Fly Fishing Forum banner

Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

168K views 3K replies 85 participants last post by  Rhithrogena 
#1 · (Edited)
Understanding Rods

My Christmas present to the forum. Careful how you unwrap it.

This understanding is about modern, single-handed, carbon fly rods.
It's very much ultracrepidarian, but maybe you can help me by responding in the thread below.

Niles: Dad, wait'll you see all the stuff I got. I had no idea how much I liked fishing until I realized all the shopping involved. Graphite poles...
Martin: Wow!

Frasier, Breaking the Ice

Introduction
At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, fly rods allow you to cast your line and fly where you want them to go. They also have two other functions; line control and hooking and playing a fish. Line control is about getting the line to do what you want it to do in the air and to control its drift once on the water. And of course, once you've tempted your trout, the rod gives you the necessary force to set the hook and the strength and responsiveness to play the fish. To do all this it needs stiffness and strength plus the flexibility to load and release efficiently during casting and be able to absorb shocks without breaking. It's a lot to ask of something that's often 9' long but weighs less than a pack of cards.

Materials
Fly rods have been made of all sorts of material; traditionally split cane (bamboo), then fibreglass and now carbon (often, and wrongly, called graphite). All those materials are still in use, fibreglass is especially making a bit of a comeback and some like the image of the cane rod, creel and tweeds. A pipe is not obligatory. There are few tank aerials around these days though.

In the transition we've passed through boron and are moving towards graphene (which is atom-thick carbon). But the majority of our fly rods are now tubes made of carbon fibre, additives and resins.

The rod blank is a tapered hollow tube usually made in four sections to aid transport. It has no fittings and is by far the most important part of a fly rod. Everything else on a rod can be regarded as necessary but largely cosmetic - it's the blank that casts the fly; with your help or hindrance.

All carbon rods are made from sheets of carbon fibre impregnated with resin, the resulting composite is called prepreg. The process of making carbon fibres and prepreg is a hi-tech business done in highly specialised plants. No rod builder makes their own prepreg, it's all bought in, usually from the Far East - Korea, Japan or China. The quality of this prepreg material defines how good a rod can be made but doesn't predict how well it will actually be made.

Prepregs are made of differing grade materials. You may have seen the acronym IM in some rod advertising as in IM8, IM6 etc. This stands for intermediate modulus. It's intermediate because it's between SM (standard modulus) and HM (high modulus). Rods will often be described as 'high modulus' in the marketing puff but don't be over-impressed by it, most of the sciency sounding words used about rods in adverts is hype. And, of course, it's not actually high modulus, it's higher modulus - higher than something else that's a bit lower.

Modulus is a measure of elasticity and its opposite, stiffness - the higher the modulus the stiffer the material. Don't take away the impression that the higher the better. If that was true rods would use HM material not IM material. Rods need to be in balance - too stiff and they become pokers (and also increase in brittleness). Too elastic and they become Geoffrey Boycott's sticks of rhubarb.

You may hear that an IM8 blank has a faster action than an IM6 blank. Well it might or might not, it depends how the rod builder actually made his blank and what he wanted to achieve with it.

Just to confuse further, the IM values are not standard, they vary between manufacturers; one guy's IM6 is another's IM7. The actual standard is an absolute measurement of tensile modulus, a measurement of how much it stretches when a force is applied. Europeans measure that in Newtons per square meter (Nm2) or GigaPascals (Gpa) and Americans in pounds and inches, Million Modulus (MSI) but you'll never see anything as useful as that written on a rod.

You may see Ton eg 24Ton, or 24TC. IM6 is roughly the same as 24Ton. Rods are being made now with IM14 material and I see that even Maxcatch - a cheap Chinese rod maker, see later - are now advertising IM12, 40 and 46Ton very fast, 'professional' rods now. Just don't assume that IM14 is automatically better than IM12.

So, back to carbon. Here's a short video of how carbon fibre prepreg is made.


Resins are as important in prepreg material as the carbon fibre itself and are equally hi-tech. They often contain additives that help produce better rods. The term nano appeared in marketing rods some time ago. It refers to nano-scale (one billionth of a meter), microscopic silica spheres made by 3M and introduced into their resins.

Reddington is credited with the first production use of nano-particles in a rod but it wasn't commercially successful. Later, Hardy used the 3M nano-spheres in their patented Sintrix range of rods and claimed 'up to' 60% increase in strength and 30% decrease in weight and was generally regarded as a real step change in rod design and function.

Since then you'll see the word 'nano' added with gay abandon to the labels of many rods; but exactly what that means for that rod, is often not at all clear.

Prepreg material has fibres that run longitudinally up the rod blank. This provides great strength under bending forces but is weak when crushed or twisted. To overcome this the rod needs reinforcing material interspaced between the carbon that go around it transversely and provide hoop strength. This material is called scrim and can be made of fibreglass or carbon fibre. Fibreglass is cheaper and is easier to work with but is heavier. Ultra-light premium rods will probably use carbon scrim - eg Orvis Helios 3.

This is a graphic of prepreg on a Maxcatch rod (note 25T & 30T usage) costing just £45 on Amazon, £20 from Maxcatch direct. Posh materials are not confined to posh rods, just sayin'.

Picture1.png


https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07FSGNRF7/ref=twister_dp_update?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Graphene
Graphene has been grasped by rod builders as the next wonder material for rods and there seems to be good reason to think that it will be.

Graphene is one atom thick carbon.

Picture2.png

Graphene's prime attribute for us of course is its strength, 200 times stronger than steel apparently (carbon fibre is only five times stronger). The current meme is that a net made of single atom graphene weighing the same as a cat's whisker could support the cat. I wonder who came up with that and why?

Picture3.png

illustration by Airi Iliste

I think many of us imagined graphene rods to be made of graphene fibres like carbon fibres, but that's a puzzling concept as, if you put a layer of graphene on top of another you get, well, carbon (assuming they bond), which sort of removes the point. Not only that but the longest string of graphene ever made is only a few feet and costs an unimaginable amount so it seems unlikely that it'll be found in our rods for quite a while, if ever. Certainly, any breakthrough with graphene fibre material will come from the aerospace and motor industry first.

It's more likely that its use in rods will only be as an additive into the resins like 3M's nanospheres - but lighter and apparently better.

"The current commercial industry practise within the recreational composites market is to mix a small amount of graphene flakes, commonly called Nanopowder, into the resin that makes the carbon fibre epoxy impregnated material (prepeg) that fishing blanks are made from." CTS Fishing

Rods claiming graphene use:
  • Snowbee Prestige G-XS (trout)
  • Century Stealth Graphene S50 (carp)
  • The Mackenzie FX1 (salmon)
  • Vision XO Graphene (trout)
There are dissenting voices though.

"CTS investigated graphene as an additive to our resin system some years ago. We found no evidence that adding graphene nanopowder to the epoxy resin improved any of the characteristics we were looking for in a material for fishing rods.

Conversely, we found evidence that adding more than 10% nanopowder to the epoxy matrix, increases its brittleness. In a fishing rod we rely on toughened epoxy resin systems to distribute impact shocks, protect the laminate and support the fiber in compression.

We concluded that adding a bit of graphene to our resins might be good for the marketing department and our ability to sell a higher priced product, but marginally detrimental to performance."
CTS Fishing
https://ctsfishing.com/spotlight-on-materials-the-lowdown-on-graphene/

Certainly, so far it seems like the most outstanding difference from non-graphene rods is their staggering price. And the necessity to point out that the guy who discovered/invented it got the Nobel Prize for it in their marketing.

However, I suspect graphene is here to stay and its development will follow the usual pattern of expensive low volume production into low-cost, mass market applications. But I'll be following my dad's advice "never buy a Mark I of anything".

This is a really interesting video of graphene production and its use in state-of-the-art bike frames.



Rod Building
If the quality and type of prepreg defines how good a rod can be, it's the design of the blank and it's manufacture from it that determines how good the final rod will be. You can easily make a bad rod from good prepreg. I could probably do it all day long.

Rods are made by wrapping the prepreg 'cloth' around a shaped mandrel. A mandrel is a tapered, solid, stainless steel rod that provides the form for the inside of the rod. These days there are usually four mandrels for a four-piece rod. The mandrel is the most important piece of the rod builder's kit because it quite literally forms the blank. It's generally designed in-house by computer, then farmed out to a precision machine engineering plant to manufacture.

The prepreg material is then cut into the correct pattern for the rod called a flag. This pattern is critical to the performance of the rod and can be quite complex in design. (Very cheap rods tend to have very simple designs.)

The flag is mechanically wrapped around the mandrel under pressure then the whole thing is wrapped tightly with tape to hold it all in place while it's hung in large ovens and heated to fuse the resins and fibre. Once cured the blanks are cooled and are ready for turning into fly rods by the addition of paint, rings, whippings, handles and reel seats.

Rod blanks are not exactly round; where the last wrap of prepreg ends it forms a spline or spine. Just as no one can seem to decide which word is correct, no-one can decide whether it matters or not. If you can ever prove it either way, please let me know.

