Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

[LukeNZ]

I'm not buying this "there are too many variables" stuff, it's woo. If that was actually true it would be impossible to rate a rod at all and every angler would have a completely different opinion about a rod. That does not seem to be the way it is.


See above.

You can rate a rod; we already have a good barometer on that. And we already have a good system to rate a line for said rated rod.

Now, you just need a rating for anglers, for the rated rod and line combo - to ensure it works for him/her.

Angler rating #1 = crap caster
all the way to #10 = excellent caster...

Simples!

 

[LukeNZ]

I'm not buying this "there are too many variables" stuff, it's woo. If that was actually true it would be impossible to rate a rod at all and every angler would have a completely different opinion about a rod. That does not seem to be the way it is.


See above.

There are not too many variables? There are many variables, and these are all accounted for by the rod maker/designer/engineer - when he gives his rod a 5wt. rating for its intended use.

You seem to want to appear a rod master, without being a rod caster...?

Like someone engaging in academic argument around Rachmaninov piano concerto no.3 - but being unable to graduate beyond chopsticks on their own piano - it's an interesting compensation perhaps..?

It wont improve his piano playing, or impress competent pianists... unfortunately.

 

[Tangled]

There are not too many variables, just one that prevents you reaching an optimum weight to power...that is, we have to vary the length we cast to, there is a vague optimum in there but if you pin it down to one length and weight you can then only cast to that distance.

If you say ok, lets do that but you get a degree either way...you have what we currently have.

If you accept that a rod can have an optimum design weight there are two parts to it

1. The rod maker declares that weight on their rod

2. The line manufacturers make lines to showing where the weight of line matches those weights for whatever profiles they design.

There would need to be some semi-arbitrary line profiles and distances and set weights increments chosen to create a table similar to the Spey system.

You can still use almost any line on any rod, it's just that now a user knows how much line he needs to have out to match the rod weight - if it's 200 feet or 10 feet he'd probably not buy it.

You still have the contentious issue of how the rod designers calculate a rod weight but it matters less because lines are now measured correctly using weight of line for distance extended.

 

[Hardrar]

Great article thanks, which I enjoyed reading, but is a little wasted on me now, as I gave up on carbon rods about 5 years back and went back to glass rods- mostly custom built and I now enjoy my fishing many times more.
I can now thankfully ignore all the marketing hype that seems inextricably welded to carbon rod brands and choose what a rod looks and feels like.
One question continually puzzles me though, opinion, rod tests and physics say the swing weight of a modern S or E glass rod will always be higher for any given length and line rating, than equivalent carbon.
Why then, is my arm and shoulder telling me after a full day along the bankside, that carbon is far more tiring than S or E Glass, despite the higher weight?
Interestingly the big names are now developing rods with glass blended in with carbon, to improve strength and action- Abu did that 40 years ago with the Royal Carbolite rods.(65 carbon 35 glass)

 

[Tangled]

Great article thanks, which I enjoyed reading, but is a little wasted on me now, as I gave up on carbon rods about 5 years back and went back to glass rods- mostly custom built and I now enjoy my fishing many times more.
I can now thankfully ignore all the marketing hype that seems inextricably welded to carbon rod brands and choose what a rod looks and feels like.
One question continually puzzles me though, opinion, rod tests and physics say the swing weight of a modern S or E glass rod will always be higher for any given length and line rating, than equivalent carbon.
Why then, is my arm and shoulder telling me after a full day along the bankside, that carbon is far more tiring than S or E Glass, despite the higher weight?
Interestingly the big names are now developing rods with glass blended in with carbon, to improve strength and action- Abu did that 40 years ago with the Royal Carbolite rods.(65 carbon 35 glass)

Why not write one for glass ?

 

[LukeNZ]

If you accept that a rod can have an optimum design weight there are two parts to it

1. The rod maker declares that weight on their rod

2. The line manufacturers make lines to showing where the weight of line matches those weights for whatever profiles they design.

There would need to be some semi-arbitrary line profiles and distances and set weights increments chosen to create a table similar to the Spey system.

You can still use almost any line on any rod, it's just that now a user knows how much line he needs to have out to match the rod weight - if it's 200 feet or 10 feet he'd probably not buy it.

You still have the contentious issue of how the rod designers calculate a rod weight but it matters less because lines are now measured correctly using weight of line for distance extended.

