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 · (Edited)
There are three quite long and interesting articles in this section:

1. Bill Hanneman for Rod Maker Magazine on rod evolution
2. Steve Parton on the true costs of graphite rods
3. David Norris on the history of carbon rods

But before that:

Distance casting
We all want to cast further but distance casting is an entire subject in itself. I'll just say that buying an expensive rod won't make you cast further. Here's three international casting champions telling you what will.

I bought a Shakespeare Agility #7 on behalf of the BFCC for people (who don't have their own outfit) to use in the casting comps. I think it cost ~ £50. Before I put it in the kit bag I thought I'd try it out - I cast it ~140ft (albeit on a good day for distance), so I figured it was good enough.
James


This is a £20 kit bought in Aldi, it came with line reel and rod. The two "distance" casts in the end that goes beyond the camera (that is set up at 100 feet) went 105-110.
Lasse Karlsson


Yep I agree with James and Lasse. Very unusual to agree with Lasse of course, but very occasionally he is actually right. Technique, then line, then way down the scale of importance: rod. It is possible to find a rod that is simply awful. Particularly in the fibreglass side of things in my experience. But even these will/can throw 110-115’.
Paul Arden


Steve threw 78 points in 2010 at the WC using a 40 odd year old rod [...] Maxine threw a perfect 80 points last year at the WC, using a korean build rod from a Norwegian brand, bet it was all because of copying old Sage rods ;)

This is getting old, rods are bendy sticks, they do nada without a caster, and they certainly do not do any performance and have 0 casting abilities. Just get the pretty one.

Lasse Karlsson


Fly Rod Evolution, Fast Action Rods, and Common Cents

Introduction

From this author's point of view and confining this discussion to just the past 100 years, one can divide fly rod evolution into three major periods-bamboo, fiberglass, and graphite.
Due to its intrinsic fibrous nature, rod makers were able to construct reasonably lightweight bamboo rods which were a pleasure to cast.

However, the skill and expertise required for their construction made these rods relatively expensive. After WW II, anglers had more money, less expensive foreign made rods became available, and fly fishing became a fast growing activity.

Also, after WW II, synthetic plastic materials became available and soon fiberglass fishing rods made their appearance. They have been with us ever since. Coinciding with the introduction of fiberglass was the introduction of spin fishing. Utilizing strong limber rods and monofilament lines, anglers could cast very light lures for considerable distances-a technique eagerly embraced by the angling public.

Also, because of the advantages which fiberglass offered, it was not long before fiberglass fly rods became readily available. At this point, fly rod and spinning rod designs branched-not to rejoin for almost 40 years.

Fly fishing, from its beginnings, has been steeped in tradition. Part of this tradition includes what we call the "feel" of bamboo. Because of its nature, bamboo has a relatively slow rate of recovery after bending. This rate of recovery can be measured in terms of frequency (cycles per unit of time). It is also a function of the weight of the rod tip and taper. Bamboo, however, did recover faster than the previously used greenheart or lance wood, and that is the main reason it became the material of choice for fly rods. Anglers wanted a faster recovering, lighter rod and bamboo provided it.

The frequency (recovery rate) of any fishing rod is primarily a function of its stiffness to weight ratio. Since fiberglass is not limited by the intrinsic physical properties of bamboo, frequency became an important variable in rod design. Designers of new fishing rods could now exploit the full potential of fiberglass, and they did.

However, fly rod design was internally limited by the tradition of having "slow" actions, i.e., the rod first appreciably bends in its lower portion closer to the butt. To produce such rods required the retention of the relatively stiff tips which had become the hallmark of bamboo rods. All of this resulted in rods which inherently exhibit low response rates (frequencies) and demand a slow relaxed casting stroke. In order to sell their products to fly anglers, rod makers had to continue making rods with that traditional slow action.

Simultaneous with the development of fiberglass was the influx of the post war anglers who had no sentimental attachment to bamboo and accepted this new material and the advantages it offered. The introduction of fiberglass to all fishing rod manufacturing represented a milestone. At last, the major hurdle of increasing the rod strength to weight ratio was overcome. Later, the introduction of graphite and/or other composites merely represented an incremental technological improvement.

As anglers wished to cast their lines farther and land larger and larger fish, the concept of increasing the ratio of the strength of the butt to the strength of the tip became more acceptable. The net result was rods became more powerful.

While weight reduction was very important, traditional "feel" dictated fiberglass rods still be constructed with slow actions. At the same time, fiberglass allowed for making rods having fast actions, weak tips, and stronger butts. This spawned a whole new product-spinning rods. The typical spinning rod can be considered to be a fast action (i.e., flexes close to the tip) fly rod having an "ungodly" strong butt.

With fiberglass, it was a simple matter to design rods having any type of action or any degree of stiffness desired. For over 50 years, this author has happily fly fished small streams using an ultra light weight spinning rod fitted with an appropriate fly line. Granted the action of the rod was much faster than that of a bamboo rod, but what one does not know about or feel deeply about, one does not miss. One simply learns to match the frequency of one's casting stroke to the frequency of one's rod and line. Such a rod may not feel like bamboo, but it is still an excellent tool for catching trout.

One important feature (either an advantage or disadvantage depending on one's point of view) of a fast action rod is that it initially flexes at its weak tip, and as more pressure is applied, the rod flexes more and more towards its stronger butt. A slow action rod, on the other hand has a strong tip which forces the flex to initially occur nearer the butt and consequently the rod does not have as much of a reservoir of power.

A slow action rod (sometimes referred to as soft action) is built to utilize the full flex of the rod and exhibits a softer "consistent" feel throughout its "optimum range of operation." On the other hand, the flex of a fast action rod varies with the load applied, and, while its "entire range of operation" is much larger, its "optimum range for any given load" is smaller. This is why fast action rods are "less forgiving."

With fiberglass fly rods mired in the lore and tradition of bamboo (i.e., effectively defined and limited by low frequency and slow action), it required the introduction of graphite, an entirely new material which was not so encumbered, to create the breakthrough to the modern fly rod period.

The Age of Graphite
Since the advent of spinning rods had already demonstrated the advantages of synthetic materials and how to design rods using them, from the standpoint of fly rod design, this breakthrough amounted to little more than morphing fly rods back into spinning rods. Now, after 40 or so years, the designs, in many cases, are virtually interchangeable.

However, the commercial success of this design change was predicated on convincing fly anglers that rods having higher frequencies and faster actions should be considered "better fly rods." This then became a project of marketing departments, and they have done their job well, as witnessed by the rise of Sage rods.

Let me quote from their literature. "Years of fly fishing experience had taught Don (Green, a founder of Sage) that fly rods should never run out of "power." While there might be fishing scenarios where the full power and flex of a fly rod were not utilized by the angler, the best designs were those that always held power in reserve. Hence, the name Reserve Power was given to the new style of fly rod Don developed for extra long casts or for windy conditions. The name was abbreviated to RP. This was the first major series of fly rods that Sage released in 1982 and they quickly became the most talked about fly rods in the world."
The success of fiberglass had been predominately due to its weight savings relative to bamboo, and now graphite offered even more. One manufacturer even advertised its rods "felt two weights lighter." The net effect was one could construct graphite rods which were even lighter and stiffer than their predecessors, and the public liked that-but what to call them?

Without a system for rating relative rod power, but since the introduction of the AFTMA standards for fly lines, a fly rod had begun to be rated on the basis of its power relative to the weight of line it was designed to cast. This, however, was the subjective opinion of its designer rather than an objective measurement. While a 5-Weight rod was originally considered as one which was designed to cast 30 feet of an AFTMA No. 5 line, today, its only requirement is that the rod be labeled "5-Weight."

Essentially, Sage recognized that if everyone else subscribed to the idea that a 5-Weight rod was "loaded" by an AFTMA #5 line and "over loaded" by a #6 line, they could construct a rod which would not be over loaded by a #6 line and call it a 5-Weight rod having Reserve Power. Truly a brilliant marketing plan, and it worked. Unfortunately, it set off a Power Race, and today, no one can define exactly what a 5-Weight rod is and how one can tell when a 5-Weight rod becomes a 6-Weight rod. Clearly there was a need to be able to objectively characterize all fly rods.

Characterizing Fly Rods
Since fly rods are made to be sold, one might expect them to be described in such a manner a prospective customer can know exactly what he is purchasing. To that end, most catalogs list a rod's Length, Number of sections, Weight (oz.), Price, Line Wt., and Action. The first four categories are simple and straight forward. The latter two, "Line Weight" and "Action" appear to be specific, but as experienced fly rod builders recognize, without precise definitions, those terms are essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the average angler is unaware of this fact and it appears many rod sellers would prefer to keep it this way. Without these definitions, any seller is free to create a rod of any strength and action and, if he feels such a designation will produce the most sales, designate it a "5-Weight Fast Action Rod."

This has resulted in sellers stressing the point that one should always cast a rod before purchasing it. This effectively takes all responsibility relative to describing the actual action and power of the rod away from the seller and appears to make it immaterial. This then places the buyer in the position of having to choose the least offensive (or best feeling) rod from the very limited choices available to him at any given fly shop.

While this approach is successful in the case of the general public, it cannot accommodate the mail-order angler who has no ready access to a local fly shop. It is also of little help to an experienced angler who knows exactly what he wants when he purchases a new rod. More importantly, it offers no assistance whatsoever to the sophisticated custom rod builder who wishes to purchase a blank having precisely defined characteristics.

In order to solve these problems, the Common Cents System was devised and it has received wide acceptance among those who wish to objectively describe and/or compare the intrinsic properties of any and all fly rods, irrespective of manufacturer. Full details of the system were published in RodMaker Magazine (Volume 6, issues 2, 3, 4 and Volume 8, issue 1) and are available on the internet at www.common-cents.info/.

Common Cents System (CCS)The CCS employs the term Intrinsic Power (IP) to quantitate the strength, power, or stiffness of a fly rod in terms of the relative amount of weight required to deflect or bend the rod a distance equivalent to one third of its length. IP can also be expressed in terms of Common Cents (i.e., the number required to so bend the rod), or Effective Rod Number (ERN). IP can also be mathematically related to the Weight of Line (WL) which will so flex the rod. The weight of one cent equals 2.5 grams.

Another term called Action Angle (AA) is incorporated to describe the angle the flexed rod tip forms with the horizon and is used as a description of the action of the rod in numerical terms. Finally, a third term called Common Cents Frequency (CCF) is invoked to describe the frequency of "one's fly rod outfit," i.e., the combination of both the fly rod and the fly line. These three terms have been condensed into a single term called the Defined Bending Index (DBI) which is written in the form of DBI=ERN/AA/CCF.

However, experience has shown additional terms are required to better describe the latest fast action fly rods. The following paragraphs describe my approach to this situation.
These new addenda are directed towards refining the CCS determination of IP or ERN of a fly rod. They recognize that as graphite fly rods were made lighter and stiffer, this increase was usually effected by increasing the strength of the rod butt relative to its tip. However, this also has the effect of increasing both the ERN of the rod and its Action Angle (AA), as well as its Common Cents Frequency (CCF)-thereby creating entirely different stronger products.
As this approach was carried towards its logical conclusion (e.g., Sage with their TCR-5 rod) the fly rod morphed back into a spinning rod having a very strong butt for lifting and/or casting more weight and a much weaker tip. This gave rise to the saying, "Cast with the tip and fight with the butt"-a marked contrast to the traditional bamboo and fiberglass rods with their stiff tips and weaker butts.

For the purpose of this treatise, one can effectively consider the modern fast action fly rod to be a composite of three separate components-a short low IP or ERN fly rod attached by an intermediate strength middle section to the top of a very stiff butt section. Consequently, since the IP or ERN as originally measured by the CCS conceptually represents an "average" value of this intermediate section, this single value could not convey a completely accurate description of the entire rod. However, by means of the BIG (Bending Index Graph) Picture described in RodMaker Volume 6, issue 2 such a description could be constructed. (See Article 2, page 2)

Tip Power (TP)
The BIG Picture is a graphical plot of the ERN or IP of a fly rod being measured at different distances from the tip and plotted against the corresponding value of AA. For most fly rods, it assumes the shape of a U lying on its side. It ranges from the strong tip to an intermediate mid section which is followed by a stiffening butt to the final IP or ERN, as shown in Article 2, page 2.

In slow action rods, a much stronger tip is followed by a weaker mid section which does not get appreciably stronger as it goes towards the butt. The BIG Picture appears more like a J or an L, as Curve D in Article 2, page 3. In very fast action rods, however, the tip is very weak while the butt gets progressively much stronger. This is shown in curve E.

One will note that in all of these Figures, there is a point (at a distance of approximately one third or less of the length of the rod from its tip) where the plot of ERN vs AA reaches a minimum value. This minimum value has been assigned the name Tip Power (TP) and represents the relative strength of the rod tip. While the value is measured on the abscissa scale, the numerical result is reported as TP, not ERN. However, it is recognized that in "non technical" speaking, one might say the TP of a given rod is "equivalent" to a short rod of that length having the same ERN. (Technically, the method of measurement of TP is slightly different from that of ERN.)

In order to incorporate this information in a useful fashion, the DBI can now be rewritten in a new form, as shown below:
DBI = ERN (TP)/AA/CCF

To illustrate this, the reader is asked to again consider the curves (Figures) from my article on the BIG Picture. The usefulness of this approach should then become clearer.
In Figure 2, the following DBIs describe the rods. (CCF was not determined.)