But a picture saves a thousand words and a video a million. Sage from 2020



All about Rods and Capitalism
The marketing boys and girls would like you to take the image of applied technology combining with small scale human craftsmanship, personal obsession, individual engineering genius and endeavour creating a unique artisan product that can be patriotically badged with country of origin. And for a very few rods that's pretty much what you can get. But that is no longer the predominant process.

In this globalised world, outsourcing of some or all of a brand's rods is now the norm for most well-known names and seemingly homespun independent brands are often not what you would imagine they are. Capitalism in it's raw form is behind most major brands these days.

For example, the Shakespeare, Greys and Hardy UK brands were bought by the US company Pure Fishing in 2013. Pure Fishing is itself a subsidiary of the Jarden Corporation which was bought by Newel Brands in 2016 and is now finally owned by Sycamore Partners (2020) - a US private equity company.

You may recognise some of the other fishing brands Sycamore own: Abu Garcia, All Star, Berkley, Chub, Fenwick, Hodgman, Johnson, JRC, Mitchell, Penn, Pflueger, Sebile, SpiderWire, Stren, and Ugly Stik.

Who are Sycamore? Well they're a homely little rod outfitter, set up alongside a freestone river in Montana…no they're not, they're what we'd more usually call Wall Street asset strippers…

"Sycamore Partners is a private equity firm based in New York specializing in investments through a variety of private equity strategies, most notably leveraged buyouts, distressed buyouts, complex corporate carveouts and debt investments. The firm has more than $15 billion in capital under management." Wikipedia

Sycamore is a corporate brand aggregator, quite a long way distance in outlook, practice and vision from the craft-based shops of the original brand.

Sage Rods was acquired by Far Bank Enterprises in 2005. Far Bank also own Redington and Rio lines and Fly Water Travel, a travel fishing company. Far Bank itself is owned by another private equity company, the Joshua Green Corporation. Far Bank has recently (2022) caused an enormous ruction amongst its customers by scrapping the original websites of their famous brands and putting them inside a portal under the Far bank brand. But the real killer blow was changing their famous lifetime warranty scheme. More later.

Another corporate takeover story is G.Loomis. This iconic US company has been owned by the Japanese company Shimano since 1997. They took Gary Loomis' company so far down what Gary thought was the wrong road and he objected so strongly that he left to form his own company again. (Shimano went on to sue him for trademark infringements). The G. Loomis Asquith rods were designed in the U.S. but the blanks were rolled in Japan and the rod finished in the U.S.
Gary's podcast telling his story is a good listen.
http://www.itinerantangler.com/podcasts/podcast66.mp3

These days the vast majority of rods are not built by the company whose labels they bear.

"Many of the best rods are built in one factory in Korea. Of these rods built in Korea, the Hardy rods are designed in England, the Douglas rods are designed here in the U.S., the Loop rods are designed in Sweden. The Orvis Clearwater rods are designed in Vermont and built in the orient. The TFO rods, the Taylor rods, the Mystic rod, and the Waterworks rods are all designed here in the U.S. and built in Asia." Yellowstone Angler

Echo fly rods are designed in the USA and built "offshore" (I believe Korea). Reddington rods are built in China and S. Korea. St. Croix also make their own but use Mexico for their cheaper rods. Orvis outsource their entry-level lines. Greys rods, and probably Shakespeare rods, are made in China.

Sage and Scott make all their own rods in the USA. Scott, by-the-way, is owned by Bill Ford of the Ford Motor Company who bought it and moved it to Montrose, Colorado. Winston used to offshore its lower cost rods to China but discontinued the practice in 2015 after a messy backlash.

Winston was sold in 1991 to David Ondaatje and caused enormous ructions in the artisan company when the new owner tried to modernise. So much so that the entire bamboo section resigned and eventually formed a new company - Sweetgrass Rods. It made the Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117409073615340150

The Sage, Scott and Winston brands make 'made in the USA' an important part of their marketing. But elsewhere whole rods are now routinely made in the far East under OEM licences and badged for the brand. Sometimes the rods are designed in the original countries and manufactured elsewhere but increasingly even major brands are simply buying new ranges 'off the shelf'.

Because many of these premium brand rods are often made in the same factory, the Asian manufacturers are able to manufacture at scale with lower labour costs, bulk bought materials and can spread R&D across many product lines. Having volume allows investment in technology, machinery and quality control all of which reduces unit costs further. It is rumoured that the factory gate cost of even the most expensive, outsourced high-end rod is <$30.

At the other end of the scale, there are large Chinese fabricators that reverse engineer rods or build generic rods which are sold at fishing trade shows in China where the only differentiator is the logo they attach to the blank. Mega retailers like Aldi and Lidl sell these rods here quite regularly and they are surprisingly functional.

Here's the test of an 8' #5/6, 3 section, Paladin carbon composite rod, reel, line, leader, backing and flies for the silly price of £29.99.


If you fancy yourself as a fly rod own-brand, fill your boots
https://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Fly_Rod.html

China also sells direct to the end user at extremely low prices, cutting out all the intermediaries that take percentages that make the normal retail end price so high. One brand that is very popular here is Maxcatch, a brand owned by Qingdao Lei Chi Industrial & Trade Co, Ltd. They can deliver a perfectly competent rod to your door for <£20 and a very good one for £50.

They also supply rods to mainstream brandsthrough their OEM site listing amongst their partners Orvis, Snowbee, Fenwick, Guideline and TFO.

Where is all this going? Well it's worth saying that just because a rod is built in Korea doesn't make it a bad rod. In fact, the opposite; introducing scale into manufacture of hi-tech equipment is normally the way improvements in manufacture occur. We don't make iPhones by hand one at a time. It's really up to the brands to keep the high standards they need to support their prices.

In contrast to the Sage video earlier, this is a video of the more down-earth way that rods are made by an independently owned South Korean company and sold by the American company Temple Fork Outfitters (TFO).


But it does make you wonder a little about what those companies that have pretty much outsourced everything bring to the party apart from brand, marketing and distribution overhead. At the moment they can rightfully claim design expertise but unless they're very careful, that too will go and be replaced simply by expert buyers and maybe eventually total disintermediation by the end-user.

In the end there are six categories of rod. Those rods:
  1. that have been designed, rolled and assembled by the company whose name is on the rod eg Sage
  2. that have a blank designed by the company whose name is on the rod, had its manufacture outsourced and then assembled the rod themselves eg some Hardy rods (still?) and some boutique custom rods
  3. that have a blank bought "off the shelf" by a knowledgeable buyer then been assembled by the company whose name is on the rod eg some boutique custom rod builders and, if rumours are correct, major brands.
  4. that have a blank designed by the company whose name is on the rod but has then had its entire build outsourced. eg some Orvis rods, the Clearwater range?
  5. that have a blank bought "off the shelf" by a knowledgeable buyer and had its assembly outsourced eg Greys, Shakespeare
  6. that have been bought complete from a wholesaler for supermarket sale eg Lidl, Aldi

With a few exceptions, you'll find that the scale of 1 to 6 above, also determines price, high to low.

In practice, you'll find that some major brands have rods that fall into more than one category, the most common being companies that make their own premium-price rods but also sell an 'entry-level' line eg Orvis.

If it matters to you, ask your retailer or the manufacturer where your rod is built.

Can we fill this matrix?

Rod Name
Designed
Blank Made
Assembled
Bought
Sage X​
Sage USA​
Sage USA​
USA​
n/a​

A bit on Rod Weights
"Some say a rod has an optimum loading point and works best with that weight of line. I can't see how that can be possible? Who decides on what the "optimum" line loading is? Which expert caster from the many good casters in the World, should be used as the benchmark for rating a rod's optimal loading? It is a daft notion isn't it?" David Norwich, rod builder.

You'll see from David's comments that fly rod weight can be more than a little controversial and you can get lost in weeks of bad tempered argument about it. I've got the T shirt.

Regardless of argument, rods are labelled by the manufacturer according to a particular weight of fly line that they think they are appropriate for. That weight of line is measured at 30' less the level tip and it's regardless of line taper. Please see the 'Understanding Fly Lines' thread for more information on fly lines.
https://www.flyfishing.co.uk/threads/understanding-fly-lines.617762/

Putting aside any controversy for the moment - we'll get into that in a minute - you may see at least three fly rod standards referred to:

The AFTM (Association of Fishing Tackle Manufacturers) System
The AFTMA (American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association)
The AFFTA (American Fly Fishers Trade Association)


They're all the same thing but AFTTA is the most recent. Here's their chart:

Picture6.png


In the "Understanding Fly Lines" thread you'll find what weights are appropriate for what kind of fishing.

Rod Actions
The term "rod action" is quite possibly the most confused term used in all of fly fishing.

