Rod weights and Common Cents

[Guest1]

Recently there has been a ton of posts asking if they should overline a rod, or what line for this rod. I almost always reply that it depends on the rod. Not all makers mark their rods as what they really are. In fact it is a rare rod that is what it is claimed to be. Given that fact, I generally tell them to test the rod and see what it really is. It is not hard to do and there are a lot of rods that have already been tested and the results published on the web.

Here is the Common Cents System method of telling what weight your rod really is: The Common Cents System

A chart that makes more sense than the one they provide and does larger rods: Full ERN chart

OK, now I am going to give you the fast easy directions to finding out what weight your rod really is.

1. Trap your rod by the handle parallel to the floor with the tip of the rod more than 1/3 the rod's length, higher than the floor. For example, you need to have the rod parallel to the floor and more than 3' off the floor for a 9' rod. I'd give it a foot to spare.

2. Take a small paper clip and unbend one end so it makes an 'S' shape. Find a small plastic bag.

3. Hang the plastic bag from the rod tip using the 'S' shaped clip, and then measure the distance from the tip to the floor and be precise.

4. Put pennies that are shiney and newer than 1996 into the bag till you have bent the rod tip to 1/3 the length of the rod from the measurement you got in step 3.

5. So for an easy example, lets say in step 3 you had a 9' rod and got a measurement of exactly 4.0 feet from the tip of the rod to the floor. Then in step 4 you got enough pennies in the bag to get a measurement of precisely 1.0 feet from the rod tip to the floor. Take the pennies and count them. For this example lets say you are testing an Orvis 'Zero Gravity Midflex' 5 wt., 9' rod. The number of pennies you count will be 53. This gives you an ERN, or actual rod weight of 6.5.

I would avoid the new nonstandard pennies, as I am not sure they are using the same slug to stamp them as the old style pennies. If they do any penny newer than 1996 is good as long as it is still shiney. This works because there is a known weight for these pennies.

There is a second way that is even easier, but does not work for all rods. Look it up for previously tested results. Here is a chart with a lot of results. If you look at our example rod you see a guy named Magnus has already done the work and calls it a 6.5 wt. rod. Sexyloops Rod Database

There was another site that had a great number of rods listed but they must not have paid to keep the site up and it has vanished.

Now in the case of the rod we used as an example, if you 'overline' it with a 6 wt. line, you are in reallity still underlined by a half wieght, provided the line maker didn't fib about that also.



Hopefully this helps with some of the questions.

Addition; If you use 1982-1996 CN pennies with no corrosion, it is a 1:1 swap. Both have the same weight.

 

[overmywaders]

It seems a little late to concern ourselves with the "line weight" of a rod, since apparently the line makers no longer conform to the AFTMA line weight standards anymore.

Also, we had charts like the Common Cents before the imposition of line weights (1962, IIRC). They were usually acknowledged, after a time, as of no value, because if it registered the rod as an HDH, the next question was "Which line maker's HDH?" So, we have come full circle, we test to find out a line weight, then we need to find a line maker that actually produces that line weight.

Why don't we simply cut out the interim "testing" and try the rod with a variety of lines? That way, the user gets a line that brings out the best qualities of the rod, at the distance the user will fish it, and with his unique casting style.

 

[jaybo41]

Excellent post DD! I'm sending some rep your way and would love to see this post become a sticky. This is beneficial reading for folks who are inquiring about which lines to use with what rods. Good stuff, thank you.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[caberguy]

Why don't we simply cut out the interim "testing" and try the rod with a variety of lines? That way, the user gets a line that brings out the best qualities of the rod, at the distance the user will fish it, and with his unique casting style.

Because decent fly lines aren't cheap enough to just buy 'em and try 'em. Testing might not be perfect, but it's a better start than what the rod makers often give. Lines might be off a bit, but I doubt they're often off more than some of the rods that even my meager experience his shown (i.e. nearly 2 "rod weights")

 

[Guest1]

Why don't we simply cut out the interim "testing" and try the rod with a variety of lines? That way, the user gets a line that brings out the best qualities of the rod, at the distance the user will fish it, and with his unique casting style.

For people who live 5 hours from the nearest fly shop like I do that is not an option unfortunately. It really has become a problem with lines as well. I just saw an ad a while back where they brag about being a full line weight heavier than the industry standard. Then you have the problem of the industry standard only covers the first 30' of the line anyway.