ERN / degrees Cents / degrees Grains / degrees
Rod A: DBI = 7.8 (5.5) / 60 64 (44) / 60 2363 (1685) / 60
Rod B: DBI = 7.8 (4.9) / 65 64 (40) / 65 2363 (1414) / 65
Rod C: DBI = 7.4 (3.8) / 70 58 (33) / 70 2239 (1278) / 70

In Figure 3, the DBIs are:
Rod D: DBI = 3.1 (2.6) / 68 28 (25) / 68 1076 (946) / 68
Rod E: DBI = 6.5 (2.6) / 78 51 (25) / 78 1973 (946) / 78

Some of the relationships one might expect resulting from differences in ERN or IP, TP, AA, and CCF are summarized below.
The greater the AA, the lower the TP.
The faster the rod (higher AA), the greater the difference between ERN or IP and TP.
The smaller the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the "softer" the rod.
The smaller the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the slower the tip speed and the lower the CFF (not illustrated in this example).
The greater the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the greater the range of lines the rod can handle, However, the "working range" for each line will be smaller and one's casting skills must be greater, as the rod will be less forgiving.

Note: The reader should be aware that while the BIG Pictures are usually drawn with units of ERN and Weight in cents as the calibration of the abscissa, the fundamental unit of weight of the CCS is grains. The ranges for the various ERN or IP values are defined by the Rosetta Stone. Most importantly, one must recognize that these ranges trace their origin back to the original AFTMA standards and the arbitrary ranges defined at that time were not strictly linear. Consequently, extrapolations outside of any particular range of ERN or IP are not valid. While the credit or blame for that situation belongs entirely to the AFTMA, the Rosetta Stone provides the correct translation.

Power Reservoir (PR)
All fly anglers recognize the distance one can cast a fly depends primarily on the energy one puts into the casting stroke. For the most part, that energy is used to load or flex the rod. If one wishes to cast farther, one increases the speed of his stroke and ultimately provides more speed to the line. That, however, is a subjective action on the part of the caster. However, if one wishes to objectively compare fly rods of differing intrinsic properties, it is imperative to standardize the testing parameters. That is precisely what the CCS has done.
As originally conceived, the CCS was developed to characterize typical fly rods for trout which were sold under the designations of #2 to #6-Weight rods which would be expected to perform satisfactorily when used with the corresponding AFTMA No. 2 to No. 6 fly lines. These lines had been standardized on the basis of the weight of the first 30 feet of line.
Consequently, the CCS was developed around these standardized lines and casts of 30 feet without any haul by the "average" angler. An arbitrary decision was made to compare rods which had been flexed (loaded) to the extent that the rod tip had been deflected a distance equal to one third of the rod's length.

The success of this approach was immediately recognized and there was a demand the CCS be extended to incorporate all fly rods. This was done and the results summarized in the "Rosetta Stone of Fly Lines and Rods." All of this was well and good and for the first time the powers of fly rods of all kinds could be objectively compared.

Since the comparison of fly rod power was based on the weight of the corresponding lines, it was reasonable to relate the power of the rod to the weight of the line, but one must remember we are speaking here of a traditional cast of 30 feet of aerialized line and no haul. However well this worked for those conditions, the fact remained that for the heavier modern rods, anglers wished to cast the full lengths of their lines. This required the introduction of hauls, double hauls, special lines of varying tapers, and most of all casting strokes which flexed their rods far more than one third of their lengths.

Since hauls, double hauls, special lines, tapers, and casting speed are all variables controlled by the caster, they fall outside the domain of the CCS which is concerned only with the intrinsic properties of the rod, itself. While the original CCS data is still valid for all fly rods and the just introduced TP (Tip Power) provides additional information, there is still a need to characterize the the power of a rod which can be released by flexing it a distance greater than one third of its length.

In my previous article on Common Cents Frequency (CCF) in RodMaker Volume 8, Issue 1, (Part 4), I showed how the tip speed of a fly rod could be related to the CCF of the rod and the degree to which it was flexed. Now, with the introduction of a new intrinsic property which I will call Power Reservoir (PR), one can assign a numerical value to the resulting power of the "super flexed" rod. The astute reader will immediately recognize the similarity between the terms PR and Sage's RP. However, while RP is primarily a proprietary marketing gimmick, PR is a carefully defined measuring system useful for comparing fly rods of all makes.

Power Reservoir (PR) is arbitrarily defined as the force required to deflect the rod tip a distance equal to one half of its length. To determine this value, the rod is set up for deflection in exactly the same manner as for determining the IP or ERN. However, instead of deflecting the rod tip a distance equal to only one third of the rod's length, the tip is deflected a distance equal to one half of the rod's length. The weight in grains required to effect this deflection represents the PR of the rod.

As discussed previously for TP, this value, i.e., PR, can also be spoken of in terms of ERN by use of the Rosetta Stone for the conversion. For instance, consider a rod which requires 1973 grains to deflect it one third of its length and 2580 grains to deflect it one half of its length. Such a rod would be considered to have an ERN of 6.5 and a PR (ERN equivalent) of 8.5. Remember these are relative terms relating to stiffness, power, or strength.

Although TP, IP, and PR can be determined in the basic unit of "grains" for any type of fishing rod which can be appropriately flexed, there are certain factors which must be considered relative to fly rods. These are discussed below.

For over half a century fly anglers have become accustomed to "rating" their rods in terms like "5-Weight." We all recognize this term has no objective definition. Nevertheless it is generally understood to be a measure of the stiffness, relative strength, or power of that fly rod. When the CCS was conceived, The term ERN (Effective Rod Number) was adopted to differentiate its precisely defined and measured values from that traditionally used term (Weight). With time, one might expect, as the ambiguity of the term "5-Weight" becomes fully recognized, it will be replaced in the fly angler's vocabulary by a precisely defined term like CC-5 or ERN-5, or even IP=1685. Any of these designations on the handle of a fly rod will go a long way in informing a prospective buyer what to expect from that rod.

While the IP scale in grains is open ended, fly lines were defined by the AFTMA scale to run from Numbers 1 to 15 (AFTMA Standard Weights from 60 to 550 grains). This corresponds to IP values only as large as 6400 grains (ERN=15.5).

Now, since the term PR has been created to describe the power of rods which have been deflected a greater degree than the original CCS calls for, the PR of an ERN=15.5 rod must be greater than 6400 grains. This means the IP and corresponding ERN scales must be expanded. To that end, using the same rational as AFTMA, I have created and defined extended ranges for these values and have listed them in Table 1.

Using this approach, one can now, for instance, describe a rod which formerly could only have been described as a 15-Weight rod as a rod having a PR of an ERN=18.5 rod. Its DBI would now be expressed as the following:
DBI = 15.5 (13.5, 18.5) / AA / CCF
or
DBI = 6400 (5280, 8080) / AA / CCF

The practical value in determining the PR of a rod lies in the fact the greater the difference between TP and PR, the greater the range of lines the rod can handle. However, as previously stated in regards to the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the "working range" for each line will be smaller and casting skills must be greater as the rod will be less forgiving.

For instance, let us consider the case of a rod which has a DBI = 7.8 (4.7) / 68 / 83, one might conclude that by merely adjusting one's casting stroke one could comfortably cast 30 feet of any line having an ELN (Effective Line Number) between 4.7 and 7.8 (i.e., AFTMA Line Numbers 4 to 7). Such casts would not require the caster to "load" or flex his rod to an extent greater than one third of its length.

Now with the introduction of the concept of PR, casts requiring a greater degree of rod loading can be accommodated. Let us assume that the PR of the subject rod was determined to be 10.4. The DBI would then be written as 7.8 (4.7, 10.4) / 68 / 83, and the range of AFTMA lines this rod could handle would now be described as ranging from 4 to 10, and indeed a skilled caster could make them all perform. In essence, the ERN provides the "normal or line optimal loading" while the TP and PR define the reasonable limits which can be accommodated by adjusting one's casting stroke.

Matching Rod and Line
In the case of traditional slow action graphite fly rods, having a very narrow range between TP and PR and low CFF values, it is relatively simple to define the weight of the fly line which will match any given rod on the basis of ERN=ELN and WL. This equation implies that there is a definite relationship between the strength of a rod and the line it will optimally cast. This value can be called the normal loading for that rod.

However, such a combination may not provide the optimum comfort, pleasure, or "feel" to the angler because of the mismatch between the CCF of the rod and the angler's casting stroke speed. This can be compensated for to some degree by adjusting the line weight so as to increase or decrease the CCF of the rod. Consequently, anglers frequently "overload" or "underload" their rods for that purpose. It is generally understood that any rod can handle any line which is +/- one line number from its normal loading. If this fails, it is time to consider a different rod.

In the case of modern fast action graphite fly rods having a broad range between TP and PR and high CCF values, the choice of fly line is more complex. While the normal or optimal loading of each rod is still defined by its ERN or IP and these criteria are satisfactory for normal casting, casting lengths of line in excess of 50 feet pose problems which can only be solved by rods having greater PR values.

Normally, in order to increase the PR value of a rod, one must increase the IP or ERN of that rod. While this also usually results in an increased value for TP, this can be compensated for by simultaneously weakening the tip with the result that the AA increases and the rod action becomes faster. All of this combines to make a rod which can handle a greater range of line weights but depends to a greater extent on the ability of the caster to control the result by adjusting his casting stroke.

In the final analysis, the purpose of the CCS is to help one to describe a fly rod in a precise manner and recognize its intrinsic properties. It is the angler, himself, who must make the final decision as to which of the many available fly lines to use for any particular purpose. Ultimately it is the skill of the caster that really matters. A skilled caster can cast any rod having sufficient power, while an unskilled angler cannot cast any rod.

Interpretation of values
The reader must recognize that CCS and URRS values are completely objective numbers and carry no connotations of good, bad, or better. They simply reflect the strength and action of the rod tested. That is all. Nevertheless, once the relative numbers are available, they will be used for comparative purposes. Each individual is entitled to make his own subjective interpretations of what the data suggests to him. A good example of this is illustrated by the column marked X in Table 2.

Here, in my opinion, "X" or the "X Factor" is a measure of level of "Xpertise" or "Xperience" required of the caster in order for him to be able to make use of the capabilities built into that rod by its designer.

I shall leave the rest of these data for each of you to consider and interpret. However, since all of these rods are advertised and sold to anglers as "5-wt" rods, I trust you will recognize (1) my insistence that when you describe your rod as a 5-wt, you have not imparted any useful information. (2) When you describe your rod as Brand X, model Y, z ft, you have provided a bit of information to those few individuals who have experience with that particular rod. (3) When you provide CCS or URRS data about your rod, everyone in the world can understand what you are talking about and discuss it intelligently-if they are so inclined.

ERN Cents
TP
PR

2 20.5
3 27
4 34
5 41
6 47.5
7 55
8 63
9 71.5
10 82
11 95
12 110
13 127
14 144
15 158.5
16 173

Table 2 Typical Results*

URR DBI X TP PR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDINGTON RODS

TRS-3 5 : 4 : 9 5.1 / 62 5 4.0 9.4
RED FLY 5 : 4 : 12 5.5 / 62 7 4.6 12.0
Wayfarer 5 : 3 : 11 5.7 / 68 8 3.7 11.8
Super Sport 6 : 3 : 13 6.8 / 70 10 3.1 13.3

SAGE RODS

SLT 4 : 3 : 11 4.9 / 66 8 3.1 11.7
Z-Axis 5 : 3 : 12 5.7 / 70 9 3.1 12.6
FLI 6 : 3 : 13 6.5 / 70 9 3.7 13.4
VT-2 6 : 3 : 14 6.8 / 73 10 3.6 14.0
TCR 590 7 : 3 : 15 7.5 / 73 11 3.6 15.1

URR = ERN : TP : PR Each value reduced to integer.

DBI = ERN : AA

X = PR - TP Difference reduced to integer.

* Assuming ERN values can range from 4-7, TP values can range from 2-6, and PR values can range from 6-15, then there are 200 "flavors" of "5-Wt." rods which can be differentiated by using the three values of the URR. If that isn't enough, one can resort to using the CCS values to the first decimal place. That way, you can have 200,000 categories, if you can measure accurately enough.