One difficulty is in definitions; there are several terms decribribing the attributes of a rod and people tend to blur them: words like 'power', 'stiffness', 'action', 'flex', 'speed', 'recovery' and 'frequency' are all are related but need to be unscramble if we want to properly understand what is being said about a rod. We also have words like "progressive", "parabolic", "taper" and "slow" and "fast" and if you ask what is meant by them, you'll get several different answers. It's a mess.

Action, power and recovery speed seem to be the main areas of confusion, I suppose because they are so interrelated. There are stand-alone definitions of each (see glossary below), but the attributes interact - a fast rod (one that flexes most from the tip) will usually also have a fast response rate (will quickly return to being straight after bending). But not always. And because of the lack of standards there's really no way of knowing what a rod actually feels like from the glossy terminology used in a rod's marketing material.

If I ruled the rod world we'd start again from scratch, I think we would probably call rod action the combination of several different rod attributes; the main two being rod flex and rod speed.

Rod flex would be where the rod bends and would be tip flex, mid flex and full flex and variants thereof.
Rod speed would be about how fast a rod returned to the straight position after flexing which would be fast, medium and slow recovery.

Rod taper would be the physical profile of the rod, it's dimensions.

As it is we've got a real muddle, so I'm going to stick to what the majority seem to use.

Where the rod bends
Firstly, rod action is usually stated as where a rod bends or flexes.

You can think of rod action as moving from traditional to modern. The older split cane rods are usually very slow, that is, they bend throughout almost the whole length of the rod; from tip to a foot or so above the handle in a nice arc. Fibreglass rods too tend towards the slow, full-flex action, while modern carbon rods tend to be faster, bending most towards their tips. It might sound counter-intuitive but fast rods have softer ie bendier tips than slow rods.

A slow rod flexes more and naturally creates a larger line loop which is associated with better presentation but a little less distance than fast rods. In the right hands fast rods can create tight loops that propel a fly further. But fast rods are also harder for the less experienced caster as they provide less feedback (being able to feel the line load the rod) and require more precise timing.

Both very slow and very fast rods are rather specialist tools and most UK anglers go for the good compromise of medium to tip action.

Really slow, old fashioned-actioned carbon rods are rare these days. People wanting that kind of action in a rod are generally buying fibreglass or even bamboo.

Picture7.png


In practice there is no standard at all for rod actions so rods can't be easily compared between manufacturers.

If you want to know more, this is a good summary

But there is an independent system that measures rod action called the Common Cents System (CCS, see later) it measures the degree of deflection of a rod under a load causing a deflection to a third of the rod length. The result is a measure of a rod's power (ERN) and its Action Angle (AA). The higher the AA number, the faster the rod. On serious casting sites you'll find it quoted alongside the rod's power rating (ERN). Unfortunately you won't find this on any rod or marketing material so one manufacturer's fast is another's medium/medium-fast. As a consequence, my Grey's rod is sold as fast but actually isn't - in my opinion!

1618079717398.png

Rod Power
The two terms 'action' and 'power' seem to be used interchangeably when people are describing a rod. I've seen a ghillie push my rod into the ground to get a feel for how much it bent and where, and declared it 'powerful'. I agreed because I could chuck quite a big lure with it, but now I think all he was doing was seeing its action - ie where it bent.

Power, when we're talking about rods, is actually a measure of stiffness, that is, how much the rod bends for a given weight, not where it bends for a given weight.

The image below demonstrates this. Up to a point, the stiffer a rod is, the more powerful we say it is. The AFTTA value given to the rod should tell us that, for example, a #7 weight rod is more powerful than a #5 weight rod but might have identical action ie bend in the same place.

1613067636239.png


Tim Rajeff of Echo rods' video providing a good explanation.


He's also pretty good at showing the relationship of a rod's power and its action. If you look carefully at the graph below (which is a comparison of his rods) you'll notice that you could draw a 45 degree line from the bottom left corner to the top right and it would be a pretty good fit with the data. Roughly then as rods get more powerful, they also get faster.

1627562744613.png


(Again, just to avoid messy accusations from pedants lovers of accuracy, rods do not possess power, there are no batteries in them, we have to provide the power. When speaking of rod power we're normally meaning its stiffness; technically its modulus of elasticity, Young's modulus or tensile modulus. Anyway, now you're warned.)

Rod Frequency
Rod frequency is how fast the rod vibrates when 'twanged'. It's closely related to how fast a rod recovers when cast - how quickly the rod returns to straight. It's an important measurement because how fast a rod recovers contributes a lot to how a rod feels when cast and how much 'tip bounce' you get that puts little waves into your cast line. No rod advert will include this measurement but you'll probably see it confused with the term 'fast' and the adjective "crisp".

I was going to write something myself here but I find that Daniel Le Breton has done a far better job of it that I possibly could so I've shamelessly copied it here:

by Daniel Le Breton on November 24, 2014 in Casting Mechanics
A fly-rod has a natural frequency (see illustration) which is the number of vibration cycles per unit of time. It is usually expressed in Hertz in the technical domain: 1 Hz (Hertz) = 1 cycle per second.
Some people prefer to use "cycles per minute" (abbreviated to cpm), and 1 cpm = 60 Hz.
When testing the natural frequency of fly-rods, one can find figures varying from below 2.5 Hz = 150 cpm to more than 3 Hz= 180 cpm. To express this in casting terms a natural frequency of 180 cpm gives a cycle time of 0.3 seconds from when the fly-rod is initially loaded to when it is straight (after going through full flex and counterflex. So one can speak of "slow" rods (less cpm) by comparison to "fast" rods (more cpm), depending on their number of cpm. This natural frequency is linked to the ratio of the stiffness of the rod divided by its mass: the higher the stiffness and the lighter the rod are, the faster it is. Every mass put on the rod (wraps, guides, varnish), especially on the tip, contributes to slowing the rod. Some blanks have been measured at 4 Hz (240 cpm) before hardware mounting. On top of that, when you cast a line, the mass of the line also contributes to slowing the rod. To give an order of magnitude, rods loaded with 30 feet of line are considered to be "fast" if their (loaded) frequency is above 90 cpm; and "slow" if this frequency is below 75 cpm. Most rods have a loaded frequency with 30 feet of their prescribed line in the range 78 / 87 cpm. You may not realise it but any caster can perceive a change of 2 to 3 cpm and some trained casters are even able to detect one cpm. Most of the time, casters have a preferred range for cpm and its variation with line length, which is linked to their casting style.

1654591084705.png


Calculating the natural or resonant frequency of a rod would appear to be a very useful way of giving the angler objective information about his possible purchase and allow real comparisons between rods to be made. Why we aren't told this is an open question.

Here's Dr Bill's (the CCS guy) paper on rod frequency including how to calculate it for your rod.

And here's a simple demonstration of rod frequency, in the short video Sage's engineer drops a segment of various rods onto a steel plate so that you can hear it resonate. The higher the pitch, the higher the rod frequency and the faster the recovery rate.



Confusion
As mentioned above, many people are very confused about rod actions. They get muddled with the terms that marketing people casually use which are often wrapped around flowery adjectives. For example, a rod's action might be described as 'crisp' but how crisp? and what does it mean?

To the angler a rod's action is how a rod feels to him when cast and it incorporates all the factors that go into making a rod feel the way it does - where and how much it bends (action and power), how heavy it is (dead weight and swing weight) how quickly the rod returns to straight after loading (counterflex, recovery speed - rod frequency) and other more esoteric factors like build quality, ring shape, colour, cork, brand and price tag.

But when a manufacturer or retailer is talking about rod action he almost always means where the rod bends; a fast rod is one that bends most from the tip. If he talks about fast recovery, he means how quickly the rod returns to a straight position when 'twanged' - that's its rod frequency.

Those two attributes - along with absolute weight, swing weight, rod length and rod power all combine to give the rod its individual feel.

Maybe a Glossary of Terms would help. Sources:
https://www.rodbuilding.org/glossary
https://www.sexyloops.com/flycasting/termsandacronyms.shtml

Rod Action
Where most of the initial flex in a rod blank takes place. Fast Action rods will flex mostly in the upper 1/3rd of their length. Moderate Action rods in the upper 1/2 of their length. Slow Action rods flex along their entire length. *See also "Progressive Action."

Progressive Action
Term used to describe a rod blank that continues to bend farther back towards the butt end as load upon it is increased. As the load is increased, the blank responds by shifting the load onto the larger, more powerful area towards the middle and rear of the blank. (Me: Also often called a traditional or slow Action. It's arguable that all rods have progressive action, it's just a matter of degree.)

Parabolic Action
Me: An old marketing term created by Ritz, the hotelier, in the 1930s. There's much confusion about what the term means when applied to a fly rod's action. It's likely that all fly rod bend profiles can be made to fit into a parabolic curve and Ritz's rods were used to describe what we would now call a medium or medium fast action these days, rather than the slow action of most bamboo rods of the time. But see:

Action Angle
A relative measurement (in degrees) of rod or blank action. Originated with the Common Cents System.

Fast Tip
Normally used to describe a rod with a very fast action. A rod with a powerful butt section and a much softer tip.