1. The rod maker decides the rating, based on his own, and other experienced caster preferences, with consideration of its design qualities and intended use.

2. Line makers want to sell lines. They make a wide range of 5wt. lines to suit the profitable range of individual caster preferences.

3. There does not need to be any semi-arbitrary limitations on what a line manufacturer calls his 5wt. expression..
If it doesnt work for anybody as a 5wt. line, it won't sell as one!

4. Most people choose a 5wt. line for a 5wt. rod, selecting one which works nicely with the particular attributes of their 5wt. rod and also their own take on castability and their fly type presentation requirement.

5. There is no contentious issue; because if a rod makers 5wt. cannot cast any of the 5wt. lines available, it is not a 5wt. and will not be purchased as one.

 

[bobmiddlepoint]

There would need to be some semi-arbitrary line profiles and distances and set weights increments chosen to create a table similar to the Spey system.

We've got that already with the AFTM system!
We know that if we are going to be casing 90' all day long a line weight lower might be an idea and if we are casting 10' all day a weight higher might be an idea. We also know that we can fish at all distances, within out own capabilities, using a 5 weight line on a 5 weight rod by adjusting our casting stroke and speed.

Time and again you have said that the current system only works for experts. I'm no expert and I've met hundreds of other non experts. Not one of them has struggled with tackle matched using the AFTM system because of anything other than a lack of skill/teaching. Nobody else recognises your world full of tyros flailing around hopelessly because of the AFTM system.

Luke is bang on, once more the thing that shines through in all your posts is your own lack of experience and knowledge.

You know Jack,
and yer full of cack!

Andy

 

[Tangled]

Luke is bang on, once more the thing that shines through in all your posts is your own lack of experience and knowledge.

You know Jack,
and yer full of cack!

Andy

If you could resist making this personal and insulting, I'd take more notice of what you say. As it is you're just wasting electrons.

 

[ejw]

I have made some comments to this thread, but now I am thinking of a holiday in October last year (yes I did manage a break despite the pandemic) ?
I had taken a few rods (3) and several reels / lines. The cottage we stayed in had a field attached, so I could try out my rod/line combinations ? All in the ATFM 3 or 4 range. I had lines from Orvis, Maxcatch (Gold and standard) and Hardy/Greys. I tried them on a Greys Streamflex 10' wt4 an Orvis Frequent Flyer 9' in wt4 and a Maxcatch 11' wt3. It was "interesting" The only rod that could use all the lines was the Maxcatch ??? The best line was the Maxcatch Gold, followed by the "Standard".
Now this is based on the ATFM rating and "My" abilities. I did put a 5wt line through all three rods and they all coped, but for distance and presentation the Gold was the best all rounder, with the "Standard" only marginally less. I found the Orvis line died as the power increased, all lines worked well at short range, but the Hardy/Greys lost accuracy with distance. I had hoops set up at 5m, 10m and 20m. I also had a straight cast area to compare distance.
Who would have thought that manufactures claimed did not match up with their products ? But cheap Chinese "copies" did better ?
Since this test I have tried my other rods. The only rod that beats all others in a range is a Greys Streamflex 6'6" (MK1) 3wt, but with a 4wt Maxcatch standard line (I have 6 similar rods in this range). This is my go to small river rod.
My tests prove to me that the ATFM rating system is a "Guide" only, nothing beats actually trying a set up. There are too many variables to feed in, not least an individuals ability !

 

[andygrey]

If you could resist making this personal and insulting, I'd take more notice of what you say. As it is you're just wasting electrons.

Whilst I think Bob's delivery may be a bit strong, I do agree with the sentiment...
Your views and opinions seem to be wholly based on Google and not actual experience.
Have you actually got out in a field with a few different rods, lines and a measuring tape and actually tested your theories by actually casting them?
If not, perhaps this would be a better starting point than trawling the internet for evidence of something that you have no practicable experience of.

 

[Tangled]

Your views and opinions seem to be wholly based on Google and not actual experience.

I don't really have my own views, I'm trying to report what the situation is, as recorded by others and trying understand both positions. I'm quoting what various people that make these things are saying. I'm not making this stuff up. The CCS exists. Rod builders use it. Lines are overweight. Some manufacturers can specify an optimum weight for their rods. Alternative ways of rating rods and lines are used.

The process necessitates me having to push the position at odds with those on the other side of it. It doesn't mean I'm not listening. I read everything everyone says.

