Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
That is avoiding the question, and it does whip your credibility away, if you don't know what the definitions you try to espouse mean functionally what is the point of espousing them?

Is espouse the right word? I can't recall ever writing espouse before:unsure:
Ok, I confess I've lost your personal plot.

Do you want me to define for you (again) the CCS definition of Intrinsic Power (IP). I can I suppose, but as you obviously didn't read it the last three times I gave it to you, I'm struggling to see the point.

Or do you want me to give you the Yellowstone Angler's definitions of "Presentation Rod' and 'Power Rod'? If so, I refer you to the article itself. I know, I'm sorry, it involves you actually reading it but, you know, give it a go, see how you get on.

 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,734
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Fair enough, no waffle. So where exactly are you? Are we entitled to believe that a #7 rod more powerful than a #5 rod.Or not?
As before, MY GAWD!
Put 4 or 5 #5 rods together, you might think one is more "powerful" than the others.
Same applies to #7 rods.
The oft mentioned Yellowstone shootouts mention same.
But as a #7 is a heavier rated rod than #5, you might expect it to cast heavier lures than a #5, but that is what it is designed for, heavier lines and lures.
That is not "power" is design performance.
In fly fishing terms is ludicrous to state a rod several ratings higher in ratings is more "powerful", its designed to be able to cast heavier lines than lower ratings.
I have several cars.
One does 0-60 in 5 seconds
One does 0-60 in 9 seconds.
Another will hit a limited 155 mph.
Which one is the most "powerful"?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
It dumbs it down a bit but we do get the meaning, I just think it quite misleading and slightly annoying when you get into finer points, for example, it lets claim a particular rod that bends in the middle is more 'powerful' than one than a more powerful one that bends at the tip.
Right so a #7 is more powerful than a #5. Thank you. Can I bank that or are you going to change your mind in 5 minute's time?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
Put 4 or 5 #5 rods together, you might think one is more "powerful" than the others.
Yup, like a #5 TCR is more powerful than a #5 Bllx.
Same applies to #7 rods.
Do you understand that you're proving my point here?
But as a #7 is a heavier rated rod than #5,
Heavier rated? More powerful then?
you might expect it to cast heavier lures than a #5, but that is what it is designed for, heavier lines and lures.
That is not "power" is design performance.
I really don't think I need to go any further.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
Dont think Alan actually said anything like that!
He mentioned middle, and tip, but not line ratings!
Ok, so, let's try to be really specific and really clear - is a #7 TCR rod more powerful than a #5 TCR rod?
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,734
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Yup, like a #5 TCR is more powerful than a #5 Bllx.

Do you understand that you're proving my point here?

Heavier rated? More powerful then?

I really don't think I need to go any further.
Within the same line rating range, yes, some rods feel more powerful
And no, that fact underlines my point
Line ratings have nothing to do with power, at all.
They have lots to do with the weight they can turn over.
And yes, you dont need to go any further
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,793
Or do you want me to give you the Yellowstone Angler's definitions of "Presentation Rod' and 'Power Rod'?

No I want you to tell me what you think the advantages of a 'presentation rod' are, the entire thrust of your argument is that the 'power rods' are mislabeled, so I presume you think those are not good, so the term 'presentation rod' is effectively what you are promoting, I'm just asking why?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,793
Ok, so, let's try to be really specific and really clear - is a #7 TCR rod more powerful than a #5 TCR rod?

Lets go with that or we will be here all night...no wait..this will still be running in 2 years time :D
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,734
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Lets go with that or we will be here all night...no wait..this will still be running in 2 years time :D
Back to my car anology
Perhaps Tangled is confusing "power" with "performance"
No wait----------------------------------------------------
Cant possibly be so.
He admits he has never used any of the rods he has referenced.
Damn.
Thought I had a cop out for him.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
43,793
Back to my car anology
Perhaps Tangled is confusing "power" with "performance"
No wait----------------------------------------------------
Cant possibly be so.
He admits he has never used any of the rods he has referenced.
Damn.
Thought I had a cop out for him.

In the US its common to refer to rod power, I personally think its a strange choice of term for the job in hand, and it also refers only to the one measurement, effectively stiffness at one given point.

The next problem is the sophistication of rod action overtaking these methods, the TCR is a crude but good example of a 5 weight grafted to a 7 weight butt, I personally think this is clever, it lets me fish 30' of 5 weight line, and when I cast longer and the line weighs something close to a 7 weight the rod bends a bit deeper and turns into exactly what I need.......this is theoretical of course and the Orvis helios with a similar ERN does actually do this better in my opinion, I should point out here for those that don't know that a lot of my fishing is done with one dry fly on flat calms, I need accuracy but I'm no distance caster, one of my favorite rods is a Winston T, right on the ERN money, I sold it for the very reasons Tangled wants to bin the rods I replaced it with, ones that cast a 5 line, and have the backbone to also do what the Winston didn't, simply cast the same line further without bending like a mad thing, my Loomis GLS max does exactly that and can place a size 18 Griffiths gnat on a flat calm at 30' and 70+, the Winston just could not do that, what have I lost?

For me Tangled is taking away my Porsche 911 that was designed to be driven by a girl of 6 to a woman of 60, and giving me a standardised car that is limited to 45mph, and if I don't understand this is progress I'm stupid.