Modulus
"Modulus of Elasticity," refers to the relationship between stress and strain. In more simple terms relative to rod building, it usually defines the stiffness to weight ratio of the fibres used to construct the rod blank. Generally speaking, the higher the modulus of the fibres used to make the blank, the lighter the resulting blank can be for any given stiffness.

Power
A rod or blank's stiffness or resistance to bending. [Me: A rod marked #6 is more powerful than a rod marked #5 - in the same model range]

Rod Frequency
A fly-rod has a natural frequency which is the number of vibration cycles per unit of time. It is usually expressed in Hertz in the technical domain: 1 Hz (Hertz) = 1 cycle per second. Rod frequency determines Recovery Time.

Recovery Time
How quickly the bent rod returns to its natural, straight position.

Rod Straight Position RSP
The point when the rod is perfectly straight either at the beginning of the casting stroke or - as most commonly used - to define the point when the rod passes through RSP during the bounce.

Tip Bounce
The act of the rod unloading, passing RSP and re-bending.

Tip Deflection or Counter-flex
The re-bent position of the rod at full bounce.

Rod Feel
How a rod feels to the individual when casting. It's the combined effect of all the attributes of a rod listed above. Plus a bit of magic dust, desire, expectation and confirmation bias. [Me]

Of Springs, Levers and Loading
I'm told that not so long ago there was a big bust up on fly fishing forums about whether a rod was acting as a spring or a lever. The spring camp claiming that the weight of the line, being given force by the casting stroke, causes the rod to bend storing energy that's then liberated when the rod unloads at the end of the cast, propelling the line forward.

The lever camp saying no, the rod is providing mechanical advantage by extending the casting stroke.

Well it turns out that both sides are right, but the lever side is rightest. It's about 80:20 lever:spring for longer casts. The lever is technically a third class one - its fulcrum is at one end of the rod.

I only mention this because there's still soreness around and you will get picked up if you casually use the word "load" like you're priming a spring.

The 20% that is actually spring - ie stored energy - in the cast is very useful though, as it smooths out the cast and adds that 20% kick at the end of the stroke just when you need it. And if your rod didn't bend at all, playing a fish would be a far more difficult experience - we need that shock absorber effect to prevent line breaks.

[For completeness I should point that not everyone agrees with the 20% figure even for long casts, they say it's a misunderstanding of the results from an experiment; they say it's much less than that. If you're one of these people please explain.]

If you use a bow-and-arrow cast, you would be correct in calling that a spring action. Just sayin'

If you want to go into it further, there's an excellent article here:


And a good empirical paper here:


A little bit about Swing Weight
Swing weight is how 'heavy' a rod feels when it's in motion. If differs from the absolute deadweight, static measurement of a rod placed on scales.

In engineering terms it's its Moment of Inertia (MoI) as measured from an axis. In our world that means the effort we need to use to move the rod; the axis being the butt or the rod as we swing it. Rods of the same dead weight can feel heavier than others when swung - they need more effort for the same movement.

Because the swing weight works as a square of the distance from the butt, longer rods will feel heavier than shorter ones of the same dead weight.

And because of this square of distance calculation, rods of the same dead weight and same length will feel different when swung if their tips are heavier or lighter. The heavier tip rod will feel heavier when swung.

A heavier rod will always have a higher swing weight than a lighter rod.

Just get a light rod :)

For the technically minded

Which brings me to the Common Cents System (CCS). This is an idea born out of the frustration of the AFTTA system being entirely subjective.

"This was the question that Dr. William Hanneman asked himself some years ago as he pondered why no two 5-weight rods possessed the same amount of power. After all, just what makes a 5-weight rod a 5-weight rod? At what point does a 5-weight rod become a 6-weight rod? Contrary to popular belief, there is no standard nor system to quantify or measure rod power by objective means - that number you see on the side of your rod is a purely subjective rating."
https://www.common-cents.info/CCS_basic_Layout_1.pdf

The CCS uses a number of simple techniques to objectively measure critical attributes of a rod - stiffness/power (ERN), action (AA) and frequency (CCF). Sadly (in my opinion), the rod making industry never formally adopted it, publicly at least. It is used a lot for custom and hobby rod building, many boutique rod builders and some major brands too. Echo and CTS used to publish their values but no longer. Gary Loomis in his new venture North Fork Composites business supports it.

This article by Steve Parton who was the guy behind the determination of Shakespeare's rod weighting for 20 years is well worth reading and demonstrates what an inexact process rod weight rating really is.


I've placed a long and detailed article on the CCS and rod building history in the post #2 below for those interested in the detail of it.

Rod Handles
There are several handle shapes but the three most popular are the Full and Half Wells and the cigar.

Picture8.png


You'll find the Half Wells and cigars on smaller, lower weight rods and the Full Wells on heavier ones. The changeover usually occurs at around #7. No one knows why. Or do they?

Most fly rod handles are made of cork. It's lightweight, waterproof, can be shaped easily and it's traditional. It comes in grades, the one you're looking for is AAA but in truth, it's hard to find one that isn't described as such from the major brands - even the cheap ones. (But you'll still hear complaints about them.) The difference is in the fineness of the cork, you're looking for no fillers that will inevitable fall out after a while.

On cheaper rods you can get foam EVA handles but they're fairly rare. Personally, I think there's an element of conforming to a traditional convention rather than utility here and some say that foam handles will eventually be adopted more universally. Surely if we can have space age technology in our rods we shouldn't be using 17th century technology in our handles?

The manifold handle is an attempt to think ergonomically about the task it does. It generally has to be retrofitted.
1610751232777.png


Rod Rings (Guides)

I'll randomly use "rings" and "guides" throughout this. Because I can.

Rod rings are of course a necessary part of all casting rods that use a reel. Their purpose is to guide the line smoothly through the rod and to distribute the load of the cast and fish along the rod's length.

The guides closest to the reel are the largest. The first ring - and often the second - is usually a full circle, cradle guide. It will be lined with a hard material - eg ceramic, aluminium oxide, tungsten carbide. Fuji rings are the most famous rings of this type.

1628507003744.png


The first guide is called the stripper guide, if there's a second it's actually called a tamer guide or transition ring but most of us would call it a smaller stripper ring.

After those two rings the two main types in use are snake rings...

1628507558529.png


... or traditional circular rings with two legs...

1628507636823.png


.... or single legs

1628507805361.png


Finally there's a tip ring
1628507924796.png


Single leg guides could be slightly lower in weight that double legs (including whippings) and snakes lower than cradles.

Two legs tend to stiffen a rod slightly - which is, of course, is either good or bad depending on the rod design.

There's no real consensus on what's best - cradles or snake, but there's a theory that because they're open, snake rings can cause 'line slap'. This is where the fly line hits the blank creating resistance. If true, Sage got it wrong as they use snakes on thier premium casting rods after the first two cradle guides.

Nice article about rings by Akos at Stickman Rods

All about Price
Oh, yes.

The "cost of rods" thread on this forum has over 2,800 posts on 141 pages. It's a subject we all appear to be interested in from those prepared to spend many thousands of pounds on premium rod collections to those searching the Maxcatch site for cheap Chinese imports.

If someone asks for a recommendation for a 9' #5 rod he'll get as many different recommendations as replies and he'll have no way of knowing which is best for what he can afford.

In the hope of finding some more objective way of establishing which was the 'best' rod for a particular price I started researching. And, of course, it's not easy - in fact, it's virtually impossible - to find objective answers. The only reviews I've been able to find that actually attempt to measure the claims made by manufacturers are those done annually by Yellowstone and Trident tackle shops in the USA.

They test and report on many aspects of a rod but there are two particular variables that are actually measurable, not just opinion or preference; they are performance, which is defined as casting accuracy at 25', 45' and 70' targets and price ($). Using the results from 7 annual tests I graphed these (and other variables) to see if there was a relationship with price.

In all but one test I could find no statistical relationship between price and performance.

Here are all Yellowstone's performance and price data for 2013 through to 2019 shootouts poured into one chart. 156 rods of differing weights. (I've adjusted for different scoring conventions used in different years.)

1591194609165.png


So what is it saying?

1. The Y axis (vertical) is performance. The X axis (horizontal) is price ($).

2. The R2 value is a measure of statistical correlation which is asking the question, 'is there a relationship between price and performance?' To be pretty confident of a relationship, statisticians need a value of about 0.4 or higher so, as it's only 0.18, all we can say is that if there is one, it's weak.

3. If you look at some of the individual price and performance points you can see why.

- At a performance score of 70 you can buy a rod for $400 or $800
- For $1500 you can buy a rod that performs no better than one at $625 and only very marginally better than one costing $250
- The $800 price point is very popular for premium rods but half of them are performing at the same level as $200 rods.
- For pretty much every price point you can find a good performing rod and a much poorer performing rod.
- No rods perform terribly, and if you look at the spread - ignoring the outliers - all rods hang in a range between 75 and 90. While, again ignoring outliers, price spreads from around $175 to $900. ie, there are steep diminishing returns if you are attempting to buy performance - even if you manage to choose the right rod.
It's also fair to say that, with a few exceptions, all these rods are good rods.