I'm plonking some stuff from Steve Parton of Sparton Rods, UK here because his stuff is gradually disappearing from the net

Steve Parton: Graphite Rods - the true costs

Cards on the table - I make specialist flyrods and I have done for around 30 years and for the last 20 as a professional. And I have been UK Shakespeare's Game Fishing consultant for the last 20 years as well - so I know all about Oriental Manufacturing as well as Developed Economy operations. And I have but 2 Degrees in assorted aspects of Manufacturing plus an awful lot of experience. In other words rods and fly fishing is my way of life and I understand it from most angles - I started as a fly fisherman at the age of 7 and I'm 56 next.
It is fairly obvious that most fly fishermen have less than a clue when it comes to an understanding of what is actually involved in making a flyrod. I see too many gormless comments on bulletin boards around the sites for it to be otherwise. It is beginning to annoy me. And I don't mind sharing what I know with everybody - I have done for years, the sad bit for me is that most of them either didn't listen or chose not to believe.
The important part of any fly rod is the blank - everything that hangs on it is secondary or straight cosmetic or house style in the case of most bigger makers.
In the UK you need around £150,000 to buy the basic plant to roll blanks. And then you need time and money to make the experiments and the mistakes. A year and £20,000 and you should be pretty adequate. It took Harrison and Norwich around those costs and time frames to get going in the last decade. But they are both pretty smart and it might take you rather longer but it is no big deal - maybe 2 years and £40,000 will see you well away.
I don't make blanks; I just commission them from specialist manufacturers. It has never taken any of them more than 3 stabs to get the blanks I wanted. And that includes most of the work I've done with Shakespeare's using Far Eastern sources at very long ranges indeed. But I do know almost exactly how to vary actions and therefore fairly precisely how to alter specifications with composites, flag cuts and varied mandrels - that's why I am a professional consultant - and there aren't that many of us around. After that it is down to costs because when you have finished the development every flyrod blank I ever saw took less than an hour to make and less than £5 in the most advanced composites currently available.
In the UK any manufacturer can knock out excellent 2 piece 10' blanks for £15:00p at base cost. And if you understand Production you will not be surprised to realise that to make a sensible profit and pay for the plant, capital and expertise the base price gets tripled so that blank will get sold on at around £45:00p. Any more than that and somebody is pulling somebody else's leg rather - or costs are catastrophically out of control - which can and does happen and then they wonder why they went bankrupt! You can cut the cost of blanks in two ways - if you buy a lot or make a lot the same then there are some production economies and the more you buy the cheaper they will get.
The other way of cutting the costs is to proceed to the Far East where the poor sods work for a lot less and when I tell you that I can buy perfectly adequate 10' AFTM 7/8, 2 and 3 piece fully finished flyrods for just less than £5:00p each from China you will understand just how deadly is cheap labour competition these days. Take a 1,000 set and the blanks I can buy for less than £2:50p - and if I specify the finishes in a corrupt forger's manner and spend an extra £1:00p per unit I will willingly bet you couldn't tell the things from most American or European Manufacturing Sources - which is why most of what you think is American or European Made isn't at all.
When you have the blank in your hands it takes well under an hour and a half to fully build and varnish it. And if you are working bulks - the hang on componentry will cost less than £15:00p per rod including handle, reelseat , and rings. Unsurprisingly Snake rings cost a fair bit less than ceramic centred ones - you can save a couple of quid a rod fitting these substandard items at all times - as most Americans do!
And yes you do have to use a multiplier of factor three to stay in business.
At my level of painfully slow hand operation this whole lot basically puts a fully finished rod in my rack for around £90. And I sell it on for £150 but have to manufacture a rodbag and a Cordura tube inside those costs and I can and do do it. It may seem a lot of markup but let me assure you that if you don't mark up 43% you are going to go bankrupt - and if you are paying London or other Inner City costs for your retail premises it'd better be nearer 80%!
Were I selling into the Retail Trade the rod would get marked up a further 50% to £225 before it reached a customer. And if I sold it to a Wholesaler who sold it to a Retailer then you could add yet another 50% and take the price up to £337:50p. And of course if I sold it into the USA then there'd be yet another level of distribution and that's yet another 50% plus the costs of Transportation and maybe even Import Duty which'd take the price up to around £500.
If you can do sums and think a bit you should by now be fully aware exactly what you are paying for a flyrod, bag and tube and why. Given that less than 3 hours of actual direct labour and probably less than £25:00p in input materials have been used in overall manufacturing it may seem an awful lot - especially if that labour has been employed somewhere where they pay around £1:25p per 10 hour day.
Being very simplistic about things I think I would DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN STUFFED if I paid more than £25 for a Sage/ Hardy Build Quality of 10' flyrod from the Far East.
Most of the cost you have paid has been about levels of distribution / importation / marketing / transportation. Very little has been about Manufacturing/ Research / Expert Input.
Frankly there are very few actual fly fishermen involved in manufacturing, development and design these days. Most manufacturers routinely buy the best rods they can find by recommendation and it doesn't exactly take them a hell of a long time to drop a couple of different mandrels down the insides which coupled with using a micrometer on the outsides teaches them precisely what somebody else did - I'd guess at less than half an hour with a specialist. And it takes very much less of a specialist to copy the hang on componentry precisely. This is why you can wander into a (say) Korean Rod Maker with whatever you want copied and have an actual sample in your hands within a day!
Me, I don't worry any more, I can't get more efficient than by selling direct off the factory bench with middlemen out of the equation altogether.
But I do get nettled when I know that my customers are being bull****ted into parting with £500 for a Far Easterner that has been transhipped into another country and then into the UK and then moved on down the line with the user price inflating like an automatic lifejacket being fired off.
Little better are the Home Grown bull****ters who overcharge for Far Eastern. But it has to be said that the established professionals at bringing in direct from the Far East do offer far the best value for money because they are in vicious competition with each other.
The writing is probably on the wall for the few of us left who still make in the UK - I expect to be the last man standing fairly soon - just the same as Vince Green at Sprite - the one and only hookmaker left in this pathetic country of ours!
Now you know exactly what is involved - you can make your own mind up about what you are going to buy. A word of warning though - there isn't much loyalty left anywhere in any walk of life these days and brand loyalty is one of the strange anachronisms. It does seem to take forever for a punter who bought a rod from a Company that he liked - say 30 years ago - to realise that the game has changed in the interim and that he is no longer a valued customer, as it were!
Best wishes and a Happy New Year
Steve P

Steve Parton needs no introduction to the UK readers. Midlands reservoir angler, obsessional float tuber, author and "in the trade", Steve owns Sparton Fishing Tackle (drop by for a visit!) and is well known in the UK for his in-depth flyfishing knowledge.


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

Steve Parton: Goodbye and Good Riddance

At a recent extraordinary meeting of the AFTMA one of the most senior executives present made the remarkable statement that " My company hates Lifetime Guarantees but the Customers love them - " Talk about the blindingly obvious - I'm hugging myself with delight - the penny's finally dropped in the Good Ol' USA!
But more seriously, from your point of view, Sage has recently bought Redington and I have to assume that the recent Extraordinary Meeting of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association is the first serious step towards most sensible Manufacturers / Distributors ditching unconditional lifetime warranties with the utmost speed possible.
Me, a small time Rod Manufacturer with but 35 years business experience and only the two business degrees, I smelt a big fat rat the first time I heard that such nonsense was being used as a means to sell fishing rods. The implications had never been remotely thought through. The entire concept was typically short term Marketing Department driven - a half-smart, half baked idea to give the first company that went for it a major but short lived advantage over their competitors.
I had a meeting with one of the reps initially concerned in the UK and he told me proudly that less than 8% of fishermen would make use of the guarantee system in the entire lifetime of a rod and only a 10% price inflation would overrecover all costs involved. This was about 3 months in. Sensibly, he doesn't work for them any more!
I immediately had the feeling that someone had blundered and they had never had first hand experience of just what fly fishermen do and are capable of doing. I've been making and selling my own rods for over 20 years and in that time most of the rods I made and sold grew old and died. Mine and everybody else's are made of hollow thin walled fragile graphite. We do it so they are nice and light and pleasant to fish with. We do it in the full and certain knowledge that the inherent structural fragility is a necessary evil and in the full and certain knowledge that any impact event dooms the section affected. There are very few Graphite rods around over 15 years old (unless they lie unused in lofts somewhere.)
And there are a few, a very few, rogue fly fishermen about and most of them probably live in the USA. Some years ago in Alaska I bust a rod breaking a salmon off because a rather large Grizzly Bear was coming along and taking altogether too much interest in it. The Guide was concerned and then startled because I told him the insurance company would pay off without worrying about it (and they did!). The Guide ventured the opinion that there wasn't tackle insurance in the USA due to the likelihood of anybody with it deciding that their rod was a bit old and having a nice new one after applying their knee and hands to it - don't do this by the way - one of my customers injured himself with an Abu Solid Glassfibre Spinning Rod he decided to have replaced in exactly the same way - it took the A&E Doctor over 2 hours to remove the splinters from his leg!
And then a few years later along came American Rod Insurance in the form of a Lifetime Free Replacement Guarantee and well, put it like this, the initial premise of 8% replacement appears to have been somewhat of a low estimate.
I think it was Orvis who started it off with maybe an honest 25-year guarantee and thereafter Mr Redington sprang onto the scene with a Lifetime's Worth and the rest of them basically got suckered in because Sales were going the way of the Guarantors.
Me, the main rat I smelt involved American-made prices being charged to customers for what were fairly obviously non-American sourced products. Now I have worked for those very honest operators Shakespeare's, as a consultant, for just on 20 years and I am more than familiar with offshore sourcing and know exactly how much product costs and at which quality levels from the Far East. I also know all about making the blanks in one country and having them finished inordinately cheaply in another. Even a fool like me can understand that such covert practises can generate seriously large profits and certainly enough slack money to operate a ' Lifetime Guarantee Policy.'
Naturally a western-based Manufacturer with western costs cannot sensibly afford to play this game - it is potentially a very lethally expensive undertaking.
For good or ill, I formed the opinion that all parties initially involved in the Lifetime Guarantee Racket were either desperate or involved in the business of passing off Oriental production as American production in whole or in part. I saw no other way that the cost absorption could be achieved.
Shakespeare's and I, although operating under radically different constraints operate in the same way - we both seek to deliver maximum quality for minimum costs, they operate on Worldwide Sourcing and I am a Little Englander. They work the mass market and I work the specialist. They turn over £12,000,000 in the UK and I turn over a tiny percentage of that, we are very different in terms of size and I am perfectly happy selling their rods because I know that the pricing is fair and the value for money to the customer is excellent. But costs are tight and the competition is hard and neither of us offer lifetime guarantees - doing it honestly, I'd certainly price myself out of my market altogether. Apart from which many of my British customers carry excellent tackle insurance anyway - so it would probably be a pointless and wholly disastrous exercise in any event. Interestingly, Shakespeare's and myself both undertake repair and replacement work at very customer advantageous rates.
I have to take off my hat to the other bigger high level US operators like Gary Loomis who has always refused to get drawn in to the Guarantee Syndrome. He obviously thinks much the same way that I do. There is no such thing as a free lunch - you've either already paid for it one way or the other - or you're just about to!
And the companies who did get suckered in - well, I thought we might well see a series of organised bankruptcies / phoenixes arising from the flames as they took the final way out of their potentially ruinous long term obligations. But maybe now they're going to ring themselves up and put an end to the nonsense quickly and sensibly and legally too, one hopes they're in time to save themselves.
If I have any serious advice to offer you it is to get ready for the rush as customers may just make the fullest use possible of those guarantees on their rods because the window of opportunity for a free upgrade may well be closing at flank speed!
Take care
Steve P

From an artice by James Barlow that I (ed. David Norris) contributed to. (March 2018.)

2018 - The Golden Anniversary of the Carbon Fibre Fishing Rod

Throughout the history of angling there have been only a few revolutions in the the making of the very heart of a fishing rod, the blank. Wood, bamboo and split cane, steel and fibreglass have all been used and often to great effect but today the world market is dominated by one material, carbon fibre, also called 'graphite'. While cane and glass rods are still beloved by many, the vast majority of today's anglers will use a carbon fibre rod. The combination of strength, lightness and sensitivity with manufacturing adaptability makes them an ideal choice for almost every niche of this very diverse sport, from delicate fly rods to mighty beachcasters. But when and where did this last revolution take place and who were the men responsible for the very first carbon fibre fishing rod?
The First Carbon Fibre Cloths

This story has its origins in the post-war period when processes for the manufacture of carbon fibre were being researched across the globe. By heating organic fibres, low-modulus filaments could be created. These ultra-fine, continuous, individual strands of carbon could be combined in their thousands and produced in lengths called 'tows'. Tows could then be woven into a cloth and impregnated with resins to produce …. what? The world did not yet know but the strength and elasticity of the new material seemed to have potential.

During the 1950s significant research into higher modulus fibres was ongoing in Japan (Tokay Inc.), the U.S.A. (Union Carbide with the U.S. Air Force Materials Laboratory) and in Great Britain (The Royal Aircraft Establishment, Rolls Royce and Courtaulds, U.K.). Each country acted independently and employed different methodologies.

In the United States efforts were focused on producing carbon fibre from rayon, a semi-synthetic fibre made from cellulose and invented by Courtaulds, U.K. in 1905. In 1958, at Union Carbide, Roger Bacon invented a method by which fibres with a 20% carbon content could be produced from rayon but the process was inefficient and the resulting fibres were of low modulus, lacking both stiffness and strength. They were used as high temperature insulation and in filters. This early, limited success led others in America to pursue rayon as a precursor in the manufacture of stronger, higher modulus carbon fibre and in 1960 Richard Millington with H. I. Thompson Fiberglass Co. produced tows of 99% carbon fibre from rayon by a process which involved 'hot-stretching' to prevent shrinkage. This fibre was suitable for combining with resins to make a composite which was light, strong and could be blended to vary in rigidity and flexibility. However, the rayon-precursor manufacturing methods proved to be very expensive and inefficient with the resultant cost of tow at $1000 - $1500 per kilo.

Simultaneously and independently, Japanese and British research was focused on producing carbon fibre from a different precursor to rayon - polyacrylonitrile or 'PAN'.

