Rating rods by rolling dice.

[Guest1]

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]

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]

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]

Diver Dan

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

 

[mojo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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]

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.

 

[imxer]

Mojo,

Am with you on the shorter casts. If I have a good drift going will just "feed" line until time to pick up. Covers more water and am fishing a lot of water i used to cast over to get more distance. Fly is in-on the water longer, someone told me that helps catch fish.

imxer

 

[Jackster]

I have a very good friend and great fly fisher who says he catches all of his fish at a distance no greater than 30'. I told him to imagine how many more fish he could catch if he was able to cast 40'!

The long, accurate cast some can do is a nice reserve to have. If the wind pipes up there is no need to go home. The good caster has the technique to power through the wind. I have seen and have myself caught far too many fish at distance to say it cannot be done.
One very good example of the benefit of being able to cast effectively at a range of distances is on a small pond a few of us were fishing where if you could plant a caddis right in the ring of the rise the brookies were making you were guaranteed a fish. Once my other two buddies hit their max casts of 30-40' the game was over for them.
There is no downside to casting well.

 

[FrankB2]

I want to cast close, far, into the wind, and accurately at all distances. I think you can have all of the above in one rod. See my thread "Roll Casting
Sage Z-Axis". I made several roll casts with no more than 10 feet of line, and
they all hit the spot I aimed for. That same rod cuts through wind like butter.

I decided a few years ago to practice casting in the worst wind conditions, and it has paid off in spades. Most of this casting was done in my backyard,
when everything was frozen. The greater the wind, the more excited I was to
get out there. Wind no longer frustrates me on the water. I fish a local lake
on days when it's so windy, the waves break against my crotch, and splash
onto my face. Do I need a fast rod for this? Maybe, maybe not. Should we
master the rod we fish? Absolutely. Should we try different lines? Yup. I've found that the 1/2wt heavier
lines work well for me, with the rods I use, in most situations. I will switch to a true weight line on occassion
when presenting dry flies to what I consider spooky fish, but that might be more of change for the sake of
change, and just to remind myself that a true weight line will work<G>.

P.S. Distance for me is a measured 45-60 feet tops on the water. Beyond that, I move closer to the
target/fish.

 

[imxer]

Diver Dan,
For what it's worth.

Have looked over the CCS chart for Loomis rods and my experience with the various models, IMX-GL3-GL4-GLX, has agreed with their findings.
The IMX rods I have used [ 4 & 6 wts ] have all liked one size heavier line than the factory indicates, while the other models have cast nicely with the factory suggested weights. Thanks for the data.

Still trying to find the difference between "old & original" IMX rods.

imxer

 

[mojo]

I have a very good friend and great fly fisher who says he catches all of his fish at a distance no greater than 30'. I told him to imagine how many more fish he could catch if he was able to cast 40'!

The long, accurate cast some can do is a nice reserve to have. If the wind pipes up there is no need to go home. The good caster has the technique to power through the wind. I have seen and have myself caught far too many fish at distance to say it cannot be done.
One very good example of the benefit of being able to cast effectively at a range of distances is on a small pond a few of us were fishing where if you could plant a caddis right in the ring of the rise the brookies were making you were guaranteed a fish. Once my other two buddies hit their max casts of 30-40' the game was over for them.
There is no downside to casting well.

I agree with you. If you are able to cast a whole line, and do it consistently, you've learned something other than being able to cast the compete line. If you can do it and the fly lands where you aim, consistently-it's even better. Fishing accurately 20'- 30' is easy. 40' accurately gets a little tougher. Longer distances even harder. You will come upon a fish that might be out of your comfort range, but with practice, you can reach it. Pairing up lines with rods will help achieve that goal too. (I thought I better get back to the subject). If you have a dog rod with a certain line, keep trying different brands, types and weights. There might be one that awakens that rod. Don't be afraid to experiment.

 

[Guest1]

Diver Dan

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

Sorry about the delay, but I have been out of town for a few days and missed this part before I left. I am not real sure what the difference is, but I assume it is the IMX when Gary Loomis owned it and the newer IMX when Shimano bought it. They changed a bunch of stuff. Some of it did not help me sell Loomis rods either. Mainly the color of the rod blanks. Like the metal flake silver color some of the blanks were. After Shimano took over, I have not made many Loomis rods. If you still want to know I'm sure I can find out for sure though.

 

[imxer]

Hi Dan,

Appreciate your interest in the IMX question. I have been making a few inquiries out here on the West coast, so far haven't come up with much.
If someone answers you on this would like to know but please don't out of your way to find out.

The guys who made the CC study should know what they meant and maybe there is a member of the Forum who has, or had, a Loomis connection and has an answer.

Re: the CC study. They do not include the Loomis Trilogy; mine was a 5wt that worked well with a WF 5 line.

Thanks again.
imxer

 

[flyguy66]

Imxer,

Gary now works for TFO. And they are extremely customer service oriented. I'll bet that if you called or emailed TFO via their website with your question directed to Gary, you will eventually get your answer straight from the source.

 

[imxer]

flyguy66,

Thanks for your suggestion, will give it a try & post any results.


imxer

 

[flyguy66]

The actual industry is much more collegial than most of the writers, reps, prostaffers, and customers assume they are.