Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

[LukeNZ]

This is fine if backed up with suggested actual weights (e g. like Burkheimer do),
and an idea as to the action....

All my two handed Burkheimers work best at the lowest number, rather than the mid or higher.. I find them effectively one line weight lighter than the mid - or for tangled; the "optimum" number. As do most real world users. This, despite many experts and indeed the manufacturer saying otherwise..

 

[Tangled]

So it's all coming out now. Doesn't seem so utterly impossible and ludicrous after all...

 

[LukeNZ]

W

So it's all coming out now. Doesn't seem so utterly impossible and ludicrous after all...

It has long been the case with long rods. Since possibly the wider use of Scandi lines outside Scandinavia. Loop may have been the pioneer of grain range. Then with the introduction of skagit, 3 numbers helped the uninitiated to make sense of the greatly differing loads relative to that variety of line style, line lengths, and tips.

For by far the vast majority of single hand trout rods and users 5wt. is as close a reference required, to match rod and line.

 

[LukeNZ]

All my two handed Burkheimers work best at the lowest number, rather than the mid or higher.. i find them effectively one line weight lighter than the mid - or for tangled; the "optimum" number. As do most real world users. This, despite many experts and indeed the manufacturer saying otherwise..

It seems the rod manufacturer is trying to appeal to a wider range of customers Those that want a 4wt. , those that want a 5wt., and those who want a 6wt.
3 chances of selling the same rod...

For me Burkheimer 3/4/5wt. is a 3wt. and the 4/5/6 is a 4wt., and for I imagine every other competent caster on the planet. His casting experts back up his sales claim - obviously...

Independent reviewers who have no financial interest very largely agree with me.

Burkheimer 2 handed trout rods are indeed sublime - but, just take my advice above, and choose the lower number for your actual line requirement.

 

[Tangled]

It seems the rod manufacturer is trying to appeal to a wider range of customers Those that want a 4wt. , those that want a 5wt., and those who want a 6wt.
3 chances of selling the same rod...

Surely, not a marketing ploy? No!

For me Burkheimer 3/4/5wt. is a 4wt. and I imagine every other competent caster on the planet. His casting experts back up his sales claim - obviously...

Right...

Independent reviewers who have no financial interest very largely agree with me.

Got, it, we can't trust the manufacturers to put the correct number on the rod. But didn't you say earlier....? Oh...

 

[LukeNZ]

Surely, not a marketing ploy? No!



Right...



Got, it, we can't trust the manufacturers to put the correct number on the rod. But didn't you say earlier....? Oh...

So do you want that nonsense on your single hand trout rod?

Not really, as if it says simply 5wt., that is the line you should use, of one profile or another to suit your casting tastes, or special requirement.

You surely don’t want a labelling system that implies your rod is a 3, 4, 5, and 6wt. all in one - when it is simply a 5wt.

The Burkheimer example I gave in the previous post was for a two handed trout spey rod. It’s double handed 4,5,6wt designation, if converted to the single hand line wt. of the trout world, would equate (for me) as 6,7,8wt.

So, that Burkheimer two handed rod (for me), would cast a regular 6wt. single hand trout line, overhead - without overloading (not that I would ever do that, I use largely Scandi lines of around 265gn. for a two handed rating 3wt.).

Just an example of why single hand trout rods are best with just the usual simple 5wt. rating - as a rod so rated must, and will, cast every 5wt. trout line.

So, what were you saying.... ..that you don’t really understand anything, in a useable sense perhaps?

You really do need to invest some time and money, and go fishing much more, and perhaps even discover rods from Burkheimer, Meiser, Thomas &Thomas, as well as the likes of Hardy, and the myriad of other mass production rods too. Try lots of lines on all these rods, find what you really like, the ones that really boogy for you.

Probably better than wasting you time ‘understanding’ your growth pains, or lack of, perhaps.

From the comment on this subject here, it is clear to see those people you are arguing the toss with, that really already understand casting and must have lots of skill, and decades of experience to comment in the way they do.

So far, it seems we could write what you actually understand in a practical useful sense, on the back of a postage stamp...

 

[LukeNZ]

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.

But wouldn’t you need to understand critical thinking yourself, first? Or, would this be just another ‘understanding’ thread, where yet again, everyone else fills you in.