If you read the 'cost of rods' thread you'll find hundreds of pages of heated argument about these graphs with many complaints about methodologies and integrity and competence of the testers (and the analyst). But the same conclusions are found in the Trident shootouts and there is also a distance casting test published on the Sexyloops site that comes to the same conclusion.
https://www.sexyloops.com/articles/8rod.shtml

When we get several different experiments by different experimenters giving the same answer we get a good indication that the conclusion is probably correct.

So, what does this mean? Well to put it simply if you knew nothing at all about rods you could not walk into a shop, buy the most expensive and expect it to be the best performing rod in there. (In fact, the most expensive rod is never the best performing rod, often because it is loaded with expensive cosmetics.) Some inexpensive rods perform very well and some expensive ones perform less well. You can't be sure that buying an expensive rod will get you a better performing rod.


Buyer beware.

You should also note that these tests never include really low-cost rods like Shakespeare, yet many Shakespeare rods can be very good fishing tools indeed. This is only because the two shops refuse to stock low cost rods. Similarly, when there are reviews in the Trout and Salmon magazines, low price rods are rarely included.

"I personally feel that rods in the £100 to £200 price range represent the best value for money in today's market. In fact I'm finding it almost impossible to justify the high prices of some rods." Our own Rob Edmunds, match angler, former Troutmasters Champion. Trout Fisherman, June.

A few years ago, I had a once in a lifetime opportunity to fish for salmon in Russia (I've now repeated this once in a lifetime experience twice more :). I had a 24-year-old Argentinian guide for the week and caught my first salmon in the first hour. At the end of the day he took my £150 Greys GR50 trout rod and double-hauled the Barrio line to the backing, reverse cast it an equal length, snake rolled it around then whipped the fly back to himself catching it on the rod before handing it back to me. That 'cheap Hardy' as he called it could do a vast amount more than I'm still capable of doing with it. I decided then that there's absolutely no point me spending any more money on a rod without learning how to use the one I've got better first. So I find myself disagreeing with Yellowstone when they say this. But, of course, their job is to sell expensive rods…

"Some people might consider high priced rods status symbols. For others, seeing how a rod performs in an expert caster's hands, convinces them it would make them great anglers as well, or at least take them to the next level. Surprisingly, this is often true. Great rods don't make great casters, but there is no doubt that they will improve any angler's casting skills and his ability to catch fish. Don't fret about the price - you'll find some ingenious way to sneak it into your collection of rods without the mrs. (or mr.) finding out." Yellowstone Angler.

Far, far more important than what label is on your rod, is that your line and rod are a matched pair. It's really hard casting a line that doesn't suit your rod. Put a £100 line on a £1,000 rod and unless they're balanced you might as well be using Geoffrey's rhubarb.

And let's not forget ability. An instructor told me that casting is 70% caster and 30% gear. I reckon it's almost 100% caster until you can get to a level of competence where you're able to squeeze the potential performance out of whatever stuff you have. If you've ever watched someone casting with a broom handle or even just their arm you begin to get a clue. Here's Marina Gibson casting without a rod:



Ownership and the pleasure of nice things
As an ordinary caster and one who is allergic to spending unnecessary cash I need to address my bias a bit and point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with buying expensive stuff if that's what floats your fly.

Nice things are nice to have and the one thing that actually does have strong correlation with price, is quality of build. Spending more gets you better fixtures and fittings. Having said that, none of the rods in the Yellowstone or Trident shootouts are poor quality so you pay a lot for small increases.

Even so, it's nice to own and use quality stuff.

Classic rods
There are rods that were comprehensively the best in their time and built wonderful reputations, what are they, could we ever agree? Well probably not but a discussion here came up with this list from about 50 mentions, in order

Loomis GLX
Sage SLT
Sage RPL
Redington NTi
Hardy Zenith

Breaking Rods
Modern fly rods are very strong but also fragile - they can be broken very easily by hitting them with anything hard and/or sharp. Standing on a rod or trapping it in a car door or electric wing mirrors (yes, I did) will snap it instantly. Jam the tip into the ground while walking or stupidly poke it into a tree trying to retrieve a fly (yes, I did) will also accomplish the task with surprisingly little effort.

More surprisingly, hitting the rod with a weighted fly can also break your rod, not perhaps immediately, but when it's next put under pressure such as when you play a fish. Any small nick in the blank can weaken it terminally.

Manufacturing defects can cause rod breakages but they are likely to occur when you first put pressure on your rod and you generally see them as a clean break. A break that leaves a large jagged area - a delamination break, a 'delam' - is generally evidence of an overloaded rod.

[…] these high-modulus, high-strain-rate, thin-walled rods are extremely strong and are highly unlikely ever to break under normal use. Almost all rods are damaged by other means - an angler accidentally stepping on them, hitting them against a hard surface while casting, or storing them where a toolbox or some other heavy object can slide into them. Then, with the damage done, the rod collapses while under the stress of fighting a fish. So while high-modulus, high-strain-rate rods are not brittle, they do require more care in storage and transport." G.Loomis Corp

It's almost impossible to break a medium weight rod by just trying to lift a dead weight, it takes a lot of strength and courage to achieve it. But you can easily snap it in your hands by applying a small force over a short area. Here's a great video of Tim Rajeff at Echo breaking rods to explain how and why they break.



Paper on rod break forms and causes.


Warranties
Pretty much all big brand manufacturers provide some sort of lifetime warranty system over and above the normal 12-month guarantee that retailers must provide.

But how can an object that is so fragile be guaranteed? Some anglers love these guarantees and others are deeply suspicious of them. Obviously, the cost of warranties have to be inbuilt into the price. What would the rod cost be without the warranties and why do we have no choice but to buy one?

If you cast your mind back to the price/cost of rods section you'll see that the speculation is that rods actually cost very little and sections of rods are obviously a fraction of that. Are the manufacturers making a profit out of fulfilling their warranties? Still, if you've just spent £800 on a rod, I can see why you want insurance.

To find out what your warranty covers, for how long and for how much, you'll have to read the small print. But as a guide here's Yellowstone's analysis of rod warranties just remember that this is for the USA buyer, UK may be different. Also, warranties change over time - this was from 2020, Sage made large changes in 2022, others may do too.

"Nearly all manufacturers now have some kind of limited "Lifetime warranty." Well, the Orvis unconditional guarantee is only 25 years. However, nearly all manufacturers are charging a "handling fee" of $25-$100 to repair or replace your broken rod. In addition it will cost you $15 or more to ship your rod in for repair or have your local dealer do it for you.

The Loomis NRX LP gets a perfect score of 10 for their excellent Expeditor repair program which costs $100, but returns the angler a brand new rod, not a repaired one, in just a few days! The Expeditor policy on the IMX Pro is $85.00. This same Expeditor service applies to the Asquith but the fee is $275 for 2nd day air. Because of the cost, we downgraded the Asquith to 7 points. As part of the Expeditor policy, Loomis includes a FedEx call tag so that you don't have to spend any money to send the broken rod back.
For broken rods that are not registered to the original owners, most companies are going to charge you $150 or more for repairs. Below the final results charts we give you the exact repair charges for each manufacturer.

Here is a recap of each manufacturer's current policy, their latest fees and what we have experienced for repair time required. Remember that it will cost you an additional $15 or more to send your rod in unless you are using the G. Loomis Expeditor program.

Douglas - Lifetime warranty. $35 handling fee. Rods are repaired, not replaced unless broken. Usually takes 1-2 weeks.

Fenwick- Lifetime warranty. $25 handling fee. Broken sections are replaced. Sometimes the whole rod is replaced. If Fenwick determines that there was a defect, the rod will be repaired or replaced at no charge. Usually takes 2 weeks.

Hardy - Lifetime warranty to original owner. $75 handling fee. Rods are repaired or sections replaced. Shipping is from their US warehouse, usually takes 2 weeks.

G. Loomis - Lifetime warranty to original owner. If you feel your rod has broken because of a defect, you pay to send the rod to their warranty dept. and they examine it. If the rod is broken because of a defect, or while fishing, replacement is free. No handling fee. If broken from neglect or any other cause, you must use the Expeditor service. You call in and incur a credit card of $100 but you get a brand new rod in 3-4 days. The Expeditor service for the NRX or NRX LP rods is $100, while the IMX Pro rods are $85.00. The Expeditor service fee for the Asquith rods is $250.00 for ground or $275 for 2-day air. With your new rod they include a FedEx call tag so that it does not cost you anything to return your broken rod.

Loop - Lifetime warranty to original owner. $60 handling fee. Rods are repaired or sections replaced. Same day or next day shipping if they have the parts in stock, if not, usually takes 2 weeks.

Mystic - Lifetime warranty to original owner. $50 handing fee. Rods are replaced. Usually takes 1-2 weeks.

