The North American Fly Fishing Forum


Go Back   The North American Fly Fishing Forum > Tackle Talk > Fly Rods

Fly Rods Post any comments or questions regarding fly rods...

Like Tree2Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2013, 04:58 PM
FrankB2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,760
FrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: My real rod weights

Hi Dan,
I don't know how many people walk into a shop, and ask for a TCX without knowing what they're asking for. A good shop owner/employee should check with the customer about what they intend to do with the rod, but that's not always the case, especially with mail-order. I had a bike shop back in the 90's (1990's ), and customers with too much money used to walk in and ask for a carbon fiber bike. We sold road bikes and mountain bikes, and I'd ask what type of riding they intended to do. You'd be surprised at how many said it doesn't matter, and that they just wanted a carbon fiber bike. There are also stiff steel frames, and much softer steel frames. If your riding hilly terrain, I'd recommend a stiffer frame, especially for heavy riders ("heavy" in road cycling is 170lbs and up). While two bikes might look identical, they can be quite different depending on where you're riding, and your weight, and that's where an educated consumer and a helpful shop owner need to come together. If someone is buying online, and a manufacturer isn't very helpful in their product description, the ERN tables can be very helpful. I suppose this is why you see so many hardly used bicycles and fly rods on ebay.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2013, 05:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Beautiful Ozarks, Missouri
Posts: 55
jack crack jones is on a distinguished road
Default Re: My real rod weights

Okay...so since I lack pennies and/or a digital scale, anyone want to give me a reading (real or best estimate) on a TFO Pro 4pc 8' 4wt, LOL?
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2013, 05:30 PM
FrankB2's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,760
FrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond reputeFrankB2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: My real rod weights

Here's George Cook giving a "Demo" of the CPX switch rods in a way that means absolutely NOTHING( ) :


That's pee-poor information, and I wouldn't buy a rod based on that sort of nonsense. It could be a great rod for you, however, and I've seen some very nice things said about the CPX. Did you get it from a dealer with a return policy?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack crack jones View Post
Okay...so since I lack pennies and/or a digital scale, anyone want to give me a reading (real or best estimate) on a TFO Pro 4pc 8' 4wt, LOL?
Scroll through this table, and you'll see the TFO Pro 10wt comes in at 9.91. That's not a 4wt rod, but could be an indication of what its ERN would tend toward.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2013, 07:39 PM
wabi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: southern Ohio
Posts: 520
wabi is just really nicewabi is just really nicewabi is just really nicewabi is just really nicewabi is just really nice
Default Re: My real rod weights

I usually just try the line to match the rod and don't worry about it if it casts fairly well. I have had a few rods that obviously were off, though. On those I used the common cents system to get the ERN and in ALL cases the measurement I came up with allowed me to match a line to the rod with no problems.

A couple examples are:
A custom rod built on a Lamiglas 6'6" 3wt blank. Seemed overloaded with a wf3f line so I measured it. ERN of slightly over 1. A dt2f really works well for roll casts, and a wf1f works for overhead casting.

A Wright McGill 2 hand rod marked 5wt. 5wt spey or single hand? Tried a wf8f line for overhead casting (spey wt +3) and it didn't "fit". Measured the ERN and got over 11. A wf11f line cast fine (overhead) and a 525gr Skagit head works for spey. Finally tried a Rio 8/9 switch line and I think I found the line that works for both types casting. (All I can figure is that the rod was 8wt spey and the subtracted 3 weights instead of adding for a single hand line rating when they labeled it.)

One thing I have noticed is that with most of my rods the mid-length rods are closer to the line rating marked. I wonder if they don't under rate many long rods thinking people who purchase them are often after more casting distance, and over rate extremely short rod thinking people are buying them to make very short casts.
imxer likes this.
__________________
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2013, 07:55 PM
Guest1's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
Posts: 4,752
Guest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: My real rod weights

Quote:
Originally Posted by plecain View Post
I sent an email to Redington asking why my CPX 3 wt was so far off.

I asked: "Are CPX rods generally like this? That is, do they generally act heavier than the marked weights? Or is this particular rod an anomaly?"

This is their reply:

"They are true fast action rods and typically like a size heavier line. Depending on your preference and casting style, they can be right on or you may need to go up a full size."
I notice they didn't give you an actual ERN. By the way, the only rod company I ever had offer me the ERN of a rod was Flying Pig. He told me the action and the ERN before it ever went to the post office. His have a higher ERN than what's on the rod, and understandably so based on what he is thinking in the design of the rods, or at least the liqued series rod I got. He has distance in mind and it works for it. A novice caster may have a struggle with it if it's lined like it's marked. Although maybe not. I took it to Baudette Bay today and cast it while I let the dog run around and play. I had a really stiff wind but cast with it coming straight in on my left side. I got casts of well over 80' without any haul and just a 10/2 stroke. I did it just to see what I could get doing that because I have seen a whole lot of threads where guys were saying things like "I can't get past 40 feet" and ranges like that. I think I can hit at least close to 100' on a calm day with it and only haul on the shoot. Maybe even no haul at all. I'm thinking about doing a video of a no haul, 10/2 cast in slow motion for beginners on here just so they can see the cast in it's most simple form.