In 1961, at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology in Osaka, part of the then Ministry of Industry and Trade of Japan, Dr. Akio Shindo was able to create 55% carbon fibre using a PAN precursor but crucially they could not prevent shrinkage during the process.

Trade ministry subsidy into carbon fibre research continued throughout the 1960s in Japan whilst in both the U.S.A. and the U.K. government funding came via military research organisations; the U.S.A.F. Materials Laboratory, Ohio, and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (R.A.E) in Farnborough, Hampshire, England. With the Cold War and the Space Race in mind, military and aeronautical uses for carbon fibre were at the forefront of development in the West whilst in demilitarised Japan applications within industry and commerce were the focus.

The R.A.E. Men

In the early 1960s William 'Bill' Watt and a small group of colleagues at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, a British Ministry of Defence research facility, tasked themselves with the development of high modulus carbon fibre tows for composite production.

The Royal Aircraft Establishment scientists were:

Dr. William 'Bill' Watt, F.R.S. (1912-1985) Senior Principal Scientific Officer, R.A.E. Farnborough.

Leslie Nathan Phillips, O.B.E. (1922-1991) worked in the Plastic Technologies Section.

William 'Bill' Johnson, (????-????) the Laboratory Assistant and Experimental Officer, later Principal Scientific Officer.

Dr. Roger Moreton (1935-), a materials scientist awarded a PhD for his research into spinning carbon fibre.

Professor Anthony 'Tony' Kelly, C.B.E., D.L., F.R.S., F.R.Eng (1929-2014), worked in the field of resin composites.

These five men were the principal British pioneers in PAN-derived carbon fibre technology.

Like the Japanese, the R.A.E. used a PAN precursor, theirs being 'Orlon' supplied by Courtaulds, U.K. and later 'Courtelle'. When oxidised on a frame within a certain temperature range the fibres neither shrunk nor stuck together and in 1964 the R.A.E patented their own high-modulus carbon fibre process producing what became known as 'Type I' tow. (1) This process was then licensed to Courtaulds, U.K., Morganite Modmor and Rolls Royce to manufacture on an industrial scale. Both Rolls Royce and Courtaulds had already been independently pursuing their own methods of manufacture but each abandoned their research in favour of Watt's process. Rolls Royce later employed carbon fibre composites in the making of jet engine fan blades.

Roger Moreton has recorded extensive recollections of his career, including his time with Watt et al, for the British Library's 'Voices of Science' archive. (2) There, in Part 4, Moreton recalls buying Meccano from the local toy shop to make the frame on which to wind the fibres and prevent shrinkage on heating - a problem confounding Japanese and American research - thereby paving the way for the R.A.E.'s 'Type I' tow.

In 'Carbon Fibers and Their Composites' by Paul Morgan (3) he writes:

"Courtaulds later developed a special acrylic fiber (SAF), specifically for conversion to carbon fiber. The work at RAE was successful and culminated in Watt, Phillips and Johnson applying for a patent in 1964.
.... Watt and Johnson undertook further work .... using Courtelle and Draylon T ..... (resulting in) the 1968 patent.

From these results the RAE developed a small scale laboratory continuous carbon fiber process to demonstrate feasibility. To provide larger quantities for commercial evaluation , a contract was placed in 1965, with the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, who had existing furnaces that could be readily adapted for this application and initially, Harwell produced a staple fiber in approximately 4.5 Kg batches some 35 cm long."


In Part 6 of his 'Voices of Science' interview Roger Moreton is asked if there was ever a 'Eureka' moment. He replies:

"Well .... yes .... I suppose the very first time we got the good properties .... The fibres were a quarter of the density of steel, they were twice the stiffness of steel and twice the strength .... It's quite spectacular, really .... sometime between 1965 and 1967, I guess." (4a)

Harwell's capacity was limited and in 1966, perhaps frustrated by Courtaulds' increasingly secretive attitude, the R.A.E. approached Morganite Research and Development with an order for one ton of carbon fibre. This they supplied by the end of 1967. So great was its value, around £65,000, it was kept in a locked room known as 'the Black Fort Knox'. Today in 2018 its equivalent value would be around £1.1 million.

In his draft of 'The Strange Tale of how I Met Richard Walker' Leslie N. Phillips, reflecting on his time at the R.A.E., wrote:

" At an early stage in the development of carbon fibre the Ministry of Supply invited the B.B.C. to broadcast and introductory programme. It was transmitted under the title, 'From Strength to Strength' …. " (5)

'From Strength to Strength: The Search for New Materials' was broadcast on B.B.C.1 on the 2nd of June, 1964 at 9:25 p.m. (6) The programme was made in the hope they could raise awareness of new materials amongst British manufacturers. As an added enticement they offered 0.9m long tows free for experimentation on the condition that any results obtained be shared with the R.A.E. - this at a time when American companies were paying $1000+ per kilo. The programme was viewed with interest by one man in particular, Richard Walker.

''This Happy Band''

Richard 'Dick' Walker (1918-1985) had worked at the R.A.E. during the Second World War where he was assigned to radar research. In 1945 he returned to the family business making agricultural machinery. A keen angler from childhood, he soon established himself in the angling press and tackle industry, inventing an electronic bite alarm, the Arlesey Bomb and, in 1952, he published his first book, 'Rod Building For Amateurs' (7). That same year he landed a 44 pound (20 kg) carp at Redmire pool in Herefordshire which held the British record for 28 years.

One day in1954 he received a letter questioning his dead-baiting methods and replied to the sender in interest. So began a life long friendship between Dick Walker and Fred J. Taylor.

Fred J. Taylor, M.B.E. (1919-2008) was an enthusiastic countryman and author. He wrote 18 books on fishing, shooting, rabbiting, food and travel. He was the first Englishman to receive the Silver Dolphin Award, the highest honour in sport fishing in the United States, and was awarded an M.B.E. in 2008. Naturally, Walker and Taylor introduced one another to their own fishing pals and soon a group of friends grew into what Fred Buller, a key member, dubbed, ''This Happy Band''. Other members included Peter Thomas, Peter Stone and 'man mountain', Leslie Moncrieff.

After WWII, Fred Buller (1926-2016) and his father ran a gun and tackle business, Chubbs of Edgeware, in London. Through Chubbs he met Walker, Taylor, Moncrieff, Maurice Ingrams, Bernard Venables, Hugh Falkus and Jack Hargreaves amongst many other leading anglers of their day. Buller rose to renown in the 1950s as a successful match fisherman but developed into a true all-rounder, writing and co-writing some of the most influential angling literature of his - and our - time. He was awarded an M.B.E. in the 2010 New Year's Honours List for services to the sport.

At 6' 5" tall Leslie Moncrieff (1913-1986) was known to the angling press as 'The Gentle Giant'. He came to the fore as a champion beach-caster. He developed his own 'Laidback' casting method and, a trained engineer, he designed his own glass fibre 'Springheel' and 'Longbow' rods.

David norwich: It was the "lay back" casting method. I saw LM demostrate it on a wet windy day in Edinburgh on Portobello esplanade around 1966/7 Wow the lead just flew out of sight! He then got down on both knees and fired the lead out just as far.

See; Fishing Legend Leslie Moncrieff

Hardy Brothers, the M.R.D.C. And The R.A.E.

In the mid-1950s James 'Jim' Hardy (1927-2012) joined the illustrious sporting goods manufacturers Hardy Brothers of Alnwick, England, founded in 1872 by his grandfather, William. In 1959 'Mr. Jim' joined the board as Works Director and soon after brought Richard Walker to the company as an advisor on tackle development.

By the late 1950s, having endured the austerity of the Post-War years, leisure fishing in Great Britain had once again become popular and this encouraged a progressive, inventive attitude in the British tackle-making industry. At this time, Moncrieff, Walker, Buller and Taylor were giving free advice to various manufacturers but often enough they found it was being ignored. Inspired by Walker's new relationship with Hardy Bros. they decided to form a company and start charging for their services!

In 1963 Moncrieff, Walker, Buller and Taylor formed a partnership called the Moncrieff Rod Development Company (M.R.D.C.) and Taylor and Buller immediately joined Walker at Alnwick where they worked on several popular ranges of fibreglass fishing rods. When, in 1964, Dick Walker watched 'From Strength to Strength' on the B.B.C. he recognised the potential for use in rod making, immediately getting in touch with Leslie Phillips at the R.A.E., a member of Bill Watt's small team researching carbon fibre technology. At their earliest opportunity Jim Hardy and Dick Walker travelled to Farnborough to discuss using the new material in rod making. Phillips was particularly encouraging about the possibilities.

The First Carbon Fibre Rod

Supplied initially with 'Type I' carbon fibre cloth, Hardy Brothers & the M.R.D.C. set about the making of fishing rods back in Alnwick. This required experimentation with different resins and composite ratios; the development of mandrills on which to roll resin-impregnated carbon fibre cloth; development of the means to heat and compress the rolled cloth to form a blank and the creation of a suitable 'scrim', a base layer upon which the prepared fibre is placed to add 'hoop strength' and prevent crushing under stress.

After several stages of unsuccessful development they produced a batch of workable prototype rods. One of these was given to Fred Buller, a 9 ½ foot spinning rod, an account of which can be found here at Angling Heritage. (7) These first rods were found to be far too rigid for most uses and Fred's ended up in his cottage in Ireland where it was used to hoick out half a mackerel to tempt big pike. At times it would be offered to guests as a stand-by if they had brought nothing better and there it remained for the next thirty years ….

There were significant problems with these prototypes. Hardy/M.R.D.C fed their results back to Farnborough where Watts' team analysed them and offered solutions. Leslie Phillips wrote (8):

" Within a few weeks, information began trickling back. The rods, while being both light and powerful, were really too violent in their response; flies were repeatedly snapping off their leaders during the cast.

Evidently, it was time for a re-think. We needed a grade of fibre which was a little less stiff, even stronger, with a higher elongation at the break (the so-called type II fibre).

Happily such a product was already under development in the Department, in the form of a thin but continuous tow. Possibly this could be woven? "


This was dubbed 'Type II tow', a significant improvement from 'Type I' and no longer limited in length.

Phillips continued:

" Early experiments with a small handloom showed real feasibility; and a contract was placed with James Carr and Sons Ltd. (9), traditional weavers of narrow tapes, to mechanise production. "

Constructed with a loosely stitched, glass fibre weft it produced a beautifully even, strong cloth with flattened carbon warps arranged parallel to each other.

The R.A.E. continued their research through 1968 culminating in Leslie Phillips and the Secretary of State for Defence (as the head of R.A.E.) applying for a British patent on March the Tenth, 1969 titled 'Improvements In or Relating To Continous Carbon Fibre Tapes'. (10)

This official record of 10/03/69 is important if we are to date Fred Buller's rod as no definitive, specific records exists regarding its creation.

We know from Leslie Phillips' and Roger Moreton's personal accounts that they were producing 'Type I' carbon fibre tow from 1964 and attaining commercial levels of production by late 1967 with Morganite's 0.9m length tows.

We know, too, from Phillips himself, that 'Type II' carbon fibre was being developed successfully by the R.A.E. in 1968 with a patent being drawn up and submitted in the first quarter of 1969.

Phillips' statement infers necessarily that Buller's prototype rod was constructed from 'Type I' carbon fibre at a time when 'Type II' was ''under development''. This suggests with fair certainty that the Hardy 'Carbon Spinning 9.5', the World's first carbon fibre fishing rod, was made in 1968, after the broadcast of 'From Strength to Strength (1964) and the production of 0.9m long tows (?) suitable for rod making (?) by Morganite (late '67) and prior to the patenting of 'Type II' fibre in March 1969.

If so this year, 2018, heralds its 50th Anniversary.

In 200? (?) Fred Buller, recognising the historical importance of his old 'dead-bait pike rod', sent it to The House of Hardy Ltd. for refurbishment. From 'The Birth of a Rod':

"The original handle and reel fitting were renovated and the rings, including a folding butt ring seen on many later Hardy beachcasting rods, were rewhipped retaining as much of the original as possible, but bringing the rod back to an "as new" condition.. "

The House of Hardy decals, their logo and a patent number referring to Hardy Brothers'/Richard Walker's carbon fibre reinforced ferrules (11), are not original - Hardy Brothers did not become the House of Hardy until 1985 and the ferrule was not actually patented until 1971 so neither decal could have graced the original, unrestored rod. That so much of the original remains, indeed that any of it remains, is an extraordinary stroke of good fortune. In 200? (?) Fred Buller kindly donated the 'Carbon Spinning 9 ½' to the Angling Heritage Museum, Torrington, where it is now on display to the public. (?)

From Research to Rod Rack

It was, perhaps, fortunate that in 1967 Hardy's financial position improved when they were bought out by the Harris & Sheldon Group. The new chairman, James Miller, saw the value in Hardy's owning their own blank-rolling facilities and sought assistance from J. Kennedy Fisher, Inc., a well-established American producer. By 1968, Hardy Brothers had begun the process of creating their own fibreglass manufacturing factory in Alnwick, a subsidiary company called 'Fibatube', which would roll their own rod blanks and later supply to the trade, too. In the mid-1970s production was diversified to include carbon fibre blanks and in 1992 glass fibre blank production ended completely. Carbon fibre dominated the market.