Orvis - 25 year warranty to original owner. $60 handling fee. Rod is repaired, or sections replaced. Usually takes 2-4 weeks.

Sage - Lifetime warranty to original owner. $25 handling fee on current rods. $75 on recent rods within 10 years, $125 on classic older rods. Rods are repaired, not replaced except for broken sections. Often takes 4-6 weeks. To much concern in 2022 Sage introduced a new warrantee scheme that overrides all earlier versions. It is now essentially a rod repair service, with new rods being repaired for $50 and older rods for $225. Really old rods can't be repaired. See their website for information.

Scott - Lifetime warranty to original owner, $50 handling fee. Rods are repaired, not replaced, except for broken sections. Usually takes 2-4 weeks.

St. Croix - Lifetime warranty to original owner, $85 handling fee. Rods are repaired, not replaced except for broken sections. Usually takes 2-4 weeks.

Taylor - Lifetime warranty to original owner. One year warranty on hardware and guides. $50 handling fee. Rods are repaired or replaced. Usually takes 1-2 weeks.

Temple Fork Outfitters (TFO) - Lifetime warranty to original owner. $35 handling fee. Rods are either replaced with a new rod or the broken section is replaced. Usually takes 1-2 weeks.

Thomas and Thomas - $55 repair charges for the original owner, includes shipping. Non-original owner $150 per section. You must register the new rod within 30 days.

R.L. Winston - Lifetime warranty to original owner. $75 handling fee to original owner, $150.00 charge to all others. Rods are repaired, not replaced. Usually takes 4-6 weeks. New rods must be registered at time of purchase.
Yellowstone.


My own experience is with Greys here in the UK. I was charged £30 for a replacement section and it was delivered 3 days later. I was delighted.

Discussion - The Controversy
If you have read the 'Understanding fly lines' thread you will know that line manufacturers often overweight their lines.

"An engineer by training, my brain desperately hopes that the industry strictly followed the standards, at least for a while. One thing I do know for sure is that line manufacturers no longer follow that standard in most cases. It is actually rather challenging to find a modern fly line that conforms to AFFTA Standards. And, if you are like me, who typically really likes how rods cast when lined at or near the AFFTA Standard, just buying a fly line based on a product description and a numerical line rating on the box NO LONGER WORKS MOST OF THE TIME!."


When Trident tested 43 lines from 9 manufacturers they found that a third of them were overweight and none underweight.


Some do this deliberately and tell you about it - eg, the Orvis Clearwater line is 0.5 times overweight, the Rio Outbound Short is 3 times overweight. Both are useful tools for their stated purpose - but many don't tell you that their #5 weight line is actually nearer a #7. Why would they do this?

The answer is a very strange one, they appear to be doing it because rod makers are often under-weighting their rods; a very light, fast rod with #5 on the label may be objectively nearer a #7.

In fact, the rod weight labelled by manufacturers is only a 'guide'. Also the AFFTA standard is only advisory even for the line industry itself. For rods it always was simply a subjective opinion, but now there is, in effect, no standard for lines as a third of them are overweight at 30', and rod makers no longer feel the need to build their rods around that original 30' standard either. So the number on both the rod and the line is really a bit of a question mark. Both rods and lines are now being made for specialist - what they often describe as 'technical' - fishing situations. To match rod and line these days, you really must read and understand the full marketing descriptions of both (It's best to do this from the manufacturer's own site as retailers often truncate the description of the product they sell.)

"This may come as a bit of a shock, but there is no industry adopted standard for rating the power of fly rods - none. There is a well established industry standard to measure the weight of fly lines - but many manufacturers make fly lines outside the standard, seemingly just doing their own thing."
Epic Rods.


He goes on to explain why:

"... it's clear that one company's 7 weight is another companies 5. And, if you want to present the market with a more powerful, stiff rod, simply build what could be called a 7 and label it as a 5."

He names Sage as a routine 'offender'. There are two well regarded older Sage rods that originally demonstrated the point: the TCR and the SLT. The TCR is designed for long - competition long - casts and high line speeds and therefore works to its optimum well past the 30' standard of line outside the rod tip. It actually comes out at #7.2 in the CCS table.

The Sage SLT in contrast has a slow action, is good for shorter casts and lower line speed and is a true #5 according to CCS. Both are labelled #5 but have a large power difference between them - more than #2 line weights (44%).

Bear in mind that lines weigh more as more of their length is aerialised. So a rod designed to load comfortably at 30' might struggle once twice that length of line is aerialised because it's carrying more load. Whereas a more powerful rod might lack feeling with a short line but love a lot of line outside the rod tip.

Expert casters here say that a #5 line works well on both the Sage SLT and the TCR and they clearly do; the SLT should because it's the correct weight for the standard and the TCR wins casting competitions. But as a fishing rod is the TCR actually only beginning to work with 60'+ of line out? Here's a slide from a presentation by Simon Gawseworth that demonstrates the relationship between length of line and the weight the rod is carrying.

Screenshot 2021-04-07 at 13.34.52.png


However, casting experts here talk of casting short from the tip and long from the butt - a rod that can do both, they say, is genius. I have to take their word for that. My own experience with such rods - bearing in mind I am an experienced but not an expert caster - is that they cast well at distance once you get over their lack of obvious early feedback and can also be cast short, but with no feel at all.

I'd also add, that while these stiff fast rods are used by competition casters to cast distances of 120+' (#5 line and #5 rod), the same guys can cast a line almost as far with a 'normal' #5 wt fishing rod. Don't imagine that your medium actioned, true to weight 9' #5 rod used for little spey casts on your river can't also chuck a line a long way - it can; but only if you can.

With new technologies capable of creating very light, very fast rods that are underrated we are now tending to see rods separating into two categories called casting rods or power rods (fast and stiff) and fishing rods or presentation rods (slower and true to AFFTA weight).

If you add to this the fact that individuals bring their own personal, casting styles and experience to casting, you finish with a real dilemma - how can a rod, line, fishing situation and angler be matched properly?

The starting point is to do a lot of research on the rod so that you don't buy entirely the wrong one for your job - don't just think that it says #5 so it'll do. Read what the manufacturer says is its intended purpose and find as many reviews as you can. eg this is for the Sage Igniter - a very fast rod

9ft 0in #5 4pce - Sage's most versatile trout-sized rod with extra power; enabling high line speed for distant targets and a wider variety of lines and flies.

Strong head wind? Fish at distance? Bulky flies? Heavy sink-tips? The most demanding conditions require a different kind of rod. The Sage IGNITER is tuned to handle the most technical of conditions. Not a rod for the everyday angler, the IGNITER is equipped with a high line speed taper to carry large amounts of line at distance with wind cutting performance. Perfect for streamer fishing with heavy sink tips or covering big water when conditions become difficult.


The CSS measurement for this rod is a #7+

This is the Winston Pure
  • Moderate action with quick recovery that will allow for open loops required for fine dry fly presentation
  • True Winston progressive action
  • Slim profile with fine grip and guide configurations for better connection to the rod
  • Proprietary design puts presentation and tippet protection as the first priority
  • Ideal for light nymph and dry fly fishing applications.
I would expect this rod to be a true #5

If you read the marketing runes correctly and you're a decent caster it's still best to buy a line the same weight as the rod; after all, that's what the manufacturer recommends and it's generally accepted that all rods will work well within at least one and usually two weights of its label. You may have to experiment a bit with line length and action, but it will work.

Just to puzzle you further, competition casters in accuracy tests often use very old rods - often Fenwicks from the 1970s. Now why would they do that? Why aren't the best casters in the world using the most up to date technology? Make your own mind up.


In broad terms, there are two kinds of casting we do, the overhead casts that we use almost universally on still waters and the change of direction spey casts and roll casts on rivers. (But of course we can do both on either.) Within reason we can use any weight of rod and any sort of line for both those circumstances and there are all-rounders that will do all jobs competently - according to your skill - but you'll get the best out of both rod and line by matching them. If you want to routinely cast 75'+ double-hauling on your still water you're best with a stiff, fast rod and a long bodied line (45'+). If you're spey and roll casting down a small river, a softer rod with a light front profile and a heavier bodied line makes life easier. (You need as much weight in your D loop and as little on the water as possible to make an efficient roll cast.)

For dry fly work you can have all sorts of answers but so long as your casting is up to snuff and you don't have to cast a mile to the fish, a softer action rod and a line with a slowly tapering head and long body tends to be recommended.

Try before buy is always touted as the answer but it's very difficult for most of us to find a fly fishing outfitter where you can do that - we have to do most of our retail work on line now.

The best answer for a beginner is to get casting lessons. They serve two purposes, the first and most important being that if you become a good caster, you can adapt to be able to use anything and also know what you're looking for in a rod and line and, importantly, it lasts for life. The second is to take the teacher's advice on what tackle to buy, then forget about it and think only about fishing.