By the way Wabi, single hand and two hand line weights do not correspond to each other. That's the 3 line weights problem you are having there. Plus the head tapers are most likely not going to be close either. You would like a true spey line a lot better and it will make casting a lot easier on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack crack jones View Post
Okay...so since I lack pennies and/or a digital scale, anyone want to give me a reading (real or best estimate) on a TFO Pro 4pc 8' 4wt, LOL?
I either need the rod or you can go to the bank and get pennies. Pretty hard to guess with no rod.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 141
caberguy will become famous soon enoughcaberguy will become famous soon enough
Default Re: My real rod weights

Well, the CPX just got here. First thing I did was bust out the scale and a handful of coins. 222.4g to 1/3 deflection, which puts my 8wt CPX at about 10.6 on the ERN Scale. At least the CPX and the Powell don't overlap each other.

I also ordered a Redington CT 9' 4wt, at $75 it was just too good to pass up (I was hemming and hawing between that and the 8'6" 5wt). It'll be interesting to see where that comes in, hopefully it'll fill the gap (and even if it does come in near the Loomis the extra 18" will make it a different animal, plus it's 4 piece instead of 2, so it'll backpack).

I find myself wanting an "honest" 6wt. But I think I just need to work with what I have at the moment and get out more; what I've got right now (especially with the CT on the way) will cover a lot of ground... or, water, as it were.

Last edited by caberguy; 01-14-2013 at 01:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 12:08 PM
wjc wjc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: south florida
Posts: 1,484
wjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant futurewjc has a brilliant future
Default Re: My real rod weights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank
If Sage made a rod for casting distances, and it had an ERN of 5, it would probably be a dog when trying to cast 100 feet of line. I don't think anyone makes these purchases blindly, and if you buy a TCX, you probably know what it's for.
Frank, you nailed it on the head as far as I'm concerned. I have TCX's in 7 and 8 weights and both will cast the lines I use on them very well at the Sage rating.

I also have a TCR in an 8 wt, and being "tippier" than the tcx it will cast down to a 6wt very well with a long belly line - despite the Common Sense rating of a 10 + weight - though it does vibrate a bit much with a 6wt. I use either a 7 wt or 8 wt line on that rod depending on the wind.

In short, Sage is basing its ratings on its idea of which customers will be using the rods, and how they will be using them. And when they are doing this, they take into account the actual line head weights not just the first 30 feet of line.

Edit: Diver Dan,
I agree with you that there is no standard in either lines or rods and that without fixing both, word of mouth is the only way to narrow down the number of rods to test cast, once you've determined which mouths to listen to. A while back I tested and measured two lines on my old 12wt to see both the overhang length, and the kind of weight that rod handled best. I tried two lines, a 550 gr Leviathan integrated wf and a Rio 12wt Tarpon taper. At a comfortable carry for my typical, pretty long saltwater fishing cast, the overhang was almost exactly half the length of the head outside the tip in both instances. I made numerous casts and marked my "hold point" then subtracted 8' for the overhang. Then I weighed the entire portion of line outside the tip.

The result was that they came unbelievably close to identical in both total weight out the tip AND overhang as a percentage of head length. I was shocked because the Rio Tarpon taper is a fairly long, backwards taper, with the major belly in the back of the head: and the Leviathan taper exaqctly the opposite but short and squatty. I'd expected much less overhang with the latter - but not so. In both cases the overhang was very close to half the head length and that total weight was nearly identical in both instances.

So, if line manufacturers would give the TOTAL head weight AND running line weight per foot, it would be easy to determine which line would cast well with which rod for each individual without having to try them out first (once you established one line weight that worked for that rod.) OR, once the manufacturers came up with a grain envelope rating for their rods based on a true standard. That is assuming it is possible to come up with one which works.
__________________
http://www.miterclamp.com/Images/N_Amer_FF.jpg Cheers, Jim

Last edited by wjc; 01-18-2013 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2013, 08:33 AM
plecain's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 910
plecain is a glorious beacon of lightplecain is a glorious beacon of lightplecain is a glorious beacon of lightplecain is a glorious beacon of lightplecain is a glorious beacon of lightplecain is a glorious beacon of light
Default Re: My real rod weights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diver Dan View Post
Most rods are built on what is called 'Straightest Visual Line'. That is where every blank has a bit of curve to it. One's that don't are as rare as Bigfoot. You eye down the blank and or the pieces and orient the blank in the completed rod so that the weight of the guides pull the rod so it LOOKS straight.
Well, that explains something.