For Hardy Brothers, Ltd. the transition from 'Type II' prototypes to commercial production proved difficult. Encouraged by improvements in the action of 'Type II' rods Walker, Phillips and William Frederick Hardy applied for a patent in the name of Fibatube in March 1970. (12) In the patent description Walker wrote (p.2):

" Preferably the carbon fibre reinforcement comprises from 2% to 25% of the total volume of the blank, with the remainder comprising glass fibre reinforcement and cured resin."

Stating a specific percentage in Hardy's patent proved an expensive and unnecessary mistake. Rival companies successfully produced rod blanks with carbon fibre contents outwith Hardy's announced parameters thereby obviating the patent's legal restrictions and opening the floodgates. As the technology advanced rods of 96% graphite were produced in the U.S.A. and Hardy Brothers began to loose ground.

Their 1971 ferrule patent highlights a difficulty they had struggled to overcome; that of strengthening any joints in a rod sufficiently enough to withstand the rigours of repeated casting stress. Hardy Brothers Ltd. prided themselves on their reputation for excellence and refused to offer a carbon fibre rod for sale to the public until they were satisfied it upheld their highest standards. Consequently, it was not until 1974 that a new high strength carbon fibre spigot ferrule was used on fibreglass rod (10) and 1975 before they were promoted in the Hardy catalogue. That same year Hardy brought out their first carbon fibre rod - 'The Hardy Graphite' range of spinning rods. (?) (13)

However, renowned custom rod maker David Norwich has stated that initially this rod's blank was not made by Hardy's factory, Fibatube, but imported from America:

"On another point of interest, Hardy in this country used Fenwick blanks before setting up in manufacturing carbon rods themselves..... According to Hardy's it was 1976 that they started carbon fibre rod production." (14)

Fenwick of Westminster, WA, are an American tackle manufacturers who, in the 1960s, established a reputation for excellence in building glass fibre fishing rods. Somehow by 1975 they had stolen the lead in carbon or graphite rod technology from Hardy.

American and Japanese Progress

While early American research at Union Carbide using rayon as a precursor had proved unsatisfactory on the 25th of May, 1968, Great lakes Carbon filed a patent for 'Process for the manufacture of continuous high modulus carbon yarns and monofilaments'. This patent cites :

" SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION These and other objects which shall become apparent in the course of the detailed description of the invention that shall be made, have been accomplished by a twostage process in which PAN fiber yarn or monofilament is first stretched beyond commercial textile practice to obtain maximum orientation and tenacity and is then subjected to a partial oxidation while being maintained under tension. The partially oxidized material is then formed into skeins and subjected in this stress-free state to a further oxidation, followed by carbonization in a nonoxidizing atmosphere to the desired temperature maximum which can provide any carbon fiber within the range of maximum strength to maximum modulus. " (15)

They state using ''a type G Courtelle 1 yarn, marketed by Courtaulds Ltd.'', the same yarn the R.A.E. were experimenting with in the U.K. at the same time.

In Japan the pioneering work begun in Osaka by Dr. Akio Shindo had been continued by Toray Industries, a company with a historical record of innovation in synthetic fibres. In the late 1960s Toray successfully developed a precursor that was far superior to anything seen before and in 1970 they signed a joint technology agreement with Union Carbide, bringing the United States back to the forefront in carbon fibre manufacturing. Dr. Shindo was granted a patent licence and the U.S.A. finally got economical access to high-modulus graphite cloth.

(David Norwich: This is not correct Toray T300 low modulus material was the only material available at this time. HM fibres came much later)

Soon after Hercules, Inc. joined Union Carbide and Great Lakes Carbon, fabricating graphite cloth primarily for use in the aerospace industry. Production to the R.A.E. patent was started in 1971 by Hercules, Inc. (who had an arrangement with Courtaulds Ltd.) and Morganite Modmor, Inc., a joint company formed by the Whittikar Corp. and Morgan Crucible.
One early recreational use for graphite was as a composite for making golf club shafts and in the early '70s one such ended up in the hands of Don Green and Jim Green, the head rod builder and the production manager at Fenwick. Already masters in fibreglass rod blank rolling they were immediately curious about this new material and set about experimenting with it. The result was what is widely believed to be the world's first commercial graphite fishing rod, the 'High Modulus Graphite' (HMG) spinning rod range, which debuted in 1973. Fly models followed the next year.

(David Norwich: This was a bit of a play on words and good marketing. They where not high modulus per se. HM material was not available at that time. As indicated that came much later. What they actually where was a much higher modulus rod than glass composite rods.

The HMG range was not without its problems. Like Hardy, Fenwick found that the stresses of practical use often proved too much for their rods and they would break but they went to market anyway - often to the frustration of their customers. Fenwick though, for all their problems, had won the carbon rod race. They improved their rods 'on the hoof' to the extent that by 1975 they were exporting graphite blanks to Hardy Brothers. Other American rod makers quickly adopted and adapted to graphite cloth. In 1973 Gary Loomis, then with Lamiglas, Woodland, WA, obtained samples from Hercules, Inc. through researchers with Boeing, Seattle, resulting in his '96% Graphite' introduced to the market in 1974. Whilst heavier than Fenwick's 'HMG' they were less liable to break. However, anglers aware of Fenwick's difficulties had become wary of the new material. Loomis recalls:

" That entire first year we debuted the rods I wasn't trying to sell rods - I was trying to sell graphite! " (16)
Shakespeare had been working with graphite since the late '60s, manufacturing golf club shafts amongst other things, and inventing the Howald Process for manufacturing carbon fibre male ferrules (with titanium female ferrules) in 1967. By the early '70s they had developed their own prototype rods and by 1973 were supplying The Orvis Company of Vermont with 'Graphite' blanks during the brief period in which Orvis converted its blank-making facility from fibreglass. These rods reached the market in 1974. Shakespeare's own 'Graphlite' range were introduced in (????).

David Norwich : 1976 I think. I handled one in a Paisley tackle shop in early 1977 and was amazed. The first fly rods in this series where only eight feet long.

J. Kennedy Fisher, too, turned to graphite production, supplying Winston and Scott with blanks by (JKF), amongst many others in the trade.

Hardy refused to sell their own Fibatube-made, carbon-blanked 'Graphite Spinning' rods until, in 1976, all structural issues were resolved. In 1977 they introduced the 'Graphite Carp' and their first carbon fly rod, the 'Richard Walker Farnborough', a tribute to the men of the Royal Aircraft Establishment whose work had been instrumental in changing the world - and the world of fishing in particular.

In Conclusion

While initially relatively expensive, carbon fibre rods proved both popular with the consumer and easier to work with than glass. The result was that production costs soon fell and their popularity soared. Their strength, lightness and versatility in design and purpose changed the face of fishing forever.

Hardy's failure to adequately qualify their 1970 patent opened the market to others and their striving for impeccable standards saw them fall behind in the race to commercially market the new medium in rod-making.

David Norwich : This is not accurate. You are guilty of perpetuating the Hardy myth. Their rods where really not that good at the time. Nicely finished - but a very poor design. It's a myth that they created themselves about the quality. Say it often enough and get the press to (Richard Walker was a prolific promoter - this not to diss RW a man I respect) say it often enough and then add a bit of royal endorsement and it becomes fact.
They had their heads in the sand. The rods in truth where heavy - heavier than other manufacturers. Mostly slow in action born out of the tradition of their cane rods (they where overly heavy too) All the Hardy carbon rods had very thick tips. Hardy where so terrified of breakages and the bad reputation that would result. The material they settled on for all their rods was a carbon that dates back to the 70s. It was base low modulus Toray T300 with a heavy and high content of glass scrim They used that material exclusively up to the mid 90s
I approached them at one point about this and tried to get them to produce rod blanks to compare with Sage and Loomis. These companies where taking the market by storm with their rods built with the new IM6 HM material. Their reply was that if I wanted blanks made along those lines. I would have to buy the material and also the mandrels!

I had been asked by Jim Hardy if I was interested in making split cane blanks for them. I had shown him some of my work at an EFFTEX show. He had been impressed with the quality. I also remember having a chat with Don Green. He was showing his new Sage fly rods to dealers for the first time at the show. We went out to the parking area and cast a few rods. I was impressed but bizarrely Don was a very poor caster! I tried to do a deal on blanks but he wasn't interested in making blanks for builders without the Sage name on them.

I took a Loomis fly blank along with me when I visited the Hardy/Fibatube factory to show them some bamboo samples. (1984?)I also took the opportunity to bring along a Loomis blank with the action I was looking for in carbon. Frank Proudfoot was the blank designer at the time. Frank was a nice chap but he didn't fish and couldn't cast. I think Frank just morphed into the job when the previous chap retired. He waggled it and stuck the tip into the ceiling and pronounced it as being far too stiff.
At the time I was forced to use Fibatube blanks for reasons of convenience and economy. Importing blanks from the U.S.A. then was too expensive for me. Before being built into the finished rod I would sand the tips down in a lathe in an attempt to reduce weight and to get a better action and also to speed up the recovery. Ultimately I had them buy mandrels to my specification but continued using the T300 material they had. We did get some way to producing a good blank. However there was always a weight penalty.

I heard a story from one of the factory reps a good while later at a show long after I stopped using Hardy blanks. He said he overheard one of the lads in the composites division discussing a new design. "We could use those Norwich tapers their good." The rep had nothing to gain from me and I believe the story to be true.

Once I got Steve Harrison in Liverpool to make blanks to my specification I never used Hardy built blanks again. Not long after I set up rolling my own blanks.


The U.S.A. and Japan came to dominate the industry for the following quarter of a century. More lately they have been superseded by South Korea and the People's Republic of China who lead production today, often under contract to the major Western tackle companies to roll blanks to their specific designs, sometimes still using high quality Japanese Toray graphite.

Sadly, Roger Moreton's feelings about fishing and carbon rods weren't entirely positive. He was a keen kayaker and in the final instalment of his recorded memoirs complains about having to avoid the new, really long carbon fishing rods he'd help invent:

" .... and they cost the earth! Well they seemed to to me. I did find that a bit irritating .... because I thought, if I were a fisherman I wouldn't have felt it was worth spending the money. " (4b)

But thousands, then millions of anglers did think the product was worth the price. Leslie Phillips wrote:
" Somewhere in the archives of the Materials Department at the R.A.E. is our last letter from Richard Walker. In it, he says that the development of carbon fibre and its application to fishing rods "saved the British tackle industry". A fitting memory to a thoroughly nice man." (5)

Phillips also recalled a day when Richard Walker spoke to him in a personal vein:
" I was, he said, too tense and serious, evidently I had been working too hard; and what was required was a day-off to go fishing!
Although taken aback at first I soon fell in with the suggestion …. I found myself being rowed across Grafham Water as his guest.
During the next few hours of fishing, he gave me a demonstration with the leaded nymph and the sinking line that was masterly …. He rarely missed a fish.

A few days later, Richard wrote the proceedings in his column in a low-key style. He reported that he had fished with the co-inventor of carbon fibre at Grafham and ''we both caught trout to two pounds in weight''. Reading between the lines, it was a perfect day! "


Doubtless, there have been countless more since, thanks to this ''spectacular'' innovation.

James Barlow, March 2018.

References:


  1. The Royal Society: William Watt Biography. http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiogmem/33/641.full.pdf
  2. The British Library's 'Voices of Science' archive, 'Roger Moreton: An Oral History of British Science'. Part 4 focuses on his time with Watt at the R.A.E.
  3. Paul Morgan 'Carbon Fibers and Their Composites': pp. 73-77.
  4. The British Library's 'Voices of Science' archive, 'Roger Moreton: An Oral History of British Science'. Part 6: a) 75 mins 12 sec ff. / b) 40 minutes 30 sec ff.
  5. From a draft of 'The Strange Tale of how I Met Richard Walker' by Leslie N. Phillips, held by Angling Heritage. Note: Phillips refers directly to ''the Ministry of Supply''. Note, however, this ministry was dissolved in 1959 being replaced by The Ministry of Aviation. The March 1970 'Fishing Rods and Processes for their Manufacture' patent refers to ''The Secretary of State for Defence (formerly Minister of Aviation Supply)". This ministry was dissolved in 1967 and is that to which Phillips refers.
  6. Genome.ch.bbc.co.uk - 'From Strength to Strength'.
  7. 'Rod Building For Amateurs' by Richard Walker, 1952, Belfield and Bushell. Kent.
  8. 'The Birth of a Rod', Angling Heritage.org.
  9. James Carr and Sons, Ltd., of Clarence Mills, Clarence Street, Chester Road, Hulme, Manchester.
  10. G.B. Patent Number: GB1260955 (A) - 'Improvements In or Relating To Continous Carbon Fibre Tapes'.

