What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
jgestar	What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4206 (01/19/07 02:32:09) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	[Edit: Eek! I've GOT to stop posting in the wee hours of the morning - my first post was almost incoherent! Let's try this again.] In the "Achieving Glass feel w/ graphite blanks" thread, Andy broached the subject of a fly rod rating system: *Quote:* I think it's long past due the need to have a simple standard rating system for a rod's line "weights recommendation" that anyone can understand. I agree we are overdue for a standardized rod rating, similar to the AFTMA line weighting standard. IF there was such a rating, what would you expect it to tell you, a customer for a new rod? Potential line weight or weights? A description of the rod's action? What else would you want from a rod rating? Would such a rating take the fun out of rod shopping? Tom (Anyone know the procedures that rod companies use to come up with that little number printed on the rod? I'm aware of the Common Cents system, but that system has flaws. Duplicate measurements of the same rod are often quite different. And apparently making an accurate AA measurement is difficult.)
paveglass	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like?	#1	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 839 (01/21/07 14:24:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Heck, I just think that solving the Mid-East crisis would be easier than getting the major manufacturers to agree on something that would result in the ability of the consumer to compare them head to head. With SA in the lead we are about to dork up the AFTMA line standards that have worked well for years. What the industrial leaders are generating is the expectation that you can cast a whole line, have the finesse for tricos, beat the wind, sling weight with impunity...and, by the way this is with a 3 wt...because nobody uses a 5 or 6 anymore...sheesh. If you protect the line standards, the rods will have to match or they will feel wierd. But when you relabel a 4 wt line as a 3 wt...so it will load your ultrafast 3 wt (which is probably really about a 5 wt when handling 30 ft of line)...it drives me nuts. Pretty soon we'll see fishing vests outfitted with patches and stuff like the Bass crowd--shoot, you'd think they were NASCAR drivers from their outfits. However, I am always grateful that we have football, wrestling, NASCAR, and, of course, golf, to keep people off the streams and rivers...leaving the rest of us in peace. Well, that is pretty much a soup to nuts rant. paveglass
Flytackle	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like?	#2	[-]
Posts: 790 (01/21/07 16:41:05) Board Founder Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thanks Pave. A lec
jgestar	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#3	[-]
Posts: 4206 (02/03/07 14:31:56) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Andy, On the rod standard, I guess my point is, what should be written on the side of a rod that REALLY describes it? A description that would allow us to compare rods across brands and across materials. I'm looking for the information a buyer would find useful in a catalog or a well done rod review. Easy one. Rod length. In feet and inches. Metric optional. Easy two. A "matching" line weight, or range of matching line weights. Real AFTMA weights, not the "wink, wink" line weights that are getting more and more common. A description of the "action" of the rod. This one is very tough. I think every angler views rod "action" differently. Does "action" mean how deeply the rod bends? The shape of the bent rod? Whether the bend is limited to the tip or is uniform across the whole blank? How quickly the rod fires a fly line? All of the above and more? What aspect or aspects of "action" would buyers need to make an intelligent choice? Is the total rod weight still relevant? I think so, but does anyone else care about it? Tom
majicwrench	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#4	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 1321 (02/03/07 15:57:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In my mind this becomes a little bit like setting standards for beauty. Both subjects are so incredibly subjective. And yes, it might take qa tad bit of the fun out of rod shopping....nothing I love more than stringing up a rod for the first time and taking it out back and seeing what it feels like. Now if you had some super-duper perfect rating system, then I would already KNOW beforehand what it would feel like. OK enough rambling, sun is shining, I think I will go string up a rod and play on the snow..... keith
paveglass	Standards	#5	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 839 (02/04/07 12:31:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Alec, My post above was on a day that I was bugged about something I had read about "weight and a half" fly lines. On the same day on another board I left this message: <We glass fishermen and women would like to formally invite the graphite crowd to stay focused on the leading edge of mega-modulus technology with even larger arbor reels. If you can't shoot the whole line with your 2 wt...you are falling behind. I am the great and powerful Oz... Ignore the puny humans behind the curtain who dabble in vintage equipment and retro experiences. Your's is not their interest. They have little money and seek discourage the capitalistic pressure on the dwindling availability of classic glass rods. They are few and they have lost their way. We ALL know that glass rods are too heavy, wobbly, ugly, and do not provide the crisp 1 ft loop that all true believers must seek to experience true joy. You...stay focused on the future. Faster, lighter, shoot farther, costs must continue up... Don't worry, we will alter the AFTMA standards so you can have a 3 wt that will shoot the whole line in the parking lot, cast a #6 wooly bugger, set down a trico like cottonwood lint at 80 ft, and land a 24" brown without wearing it out so much that it dies. All we have to do is condition the fly fishing population that the 6 wt line you bought to make your new rod work is really a 3 wt to match the number we put on the rod...nevermind the details of the line wt. Heck, that is what the engineers do--and ours are mega-modulus smart!> Some of you may have seen this there--not a peep in response, by the way. Probably won't be getting any Christmas cards from the rod manufacturers this year, I guess. paveglass $:\$
flyfishing4goldentrout	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#6	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 2583 (04/05/07 00:18:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Well Fiberglass being fiberglass, I like the early Philliopson Eponites, sense Im mostly in short water and tight places I think a 7ft rod would be idea, likewise while winter casting is usually windless and cold, in afternoon a nice breeze can pickup off the mountains, and dealing wiith most often means at least a 5/6wt and often a 7wt. Well walking along an afternoon boulder strewn bed with a wind in my face, Ive found my glass Phillipson Master G-MF66 to be almost perfect. Its a 6wt that will equally throw a 5 or 7wt, its light, so the lightest of reels is requied to balance at the forefinger of the grip when casting all day, but in short water is amoungst my favorites. Currently a Sage 106M resides there, I hope someday a sweet Young or Hardy joins me that balances correctly. On light rods that weight between 1.7 oz and 3 oz, balance is everything. But for a shortwater rod able to land 3lb crappie, 10lb bass and 7 pound land locked salmon, as well as all the trout weights between that little Phillipson fits the bill, so rods that can match it are of course something to be considered for a short water standard. Richard
goldenstair	Re: Standards	#7	[-]
Guide Posts: 225 (04/06/07 05:07:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	This may be naive, but what about the so-called "Common Cents" manifesto? This seems to address a lot of the issues in matching a rod with a line weight. It is more than just a little hard to understand, though, which is to be expected since the parameters involved are pretty complex. What do people think of "Common Cents" -smart idea or crazier than a bag full of pennies?