I took several factory rods and did a 'find-the-spline' bend on them. I expected the splines to be right along the guide placement.

They're not. If there's any consistency, either among brands or within a brand, I don't see it.

That brings up the question of how important finding the spline is when building a rod (something I intend to do). Obviously, it can't hurt to get it 'right', but how much does it help, really?

BTW, the brands were Echo, Sage, Redington, and St Croix.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2013, 01:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: sacramento,ca
Posts: 418
rubberguy is a jewel in the roughrubberguy is a jewel in the roughrubberguy is a jewel in the rough
Default Re: My real rod weights

Quote:
Originally Posted by plecain View Post
I sent an email to Redington asking why my CPX 3 wt was so far off.

I asked: "Are CPX rods generally like this? That is, do they generally act heavier than the marked weights? Or is this particular rod an anomaly?"

This is their reply:

"They are true fast action rods and typically like a size heavier line. Depending on your preference and casting style, they can be right on or you may need to go up a full size."
With Diver Dan's help, I checked my Redington Wayfarer 6pc 4wt (FOUR WEIGHT). Thur the ERN process it came out to a "6.3" weight rod. Go figure !!!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-10-2013, 02:25 PM
Guest1's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
Posts: 4,752
Guest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond reputeGuest1 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: My real rod weights

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjc View Post
So, if line manufacturers would give the TOTAL head weight AND running line weight per foot, it would be easy to determine which line would cast well with which rod for each individual without having to try them out first.
I suggested that a few years ago and got a pile of replies that ranged from not happy with my suggestion to one that was fairly hostile. I agree 100% with you. Actually I left off the running line part. But I still agree 100%. It would be easy enough to add to the label. Or in the paper that comes in boxes.

As I said in that post, what the heck does a weight that only covers the first 30 feet have to do with anything? Especially when you toss in long vs. short front tapers, long vs short heads. I have a line that has a really long long head, and get a load of this, and thin running line for a way after the head followed by a thinner running line the rest of the way. The reason being for the overhang and carry

Quote:
Originally Posted by plecain View Post
Well, that explains something.

I took several factory rods and did a 'find-the-spline' bend on them. I expected the splines to be right along the guide placement.

They're not. If there's any consistency, either among brands or within a brand, I don't see it.

That brings up the question of how important finding the spline is when building a rod (something I intend to do). Obviously, it can't hurt to get it 'right', but how much does it help, really?

BTW, the brands were Echo, Sage, Redington, and St Croix.
It makes a difference in this way. On the spine the rod when flexed, just flexes. Off the spine it flexes and twists. If you twist it fast it will bust the rod right in front of the grip. Here's another point to consider. The more interaction there is between your guides and your line the less distance you get. Twisting and untwisting the rod while casting had got to put motions in the line that increase that interaction.

Now for the brands. Sage might make great blanks, but I have never and I do mean never liked the way they build on them. They also make some of them colors I hate but I digress. I got a DVD from them 9 or 10 years ago that had a really great tour of the factory. In it they showed the first step in the build being figureing where the guides go. I expected them to find the spine. Nope. They came right out and said "Straightest visual line" and even explained it. I was a tad shocked.

Now let me explain straightest visual line and why they do it. Watch anyone almost in a tackle shop of any kind look at a new rod. It does not matter if it's a $25 spinning rod or a $500 fly rod. They pick it up, give it the 'shake' and then eye right down it's length.

Virtually every rod has a bit of a bend to it. It is rare to see one that doesn't. What straightest visual line does is hide it from the second step in your typical looker. You turn the blank so the bend goes up, put the guides on the bottom and gravity pulls the bend down and makes it seem that it's straight.

I broke a few rods before I started building them. More often than not the broke right in front of the grip and virtually everytime when setting the hook on a fish. One time a stinking Walleye I could fit in the skillet. With 6 pound test line no less. Think about this. The rod broke in the fattest part of the blank on a small Walleye using 6 pound test. Had I checked the spine I am sure it would have been pretty close to 90 degrees from the straightest visual line. I have never had a rod I built break this way. It's not the bending that breaks them this way, it's the twisting. In fact I have only had one rod break that I built and unfortunately it was my 10 wt. Winston and it was entirely operator error. It busted in the tip where an operator error break will more times than not be.

Straightest visual line is for looks and sales. The spine is for a good rod that won't bust setting the hook on a small fish.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weights? alligator General Discussion 15 01-11-2013 05:30 PM
How to Convert the Old Line Weights to Modern AFTMA Line Weights; Hardyreels Fly Lines 7 08-24-2012 05:57 PM
Rod weights? rapid eddy General Discussion 21 03-04-2012 05:59 PM
NRX and GLX weights pegboy1 Fly Rods 2 02-01-2012 08:44 AM
3 weights... ksbrowntrout2 Fly Rods 20 12-22-2009 08:07 PM













All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 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.