
Last edited:

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,989
Location
Devon
^^^ 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.

must be true it Yellowstone wrote it.... their Rod reviews are ‘scientifically’ significant 😂 😂 😂
 

codyarrow

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
4,178
download.jpg
'What do you think of the Ern rating so far'
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
must be true it Yellowstone wrote it.... their Rod reviews are ‘scientifically’ significant 😂 😂 😂

Make your complaint to Andygrey, it was his post, I'm just quoting from it.

And, as always, I'm happy to look at anything that you think is better.
 

boisker

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
2,989
Location
Devon
Make your complaint to Andygrey, it was his post, I'm just quoting from it.

And, as always, I'm happy to look at anything that you think is better.

would you settle for things that are equally as meaningless?
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
942
@Tangled I have just been casting an old rod that DOES seem to conform to the 30' of rated line weight rule of thumb.
IMG_20210307_105629661_HDR-01-01.jpeg

It's rare to see a 7' #5 rod these days. I forgot I used to use it with a DT5. After I learned to cast properly I much preferred it with a DT3. But it is very smooth with the #5 for 30' casts!! It will cope up to 60' with no drama, with hauling.
It was interesting to put the heavier line on it again. Nice, gentle casts with lower line speeds needed than the #3 I normally use. It is a very through actioned rod for carbon, and I found various Snake Rolls and Spey variations worked really well with the heavier line - admittedly on grass, up to 50' or so.
Interesting....may have to try it on the river. A #5 will cast smaller seatrout flies and the 7' rod will be handy in the 'tree tunnels' that Cornish rivers run through...
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
5,996
@Tangled I have just been casting an old rod that DOES seem to conform to the 30' of rated line weight rule of thumb.
It's rare to see a 7' #5 rod these days. I forgot I used to use it with a DT5. After I learned to cast properly I much preferred it with a DT3. But it is very smooth with the #5 for 30' casts!! It will cope up to 60' with no drama, with hauling.
It was interesting to put the heavier line on it again. Nice, gentle casts with lower line speeds needed than the #3 I normally use. It is a very through actioned rod for carbon, and I found various Snake Rolls and Spey variations worked really well with the heavier line - admittedly on grass, up to 50' or so.
Interesting....may have to try it on the river. A #5 will cast smaller seatrout flies and the 7' rod will be handy in the 'tree tunnels' that Cornish rivers run through...

I'm pretty sure the original intent was to match rod and line at 30', everything I've been able to find online says the same sort of thing. I'm pretty sure that most modern rods with a more traditional action still do.

I'm still waiting for Paul to fix his database so I can attempt to prove it
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
2,913
Location
Hawkes Bay, NZ
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...
But we don’t really want a whole bunch of data printed on our rods?

What is wrong with just a simple 9ft. #5wt. - it’s so simple and we all know that we need a 5wt. line relative to our use, and the rod design purpose.

Who wants to see on their custom graphene/sintrix/boron matrix Taiwan-MacGreggor GBX666 MK20..

“Taiwan-MacGreggor special graphene/sintrix/boron matrix GBX666 MK.20 9ft (2.6mtr.) DT 220-270gn. @+/-30’ WF. 245- 260gn.@ +/-30ft. SH 250gn. 11-13ft head. Medium wigglyness - 5wt. +/- 50gn. meets and exceeds average caster rating with upto 10gn fly wt.(when wet). Serial No.123456887654322-GBXMK.20

In preference to simply - MacGregor 9ft. #5wt. Serial no. 4E4216

🙃
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
942
But we don’t really want a whole bunch of data printed on our rods?

What is wrong with just a simple 9ft. #5wt. - it’s so simple and we all know that we need a 5wt. line relative to our use, and the rod design purpose.

Who wants to see on their custom graphene/sintrix/boron matrix Taiwan-MacGreggor GBX666 MK20..

“Taiwan-MacGreggor special graphene/sintrix/boron matrix GBX666 MK.20 9ft (2.6mtr.) DT 220-270gn. @+/-30’ WF. 245- 260gn.@ +/-30ft. SH 250gn. 11-13ft head. Medium wigglyness - 5wt. +/- 50gn. meets and exceeds average caster rating with upto 10gn fly wt.(when wet). Serial No.123456887654322-GBXMK.20

In preference to simply - MacGregor 9ft. #5wt. Serial no. 4E4216

🙃
Hmm, not quite. All that would be needed here would be;
9' #5 B (2.6m 14.25-17.5 g)
(and whatever else the maker chooses...)
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
942
What is wrong with just a simple 9ft. #5wt. - it’s so simple and we all know that we need a 5wt. line relative to our use, and the rod design purpose
This is fine if backed up with suggested actual weights (e g. like Burkheimer do),
and an idea as to the action....
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,427
Location
West Oxfordshire
This is fine if backed up with suggested actual weights (e g. like Burkheimer do),
and an idea as to the action....
I think Burkheimer use the same rating as pretty much every other rod company? I.E. the #
Never cast one though always wanted to as they have a bit of a Holy Grail reputation, but they do say, never meet your hero's!
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
942
I think Burkheimer use the same rating as pretty much every other rod company? I.E. the #
Never cast one though always wanted to as they have a bit of a Holy Grail reputation, but they do say, never meet your hero's!
Yep, single number on the rod backed up by suggested Skagit and Scandi ratings and grain window (so three ratings 😳) on website.
Never cast one either....
@LukeNZ how do you choose a Burkheimer for trout Spey? Do you say, choose a #5 line you like and just get the #5 rod, or do you pore over grain ratings and look at reviews?
 
Top