Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
2,603
Location
South Northants
'And all manufacturers apply their own ideas of what is slow, medium and fast.
When Orvis tried to introduce a standardised methodology to help customers, the industry wouldn't use it.'


Oh dear! You need to know how fast is fast how slow is slow?
Orvis's 'Full Flex' . . . would you expect that to be slow or fast?

'And all rod manufacturers measure it differently with the difference often being 40% or more between 'casting' rods and 'presentation' rods.'

Do they? I thought they had them test cast and someone suggested a 5wt line loaded the rod. Casting rods, presentation rods? How do they they measure fishing rods, and a 40% difference of what? How do you know it's not 38% or 42%? Gosh I'm becoming really confused!
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
I wondered when you'd notice..

Do you now see why it would be better to have a standard system of meaningful rod attributes rather than have to interpret the vague terms used by the makers and marketers such as 'power' and 'action'?

But until we do, rod 'power' means what I've described.
Substitute power for load and it all makes sense perhaps?

.....oops, that is already what we have 🤔

Load rating is the best indicator of letting the caster know how much oomph (power) he might impart to the energy exchange.

🙃
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
Load rating is the best indicator of letting the caster know how much oomph (power) he might impart to the energy exchange.

🙃

What a great idea, how about we give them a optimum recommended weight in grains/grammes and write it on the rod?

D'oh...
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
13,335
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
What a great idea, how about we give them a optimum recommended weight in grains/grammes and write it on the rod?

D'oh...
They already do that with aftm system do they not?
But just in case you have not digested the ratings, here it is.

AFTM Table


AFTM number
In grains (range)
In grams
In ounces
3
100 +/- 6​
6.48​
0.228​
4
120 +/- 6​
7.78​
0.274​
5
140 +/- 6​
9.07​
0.32​
6
160 +/- 8​
10.42​
0.366​
7
185 +/- 8​
11.99​
0.422​
8
210 +/- 8​
13.61​
0.48​
9
240 +/- 10​
15.55​
0.55​
10
280 +/- 10​
18.14​
0.64​
11
330 +/- 12​
21.38​
0.75​
12
380 +/- 12​
24.62​
0.86​

D'oh
 
Last edited:

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
What a great idea, how about we give them a optimum recommended weight in grains/grammes and write it on the rod?

D'oh...
Some two handed rod makers do that, due to the greater complexities of line types, and their corresponding casting differences.

However; trout rod's typically handle much less load, so a simple line load designation such as #5 wt. conveys adequately and simply a line reference which will load the rod suitably. That method has worked adequately for generations of trout fly fishermen; and nothing has changed?

Edit: doh'!


🙃
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
What a great idea, how about we give them a optimum recommended weight in grains/grammes and write it on the rod?

D'oh...
.....what is the optimum load in grams for your 5wt. and with what line type and profile, that makes it cast perfectly for you at the distance ranges you typically use it for, and the leader and fly combinations you use - what 'power' descriptor would you prefer to assign to that rod, instead of 5wt., its current load descriptor from its manufacturers for its designed/intended/recommended line use?

Does a 5wt. line not work sufficiently well for the rod manufacturers intended use for that particular 5wt. rod design offering.

🙃
 
Last edited:

ed_t

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
6,540
What a great idea, how about we give them a optimum recommended weight in grains/grammes and write it on the rod?

D'oh...
That is already done and intrinsic in that the line weight system is... a weight. The line weight system even has a built in tolerance, and some rod manufacturers take it further with a line weight range: 5/6#, 7/8# etc..

A remarkable system that works.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
They already do that with aftm system do they not?
But just in case you have not digested the ratings, here it is.

