Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  18
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Rod weights and Common Cents

  1. #11

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    I think of CCS as a filter.

    It filters out rods that don't meet the flex and action a person wants. It filters in rods that match a flex and action a person wants. And it filters them in regardless of the cost factor. So it provides a list of rods to borrow or try to see if the cost differential is work it for that particular fly caster.

    Here are some ways CCS can be used as a filter.

    If a fly caster borrows a friend's rod or tests casts a rod at a shop or conclave that he likes, and if he can look up the ERN and AA of that rod, he has a starting point to find other comparable rods, some of which may be less expensive and a better value for him.

    A caster might think that he "wants" a particular fly rod flex and action, so he looks up what rods have that ERN and AA. If he can try some of those rods, he can determine if his "want" actually meets his "need". He may find that the rod is too stiff or fast for him, so he then looks to CCS under different criteria.

    A fly fisher might have a 9 foot 4 wt that he just loves and now he wants to get a 6 and 8 wt rod with the same casting properties. Can he assume that the same brand and model will but in a different line rating will fill the bill? Not necessarily. CCS may be able show that there is a difference.
    Regards,

    Silver



    "Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

  2. Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    In terms of a rod's action, the cane rod community has an advantage - the rod taper and stress curves. Looking at the rod's taper taken at 5" intervals you can determine stress curves and once you learn to read the stress curves - think of reading the screen in "The Matrix" - the action of the rod becomes apparent.

    Of course, if you cast five rods all made to the same taper by different makers, they will vary in subtle ways. This is because no two culms of bamboo are equal, and people heat-treat and varnish it differently. Still, the general action will be similar.

    Pity such an approach can't be used with graphite and fiberglass; however, the makers use different mats and resins, so there is not enough commonality to build a stress curve system.
    Best regards,
    Reed

    http://overmywaders.com

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
    Posts
    4,752

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Quote Originally Posted by trout trekker View Post
    Reading over the these threads, I see nearly as many questions asking about the actions of this rod or that...

    It’s not a perfect system by any means and by no means tells the whole story about a rod, but it’s better than trying to wade through volumes of colorful descriptions of a rods characteristics, including those used by the rod companies themselves.

    One last thought, this system of measure is only as good as the users implementing it. Best, TT
    True, true and true....

    One company's fast is another company's moderate. For example, Winston calls my 10 wt. BIIX fast, but it is not as fast as My Flying Pig 8 wt. which is aslo called a fast. If we were to start at the Flying Pig and call it very fast then it would make the Winston a moderate fast. Then there are things like recovery. (The time required to go from bent to straight ) By the way, I have never seen a rod with a faster recovery than that Flying Pig rod I just mentioned.

    Yes, there are a lot of variables in the way a rod acts. Frequency, flex action, recovery, diameter effecting wind resistance, weight..... You can overdo this though. At best you get maybe 10% of the performance in a cast from a rod and line. The rest is the caster. I hate to beat a dead horse here but My friend Bill can cast way past 100' with a Cabelas Three Forks rod and a $10 K-Mart 5 wt. line. In fact I have watched him do it on one knee with just the top half of the rod. He hit 105' or better every single time he tried it.

    And while a system is only as good as those who do the measuring, this is pretty straight forward. If you can do simple math, read a tape measure and count change you should be OK.

  4. Likes oarfish liked this post
  5. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Down East, EH!
    Posts
    1,023

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Great information, but all this technical info confuses the hell out of me! I have a number of Sage rods and see from the "Sexy Loops Database" that Sage tends to be off the mark when designating weights on their rods and not alone in doing so. I take it that alot of rods could take at least 1/2 to 1 weight heavier than that shown on the rod. Some (few) hit the mark and some underweight the actual weight. Am I right or wrong?

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    2,461

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Quote Originally Posted by troutnut4 View Post
    Great information, but all this technical info confuses the hell out of me! I have a number of Sage rods and see from the "Sexy Loops Database" that Sage tends to be off the mark when designating weights on their rods and not alone in doing so. I take it that alot of rods could take at least 1/2 to 1 weight heavier than that shown on the rod. Some (few) hit the mark and some underweight the actual weight. Am I right or wrong?
    You are right. I have rods that are right on, rods that are marked higher than they are, and rods that are marked lower than they are. Some are off by 1/2 a weight or less; some are off by two whole weights.

    To add some more confusion, the lines have the same problem. Some are right on, some heavy. I don't think I've seen many that are lighter than marked.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
    Posts
    4,752

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Quote Originally Posted by troutnut4 View Post
    I have a number of Sage rods and see from the "Sexy Loops Database" that Sage tends to be off the mark when designating weights on their rods and not alone in doing so. I take it that alot of rods could take at least 1/2 to 1 weight heavier than that shown on the rod. Some (few) hit the mark and some underweight the actual weight. Am I right or wrong?
    Nope, you are right. I didn't see your post or I would have said something sooner. The more a company wants you to think you can cast far with a rod, the more likely they are to underrate a rod.

    Like the Sage rods you mentioned. Their distance 5 wt. is really about a 7 1/2 or so if I remember right. The reason is that you get a lot more line carried in the air and the rod loads right with a 5 wt. line. They tend to do this on a lot of rods and I don't see it as a very good idea.

