Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,732
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
So salmon rods, spinning rods and beach casting rods show a recommended weight and you say that fly rods are not a special case yet they don't need to show a recommended weight? I think you're just being stubborn now.

If fly lines stuck to their standard and if fly rods had not developed beyond their original purpose, the AFTTA code would be fine, but they don't and they haven't. So, just like the salmon line rating and rod weightings changed, fly rods need to change too.

Such a lot of waffle from you on this; so was just wondering if you realise that you are free to put whatever numbers and any other nonsense on your rods that suits you?

I imagine it would be especially helpful if when you put a line on and you can’t actually tell if it is to your liking or not, without a corresponding array of numerical classification digits that perfectly align to determine “it’s the one”…

The good news is, that you really don’t have to ask for permission, and it really doesn’t matter if nobody else agrees with what you write on them.. …and also that, at the end of the day if you really can’t get it to work for you, if all else fails - and your rod is a #5wt., you could always try a #5 line?

🙃
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
Such a lot of waffle from you on this; so was just wondering if you realise that you are free to put whatever numbers and any other nonsense on your rods that suits you?

I imagine it would be especially helpful if when you put a line on and you can’t actually tell if it is to your liking or not, without a corresponding array of numerical classification digits that perfectly align to determine “it’s the one”…

The good news is, that you really don’t have to ask for permission, and it really doesn’t matter if nobody else agrees with what you write on them.. …and also that, at the end of the day if you really can’t get it to work for you, if all else fails - and your rod is a #5wt., you could always try a #5 line?

🙃

If you tried to address the proposition put to you, you might actually begin to learn something. But you're just wasting electrons trying to make this personal.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
47,795
If fly lines stuck to their standard and if fly rods had not developed beyond their original purpose....

Once upon a time you could buy a trout rod with 5/7 weight on it, was that sticking to the standard?

You might say they were at it too and the system was broken already, but it worked well, you got a rod that could handle a 5, 6 or 7 line, pretty flexible tool if you didn't mind a bit of a heavyweight 5 rod.
Rods are lighter now but you get...much the same thing because we still cast to fish that rise at the same distances, same purpose, same function, same flexibility of range and capability.

What most of us do/did when we got a bit obsessed with optimising was fart about with different weights of lines, and realised that you can load up short with a really heavy line or get more control carrying a longer line with a lighter one, both with a compromise when it got longer or shorter, then after exhausting those experiments and going fishing with a heavier or lighter line, discovered that the compromises are really annoying sometimes and revert back to recommended stamped on the rod.
I'm sure there are some with deep pockets that try this with different rods rather than different lines but the result is ultimately the same, it's rare to find(I tried for a number of years) a rod that works better with a heavier or lighter line, they do exist, some cheap kit rods are transformed by a switch of line, but in general what this tells you is that the 'system' is surprisingly unbroken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ejw

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
Once upon a time you could buy a trout rod with 5/7 weight on it, was that sticking to the standard?
It was more honest but single numbering sells more rods.
You might say they were at it too and the system was broken already, but it worked well, you got a rod that could handle a 5, 6 or 7 line, pretty flexible tool if you didn't mind a bit of a heavyweight 5 rod.
Rods are lighter now but you get...much the same thing because we still cast to fish that rise at the same distances, same purpose, same function, same flexibility of range and capability.
Rods are also more powerful and are being mislabelled. We've done this once or twice now.
What most of us do/did when we got a bit obsessed with optimising
That word was scorned at a while back. I'm glad you've seen the light.
was fart about with different weights of lines, and realised that you can load up short with a really heavy line or get more control carrying a longer line with a lighter one, both with a compromise when it got longer or shorter, then after exhausting those experiments and going fishing with a heavier or lighter line, discovered that the compromises are really annoying sometimes and revert back to recommended stamped on the rod.
You're telling me this like it's something I don't know.
I'm sure there are some with deep pockets that try this with different rods rather than different lines but the result is ultimately the same, it's rare to find(I tried for a number of years) a rod that works better with a heavier or lighter line, they do exist, some cheap kit rods are transformed by a switch of line, but in general what this tells you is that the 'system' is surprisingly unbroken.
You're really not listening.