    "Priority number(s): GB19690012448 19690310
    1,260,955. Carbon fibre tape. DEFENCE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. 3 March, 1970 [10 March, 1969; 6 Nov., 1969], Nos. 12448/69 and 54452/69. Heading D1K. [Also in Division C1] A carbon tape contains a plurality of parallel aligned carbon fibres functioning as warp members, the members including for example carbon fibre tows and a continuous weft thread is woven through said warp members at a frequency between 2 and 10 threads/ inch, said weft thread serving to maintain the warp threads in parallel alignment. The warp threads may be composed entirely of carbon fibre but preferably include bundles of glass fibres in an amount up to 90% by weight of the warp. The carbon fibres used may be high strength high modulus carbon fibre. The weft thread may be carbon fibre but is preferably a glass fibre which may comprise 1 to 10 filaments. The carbon fibre used may have, before such use, have been treated with resin, and the tape when formed may be impregnated with resin. The tapes referred to are such that they may be used to form fibre reinforced articles by being wound on, or applied to a former, impregnated with resin if required, and cured."
  11. Jim Hardy, 'The House the Hardy Brothers Built', p.122. Publisher/Date ?????
  12. G.B. Patent Number: GB1351732 (A) - 'Fishing Rods and processes for Their Manufacture'.

    "We have now discovered that the rate of return, after deflection of the rod, plays a significant part in obtaining improved performance of a fishing rod, and that the use of carbon fibre reinforcement improves the said rate of return.

    A fishing rod may be made having solely carbon fibre as reinforcement to a cured resin matrix and this would be suitable if a very stiff and strong rod is required but in most cases we have found that a better rod is produced if carbon fibres are selectively positioned within the body of a fishing rod
    having another reinforcing fibre such as glass fibre in a cured resin matrix."
  13. Dick Walker.co.uk at Hardy's website: See charts for rod model release dates.

  14. David Norwich, The Fly Fishing Forum, U.K., 'Lamiglas Fly Rods', post #15, 21/04/10.
  15. U.S. Patent for Great Lakes Carbon - 'Process for the manufacture of continuous high modulus carbon yarns and monofilaments.'
  16. TackleTour interview with Gary Loomis, 2009, part 1, p.2
 
#1,897 ·
This is an article written by Bill Hanneman for Rod Maker Magazine. It's long and gets complicated but it QI, particularly the first half or so.

Fly Rod Evolution, Fast Action Rods, and Common Cents

Introduction

From this author's point of view and confining this discussion to just the past 100 years, one can divide fly rod evolution into three major periods-bamboo, fiberglass, and graphite.
Due to its intrinsic fibrous nature, rod makers were able to construct reasonably lightweight bamboo rods which were a pleasure to cast.

However, the skill and expertise required for their construction made these rods relatively expensive. After WW II, anglers had more money, less expensive foreign made rods became available, and fly fishing became a fast growing activity.

Also, after WW II, synthetic plastic materials became available and soon fiberglass fishing rods made their appearance. They have been with us ever since. Coinciding with the introduction of fiberglass was the introduction of spin fishing. Utilizing strong limber rods and monofilament lines, anglers could cast very light lures for considerable distances-a technique eagerly embraced by the angling public.

Also, because of the advantages which fiberglass offered, it was not long before fiberglass fly rods became readily available. At this point, fly rod and spinning rod designs branched-not to rejoin for almost 40 years.

Fly fishing, from its beginnings, has been steeped in tradition. Part of this tradition includes what we call the "feel" of bamboo. Because of its nature, bamboo has a relatively slow rate of recovery after bending. This rate of recovery can be measured in terms of frequency (cycles per unit of time). It is also a function of the weight of the rod tip and taper. Bamboo, however, did recover faster than the previously used greenheart or lance wood, and that is the main reason it became the material of choice for fly rods. Anglers wanted a faster recovering, lighter rod and bamboo provided it.

The frequency (recovery rate) of any fishing rod is primarily a function of its stiffness to weight ratio. Since fiberglass is not limited by the intrinsic physical properties of bamboo, frequency became an important variable in rod design. Designers of new fishing rods could now exploit the full potential of fiberglass, and they did.

However, fly rod design was internally limited by the tradition of having "slow" actions, i.e., the rod first appreciably bends in its lower portion closer to the butt. To produce such rods required the retention of the relatively stiff tips which had become the hallmark of bamboo rods. All of this resulted in rods which inherently exhibit low response rates (frequencies) and demand a slow relaxed casting stroke. In order to sell their products to fly anglers, rod makers had to continue making rods with that traditional slow action.

Simultaneous with the development of fiberglass was the influx of the post war anglers who had no sentimental attachment to bamboo and accepted this new material and the advantages it offered. The introduction of fiberglass to all fishing rod manufacturing represented a milestone. At last, the major hurdle of increasing the rod strength to weight ratio was overcome. Later, the introduction of graphite and/or other composites merely represented an incremental technological improvement.

As anglers wished to cast their lines farther and land larger and larger fish, the concept of increasing the ratio of the strength of the butt to the strength of the tip became more acceptable. The net result was rods became more powerful.

While weight reduction was very important, traditional "feel" dictated fiberglass rods still be constructed with slow actions. At the same time, fiberglass allowed for making rods having fast actions, weak tips, and stronger butts. This spawned a whole new product-spinning rods. The typical spinning rod can be considered to be a fast action (i.e., flexes close to the tip) fly rod having an "ungodly" strong butt.

With fiberglass, it was a simple matter to design rods having any type of action or any degree of stiffness desired. For over 50 years, this author has happily fly fished small streams using an ultra light weight spinning rod fitted with an appropriate fly line. Granted the action of the rod was much faster than that of a bamboo rod, but what one does not know about or feel deeply about, one does not miss. One simply learns to match the frequency of one's casting stroke to the frequency of one's rod and line. Such a rod may not feel like bamboo, but it is still an excellent tool for catching trout.

One important feature (either an advantage or disadvantage depending on one's point of view) of a fast action rod is that it initially flexes at its weak tip, and as more pressure is applied, the rod flexes more and more towards its stronger butt. A slow action rod, on the other hand has a strong tip which forces the flex to initially occur nearer the butt and consequently the rod does not have as much of a reservoir of power.

A slow action rod (sometimes referred to as soft action) is built to utilize the full flex of the rod and exhibits a softer "consistent" feel throughout its "optimum range of operation." On the other hand, the flex of a fast action rod varies with the load applied, and, while its "entire range of operation" is much larger, its "optimum range for any given load" is smaller. This is why fast action rods are "less forgiving."

With fiberglass fly rods mired in the lore and tradition of bamboo (i.e., effectively defined and limited by low frequency and slow action), it required the introduction of graphite, an entirely new material which was not so encumbered, to create the breakthrough to the modern fly rod period.

The Age of Graphite
Since the advent of spinning rods had already demonstrated the advantages of synthetic materials and how to design rods using them, from the standpoint of fly rod design, this breakthrough amounted to little more than morphing fly rods back into spinning rods. Now, after 40 or so years, the designs, in many cases, are virtually interchangeable.

However, the commercial success of this design change was predicated on convincing fly anglers that rods having higher frequencies and faster actions should be considered "better fly rods." This then became a project of marketing departments, and they have done their job well, as witnessed by the rise of Sage rods.

Let me quote from their literature. "Years of fly fishing experience had taught Don (Green, a founder of Sage) that fly rods should never run out of "power." While there might be fishing scenarios where the full power and flex of a fly rod were not utilized by the angler, the best designs were those that always held power in reserve. Hence, the name Reserve Power was given to the new style of fly rod Don developed for extra long casts or for windy conditions. The name was abbreviated to RP. This was the first major series of fly rods that Sage released in 1982 and they quickly became the most talked about fly rods in the world."
The success of fiberglass had been predominately due to its weight savings relative to bamboo, and now graphite offered even more. One manufacturer even advertised its rods "felt two weights lighter." The net effect was one could construct graphite rods which were even lighter and stiffer than their predecessors, and the public liked that-but what to call them?

Without a system for rating relative rod power, but since the introduction of the AFTMA standards for fly lines, a fly rod had begun to be rated on the basis of its power relative to the weight of line it was designed to cast. This, however, was the subjective opinion of its designer rather than an objective measurement. While a 5-Weight rod was originally considered as one which was designed to cast 30 feet of an AFTMA No. 5 line, today, its only requirement is that the rod be labeled "5-Weight."

Essentially, Sage recognized that if everyone else subscribed to the idea that a 5-Weight rod was "loaded" by an AFTMA #5 line and "over loaded" by a #6 line, they could construct a rod which would not be over loaded by a #6 line and call it a 5-Weight rod having Reserve Power. Truly a brilliant marketing plan, and it worked. Unfortunately, it set off a Power Race, and today, no one can define exactly what a 5-Weight rod is and how one can tell when a 5-Weight rod becomes a 6-Weight rod. Clearly there was a need to be able to objectively characterize all fly rods.

Characterizing Fly Rods
Since fly rods are made to be sold, one might expect them to be described in such a manner a prospective customer can know exactly what he is purchasing. To that end, most catalogs list a rod's Length, Number of sections, Weight (oz.), Price, Line Wt., and Action. The first four categories are simple and straight forward. The latter two, "Line Weight" and "Action" appear to be specific, but as experienced fly rod builders recognize, without precise definitions, those terms are essentially meaningless. Nevertheless, the average angler is unaware of this fact and it appears many rod sellers would prefer to keep it this way. Without these definitions, any seller is free to create a rod of any strength and action and, if he feels such a designation will produce the most sales, designate it a "5-Weight Fast Action Rod."

This has resulted in sellers stressing the point that one should always cast a rod before purchasing it. This effectively takes all responsibility relative to describing the actual action and power of the rod away from the seller and appears to make it immaterial. This then places the buyer in the position of having to choose the least offensive (or best feeling) rod from the very limited choices available to him at any given fly shop.

While this approach is successful in the case of the general public, it cannot accommodate the mail-order angler who has no ready access to a local fly shop. It is also of little help to an experienced angler who knows exactly what he wants when he purchases a new rod. More importantly, it offers no assistance whatsoever to the sophisticated custom rod builder who wishes to purchase a blank having precisely defined characteristics.

In order to solve these problems, the Common Cents System was devised and it has received wide acceptance among those who wish to objectively describe and/or compare the intrinsic properties of any and all fly rods, irrespective of manufacturer. Full details of the system were published in RodMaker Magazine (Volume 6, issues 2, 3, 4 and Volume 8, issue 1) and are available on the internet at www.common-cents.info/.

Common Cents System (CCS)The CCS employs the term Intrinsic Power (IP) to quantitate the strength, power, or stiffness of a fly rod in terms of the relative amount of weight required to deflect or bend the rod a distance equivalent to one third of its length. IP can also be expressed in terms of Common Cents (i.e., the number required to so bend the rod), or Effective Rod Number (ERN). IP can also be mathematically related to the Weight of Line (WL) which will so flex the rod. The weight of one cent equals 2.5 grams.

Another term called Action Angle (AA) is incorporated to describe the angle the flexed rod tip forms with the horizon and is used as a description of the action of the rod in numerical terms. Finally, a third term called Common Cents Frequency (CCF) is invoked to describe the frequency of "one's fly rod outfit," i.e., the combination of both the fly rod and the fly line. These three terms have been condensed into a single term called the Defined Bending Index (DBI) which is written in the form of DBI=ERN/AA/CCF.

However, experience has shown additional terms are required to better describe the latest fast action fly rods. The following paragraphs describe my approach to this situation.
These new addenda are directed towards refining the CCS determination of IP or ERN of a fly rod. They recognize that as graphite fly rods were made lighter and stiffer, this increase was usually effected by increasing the strength of the rod butt relative to its tip. However, this also has the effect of increasing both the ERN of the rod and its Action Angle (AA), as well as its Common Cents Frequency (CCF)-thereby creating entirely different stronger products.
As this approach was carried towards its logical conclusion (e.g., Sage with their TCR-5 rod) the fly rod morphed back into a spinning rod having a very strong butt for lifting and/or casting more weight and a much weaker tip. This gave rise to the saying, "Cast with the tip and fight with the butt"-a marked contrast to the traditional bamboo and fiberglass rods with their stiff tips and weaker butts.

For the purpose of this treatise, one can effectively consider the modern fast action fly rod to be a composite of three separate components-a short low IP or ERN fly rod attached by an intermediate strength middle section to the top of a very stiff butt section. Consequently, since the IP or ERN as originally measured by the CCS conceptually represents an "average" value of this intermediate section, this single value could not convey a completely accurate description of the entire rod. However, by means of the BIG (Bending Index Graph) Picture described in RodMaker Volume 6, issue 2 such a description could be constructed. (See Article 2, page 2)

Tip Power (TP)
The BIG Picture is a graphical plot of the ERN or IP of a fly rod being measured at different distances from the tip and plotted against the corresponding value of AA. For most fly rods, it assumes the shape of a U lying on its side. It ranges from the strong tip to an intermediate mid section which is followed by a stiffening butt to the final IP or ERN, as shown in Article 2, page 2.

In slow action rods, a much stronger tip is followed by a weaker mid section which does not get appreciably stronger as it goes towards the butt. The BIG Picture appears more like a J or an L, as Curve D in Article 2, page 3. In very fast action rods, however, the tip is very weak while the butt gets progressively much stronger. This is shown in curve E.

One will note that in all of these Figures, there is a point (at a distance of approximately one third or less of the length of the rod from its tip) where the plot of ERN vs AA reaches a minimum value. This minimum value has been assigned the name Tip Power (TP) and represents the relative strength of the rod tip. While the value is measured on the abscissa scale, the numerical result is reported as TP, not ERN. However, it is recognized that in "non technical" speaking, one might say the TP of a given rod is "equivalent" to a short rod of that length having the same ERN. (Technically, the method of measurement of TP is slightly different from that of ERN.)

