The North American Fly Fishing Forum

The North American Fly Fishing Forum (http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/)
-   Fly Rods (http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/fly-rods/)
-   -   Rating rods by rolling dice. (http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/fly-rods/11782-rating-rods-rolling-dice.html)

Guest1 11-20-2009 03:26 PM

Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
I have been looking at a few rods to answer some questions for another member of the forum. He has an 8 weight that when you look at the real rating as determined with the common cents system it actually a 5/6 wt. He also has a 5 wt. which is really a 6. As you can see, there are some real problems with the way manufacturers rate their products. This makes it pretty hard for us to put the right line on the rods we buy without making a couple of tries. This also makes the question of underlining or overlining kind of pointless because we may be doing that without meaning to anyway. This was all gone over in a couple of other threads but I think the recent questions I have seen and recieved deserve this being posted again. Here is the link to the common cents ratings for many rods.

http://www.superbob.org/CC_Data.htm

If you google common cents system you can find pdf.'s that cover how to do it yourself in case your rod is not listed. I hope this helps someone.

mojo 11-22-2009 01:46 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diver Dan (Post 72837)
I have been looking at a few rods to answer some questions for another member of the forum. He has an 8 weight that when you look at the real rating as determined with the common cents system it actually a 5/6 wt. He also has a 5 wt. which is really a 6. As you can see, there are some real problems with the way manufacturers rate their products. This makes it pretty hard for us to put the right line on the rods we buy without making a couple of tries. This also makes the question of underlining or overlining kind of pointless because we may be doing that without meaning to anyway. This was all gone over in a couple of other threads but I think the recent questions I have seen and recieved deserve this being posted again. Here is the link to the common cents ratings for many rods.

http://www.superbob.org/CC_Data.htm

If you google common cents system you can find pdf.'s that cover how to do it yourself in case your rod is not listed. I hope this helps someone.

The CCS has to be done by the book or it's invalid. What is your friends rod make? How many piece and what length is it? A rod that's rated at an 8w by the factory and the CCS shows it's only a 5 or 6w, some thing's fishy. I'd say the CCS is incorrect. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Most manufacturers today have a pretty good handle on line size.
Has he had problems loading it with an 8w line? If you think by the CCS it's a 5 or 6 weight an 8w is way overlining it and it will feel it.

flyguy66 11-22-2009 02:15 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
Mojo, you'd be amazed how many highly-respected name brand rods that are very popular measure 2-4 line weights off of what they're stamped by the mfg when measured using the CCS. It's just gotten progressively worse over the past 10-15 years, not better.

imxer 11-22-2009 04:45 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
Diver Dan

Under Loomis in the CC chart, what is the difference between "old" and "original" IMX? Thanks

mojo 11-22-2009 06:57 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by flyguy66 (Post 72957)
Mojo, you'd be amazed how many highly-respected name brand rods that are very popular measure 2-4 line weights off of what they're stamped by the mfg when measured using the CCS. It's just gotten progressively worse over the past 10-15 years, not better.

I wouldn't doubt it, but I've always believed that a rod, glass or plastic, can go down a weight or up from the factory size. I think a lot has to do with the rod itself. An average caster will have problems with a TCR or GLX and overlining it will slow it down to their speed.
That's why I wanted to know what rod and model/series the original rod is.
Line manufacturers like Rio are putting out certain lines a half weight heavier to load the fast rods.
But all in all, I think it's time for an overhaul and standardization of line weights- rods and lines. 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.

Jackster 11-22-2009 08:33 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
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.
The TCR may be way stiff for a 5 weight line under normal circumstances but when you start to carry a ton of line for the longest cast it is in it's niche.

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.

One place a system like the CCS would be nice is if rod makers replaced broken rod sections. It was Scott that recorded the bend of each premium rod they made so if a problem occured with the rod they could replace a section with the same flex characteristics of the original.
Anyone know if Scott still does that?

FrankB2 11-22-2009 09:32 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
Hey Jackster,
Since getting involved with bamboo rods, I've been wondering why graphite
makers don't publish tapers like the cane guys. I know much of the taper
info for retired cane makers is derived by someone simply measuring the
rods' tapers, but I've never seen anyone do this for graphite. Of course the
type of graphite muddys the water with graphite tapers, but.......

Regarding CCS: According to that chart (which I've seen before), a Tom Morgan Favorite is really a 2.5wt. Makes you wonder, since so many people
loved that rod. The Sage XP's are dead on according to CCS, but George Anderson has written that the XP's were a full line size too stiff.

P.S. I wonder how many of the rods listed on that CCS table were cast with the CCS wt line. I did notice that some
of those who measured particular rods noted that a certain rod cast best with a different line weight, but that was an
exception. It seems that cane rod makers determine a line rating after a rod is built.....

Jackster 11-23-2009 06:55 AM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankB2 (Post 72977)

Regarding CCS: According to that chart (which I've seen before), a Tom Morgan Favorite is really a 2.5wt. Makes you wonder, since so many people
loved that rod. The Sage XP's are dead on according to CCS

I can't speak much for bamboo but in answer to the above, could it possibly be that some rod manufacturers are already using the CCS to rate their rods?

flyguy66 11-23-2009 08:07 AM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackster (Post 72973)
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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojo (Post 72970)
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.

mojo 11-23-2009 07:29 PM

Re: Rating rods by rolling dice.
 
And the only time I cast for distance is when I'm fishing stillwaters. Actually, the past couple months, I've shortened my casting to 30'-50' for an experiment. So distance is no big deal.
I strive for accuracy in moving waters. There's too much mending on a river if you're casting 60' or more unless your using a two hander (let alone try to hook a fish at 65'.) So 10'- 30' casts are normal for me. The BIIx is pretty much a 6w rod that I use 6w floating and on lakes I used 7w sinking sometimes. Doesn't affect it at all.
For my rods, and Joni does the same, we'll cast just about every line (brand, weight and type) we have to see which hand fits the glove.
Like I said in an earlier post, my rods like SS. The 4w's and under 'glass seem to like the DT and the 5w and above like the WF. I have a 4w Steffan 7' that loves the Rio STII 3w line.
I'm with Jack and what he posted. Get the weight rod you like and then use a line weight for what your fishing for.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
2005-2014 The North American Fly Fishing Forum. All rights reserved.