AFTM Table


AFTM number
In grains (range)
In grams
In ounces
3
100 +/- 6​
6.48​
0.228​
4
120 +/- 6​
7.78​
0.274​
5
140 +/- 6​
9.07​
0.32​
6
160 +/- 8​
10.42​
0.366​
7
185 +/- 8​
11.99​
0.422​
8
210 +/- 8​
13.61​
0.48​
9
240 +/- 10​
15.55​
0.55​
10
280 +/- 10​
18.14​
0.64​
11
330 +/- 12​
21.38​
0.75​
12
380 +/- 12​
24.62​
0.86​

D'oh
I think you'll find that is a line standard not a rod standard and that's it's no longer a standard.

You'll also find that - oh, never mind it's all in post #1.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
That is already done and intrinsic in that the line weight system is... a weight. The line weight system even has a built in tolerance, and some rod manufacturers take it further with a line weight range: 5/6#, 7/8# etc..

A remarkable system that works.
What is the weight of a #5 line?
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
13,335
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
I think you'll find that is a line standard not a rod standard and that's it's no longer a standard.

You'll also find that - oh, never mind it's all in post #1.
It is still a standard, wether you agree with or not.
It is still a standard for rods to relate the line to be used, again wether you like it or not.
It is exactly what you suggested in post 1764!
What a great idea, how about we give them a optimum recommended weight in grains/grammes and write it on the rod?

D'oh...
1764 posts to get back to suggesting what already exists, and works well!
Enough from me, this is hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ejw

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
What is the weight of a #5 line?
Whatever the manufacturer wants it to be, relative to its designed performance intention, on a 5wt. load specified rod.

But generally it fits within a load wt. band width.

Sometimes the line wt. goes beyond that if the line has a specialist intention - such as heavier to assist casting at short range, or assisting begginers at long range, if they have a faster/stiffer 5wt. rod. It enables one rod to do more, more easilly.

The handy thing about those specialist lines is that the manufacturer does mot confuse the issue by calling it a 6wt. - his intention is that it delivrrs its benefits on a 5wt. rod; so he calls it a 5wt.

His marketing and package advertising state what it is for; its benefits and attributes etc.

🙃
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
It is still a standard, wether you agree with or not.
It's not a matter of me agreeing or not. It's a fact.

Not only are around 33% of lines not being made to the standard but the line makers themselves are saying that they needn't be - "it's only guidance."

So, for example, Rio make #5 weight lines that are 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 times overweight.

So when your rod says #5 (and doesn't have a weight in grammes written on it - how useful would that be?) which #5 weight line is it?
 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
47,795
1764 posts to get back to suggesting what already exists, and works well!
Enough from me, this is hilarious.

We should not forget the main point of contention, Tangled's original premise was that the system was broken, because we had lines heavier than their AFTM, and rods with a higher ERN to cast them(presumed) ...a fair comment, there are 5 weight rods that have the relative stiffness of 7 weights.

I don't agree with the broken bit but what do you do when manufacturers stretch the system?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
47,795
It's not a matter of me agreeing or not. It's a fact.

Not only are around 40% of lines not being made to the standard but the line makers themselves are saying that they needn't be - "it's only guidance."

So, for example, Rio make #5 weight lines that are 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 times overweight.

So when your rod says #5 (and doesn't have a weight in grammes written on it - how useful would that be?) which #5 weight line is it?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever cast a 7 weight line on a 5 weight rod?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
Just out of curiosity, have you ever cast a 7 weight line on a 5 weight rod?
Yes, as I've told you at least twice now. And also a #5 on a #7. It's fine, though the #7 on the #5 felt a bit soggy.
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
Yes, as I've told you at least twice now. And also a #5 on a #7. It's fine, though the #7 on the #5 felt a bit soggy.
Soggy but will cast a bigger streamer. You get to use the same rod to cast bigger flies - a specialist line for a 5wt. rod is born. (and the choir sang; hallelujah, hallelujah, hallee-lujahhh) 🤣
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
Shouldnt this be a thread on understanding fly lines, rather than specifically 'carbon' trout fly rods?

🙃
 
Last edited:
Top