And he has never driven a Porsche 911 or in fact passed an advanced driving test, and its not about him, its loads of other people saying it, but when you look they are not actually saying the same thing as he is.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
the entire thrust of your argument is that the 'power rods' are mislabeled, so I presume you think those are not good, so the term 'presentation rod' is effectively what you are promoting, I'm just asking why?

Then you presume wrong. Both the Bllx and the TCR are apparently very good rods. So have another think about the argument.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
Within the same line rating range, yes, some rods feel more powerful

They feel more powerful because they are more powerful.

Line ratings have nothing to do with power, at all.

Line ratings are - or were, until they trashed the standard - the weight of the first 30’ of line. The number put on a rod need bear no resemblance to that line weight but we all know that in practice they do. We all expect a #8 rod to be more powerful that a #2 rod and they all are.

They have lots to do with the weight they can turn over.
And the reason that an #8 rod can turn over a heavier line than a #2 rod is because it's more powerful isn't it? Or is it just magic?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,021
In the US its common to refer to rod power, I personally think its a strange choice of term for the job in hand, and it also refers only to the one measurement, effectively stiffness at one given point.

It's common usage everywhere in the world including where you live. Here's what Gary Evans say of your Helios

“The 3D models are designed for accuracy with power at distance for pinpoint delivery of larger flies.“

And we've covered it here many times. When we talk about rod power we're actually talking about it's modulus of elasticity. And it is NOT measured at a point. It's measured across the whole length of the rod.

If you read the CCS documents that I keep imploring you to read you'd know this and possibly not keep making the same mistake over and over.

The next problem is the sophistication of rod action overtaking these methods,

They have not. Again, had you read anything, you'd know that rods can be, and are, measured in sections to cope with whatever combination of actions they have been devised with - normally butt, intermediate section an tip, but can be any section at all.

the TCR is a crude but good example of a 5 weight grafted to a 7 weight butt, I personally think this is clever, it lets me fish 30' of 5 weight line, and when I cast longer and the line weighs something close to a 7 weight the rod bends a bit deeper and turns into exactly what I need.......this is theoretical of course and the Orvis helios with a similar ERN does actually do this better in my opinion, I should point out here for those that don't know that a lot of my fishing is done with one dry fly on flat calms, I need accuracy but I'm no distance caster, one of my favorite rods is a Winston T, right on the ERN money, I sold it for the very reasons Tangled wants to bin the rods I replaced it with, ones that cast a 5 line, and have the backbone to also do what the Winston didn't, simply cast the same line further without bending like a mad thing, my Loomis GLS max does exactly that and can place a size 18 Griffiths gnat on a flat calm at 30' and 70+, the Winston just could not do that, what have I lost?

<sigh> Putting the correct label on a rod does not change anything about how the rod works. It just better informs the buyer what to expect of the rod.

For me Tangled is taking away my Porsche 911 that was designed to be driven by a girl of 6 to a woman of 60, and giving me a standardised car that is limited to 45mph, and if I don't understand this is progress I'm stupid.

And he has never driven a Porsche 911 or in fact passed an advanced driving test, and its not about him, its loads of other people saying it, but when you look they are not actually saying the same thing as he is.

You just haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about. Not the faintest wiff of an idea. How can you be so ignorant of the thing you spend so much time with? Do you really think that Orvis can't objectively measure exactly the action of the rods they make? How do you think they control quality? Do they get Bert to waggle every rod or do you think they actually measure them?
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
I suspect Andy is now having quite a think. He just provided us with a link to a review of rods that had to separate rods into presentation rods and power rods - all rated #5. Just proving the point that others have been making for 20 years now - rod power rating is not fit for purpose. The good news is that it's easily fixed.
Actually Andy has been out fishing...
As for 'proving the point that others have been making for 20 years now - rod power rating is not fit for purpose', I suggest you revisit some of my previous posts. I have always said that there are different 5wt rods for different jobs and have always been very clear about this. Reference the Sage TCR/ZXL comparison I made some time ago. One could be described as a 'power' rod, the other a 'presentation' rod but both are 5wt rods!
I'm not quite sure how you have interpreted my posting of the article as somehow self-defeating of my argument?
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
977
Do they get Bert to waggle every rod or do you think they actually measure them?
I'd be surprised if the final check wasn't Bert waggling them, personally.
Other, possibly measured, quality control checks at different stages, sure, but someone has to waggle it, don't they?
 

andygrey

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
3,436
Location
West Oxfordshire
And we've covered it here many times. When we talk about rod power we're actually talking about it's modulus of elasticity. And it is NOT measured at a point. It's measured across the whole length of the rod.
Tangled, this statement demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the CCS measurement system (and yes, I have read it... a few times).
The CCS measures the amount of force required to flex then rod to one third of its length to determine the ERN. This is a measure of the whole length of the rod but only at one loading condition.
It does not tell you anything about the flex/load outside this single condition.
 
Last edited:

codyarrow

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
4,216
You do know this is never going to take on?
You are complicating well established sales and marketing strategies designed for the 90% of the '10 trips a year man'. Must be 15 years at least since I first heard about CCS and ERN's . In my mind that is a good length of time to formulate the industry is not that interested.
You have to ask if the champions of the idea are creating 'status' for themselves within a niche area as they are primarily 'salesmen' of one form or another?

I might start one myself on why virtually all rod manufacturers (century is the only one maybe) do not 'spine' their rods, creating a situation where every thousandth rod has an annoying minor tick to the left or right. :eek: ;)
 
Top