In order to incorporate this information in a useful fashion, the DBI can now be rewritten in a new form, as shown below:
DBI = ERN (TP)/AA/CCF

To illustrate this, the reader is asked to again consider the curves (Figures) from my article on the BIG Picture. The usefulness of this approach should then become clearer.
In Figure 2, the following DBIs describe the rods. (CCF was not determined.)

ERN / degrees Cents / degrees Grains / degrees
Rod A: DBI = 7.8 (5.5) / 60 64 (44) / 60 2363 (1685) / 60
Rod B: DBI = 7.8 (4.9) / 65 64 (40) / 65 2363 (1414) / 65
Rod C: DBI = 7.4 (3.8) / 70 58 (33) / 70 2239 (1278) / 70

In Figure 3, the DBIs are:
Rod D: DBI = 3.1 (2.6) / 68 28 (25) / 68 1076 (946) / 68
Rod E: DBI = 6.5 (2.6) / 78 51 (25) / 78 1973 (946) / 78

Some of the relationships one might expect resulting from differences in ERN or IP, TP, AA, and CCF are summarized below.
The greater the AA, the lower the TP.
The faster the rod (higher AA), the greater the difference between ERN or IP and TP.
The smaller the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the "softer" the rod.
The smaller the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the slower the tip speed and the lower the CFF (not illustrated in this example).
The greater the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the greater the range of lines the rod can handle, However, the "working range" for each line will be smaller and one's casting skills must be greater, as the rod will be less forgiving.

Note: The reader should be aware that while the BIG Pictures are usually drawn with units of ERN and Weight in cents as the calibration of the abscissa, the fundamental unit of weight of the CCS is grains. The ranges for the various ERN or IP values are defined by the Rosetta Stone. Most importantly, one must recognize that these ranges trace their origin back to the original AFTMA standards and the arbitrary ranges defined at that time were not strictly linear. Consequently, extrapolations outside of any particular range of ERN or IP are not valid. While the credit or blame for that situation belongs entirely to the AFTMA, the Rosetta Stone provides the correct translation.

Power Reservoir (PR)
All fly anglers recognize the distance one can cast a fly depends primarily on the energy one puts into the casting stroke. For the most part, that energy is used to load or flex the rod. If one wishes to cast farther, one increases the speed of his stroke and ultimately provides more speed to the line. That, however, is a subjective action on the part of the caster. However, if one wishes to objectively compare fly rods of differing intrinsic properties, it is imperative to standardize the testing parameters. That is precisely what the CCS has done.
As originally conceived, the CCS was developed to characterize typical fly rods for trout which were sold under the designations of #2 to #6-Weight rods which would be expected to perform satisfactorily when used with the corresponding AFTMA No. 2 to No. 6 fly lines. These lines had been standardized on the basis of the weight of the first 30 feet of line.
Consequently, the CCS was developed around these standardized lines and casts of 30 feet without any haul by the "average" angler. An arbitrary decision was made to compare rods which had been flexed (loaded) to the extent that the rod tip had been deflected a distance equal to one third of the rod's length.

The success of this approach was immediately recognized and there was a demand the CCS be extended to incorporate all fly rods. This was done and the results summarized in the "Rosetta Stone of Fly Lines and Rods." All of this was well and good and for the first time the powers of fly rods of all kinds could be objectively compared.

Since the comparison of fly rod power was based on the weight of the corresponding lines, it was reasonable to relate the power of the rod to the weight of the line, but one must remember we are speaking here of a traditional cast of 30 feet of aerialized line and no haul. However well this worked for those conditions, the fact remained that for the heavier modern rods, anglers wished to cast the full lengths of their lines. This required the introduction of hauls, double hauls, special lines of varying tapers, and most of all casting strokes which flexed their rods far more than one third of their lengths.

Since hauls, double hauls, special lines, tapers, and casting speed are all variables controlled by the caster, they fall outside the domain of the CCS which is concerned only with the intrinsic properties of the rod, itself. While the original CCS data is still valid for all fly rods and the just introduced TP (Tip Power) provides additional information, there is still a need to characterize the the power of a rod which can be released by flexing it a distance greater than one third of its length.

In my previous article on Common Cents Frequency (CCF) in RodMaker Volume 8, Issue 1, (Part 4), I showed how the tip speed of a fly rod could be related to the CCF of the rod and the degree to which it was flexed. Now, with the introduction of a new intrinsic property which I will call Power Reservoir (PR), one can assign a numerical value to the resulting power of the "super flexed" rod. The astute reader will immediately recognize the similarity between the terms PR and Sage's RP. However, while RP is primarily a proprietary marketing gimmick, PR is a carefully defined measuring system useful for comparing fly rods of all makes.

Power Reservoir (PR) is arbitrarily defined as the force required to deflect the rod tip a distance equal to one half of its length. To determine this value, the rod is set up for deflection in exactly the same manner as for determining the IP or ERN. However, instead of deflecting the rod tip a distance equal to only one third of the rod's length, the tip is deflected a distance equal to one half of the rod's length. The weight in grains required to effect this deflection represents the PR of the rod.

As discussed previously for TP, this value, i.e., PR, can also be spoken of in terms of ERN by use of the Rosetta Stone for the conversion. For instance, consider a rod which requires 1973 grains to deflect it one third of its length and 2580 grains to deflect it one half of its length. Such a rod would be considered to have an ERN of 6.5 and a PR (ERN equivalent) of 8.5. Remember these are relative terms relating to stiffness, power, or strength.

Although TP, IP, and PR can be determined in the basic unit of "grains" for any type of fishing rod which can be appropriately flexed, there are certain factors which must be considered relative to fly rods. These are discussed below.

For over half a century fly anglers have become accustomed to "rating" their rods in terms like "5-Weight." We all recognize this term has no objective definition. Nevertheless it is generally understood to be a measure of the stiffness, relative strength, or power of that fly rod. When the CCS was conceived, The term ERN (Effective Rod Number) was adopted to differentiate its precisely defined and measured values from that traditionally used term (Weight). With time, one might expect, as the ambiguity of the term "5-Weight" becomes fully recognized, it will be replaced in the fly angler's vocabulary by a precisely defined term like CC-5 or ERN-5, or even IP=1685. Any of these designations on the handle of a fly rod will go a long way in informing a prospective buyer what to expect from that rod.

While the IP scale in grains is open ended, fly lines were defined by the AFTMA scale to run from Numbers 1 to 15 (AFTMA Standard Weights from 60 to 550 grains). This corresponds to IP values only as large as 6400 grains (ERN=15.5).

Now, since the term PR has been created to describe the power of rods which have been deflected a greater degree than the original CCS calls for, the PR of an ERN=15.5 rod must be greater than 6400 grains. This means the IP and corresponding ERN scales must be expanded. To that end, using the same rational as AFTMA, I have created and defined extended ranges for these values and have listed them in Table 1.

Using this approach, one can now, for instance, describe a rod which formerly could only have been described as a 15-Weight rod as a rod having a PR of an ERN=18.5 rod. Its DBI would now be expressed as the following:
DBI = 15.5 (13.5, 18.5) / AA / CCF
or
DBI = 6400 (5280, 8080) / AA / CCF

The practical value in determining the PR of a rod lies in the fact the greater the difference between TP and PR, the greater the range of lines the rod can handle. However, as previously stated in regards to the difference between ERN or IP and TP, the "working range" for each line will be smaller and casting skills must be greater as the rod will be less forgiving.

For instance, let us consider the case of a rod which has a DBI = 7.8 (4.7) / 68 / 83, one might conclude that by merely adjusting one's casting stroke one could comfortably cast 30 feet of any line having an ELN (Effective Line Number) between 4.7 and 7.8 (i.e., AFTMA Line Numbers 4 to 7). Such casts would not require the caster to "load" or flex his rod to an extent greater than one third of its length.

Now with the introduction of the concept of PR, casts requiring a greater degree of rod loading can be accommodated. Let us assume that the PR of the subject rod was determined to be 10.4. The DBI would then be written as 7.8 (4.7, 10.4) / 68 / 83, and the range of AFTMA lines this rod could handle would now be described as ranging from 4 to 10, and indeed a skilled caster could make them all perform. In essence, the ERN provides the "normal or line optimal loading" while the TP and PR define the reasonable limits which can be accommodated by adjusting one's casting stroke.

Matching Rod and Line
In the case of traditional slow action graphite fly rods, having a very narrow range between TP and PR and low CFF values, it is relatively simple to define the weight of the fly line which will match any given rod on the basis of ERN=ELN and WL. This equation implies that there is a definite relationship between the strength of a rod and the line it will optimally cast. This value can be called the normal loading for that rod.

However, such a combination may not provide the optimum comfort, pleasure, or "feel" to the angler because of the mismatch between the CCF of the rod and the angler's casting stroke speed. This can be compensated for to some degree by adjusting the line weight so as to increase or decrease the CCF of the rod. Consequently, anglers frequently "overload" or "underload" their rods for that purpose. It is generally understood that any rod can handle any line which is +/- one line number from its normal loading. If this fails, it is time to consider a different rod.

In the case of modern fast action graphite fly rods having a broad range between TP and PR and high CCF values, the choice of fly line is more complex. While the normal or optimal loading of each rod is still defined by its ERN or IP and these criteria are satisfactory for normal casting, casting lengths of line in excess of 50 feet pose problems which can only be solved by rods having greater PR values.

Normally, in order to increase the PR value of a rod, one must increase the IP or ERN of that rod. While this also usually results in an increased value for TP, this can be compensated for by simultaneously weakening the tip with the result that the AA increases and the rod action becomes faster. All of this combines to make a rod which can handle a greater range of line weights but depends to a greater extent on the ability of the caster to control the result by adjusting his casting stroke.

In the final analysis, the purpose of the CCS is to help one to describe a fly rod in a precise manner and recognize its intrinsic properties. It is the angler, himself, who must make the final decision as to which of the many available fly lines to use for any particular purpose. Ultimately it is the skill of the caster that really matters. A skilled caster can cast any rod having sufficient power, while an unskilled angler cannot cast any rod.

Interpretation of values
The reader must recognize that CCS and URRS values are completely objective numbers and carry no connotations of good, bad, or better. They simply reflect the strength and action of the rod tested. That is all. Nevertheless, once the relative numbers are available, they will be used for comparative purposes. Each individual is entitled to make his own subjective interpretations of what the data suggests to him. A good example of this is illustrated by the column marked X in Table 2.

Here, in my opinion, "X" or the "X Factor" is a measure of level of "Xpertise" or "Xperience" required of the caster in order for him to be able to make use of the capabilities built into that rod by its designer.

I shall leave the rest of these data for each of you to consider and interpret. However, since all of these rods are advertised and sold to anglers as "5-wt" rods, I trust you will recognize (1) my insistence that when you describe your rod as a 5-wt, you have not imparted any useful information. (2) When you describe your rod as Brand X, model Y, z ft, you have provided a bit of information to those few individuals who have experience with that particular rod. (3) When you provide CCS or URRS data about your rod, everyone in the world can understand what you are talking about and discuss it intelligently-if they are so inclined.

ERN Cents
TP
PR

2 20.5
3 27
4 34
5 41
6 47.5
7 55
8 63
9 71.5
10 82
11 95
12 110
13 127
14 144
15 158.5
16 173

Table 2 Typical Results*

URR DBI X TP PR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDINGTON RODS

TRS-3 5 : 4 : 9 5.1 / 62 5 4.0 9.4
RED FLY 5 : 4 : 12 5.5 / 62 7 4.6 12.0
Wayfarer 5 : 3 : 11 5.7 / 68 8 3.7 11.8
Super Sport 6 : 3 : 13 6.8 / 70 10 3.1 13.3

SAGE RODS

SLT 4 : 3 : 11 4.9 / 66 8 3.1 11.7
Z-Axis 5 : 3 : 12 5.7 / 70 9 3.1 12.6
FLI 6 : 3 : 13 6.5 / 70 9 3.7 13.4
VT-2 6 : 3 : 14 6.8 / 73 10 3.6 14.0
TCR 590 7 : 3 : 15 7.5 / 73 11 3.6 15.1

URR = ERN : TP : PR Each value reduced to integer.

DBI = ERN : AA

X = PR - TP Difference reduced to integer.

* Assuming ERN values can range from 4-7, TP values can range from 2-6, and PR values can range from 6-15, then there are 200 "flavors" of "5-Wt." rods which can be differentiated by using the three values of the URR. If that isn't enough, one can resort to using the CCS values to the first decimal place. That way, you can have 200,000 categories, if you can measure accurately enough.

Thank you for all that work, interesting article.
 
#3 ·
One thing that might be contentious is the mention of Hardy introducing Nano/Sintrix technology, I don't know the ins and outs but my understanding is they inherited/bought Nano technology and rebranded it 'Sintrix', no idea what the difference is but Nano technology was already in use long before Hardy 'invented' Sintrix.

The Reddington Nti Nano was around 2003.
 
#4 ·
One thing that might be contentious is the mention of Hardy introducing Nano/Sintrix technology, I don't know the ins and outs but my understanding is they inherited/bought Nano technology and rebranded it 'Sintrix', no idea what the difference is but Nano technology was already in use long before Hardy 'invented' Sintrix.

The Reddington Nti Nano was around 2003.
More info would be good. It may be that Hardy was the first use of 3M nano?
 