If you're a beginner or just have no interest in all this technical stuff and want a forgiving general purpose rod that's a true #5 ask for one with an ERN of 5.5 or near, with a medium to medium fast action. Sadly, it's unlikely they'll have a clue what you're talking about.

Here's a short video on a practical use of the CCS

A rod's a rod for A' that
Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Hardy,
What's Hardy? it is nor cork, nor carbon,
Nor ring nor ferrule, nor any other part
Belonging to a rod. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rod
By any other name would cast as sweet;
So Hardy would, were he not Hardy call'd,
Reel in that dear Perfection which it owns
Without that title. Hardy, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of ability
Cast all myself.

Shakespeare (Agility)

I've never heard the question "what rod did you catch that on mate?" Have you?


I'll leave you with this video, it's quite a thoughtful piece on using differing weight lines on the same rod.

Tight lines, Tangle


Further Reading and Miscellany

Steve Parton (Sparton) The true cost of rods

http://www.sexyloops.com/sparton/graphiterods.shtml

A long film about the history of Hardy



Gary Loomis His story and How Rods are Made
https://www.itinerantangler.com/blog/podcasts/2011/06/14/from_scratch_how_fly_rods_are/

US Rod Builders website - big resource and forum
https://www.rodbuilding.org

Paul Arden Fly Rod Design & Testing

Wildman in the Forest - Paul Arden's Hot Torpedo. It's craft not science.
https://www.sexyloops.com/index.php/ps/reviews
(If you want to see what an expert caster can do with a rod, join the video at 24mins 50secs)

UK Boutique Rod Builders
There are still a few rod builders that make small volume and custom rods in the UK. You can get beautiful rods built to your specification at a very reasonable price from these guys. (This isn't a recommendation - I've never bought or used any of them.)

Steve Parks at Atomsix
http://www.atomsix.co.uk/

Mike Bell at BlokeRods
http://www.blokerods.co.uk/

Roger McCourtney
http://www.peregrinerods.co.uk/

One of the few remaining UK rod blank manufacturers is
Stephen Harrison
https://www.harrisonrods.co.uk

Dave Hughes makes the Lohric Fly rod from Harrison blanks
https://www.edencustomrods.co.uk/

Chas Burns also uses Harrison blanks I believe
http://www.burnsbuiltrods.co.uk


Simon Barnes at Simba Rods

Videos I couldn't include (space limit)

G.Loomis How rods are made



Hardy test video


History (rather heavily redacted) and rod making at Winston


Making carbon fibre prepreg at scale - BMW
 

Attachments

See less See more
12 20
#2,440 ·
harry
tight lines, I dont like the oracle you wont be surprised to read, not the one I tried, but its in the hands of the beholder and if your happy with it and confident then its excellent for you, thats all that counts. It does what you want it to do.
I hope you have a brilliant trip
WP
 
#2,452 ·
harry
tight lines, I dont like the oracle you wont be surprised to read, not the one I tried, but its in the hands of the beholder and if your happy with it and confident then its excellent for you, thats all that counts. It does what you want it to do.
I hope you have a brilliant trip
WP
Thank you WP. Last trip of the year. Tight lines to you too. Cheers.
Harry
 
#2,441 ·
Can anyone name a non decent flyrod as of today? Serious question!

Cheers
Lasse
yeah I can, James bought something for him and Tracy to fish with on the Dee , its long and three weight and he loves it.. I hated it with a passion, he can do every cast imaginable with it with ease , i couldn't get any feel for it.
But people like you and James have got a casting ability that most of us lack, you can make the rod do what you want and adjust accordingly, most of us aren't blessed with or haven't worked hard enough to achieve that level of competence.

Ive also bought a Tain 10' 2/3 wt rod off someone on here. ive tried it with 2wt and with 3wt and its one of the the most uncomfortable, badly balanced, tip heavy, things ive ever suffered, the counter flex is awful , the thought of 4 or 5 hours euro nymphing with it is excruciating .... you would love it and probably get it to perform the most exquisite loops
also we tried a rod at the game fair made by a british manufacturer ( im not naming ) I thought it was awful , Both James and Nick Moore thought it was one of the worst rods ever. which was reassuring, i wasn't just me
serious answer! yes theres some **** about if your average enough to discern it.
pom
 
#2,453 ·
Hi Pom

First of, the first answer was a very non answer, theres a rod you dont like, but others do, thats not a bad rod, thats personal prefernce, and we all have differences!

Secondly, maybe I am just not average enough to discern it, but I havent found a non decent rod yet, and I have gone through a few. That James and Nick agreed with you sounds like you all three might share a preference, more than the actual rod is non decent.

Lasse
Now a serious question for you…
You’ve laid out a couple of grand to be at the world championships and you have the 5wt and the Accuracy coming up.
Which of your rods do you choose for those events ?
Seriously?
Pom
The ones I have practiced loads with, as the most used tool is mostly the tool you can make the best work with. As a craftsman, I can still make brillant work with unfamilar tools, but get the last percent with what I am used to work with.

Did the tests that sort of confirmed that ages ago..

Blessed with talent, nah, I am seriously not talented, but know that practice is the way to get better. Everybody reading this can pantomime a cast with a pencil as a rod in their hand while reading this. But most choose not to. Why is that? It just might help doing some movements here and there that are similar to what you want to do in another setting ;) and pantomiming can be done very slow, which is a good way of making sure ones movements are accurate and right..

Cheers
Lasse
 
#2,457 ·
Thanks Lasse ….. and the rod you would pick up to go on the po too to do 5wt distance and the accuracy when you really want to produce your best ?
Pom
Hi Pom

As I said, the ones I practiced with. At the moment it would be an Echo prime that says 9 above the handle for the MED 5 distance event and most likely the bastard, a CTS rolled blank a friend designed years ago when he was over in NZ for a swedish brand that doesn't exist anymore. One part is broken and have been replaced with a part from an old Echo rod. I managed to get bronze at the WC once using that rod, so no need to change, if Steve R competes with 40 year old rods, I can use 15 year old ones...

Performance wise, rods are at the absolute bottom of the list of things to look at...

Cheers
Lasse
 
#2,464 ·
Actually for the last 5 years I've been trying to explain to you that there's no relationship between the price of a rod and its performance. You've chosen to interpret that as a conspiracy, my view is that it's just business and free markets at work.
 
#2,466 ·
I think the addition of 3M's nano-scale silicon into the resins did make a large difference - it made the rods lighter and stronger, requiring less carbon. The numbers claimed - 60% stronger, 30% lighter - were probably exaggerated but it did make a material difference. The advances made in resin technology - all from other industries of course, mostly aerospace - are at least as important to our rods as developments in carbon.

You'll be using rods full of nano now - the marketing blurb just doesn't bother telling you anymore, it's old hat - unless it's graphene of course and then they're all over it.
 
#2,467 ·
In my opinion, and I like 10ft rods, a 4 piece rod is are far better than 2 or 3 piece rods as they fit in the car boot easier :)

I think I've been lucky regarding rods as all the rods I've had cast accurately and have been good at catching fish (y)
 
#2,470 ·
My guess is the marketing folks in the fly tackle industry are a bit underpaid otherwise they could be more creative inventing claims about new rod technologies🤔
 
#2,472 ·
The big discovery was that fly rod manufacturers have been ripping off gullible customers by buying far eastern blanks and selling them for premium prices, the conclusion appears to be that they are all the same and mid priced ones are just as good as very expensive ones.
That's life in all consumer markets, isn't it? Trainers, electronics ...

The eye-opener for me is not the mid-price rod differential (or lack of it) with expensive rods. I worked out several years ago there was nothing to choose between top-end brands and mid-price rods and abandoned Sage for Guideline (I now own 2 Guidelines - they're fine rods - and a clutch of Sages).

So the more recent revelation, for me, is that the difference between a really cheap rod (ie MaxCatch in this context) and a top-end (Hardy, for example) is probably undetectable in most people's hands. I'm a confident user of single-handed rods (first fly rod at 7 or 8, not stopped fishing since). It seems possible I may be 'most people'. And even If I'm not, why the 10-fold mark-up?

This is work-in-progress. I own 1 MaxCatch, and it's a good rod - but isn't a straight comparison with anything I already own. I have just taken delivery of a 2nd, a 9' #8, which will soon get an outing alongside the 9' #8 I already own (a boutique brand and one of the poorest rods I have bought in several decades). I'll post the results.
 
#2,476 ·
That's life in all consumer markets, isn't it? Trainers, electronics ...
Yes, the filter down of technology and market for copies kicks in at different times with different products, carbon rods are now at the stage where the very bottom price range is catching the benefits, which overlaps with but is a different thing from 'cost' which these days is mainly how much you pay the guy that made it, trainers is a good example, you can get the same quality and performance with copied technology and materials, the difference is in labour and environmental cost, the UK and US can't compete on those, we are a nation that expects to get paid the max and what we buy should be the min, it's living the dream but it's also feeding another nations economy and why China is growing while our economy is shrinking.
 