 

[Tangled]

So do you want that nonsense on your single hand trout rod?

Why do you say that showing the design rod weight on a rod is nonsense?

Not really, as if it says simply 5wt., that is the line you should use, of one profile or another to suit your casting tastes, or special requirement.

But you say that the number the manufacturer put on your rod is wrong. And you say everyone else says so too. So which is it?

You surely don’t want a labelling system that implies your rod is a 3, 4, 5, and 6wt. all in one - when it is simply a 5wt.

I would like it to say what the rod's design weight is and if they want to recommend a line weight too, that's fine.

So, what were you saying.... ..that you don’t really understand anything, perhaps?

Do at least try to be nice.

You really do need to invest some time and money, and go fishing much more, and perhaps even discover rods from Burkheimer, Meiser, Thomas &Thomas, as well as the likes of Hardy, and the myriad of other mass production rods too. Try lots of lines on all these rods, find what you really like, the ones that really boogy for you.

Well thanks for the advice but somehow I don't think filling my garage with preposterously expensive, dick-waving gear is particularly useful.

I know this is really hard for you, but remember that I said that this is not about me? I'm fine thanks.

This is about improving information so we can make informed choices WITHOUT having to buy loads of rods and lines.

So far, it seems we could write what you actually understand in a practical useful sense, on the back of a postage stamp...

I agree, and a very small stamp at that. Something like #5,9g,MF

 

[andygrey]

The thing is Tangled, your opinions on the current rating system is based purely on what you have read on the internet with little on no practicable experience of casting different rods and lines.
You are obsessed with figures and measurements but have no concept of how they actually translate to real world conditions... how different does a rod with an ERN of 5 feel to one with a 6? Yes it's 1 different... but you don't know how much 1 is! The fact is that you don't know, so excuse us if your crusade for a more objective rod rating system is subject to some derision.
It's a little bit like 2 blokes in a pub arguing on the relative merits of a Lamborghini Countach and a Ferrari Testarossa without having seen either, let alone driven one.

 

[Tangled]

The thing is Tangled, your opinions on the current rating system is based purely on what you have read on the internet with little on no practicable experience of casting different rods and lines.

There you are with your assertions without knowledge or evidence again, I suspect my 30 odd years of diverse and destination fly fishing is far more than the majority of anglers. Obviously it's nothing like those of you that make a living at it, but professional and obsessive tackle collectors shouldn't be the benchmark.

You are obsessed with figures and measurements but have no concept of how they actually translate to real world conditions...

I've been in close season lockdown with a travel ban; I got interested in rod measurement systems as a substitute. In a few months I'll be a lot more interested in salmon in the Kola and you can relax. Please stop making this personal and stop pigeon-holing. I shouldn't have to keep having to say this.

how different does a rod with an ERN of 5 feel to one with a 6? Yes it's 1 different... but you don't know how much 1 is! The fact is that you don't know, so excuse us if your crusade for a more objective rod rating system is subject to some derision.

How a rod feels is a totally different subject. It's fascinating but not relevant to trying to sort out a simple and objective way of telling us a few important and universal facts about a rod. A rod will feel the same with or without those facts. Once again, you're pushing a false choice.

It's a little bit like 2 blokes in a pub arguing on the relative merits of a Lamborghini Countach and a Ferrari Testarossa without having seen either, let alone driven one.

Is it? Don't those two car manufacturers produce a very large volume of objective measurements in their data sheets?

 

[andygrey]

There you are with your assertions without knowledge or evidence again, I suspect my 30 odd years of diverse and destination fly fishing is far more than the majority of anglers. Obviously it's nothing like those of you that make a living at it, but professional and obsessive tackle collectors shouldn't be the benchmark.

I'm not suggesting it should be the benchmark, rather that subjective assessment against objective measurement increases understanding.

I've been in close season lockdown with a travel ban; I got interested in rod measurement systems as a substitute. In a few months I'll be a lot more interested in salmon in the Kola and you can relax. Please stop making this personal and stop pigeon-holing. I shouldn't have to keep having to say this.

Fair enough!

How a rod feels is a totally different subject. It's fascinating but not relevant to trying to sort out a simple and objective way of telling us a few important and universal facts about a rod. A rod will feel the same with or without those facts. Once again, you're pushing a false choice.