paveglass	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#8	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 839 (04/06/07 06:12:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I like it and think is it useful...doesn't cover everything but the ratings could tell you pretty well if a rod you want to look at is close to what you might like. paveglass
jgestar	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#9	[-]
Posts: 4206 (04/06/07 11:58:07) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Aaron, I think the Common Cents manifesto is barking up the right tree. Bill Hanneman is onto something here. He has identified the two most fundamental fly rod properties, the effective line rating (ERN) and the rods "action" (AA). Unfortunately, Bill's measuring system has about the same accuracy as a "wiggle test". The Common Cents System (CCS) is simply a deflection test. Rod builders have done this for years, most notably Phil Pedley (see page 51 of Johnson's "Fiberglass Fly Rods" if you have it). CCS is well intentioned, but the actual results vary too much. There is a CCS data collection associated with the CCS website. Where more than one measurement was made on the same rod, the results vary, the AA measurement in particular. I've taken this example from the site: Rainshadow, RX7 IF905-4 ERN = 5.50 AA = 66 Rainshadow ,RX7 IF905-4 ERN = 5.94 AA = 68 Rainshadow ,RX7 IF905-4 ERN = 6.89 AA = 68 Rainshadow ,RX7 IF905-4 ERN = 6.08 AA = 63 Depending on the measurement you believe, that rod is a 5/6 to a 7 weight with a moderate to very fast action. Really, I can get that close by wiggling the blank. Perhaps, that is close enough. But, I spend my work days measuring part per billion levels of pesticides in food. The accuracy of CCS leaves me underwhelmed. Apparently the AA measurement is difficult to make, yet the difference between fast and slow rods is only 7 degrees. That measurement needs to be done differently. Phil Pedley's measurement looks much better. The ERN is based on a single measurement, near the point where glass rods start to collapse. Fly casting puts a progressively increasing load on the rod. I think the deflection test should also be made with a series of progressively increasing weights. The tip movement vs. weight would be plotted and the slope of the line would give the ERN. Unfortunately, I won't have time to actually try this until late summer at best. Cheap, accurate, electronic scales are easily available. The measurements should be in grams, ounces, or grains. What's with the coins?! The CCS bends over backwards to make most measurements more difficult - just so it can use coins. And it pretty easy to miss the critical text "Add shining one cent pieces minted after 1996...". The pennies minted after 1983 weigh 39 grains each. Pennies minted before 1983 weight 47 grains each. Coins are an unreliable system of measure. The idea of what to measure is great. I think CCS is trying to do the right thing. But the actual measuring system is marginally better than none at all. Phew... Got myself worked up there, didn't I? Tom
paveglass	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#10	[-]
Master Guide Posts: 839 (04/07/07 07:49:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Good post Tom. Your insights are on the money. What I observed, when I measured some of my rods, was that the angle of the tip flex and the amount of pennies required to deflect the rod by a third did not give you a sense of how the rod flexed. Rods that had stiff butts and soft tips would measure out differently than one with a softer full flexing action and there was no way to really adjust for the "tip action" versus "full flex" action on the rods. This is the critical measurement that results in "feel" I think. Your idea of multiple points of reference in different loading situations is probably closer to describing the "feel" of a rod. In the end, no better way than to cast the ones you think you might like. Then we need to find a way to measure in parts per million... Donny
gaddis	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#11	[-]
Posts: 483 (04/07/07 21:14:54) Mr. Shakespeare Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I'd agree that the Common Cents system has merit, and a lot of issues as well. I was around when it was first introduced to the rodbuilding community on Tom Kirkman's board. What surprised me was how many of the regulars on that board just raved about how it was the greatest thing since sliced bread without questioning its technical basis. I was an early critic but after trying it out myself I felt it was a good way to match up a rod and a line. I think the measurement of ERN is easy enough to do and I think the "cents" approach was a good idea as far as providing a readily available weight standard. Nothing in the system inherently depends on this though and it could be easily recalibrated with another standard if necessary. On the other hand, the measurement of Action Angle leaves way to much room for measurement error. Most of the people who have contributed to the CC data base are rodbuilders. Good craftsmen probably, but not people skilled in making accurate measurements. I'd take the data with a grain of salt, and I wouldn't look at the AA data at all.
Laramie Spinner	Re: What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?	#12	[-]
Guide Posts: 212 (04/20/07 09:21:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	But I kind of like the old informal, non-scientific, hardware store approach to the rod-line relationship: Use what feels right for you without having to understand the WHY of things. Maybe a bit too romantic but seems fitting for the kind of tackle we like.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?

What would a fly rod standard look like (revised)?

Quick Reply