I didn't take a look at what link y'all are using for referring to the CSS. But I wanted to point out...just in case...that a CSS 5wt rating is anything between 5 and 6 and so forth. So a CSS rating of 2.5 is a "medium action" 2wt in CSS terms. Same goes for all the weight ratings: a perfectly medium action 8wt would measure 8.5 on the CSS scale, and 10wt's would measure between 10 and 11.
---------- Post added at 06:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 AM ----------
Originally Posted by Jackster
That chart explains a lot. I always had the feeling some rods listed were factory rated for line weights way under their real value as fishing rods.
I won't ever let a system like the CCS determine which rod I'll buy. There are for too many non-numerical reasons why I prefer a certain rods.
Casting the rods you are looking for with the line you would like to use at the distances you will be fishing it is a fool-proof method of making a wise choice in fly rods.
That's actually the conclusion drawn by the guys who came up with the CSS. The AFFTA system for line weight ratings only measures the grain weight of the first 30' beyond the front taper of a fly line. So all sorts of variables are tossed into the rod performance equation with any other length of line beyond the rod tip, and depending on the type of front taper. Additonally, the individual's hand size, strength, casting style, and many other variables factor into which rod is going to perform best for them for their intended use. So there is simply no way to tell without "test driving" it in as close to the real situation as possible.
---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 AM ----------
Originally Posted by mojo
Line manufacturers like Rio are putting out certain lines a half weight heavier to load the fast rods. AFFTA's line designation is old, old, old. I really wonder if it's the rods themselves that are the culprits, or the lines. I have one rod that is a dog with anything on it but Wulff 5wTT. Most of my rods cast and fish very well with the designated rated line if the line is Sharkskin. Go figure.
I think the real problem is the industry's irresponsibility in 2 regards:
1. They have not taken the job of educating their consumer base seriously...ever.
2. As you pointed out above, they (at times) intentionally deceive for marketing reasons. In the case you point out, Rio actually states this in the advertising for those lines. So that's not deceptive. But a great many rod mfg's have very intentionally marked their rods low on purpose and then marketed them as "distance casters" or "tournament rods." This fact is well-known among serious "casting geeks," tournament casters, former rod industry employees, and excellent custom rodmakers. The funny part is, then they turn around and put a really soft tip on a rod like that, advertise it as "great for distance and up close, sensitive, able to handle big and tiny flies and tippets." The reality is that no rod can be great at all of that AND you end up with a rod that most people break the tips off of. Next thing you know, rod companies are having to offer unconditional lifetime warranties and marking their rods up to cover the cost of all those replacement tips.
And now you have the last 20 years of history in the fly rod industry in a nutshell.