#2,478 ·
It was certainly starting to happen, but it was in his financial interest to ham it up to the hilt.

20 years ago I raved the IM6 Leeda rods at £19.99, by todays standards not great, there were few real budget rods of note at that time, this was the era of manufacturers out sourcing to the east and cutting back on production costs with the same rrp.
 
#2,479 ·
Sorry, my point was that he was buying what he called Sage/Hardy quality finished rods from the Far East 20 years ago for £25 which if sold in the USA would sell at the equivalent of £500. He was buying 'perfectly adequate' fully finished blanks for £2.50.

Many expensive rods are made in the same Korean factory - JS Company - Douglas, Taylor, Hardy and a lot of others. Their factory gate prices are sub $25 and they do design and build.
 
#2,480 ·
I'd take all of that with a pinch of salt, what one man(with a profit to make) calls 'Sage/Hardy quality' needs a bit of reflection, and 'perfectly adequate' is open to question, Bob made a living from selling cheap 'perfectly adequate' imports.

Between 1995 an 1999 Sage were the most expensive thing on the UK market, I'm happy to be challenged on it but they were immediately better than what was generally on the market, so much so they changed it, it was off the back of this fairly massive, and invested in, lift in performance that we benefit from today, I feel quite sickened when that is taken for granted today.
 
#2,485 ·
I blame the manufacturers for growing fat and complacent on pumped up margins.
Exactly my point, the pumped up margins in everything now is largely western wages, we are living in a period of transition where we are still able to benefit from poor working conditions at the source of manufacture while we still enjoy a decent living wage.

Just don't complain about the demise of UK industry.
 
#2,484 ·
I think carbon fly rod technology peaked some 20+ years ago and there are only small refinments of the rod tapers after that peak, but nothing revolutionary - 8x revolutions in the fly rod design 🤔 - i will give to such claims just a veeery generous smile🙂
 
#2,489 ·
I don't! Although I think there will be winners and losers both here and internationally. Right now I lack the necessary hindsight to know who ....
I think any innovative tackle designer and manufacturer in the UK is on a hiding to nothing now, because if its any good and has any degree of success, it will end up copied in the far east and then end up back here costing peanuts in a different packet. The successful UK companies are likely to be the ones nicking innovative designs getting them made cheaper in bulk in china and marketing them as 'British!' And there's enough customers here just happy to buy the cheap rip off versions and kill the British industry.

I know someone at the moment whose designed and developed his whole manufacturing process and recipe, and is designing from scratch the tapers and field testing them. Designed and made in the UK.
He cant compete price wise with the Eastern products, at probably twice or triple the nearest equivalent Maxcatch but he can surpass on quality and function. However he's realistic and aware that he's on borrowed time before someone rips of his product, maybe the quality wont be as good, but some people will always buy the cheapest option and many probably don't even recognise the difference.
His dilemma is how to delay that as long as possible in the way he meets the market with his product line.

The innovations are in materials technologies and they originate outside rod manufacture. Making rods is the easy bit
You've designed lots of rods have you ?
WP
 
#2,491 ·
I know someone at the moment who’s designed and developed his whole manufacturing process and recipe, and is designing from scratch the tapers and field testing them. Designed and made in the UK.
He cant compete price wise with the Eastern products, at probably twice or triple the nearest equivalent Maxcatch but he can surpass on quality and function.
Why doesn’t he emulate Hardy? Asian blanks/assembly. So a level playing field in terms of cost to market here?
 
#2,490 ·
Unless the cheap chinesishen import is not stoped there will be no more inovations because any new idea will be copied and produced cheaper in china.
 
#2,492 ·
Why doesn’t he emulate Hardy? Asian blanks/assembly. So a level playing field in terms of cost to market here?
Because you’re then releasing your design to be copied, you keep it in house if you want to preserve it
(I’ve watched happen here in the past in east end sweat shops , they would do a run of expensive shirts for Katherine Hammett , then do another run with a home label to sell on the market stalls it’s nothing new. Top fashion houses keep their production on house.the designer I was with took all the spare materials away and the patterns as soon as the run was finished…,, but they would have still copied his stuff that they wanted )

In any case he’s designing and manufacturing true to weight fly lines not rods, when he was doing rods his rod blanks come from nth America.
His lines are completion tapers and regular fishing tapers and densities. The competition ones have become very popular in that niche field , he’s now getting the regular fishing ones ready.
I’ve been playing with the three and four weights.

Hardys initial move to the far east was driven by the reaction time in-the design stage to prototyping and turn around.Anew design could have a dozen prototypes turned around in a week or two from the far east, previously it had taken a month or more to get the pro type in house.
It’s still the same design and development costs and marketing costs there’s no reason to think the finished rod is inferior to one built in Alnwick
WP
 
#2,493 ·
Between 1995 an 1999 Sage were the most expensive thing on the UK market, I'm happy to be challenged on it but they were immediately better than what was generally on the market, so much so they changed it, it was off the back of this fairly massive, and invested in, lift in performance that we benefit from today, I feel quite sickened when that is taken for granted today.
Thought that was G.Loomis in that time period. But maybe thats why Steve Rajeff uses rods prior to that period when performing second best in the world. Wonder how he would do with a sage in his hands :unsure:

Cheers
Lasse
 
#2,497 ·
Thought that was G.Loomis in that time period. But maybe thats why Steve Rajeff uses rods prior to that period when performing second best in the world. Wonder how he would do with a sage in his hands :unsure:

Cheers
Lasse
You might be in danger of crediting distance casting with more influence over the market than it had or has, the vast majority of fly fishers in the UK had never heard of or had no interest in Steve Rajeff or Loomis, or even distance casting.
Tackle shops in the main sold Hardy, Greys, Shakespeare, the odd posh shop had a fancy US stick or two, Sage understood marketing and had a better product than the market had, the RP, RPL, and XP were probably the best rods available in their times, sure there were others but for numbers sold they were nowhere to be found let alone tried enough to be players in the UK market.

Of course Sage borrowed from the distance casting scene, the UK fly fisher at the time was big still waters, everyone wanted to cast further, give em a 7 weight that could cast a 5 line, and look what the market did.
 
#2,494 ·
It would be great if just buying an expensive rod improved casting. I'd buy a new one every week.

S.F.’s McCormick, 12, wins world fly casting title
McCormick competed in an event called fly-casting trout accuracy, in which casters use fly rods, such as in the movie, “A River Runs Through it,” and then cast to small rings floating on pools. McCormick’s father, Glenn, won bronze for a medal sweep of the event by the San Francisco and Oakland Casting Clubs.

“It’s crazy over here in Estonia,” Korich said. “Casters from all the other countries are asking us about our secret techniques, training and our high-tech rods.”

As to the reference to “high-tech rods,” three years ago, Korich gave Maxine McCormick a 40-year-old fly rod, he said, worth about $50. She used the same rod Friday to win the gold.

S.F.’s McCormick, 12, wins world fly casting title (sfgate.com)
 
#2,495 ·
Thought that was G.Loomis in that time period. But maybe thats why Steve Rajeff uses rods prior to that period when performing second best in the world. Wonder how he would do with a sage in his hands :unsure:

Cheers
Lasse
Would you really be surprised if there wasn'tmuch difference in the outcome , but what weight was he second best at and what number was written in the side of the rod. Im sure, like 3 or 4 of you technically gifted casters on this forum , his casting ability somewhat transcends the limitations of the fly rod model in his hand

It would be great if just buying an expensive rod improved casting. I'd buy a new one every week.

S.F.’s McCormick, 12, wins world fly casting title
McCormick competed in an event called fly-casting trout accuracy, in which casters use fly rods, such as in the movie, “A River Runs Through it,” and then cast to small rings floating on pools. McCormick’s father, Glenn, won bronze for a medal sweep of the event by the San Francisco and Oakland Casting Clubs.

“It’s crazy over here in Estonia,” Korich said. “Casters from all the other countries are asking us about our secret techniques, training and our high-tech rods.”

As to the reference to “high-tech rods,” three years ago, Korich gave Maxine McCormick a 40-year-old fly rod, he said, worth about $50. She used the same rod Friday to win the gold.

S.F.’s McCormick, 12, wins world fly casting title (sfgate.com)
The river runs through it reference lifted from the article is for flyfishing style rods in general surely... she wasn't using a split cane! And the film wasn't based in the 1980's

I think she, and all the American team were using old Fenwicks from memory, though I am happy to be corrected on that.
I think the point of the US team is more to do with the Funding, practice management , and regime than just the rods. the Countries that fund and back the Flycasters in the international events tend to be the most successful.


40 year old rod puts it in the era of my favourite Winston B2t there was also the sage RP and the LL, and there was the Loomis IMX and IM6 to name a few , there really were no shortage of great rods from that era .
Buying a new rod each week wont help , learning to get the best out of what you have got, and combining it with a suitable fly line is more likely to bring improvements
WP
EDIT: also she won that competition seven years ago , its not exactly current news and she's a bit older now.
 
Top