How a rod 'feels' is pretty fundamental...

Is it? Don't those two car manufacturers produce a very large volume of objective measurements in their data sheets?

Car manufacturers publish pretty basic information, normally power, torque, acceleration and braking times/distances. In a previous life I worked as a chassis engineer for a company that made sports cars. We measured pretty much everything and benchmarked against objective measurements of competitor vehicles. By 'everything' I mean things like lateral grip against steering angle, suspension compliance and kinematics, brake pedal travel against force against deceleration etc. etc. Car manufactures have a vast set of objective measurements of their vehicles but ultimately the judgment of the 'optimal' setup was determined subjectively.

 

[codyarrow]

All this talk about rods and he's off to the salmon stock pond of the coca cola peninsula. You could just take a humungous and a hand line if you want to travel light.

 

[Tangled]

I'm not suggesting it should be the benchmark, rather that subjective assessment against objective measurement increases understanding.

Both are necessary! Having proper objective measurement does not preclude subjective views. We CAN have both without harming anything else.

How a rod 'feels' is pretty fundamental...

Of course it is and no-one has ever said otherwise.

Car manufacturers publish pretty basic information, normally power, torque, acceleration and braking times/distances. In a previous life I worked as a chassis engineer for a company that made sports cars. We measured pretty much everything and benchmarked against objective measurements of competitor vehicles. By 'everything' I mean things like lateral grip against steering angle, suspension compliance and kinematics, brake pedal travel against force against deceleration etc. etc. Car manufactures have a vast set of objective measurements of their vehicles but ultimately the judgment of the 'optimal' setup was determined subjectively.

There you go, they measure everything they possibly can - of course they do. And they publish a lot of it because it's useful to know that Car X has 150bhp and Car Y has 450bhp.

I'm really bemused by your reluctance not to have more useful information. It's not instead of subjective stuff, it's as well as.

 

[andygrey]

There you go, they measure everything they possibly can - of course they do. And they publish a lot of it because it's useful to know that Car X has 150bhp and Car Y has 450bhp.

I'm really bemused by your reluctance not to have more useful information. It's not instead of subjective stuff, it's as well as.

They actually only publish a very vary small amount of measured information. People are fare more interested in how quick a car goes rather than the tyre slip-angle at breakaway...

 

[Tangled]

They actually only publish a very vary small amount of measured information. People are fare more interested in how quick a car goes rather than the tyre slip-angle at breakaway...

Sure, and for the purposes of providing objective values for rods I'm only interested in a couple of measurements too.

 

[codyarrow]

Tangles not biting so I'll post something useful on the subject. If you go down the tangled path the video below might be useful? I do not believe it is required for all but a few anomalies in rod manufacture, and anyway as the video explains it might be the line weight or taper that is incorrect.

 

[Tangled]

Tangles not biting so I'll post something useful on the subject.

You'll notice that I don't respond to the snide comments that some people here just can't stop themselves from making. But I do read them, just in case one of the trolls accidentally post something on-topic and useful.

If you go down the tangled path the video below might be useful? I do not believe it is required for all but a few anomalies in rod manufacture, and anyway as the video explains it might be the line weight or taper that is incorrect.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that video before. It doesn't say anything that I haven't been banging on for pages here - it's just the CCS - but it is helpful to hear and see someone talking about it instead of having to read. Some prefer that. So thanks for that, I'll put it in the OP.

 

[Cooperman]

I've mentioned this Sameo site and the quick calculator more than once previously. This CCS system is the only way we inexperienced folk have to determine what is probably the best line for an unmarked rod or even to verify the line for a marked rod . Assuming of course that we would also ensure that the line we purchased is compliant with the recognised grain weight.
Would the main contributors to this thread like to agree or not with the above, a yes or no is all that is required.
BTW there is absolutely no place for any abusive remarks towards tangled who after all spent a considerable time compiling the original post.

 

[ohanzee]

BTW there is absolutely no place for any abusive remarks towards tangled who after all spent a considerable time compiling the original post.

I think we are all very supportive of the original thread.

 

[Tangled]

I think we are all very supportive of the original thread.

You just don't want the plebs to know anything about the rods they're buying?