If a line says #5 but when measured it's actually a #7, how can the "recommended stamped on the rod" be fine with it and how can the system NOT be broken?

Similarly, if a rod says #5 but is actually nearer an #8 how can it be "optimal" with a #5? (The answer of course is because it's actually designed to work "optimally" with 45' of lines out.)

Rod manufacture has changed but the line standards they use haven't.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
47,795
Rods are also more powerful and are being mislabelled. We've done this once or twice now.

They are not more powerful, you just got caught with your own poor choice of terminology, the stiff rods of old were as 'powerful' as they wanted to make them.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
47,795
If a line says #5 but when measured it's actually a #7, how can the "recommended stamped on the rod" be fine with it and how can the system NOT be broken?

Similarly, if a rod says #5 but is actually nearer an #8 how can it be "optimal" with a #5? (The answer of course is because it's actually designed to work "optimally" with 45' of lines out.)

Show me the line or rod that is rated 'wrongly' and doesn't work?

As you say technology has changed much, if the lines or rods you mention are not working due to technology overtaking the system then there must be real world examples of them not working.

Or something else could be happening that you have not worked out yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ejw

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
They are not more powerful, you just got caught with your own poor choice of terminology, the stiff rods of old were as 'powerful' as they wanted to make them.

All rods are as powerful as manufacturer's want to make them!

It's the number they label their rods with that has changed - for some rods they now label #7 as a #5.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
Show me the line or rod that is rated 'wrongly' and doesn't work?
Do give over. You've just said this

"then after exhausting those experiments and going fishing with a heavier or lighter line, discovered that the compromises are really annoying sometimes and revert back to recommended stamped on the rod."

If the line says #5 but is actually #7 how does that work with your statement above?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
Which rods are they?
The rods that are called 'casting' or 'power' rods.
eg TCR, TCX, Method, Igniter to name but one brand's models.

Must be Groundhog Day. Re-read the thread.
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
I think you missed the irony,
You asked a straight forward question I gave you a factual answer. It's really hard to tell irony from anything else on this site I'm afraid. If you have something to say, it's best said straight.
 

roadrunner1000

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
635
Location
Kent
Should manufacturers put a wider line weight range on rods ? 1980's Sue Burgess Diamondback for instance :


The manufacturer builds a 5-8 line weight rod for the buyer to fish a 7 weight line if that's what suits his/her casting style and type of fishing (y)
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
47,795
If the line says #5 but is actually #7 how does that work with your statement above?

My statement said after trying different lines and different rods the lines almost all worked best with the stated line rating, where is the problem that you don't yet have a solution for?

Does your Rio Gold work for you? :unsure:
 

JoeOh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
530
Bit nervous about dipping into this very contentious thread, and I did enjoy the opening post very much.
Anyway, as a reservoir fisherman with no obstuctions behind me, I can normally cast a full 30 yard line, conditions prevailing. My favourite rod was a Shakespeare President 10ft, #6/7 and with a WF6, one haul saw backing most times. Now I am finding two hauls required to achieve distance,l .....Is it I'm getting old or is it the tackle. No worries from me, two hauls still gets me there when I need it.
But the reason I am posting is that in many situations a rod is not just a casting tool but I expect it to perform in other situations, line control and lifting power (sorry).
Out on the Ressies, I need a modicum of strength when fishing deep with DI7/8, and seriously deep (DI8/DI7 connected), a predator rod #10.
Off the Florida Keys, sometimes a #12 did not have the power to lift big sulking fish off the bottom and I had to handline the fish up to recommence the fight, the test curve though strong was not enough.
I feel that any rod purchased etc should be able to satisfy the needs of the Angler, be it casting, control of line/ lure and fighting ability of species pursued.
Getting out of here now, before I receive incoming
Cheers to All, Joe
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
My statement said after trying different lines and different rods the lines almost all worked best with the stated line rating, where is the problem that you don't yet have a solution for?
I don't think it possible to explain it too you. 20 or 30 times really should have been enough.
Does your Rio Gold work for you? :unsure:
I assume it would be fine if I had one.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,153
If your assumption was correct you would have very little evidence of a problem :unsure:
The RIO Gold is a line that conforms to the AFFTA standard (though it is at the end of the acceptable weight for the category).

Did you have a point?
 

Latest posts

Top