G
#10 ·
There is info on the nano history on here. I was still in the business when Loop, Loomis and Sage lost the 3M contract to Hardy. I believe there were others looking into the technology too at the time, but that's all water under the bridge. The Sintrix story started when Hardy struck the deal.
 
#11 ·
The Sintrix trademark seems to have been registered in 2009, and everything before seems quietly tidied away, can't find a thing other than Redington producing in 2003 then being swallowed by Sage which was bought by Far Bank Enterprises which is owned by the Joshua Green Corporation, a subsidiary of Green Family Enterprises.
 
#13 · (Edited)
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, 9'6", #7)

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

All I can add Tangled, is you must have an awful lot of spare time on your hands, wishing you a very merry one, and adding one last line to your Shakespearean ode..

"That was no rod; that was a 5wt. Sage TCR"...?
 
#14 ·
A tour de force, so here's another one that should occupy you until the end of the century should you live so long. "Understanding Anglers".

The problem with all the "understanding" threads is that that they take little or no account of the mutt at the blunt end in terms of age, size, weight, experience and overall ability.

A good caster will always make better use of an average rod, than an average caster will make of a good one. Some people just have the ability to pick up a rod - any rod - and cast well with it, the same way that a good shot will be able to pick up a shotgun, whether it fits or not, and shoot well with it. Not as well maybe as he can with his own gun, but a lot better than average purely because he is able to adapt quickly to what is needed to get the best possible out of the gun. Similar with anglers.
 
#15 ·
A tour de force, so here's another one that should occupy you until the end of the century should you live so long. "Understanding Anglers".

The problem with all the "understanding" threads is that that they take little or no account of the mutt at the blunt end in terms of age, size, weight, experience and overall ability.

A good caster will always make better use of an average rod, than an average caster will make of a good one. Some people just have the ability to pick up a rod - any rod - and cast well with it, the same way that a good shot will be able to pick up a shotgun, whether it fits or not, and shoot well with it. Not as well maybe as he can with his own gun, but a lot better than average purely because he is able to adapt quickly to what is needed to get the best possible out of the gun. Similar with anglers.
Did you miss this section Bob?

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:

A few years ago, I had a once in a lifetime opportunity to fish for salmon in Russia (which I've now repeated 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.
 
#18 ·
The problem here lies in the misconception of the term 'understanding'. Understanding is an outcome, an outcome based upon both prior knowledge and skills. Note 'both' , you cannot claim 'understanding' if either the knowledge or skills is missing. The human mind best understands facts when they are woven into a fabric, a narrative story or mental map, disconnected facts - or 'understanding' to use the forum language - facts unattached to knowledge or skills (experience) are like unlinked pages on the web: they might as well not exist.
 
#22 ·
The problem here lies in the misconception of the term 'understanding'.
There's no misconception or problem with the title Paul, it's there to tell people that this post is about rods and what goes into them.

Understanding is an outcome, an outcome based upon both prior knowledge and skills. Note 'both' , you cannot claim 'understanding' if either the knowledge or skills is missing. The human mind best understands facts when they are woven into a fabric, a narrative story or mental map, disconnected facts - or 'understanding' to use the forum language - facts unattached to knowledge or skills (experience) are like unlinked pages on the web: they might as well not exist.
Well I beg to differ. I do not need to develop the skills of a rod manufacturer to understand the basics of how a rod is put together. I think you're confusing information with skill.

My post is informational, it won't make anybody a better caster, but it will help people understand a bit more about what a rod does and how a rod works. It may help them make better retail choices.

Maybe I'm weird but I find that I need to understand how and why things are the way they are before I can get better at doing the thing with them that I bought them for.

Skill requires ability and practice, combined with knowledge. The post is not about understanding how to be a better caster.
 
#19 ·
It is amazing the number of fly fishers that blame rods for their inadequacies, or their success ? It is a tool (a bad workman always blames them). You just have to learn how to use it. When guiding I have had to show that it is not the rod that is at fault, by casting with it !! At distance or to control a cast under a bush or tree. I am NOT a good caster by any means, but I can work with most rod and line combinations to make them work. Unfortunately a lot of anglers believe that "high" cost equals perfect fishing, irrelevant as to the "caster" ability !
 
#25 ·
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​
Orvis Helios​
Vermont USA​
Vermont USA​
Vermont USA​
Orvis ReconVermont USAVermont USAVermont USA
I can add a couple to this: see above.

The lower end Orvis rods (Clearwater, Encounter etc) are designed in USA but made in either China or Korea, AFAIK.
 
#30 ·
Thanks Tangled for another interesting and informative post.

I am finding it tough to believe that one person goes to such trouble to put together such a well researched and well written post, and that other fellas here just snipe at it with bitchy comments
Thanks, I'm used to the sniping, but never cease to puzzle over it.
 
#32 ·
If I may suggest a few thoughts for consideration:

The rod blank is a tapered hollow tube made in four sections to aid transport.
Why state ''four'' as an absolute when blanks can be one to eight sections, potentially more?

All carbon rods are made from sheets of carbon fibre impregnated with resin, the resulting 'cloth' is called prepreg. The process of making carbon fibres, spinning them onto bobbins then forming the composites from it is a hi-tech business done in highly specialised plants.
I think this could be improved.
1) Carbon rods are made from sheets of carbon fibre cloth impregnated with resin, the resulting 'composite' is called prepreg.
"sheets of carbon fibre" suggests to me one piece of carbon fibre, not a woven cloth made from individual strands of fibre.

2) The process of making carbon fibres, spinning them onto bobbins then forming the composite .....
Could this be clearer? ''spinning'' suggests to me taking several stands of tow and entwining them, as is done with cotton.
I suggest:
The process of making carbon fibre filaments involves heating lengths of ultra-thin, continuous, individual strands of synthetic carbon fibre (the precursor) held under pressure in a furnace. The resulting strands can be combined in their thousands and produced in lengths called 'tows'. Tows can then be woven into a cloth and impregnated with resins to produce prepreg, the carbon fibre/resin composite which is then rolled into a blank.

3)
Fibreglass is cheaper and is easier to work with but is heavier.
Are you certain about this? Jim Green (Fenwick & Sage) expressed the view that carbon fibre was easier to work with and get good results with than fibreglass. This, he said, accounted for the swift uptake of the material in rod blank making by other companies in the mid 1970s, despite the frequent breakages experienced with the new material at that time.

4)
The mandrel is the most important piece of the rod builder's kit because it quite literally forms the blank.
Only partially true. The mandrel forms the interior of the blank but the rolling machine creates the exterior. Without the equally important rolling machine imparting its pressure on the prepreg one cannot shape the blank nor squeeze out air bubbles which weaken the blank.
Gary Loomis from the Zac Matthews Podcast (39:30):
"My rolling tables would roll at around 250 lb/psi and everybody else's in the industry would roll under 50. Well, I could take my competitors' mandrels and patterns and run it on my machinery and get about 18% stronger .... or I could redesign it and give them the same action at 18% less in weight."
5)
the whole thing is wrapped tightly with tape to hold it all in place while it's hung in large ovens and heated to melt the resins.
The tape also shrinks during the heating process to add compression - hence the ridges seen on unsanded blanks.
I'm not sure 'melt' is quite right. Perhaps 'fuse the layers of composite together' better explains it?

6)
Once cured the blanks are cooled and are ready for turning into fly rods by the addition of paint, rings, whippings, handles and real seats.
Once cured the blanks are cooled, the tape removed and, in some instances, sanded smooth. They are then ready .... reel seats.
Apologies for correcting the spelling but this one kinda matters. ;)

7)
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 they eventually sued him.
Can you offer links to a reliable source for this claim? My understanding is that, on selling G. Loomis, Gary had agreed to a 'non-compete' clause. It was when he used his name/signature with North Fork Composites that Shimano sued him in 2010.
Source: U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Tocoma, Case 3:10-cv-05467-BHS Document 84 Filed 10/20/10

8) Re: Your Matrix:
All C. F. Burkheimer rods/blanks are made by them from U.S. manufactured parts (incl. resin and cloth).

9) I have never heard of David Norwich being referred to as 'Dave'. Is that appropriate? :)

10) Re: Full Wells on #7+ rods;
Perhaps used because a) more weight at the butt of a #7+ rod matters less and, being heavier, can actually improve balance. Possibly, it also provides more room for comfortable hand placement.
And/or b) Not commonly used on lighter rods for reasons of delicacy and comfort, where the forefinger-on-top grip is often employed with a cigar, RHW or Ritz handle?
 
#33 · (Edited)
If I may suggest a few thoughts for consideration:

Why state ''four'' as an absolute when blanks can be one to eight sections, potentially more?

I think this could be improved.
1) Carbon rods are made from sheets of carbon fibre cloth impregnated with resin, the resulting 'composite' is called prepreg.
"sheets of carbon fibre" suggests to me one piece of carbon fibre, not a woven cloth made from individual strands of fibre.

2) The process of making carbon fibres, spinning them onto bobbins then forming the composite .....
Could this be clearer? ''spinning'' suggests to me taking several stands of tow and entwining them, as is done with cotton.
I suggest:
The process of making carbon fibre filaments involves heating lengths of ultra-thin, continuous, individual strands of synthetic carbon fibre (the precursor) held under pressure in a furnace. The resulting strands can be combined in their thousands and produced in lengths called 'tows'. Tows can then be woven into a cloth and impregnated with resins to produce prepreg, the carbon fibre/resin composite which is then rolled into a blank.

3)

Are you certain about this? Jim Green (Fenwick & Sage) expressed the view that carbon fibre was easier to work with and get good results with than fibreglass. This, he said, accounted for the swift uptake of the material in rod blank making by other companies in the mid 1970s, despite the frequent breakages experienced with the new material at that time.

4)

Only partially true. The mandrel forms the interior of the blank but the rolling machine creates the exterior. Without the equally important rolling machine imparting its pressure on the prepreg one cannot shape the blank nor squeeze out air bubbles which weaken the blank.
Gary Loomis from the Zac Matthews Podcast (39:30):

5)

The tape also shrinks during the heating process to add compression - hence the ridges seen on unsanded blanks.
I'm not sure 'melt' is quite right. Perhaps 'fuse the layers of composite together' better explains it?

6)

Once cured the blanks are cooled, the tape removed and, in some instances, sanded smooth. They are then ready .... reel seats.
Apologies for correcting the spelling but this one kinda matters. ;)

7)

Can you offer links to a reliable source for this claim? My understanding is that, on selling G. Loomis, Gary had agreed to a 'non-compete' clause. It was when he used his name/signature with North Fork Composites that Shimano sued him in 2010.
Source: U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Tocoma, Case 3:10-cv-05467-BHS Document 84 Filed 10/20/10

8) Re: Your Matrix:
All C. F. Burkheimer rods/blanks are made by them from U.S. manufactured parts (incl. resin and cloth).

9) I have never heard of David Norwich being referred to as 'Dave'. Is that appropriate? :)

10) Re: Full Wells on #7+ rods;
Perhaps used because a) more weight at the butt of a #7+ rod matters less and, being heavier, can actually improve balance. Possibly, it also provides more room for comfortable hand placement.
And/or b) Not commonly used on lighter rods for reasons of delicacy and comfort, where the forefinger-on-top grip is often employed with a cigar, RHW or Ritz handle?
Thanks, I'll add some of that into my next edit.

Picking up on couple of them

I did originally write a couple of paragraphs on how fibres are made but took them out as it seemed to be getting too far into stuff that wasn't particularly relevant. I'll see if they can make it back in.

I got the fibreglass thing from an interview with Gary Loomis but I think I'll re-write it to make it clearer. He says that graphite scrim is "a bu$$er to run" and really doesn't want to make a good rod. So G.Loomis stopped using it. But he goes on to say that he uses it at Northfork. He talks about it at 41.30 and ends about 44.50


The law suite is interesting (fabulous fin btw, how on earth did you get it?) and makes more sense than Gary's version of things. I couldn't reconcile the time gap between him selling and getting in trouble with Shimano. Gary does definitely talk about being at odds with Shimano (a lot) and made it seem that that was the reason he got sued. In his timeframe he only helped TFO (50.30) in order to pay off the settlement. By that time he'd already got Northfork though. There's probably a lot of storytelling going on here - he does tell a good story.
 
#35 ·
@ tangled: a further thought; You mention the Hardy Angel as a breakthrough rod ..... I've heard they were subject to breaking. Are you sure you're not ignoring your dad's sound advice about Mark 1s? ;)

Also, the Loomis GLX was certainly a 'breakthrough' in its day.
Fwiw, the G. Loomis IMX, designed by Steve Rajeff, was the first rod to eliminate glass scrim in favour of all-graphite (1987, I think). Just thought I'd mention it in the hope it helps.
 
#38 ·
Congratulations and thanks - it's a great piece of work and it's great that you treat it as a collaborative effort inviting comment and incorporating suggestions.

You still don't have AFFTA right it's "trade" not "tackle" association.

Mick Bell isn't in your graphene list, but I'm not sure how important this list is as its use will probably become pretty universal.

Is it worth mentioning unconventional handles like the maniform design? Or perhaps handles don't belong here at all as if you include handles then why not reel seats, rings and other fittings? (perhaps an understanding rod fittings thread)
 
Top