There IS another side to the argument than 'it's all too difficult, just get as experienced as me and you'll know.'

Have you actually got out in a field with a few different rods, lines and a measuring tape and actually tested your theories by actually casting them?
If not, perhaps this would be a better starting point than trawling the internet for evidence of something that you have no practicable experience of.

I still don't think you get this at all. The point of trying to standardise things better is so that people that aren't expert and will never become experts are able to buy equipment with some confidence that it'll match.

I don't have a collection of rods, lines and reels to take into a field and I've been fly fishing for 30+ years. Certainly no beginner has. You have to understand that the majority of anglers don't possess armouries, don't have many if any lessons, don't even read forums, they just go fishing and maybe buy T&S every so often. We're real freaks - exceptions in the fly fishing world. Me because I've taken an academic interest because of lockdown, you because you've a professional interest. There's probably no more that a few hundred of us in the world. The rest just go fishing.

Standards are for them - and me.

 

[Rhithrogena]

You can rate a rod; we already have a good barometer on that. And we already have a good system to rate a line for said rated rod.

Now, you just need a rating for anglers, for the rated rod and line combo - to ensure it works for him/her.

Angler rating #1 = crap caster
all the way to #10 = excellent caster...

Simples!

Ahh, but who does the rating, the caster or the Casting Ratification Assessment Panel

 

[Lewis Chessman]

How about an Industry Standard Robotic Casting Arm?
Programmable to produce the ideal casting action uniformly, universally, with sensors built in to adjust, register and record the optimum stroke with a set length of line, leader and fly.
It would at least help unify the industries' approach to rod rating if every rod was cast in the same fashion.

Personally, as one who grew up with rods rated, say #5/6/7/8, I don't think it's that big an issue. Most anglers, even beginners, will adjust their stroke to optimise their own performance, whether under or over lined. What is really needed is a National Line Lending Library where members can trial several lines before buying what works best for them.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?

 

[Hardrar]

Why not write one for glass ?

Glass isn’t 1% as complex as carbon and simply why I gave up with carbon. My Swift Epic 580 will cast anything from a #2 to a #9 pretty well, Carbon has deliberately become too singularly specialist in each individual rods capabilities so we “have” to buy lots of rods- and lots of lines, to cover all bases and it’s 100% a marketing scam imho.

 

[Tangled]

Glass isn’t 1% as complex as carbon and simply why I gave up with carbon. My Swift Epic 580 will cast anything from a #2 to a #9 pretty well, Carbon has deliberately become too singularly specialist in each individual rods capabilities so we “have” to buy lots of rods- and lots of lines, to cover all bases and it’s 100% a marketing scam imho.

What properties of glass rods make them immune/agnostic to line weight?

 

[roadrunner1000]

No idea if this link is relevant to this thread or has been posted already but it make me chuckle :

Goodbye and Good Riddance

Steve Parton's Sexyloops weekly column: Rod Rating - a professional speaks.

www.sexyloops.com

 

[easker1]

You mentioned Agnostic I'm doubtful about that,, I was having a word with my Carbon rod Last night and I still cant under stand it, I can't speak carbon? easker1

 

[Tangled]

No idea if this link is relevant to this thread or has been posted already but it make me chuckle :

Goodbye and Good Riddance

Steve Parton's Sexyloops weekly column: Rod Rating - a professional speaks.

www.sexyloops.com

Yeh, it's in the main doc and I've quoted it several times here. Not that anyone reads, obviously.
This:

When I test cast I deliberately attempt to cast like an average flyfisherman without double hauling. I try to be as like the average as possible and the average flyfisher is around 50 with a wife and 2.4 kids, a mortgage, well stressed and probably living a life of quiet desperation. He goes flyfishing at most 15 times a year. He may well also have slight tennis elbow and an imminent hernia!

 

[Tangled]

And while we're talking about Steve Parton, he was a rod builder - Sparton Rods. It was this post of his from years ago that got me all hot and bothered about the cost of rods. Sadly Steve died about 10 years ago I think.

Graphite Rods - the true costs

Steve Parton's Sexyloops weekly column: Graphite Rods - the true costs.

www.sexyloops.com

 

[LukeNZ]

Ahh, but who does the rating, the caster or the Casting Ratification Assessment Panel

...forum members! We are the judges - we quickly know who can and who can't, by analysis of their questions, or theories put forward..