 

[jaybo41]

Add to that folks who are getting rods that say Xwt rod by a manufacturer and the line needed to load the rod is not true to the stamp.

I've read of a few folks on the forum who've purchased rods, got line for the rod based on the designated markings and it's not true to the marked weight. Certain manufacturers are better than others with this of course.

 

[Guest1]

got line for the rod based on the designated markings and it's not true to the marked weight. Certain manufacturers are better than others with this of course.

I tried my Winston and it's pretty close. I have some rods I made from top end AM. Tac. Blanks made before they went to cheaper blanks. Those are all pretty close to what they should be. My 5 is a dead on 5. Then you have rods like Sage who is notoriously under marked. Their 5 preformance rod is almost an 8. I wish the old rod data sheet was still on the web. It had a lot of rods like Cabelas and White River you don't have on the SexyLoops Data Base. If I had known it was going to be lost I would have copied the whole thing.

 

[turbineblade]

Question for you DAn - I have a three-forks 7'6" 3 weight rod that I always suspected was closer to a 4 weight based upon how it casted with different fly lines.

I did your penny test and, provided I measure accurately enough, it comes in at 4.7 weight.

Also, I didn't measure the action but I can tell just by using it that it's among the slower of my rods. The bend goes nearly back to the grip.

For a "slower" rod at 4.7 weight, would you shoot for a 4 or 5 weight line?

BTW - this is an excellent thread -- thanks for sharing it.

 

[overmywaders]

For people who live 5 hours from the nearest fly shop like I do that is not an option unfortunately. It really has become a problem with lines as well. I just saw an ad a while back where they brag about being a full line weight heavier than the industry standard. Then you have the problem of the industry standard only covers the first 30' of the line anyway.

And brick-and-mortar fly shops are not as common as they once were.

However, there are several other factors that testing like Common Cents can't address - line diameter, suppleness, lubricants, surface finish, hydrophobic additives, and taper, to name a few. The difference in diameter of a WF6F and a WF6S can be considerable, and the greater the diameter, the greater the air resistance. Suppleness can markedly contribute to the casting characteristics of a line. Lubricants, designed to leach from the line over time, vary from line maker to line maker. The smoothness of the surface finish - pebbly, ridged, sharkskin, etc. is also important. Some line makers incorporate hydrophobic compounds in their lines, this alters the depth of immersion of a floating line and the resistance to pickup. And, of course, line taper - is the front taper six feet or ten feet, is the belly fifteen feet or thirty feet.

With all of those variables, it would seem to me impossible to get an optimum line for a particular rod without trial and error. So, even if you determine by Common Cents testing that you require a 5wt, you are still going to kiss a lot of frogs before you get a handsome prince.

 

[trout trekker]

I'll go along with it.

As a system of expression that aids in quantifying some of a rods characteristics from one angler to the next or simply to chronicle the weights and actions of ones own rods, the CCS serves a purpose. Determining a rods weight via the ERN gets us part of the way there. But if you will, it relates only what it takes to deflect its tip a specific distance. In the larger discussion of a rod. The Action Angle relates it's personality, it’s flex profile. To me, using one without the other is like having finely ground coffee beans, but no water. You can smell the aroma of the ground beans, but without water, you’ll never know exactly how they’d brew up.

Reading over the these threads, I see nearly as many questions asking about the actions of this rod or that, for many of the same reasons. For instance, someone wants to buy a new rod but has no shop nearby, or is interested in a used rod listed in the classified section or an auction and sometimes, as recently was the case with the Redington CT series rod, a lot of anglers were just Jones’n for a new toy, but wanted to know a little more about their actions. Not to mention it's usefulness in conveying from one rod builder to the next, what they might expect from an unknown blank. What’s a medium fast rod to one, might be plow mule slow to another, the CCS systems AA would’ve helped dispel some of the lofty verbiage used to describe those rods, offering some unit of measure to the discussion.

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. As with any testing system, read and follow the originators instructions on how to conduct the test, so that we may all have accurate notes to compare.

Best, TT

 

[silver creek]

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.

 

[overmywaders]

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.

 

[Guest1]

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.

 

[troutnut4]

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?

 

[plecain]

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.

 

[Guest1]

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.

 

[Jackster]

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 ----------

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 :icon_roll and a:shades:?

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! :lol2:

Just [poke]

 

[Guest1]

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 [poke] than Sage.

A
Might I add a :icon_roll and a:shades:?

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! :lol2:

Just [poke]

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"?

 

[plecain]

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.

 

[Guest1]

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.