    I read a post here the other day that said basically, almost all fish are caught at less than 30 feet. I disagree with that. In my case it is completely wrong. But there were other comments in agreement. So let me ask you this. If it was true, and a line is rated based on the first 30', between the rod and leader, you would have what? 20' of head out tops? Now if it is actually a 7 1/2 wt. rod they are calling a 5 wt, and you have a 5 wt. line on and are only casting 30 or 40 feet with, how much are you going to like that rod and or line?

    This is where a system like this can come in handy. If you are having trouble, look at what your rod really is and see if the way they labled it is part or all of the problem.

    I'll tell you something else. If the touchy feely PC liberal 'don't make anyone feel bad' crowd had not wrecked distance casting, it would have made more sense to allow you to use any 9' rod you want and all cast a 5 wt. line. The way it was, there wasn't any real 5 wt. rods in the first place. I don't see how a factory slapping a 5 wt. label on a fast 8 wt. and them going "OK it's a 5, go ahead and use it", makes anymore sense than allowing an honestly labled 8 wt rod to be used. But i digress.

    The problem is that the industry standard is not a standard at all.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    A question for those who use the CCS... does it work? Doing static tests using mass and deflection certainly gives results but how do those results transfer over to real-life, dynamic use of the tested rod(s)?

    To keep things CCSish, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being 100% accurate 100% of the time, how would you rate the CCS system for accuracy when compared to actual use of the rod?

    ---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Diver Dan View Post
    I'll tell you something else. If the touchy feely PC liberal 'don't make anyone feel bad' crowd had not wrecked distance casting
    Might I add a and a?

    Good point about the cheater rods posing as 5 weights but 'touchy feely PC liberal'? Whew... that ain't no grand generalization is it?
    I betcha it was a right-wing whacko 1%-type who wasn't used to not winning by any means necessary and so bought the casting judges to change the rules to work in his favor!

    Just

  9. Likes brownbass liked this post
  10. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
    Posts
    4,752

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Well it's only as accurate as the user, but if you do it carefully I'd say it is pretty close to 100%. It's a far better way to look at it than the rod than the labels.

    It would be interesting to try a whole bunch of rods that are supposedly identical. Preferably from a cheaper brand. The way blanks are made they wrap the graphite around a mandrel and then wrap the graphite with a clear tape and them bake them. They then sand that off. You have to wonder what kind of variability you get from the sanding process. I am willing to bet that they don't just let anyone go at a Winston blank, but who knows what kind of drunken maniac they have going at them in China. I don't see where you are going to get the same, at least attempt, at uniformity from a guy getting $1.32 a day.

    It's interesting if you look at the ERN charts from places like sexyloops, and if I can find it again, some guy named Bob something had a really extesive list that has vanished from the web. Hopefully it will pop up again, but you get an idea of the companies sales strategy in their ERNs. Like Sage and it's we cast farther thing. That's why they have ERNs that are 2 or 3 higher than what the rod really is. Wnston is a "we are a quality rod" attitude makes them less of a liar than Sage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackster View Post
    A
    Might I add a and a?

    Good point about the cheater rods posing as 5 weights but 'touchy feely PC liberal'? Whew... that ain't no grand generalization is it?
    I betcha it was a right-wing whacko 1%-type who wasn't used to not winning by any means necessary and so bought the casting judges to change the rules to work in his favor!

    Just
    I'll take that bet. It's an attitude that's gotten into schools and who runs those? Everywhere that kind of "can't make anyone feel like a loser" attitude has taken hold, go look at who's running it. Easy bet.

    In fact I'll make a second bet, if we do find any right wingers, they made the rods and labeled the 5's as 7's. "winning by any means necessary"?

  11. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    2,461

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackster View Post
    A question for those who use the CCS... does it work? Doing static tests using mass and deflection certainly gives results but how do those results transfer over to real-life, dynamic use of the tested rod(s)?

    To keep things CCSish, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being 100% accurate 100% of the time, how would you rate the CCS system for accuracy when compared to actual use of the rod?
    It works pretty well. As long as you keep your testing consistent, it's very repeatable. Whenever I get a rod that is over about 1.5 line weights away from its marked weight, I repeat the test, usually a couple more times.

    As far as a comparison to the 'real world' use of the rod, it's still pretty good.

    For example, I have a rod that's marked as a 3wt. With WF3F line, it's awful. I then CCS tested it. Its ERN is 4.865. I tried a WF5F line. Much, much better.

    I'd say it's not 10 out of 10 - more like 8.5-9 out of 10. It can lead you in the right direction when a rod just doesn't feel right.

  12. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lake of the Woods/Rainy River Minnesota Canada border
    Posts
    4,752

    Default Re: Rod weights and Common Cents

    Quote Originally Posted by plecain View Post
    I'd say it's not 10 out of 10 - more like 8.5-9 out of 10. It can lead you in the right direction when a rod just doesn't feel right.
    I'll bet the other 1 - 1.5 out of 10 is due to other factors like how fast the rod is, recovery, etc. and not tha actual weight of the rod. There was a pretty extensive argument about it over on sexyloops that might be worth looking at.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-26-2017, 10:51 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 09:13 PM
  3. Common Cents Sytems, who is using it?
    By cidme in forum Fly Rods
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-30-2010, 12:01 AM
  4. Common Cents system, who's using it?
    By cidme in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 12:05 AM
  5. Your 2 cents on a first timers outfit
    By FowlHabit in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-01-2006, 10:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •