Deflection Tests

[NWADrew]

Just wondering what everyone's opinion is on deflection tests. Since I'm still learning everything I can about rod actions as I buy - fish - sell numerous rods a year while filling my quiver, I've enjoyed Yellowstone Anglers deflection tests and built my own to mirror theirs. I just got a new Sage XP 4wt in last night that's in like new condition. It appears to be a newer model than the two XP's I bought my girl friend. But I compared her 5 wt to my new 4 wt in the deflection tester and the rods have an identical bending profile. The 4 wt was maybe 1/2" higher with a stiffer blank. That surprised me. I was expecting the 4wt to bend more with the rod tip lower with the same 3.8oz of weight. Anyone have thoughts on this result?

 

[DonW]

Not surprising to me, I have a lot of old fiberglass fly rods I have measured and they can be all over the map (most are lighter wt, a few right on, a few heavier) when tested as compared to what was labeled on the rod by manufacture. The newer rods I have measured are much more consistent, and the newest ones are really consistent although typically one wt heavier. My sample size is so small I wouldn't state it as proof of anything but I'm betting if I had endless access to rods to measure I'd put money down that it would hold true for the most part. I have three pairs of rods from the sixties that are supposed to be identical and the only pair to measures out the same was a very high end model back in the day.

 

[sweetandsalt]

It is curious that the #5's tip is lower than the #4's, I'd expect the reverse of course. Are your reel seats affixed totally parallel and is the lower taper profile a mirror as the upper is? It helps to see the entire rod when comparing flexural profiles. The purpose of a deflection chart, as in Anderson's Shootouts, is as an indicator of where and how much a rod bends compared to others of similar intent.

Very ambitious of you. When I compare two similar rods, say a pair of 9'/#4's from two different makers, I place their tips next to one another on a carpeted floor and, holding the reel seats together, flex them. I can then observe where in their respective tapers they flex and then apply incrementally more pressure to further compare how they respond to increased load. This reveals a good bit about their taper design before I even cast them.

 

[sweetandsalt]

DonW, I suspect you are referring to the "common cents" measurement of flex to line weight relationship, right? The OP here is comparing flexural profile for action considerations. My opinion is the cc test is seriously flawed and meaningless as softer deeper flexing rods like your 60's glass or cane models will react very differently compared to a contemporary graphite of the same line designation. Indeed two new graphite's of differing profiles, say a deep flexer and a tip action, faster rod of the same actual accurate line size designation will test totally differently too.

 

[NWADrew]

I've got some of the original fiberglass rods I started fly fishing with around 10 years old, and my dad's first graphite rod from the mid-70's. All are marked 5 wt. But by todays standards they are probably 2wt's. I need to pull them out and test.

 

[NWADrew]

I'm only familiar with Yellowstone Anglers deflection tests they use in their rod reviews. It's simply hanging a designated weight on the tip and drawing out the bending profile to visually see the rods bend, and thus action. It probably can't determine recovery rates that are in modern rod marketing lingo. But they definitely help you "see" the stiffness and tip flex profile between rods.

 

[NWADrew]

Yes sir - I have two 1 1/4' PVC pipes taped together to load the rods in and make sure they match exactly even in length and 45 degree angle before adding the 3.8oz to each rod tip. I was definitely expecting the 4 wt rod tip to land 3" below the 5 wt's. Here's a picture of the set up with a Sage 5 wt and my Winston B3X 5wt to give you an idea. Works great.

 

[DonW]

Not exactly common cents, but yes same basic test. I have found it's really accurate way to find line weight and with a few test casts will tell me everything I want to know about the rod at hand.

 

[deceiverbob]

It could be the case as S&S has alluded to in past post that the 5 wt has softened somewhat due to having more use than the 4 wt.

 

[sweetandsalt]

What is confusing, bob, is the flexes are exactly the same but apparently the #5 must be flexing lower down in the taper to make it below but parallel to the #4.

 

[nevadanstig]

If you're not using a standardized graph against the deflection test, you're not learning that much.
It's not suprising at all when deflecting your new 4wt vs an older 5wt.
The deflection tests were originally used to determine both weight and action of rods (ie a fast 5wt, or moderate 4wt).
As marketing and pursuit of a faster rod has taken over, this standardization has gone out the window. You can only make a rod so "fast" in a given weight class. A lot of today's fast 5wts are yesterday's 6wts, and so on for any given weight class.
And they wonder why Rio gold, grand, or overlining has become so prevelent?


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[silver creek]

Just wondering what everyone's opinion is on deflection tests. Since I'm still learning everything I can about rod actions as I buy - fish - sell numerous rods a year while filling my quiver, I've enjoyed Yellowstone Anglers deflection tests and built my own to mirror theirs. I just got a new Sage XP 4wt in last night that's in like new condition. It appears to be a newer model than the two XP's I bought my girl friend. But I compared her 5 wt to my new 4 wt in the deflection tester and the rods have an identical bending profile. The 4 wt was maybe 1/2" higher with a stiffer blank. That surprised me. I was expecting the 4wt to bend more with the rod tip lower with the same 3.8oz of weight. Anyone have thoughts on this result? View attachment 14842

Yes sir - I have two 1 1/4' PVC pipes taped together to load the rods in and make sure they match exactly even in length and 45 degree angle before adding the 3.8oz to each rod tip. I was definitely expecting the 4 wt rod tip to land 3" below the 5 wt's. Here's a picture of the set up with a Sage 5 wt and my Winston B3X 5wt to give you an idea. Works great.

View attachment 14846

I will admit that the results are unusual.

If that happened to me, I would check and recheck.

1. I would switch the weights in the first photo to see if the wts are in fact identical.

2. In the second photo, the cork handles are different and at that would change the angle of the in the PVC tube. I assume that the paper toweling cushioning the Sage is to palace the rods at the same angle AND to EXACTLY align the blank. UNLESS the blank is exactly aligned, the test is not valid. The two rods in the second photo are diverging at the right upper corner. Is this due to the angle at which the photo was taken or is this because the rods are under stress?

3. I disagree that the rods have identical flex based on the first photo. There is something wrong with the first photograph which I show in the photo below. The rod tips are at the SAME level. If the rod butts are at the same level and are at the same angle, AND the one rod bends MORE than the OTHER, the rod tip of the rod that bends MORE MUST BE LOWER. They are not. The rod tips are at the same level as I have label in the annotated image below.



The only way this can occur is if the rod associated at the rod tip closest to the arrow actually slightly stiffer in the lower third and less stiff at the mid and upper third of the rod. That is true IF the rods really are placed in identical positions in the holder. I have copied a flex profile from one of the Yellowstone Angler's rod test flex profiles below. Note the relationship of the G.Loomis Asquith to the Scott Radian. The difference is subtle but you can see that the Scott Radian is like the rod with the tip closest to the arrow and it is slightly stiffer in the butt and less so in the upper third.

Even more obvious is the difference between the Loop Opti Stream and the St. Croix Legend Elite. The tips are not exactly at the same level but you get the idea.

The reason the Yellowstone Angler use a flex chart rather than a photo is that photos are not exact since the location of the rod in space relative to the position of the lens creates a two dimensional image of the three dimensional space and there is magnification of the object that is closer and there is some Parallax (the effect whereby the position or direction of an object appears to differ when viewed from different positions, e.g. through the viewfinder and the lens of a camera) depending from where you are viewing the two rods in space. There is no parallax when the rod is place against a white board and the rod bend is traced on the board.

I am not saying you are wrong. What I am saying is that is that the photos may not represent to me exactly what YOU can deduce when YOU are there and see the rods in person. What I suspect is that the two rod tips were NOT at the same level from what you wrote in your posts but that is NOT what the photos show.

Please let me know if I am just plain wrong. I am trying to understand the photos in light of what you wrote.

 

[jds108]

It's critical to make sure your two rods are pointing in exactly the same direction at the base of each rod. In your pic, they're not exactly in the same direction (because of the different cork taper as pointed out by another poster)

The red lines that I drew - looks like the line on the right is longer than the one on the left.

Good test though. I've never gone to the trouble to do this, but I probably should.

 

[sweetandsalt]

Flexural profile, to reiterate has little to do with proper line weight and more to do with the rods action. To use Silver's example in the YA chart, the Asquith is crisper in the tip than Radian but Radian is stiffer in the mid-section than Asquith...I know this by casting them and the profile illustrates it. Incidentally, they both like RIO Gold in a #5 which is within spec. just at the upper end while Grand is a full size heavy. It is fake news that faster rods require heavier lines. Even my super fast Sage Method fishes best with a Gold.

 

[Ard]

I gotta say that you guys are so much more refined in your knowledge of rods and actions than I will ever be.

I expect some will smile at this but I was shown how to judge a rod a long time ago by a man 30 years my senior. In the years since then I've made more than a few fly shop owners quite nervous when I was rod shopping.

I just take an assembled rod - read the label to see what line weight it is - then turn it so the eyes are facing the ceiling...……… next you gently place the tip on the floor and press down with slow even pressure.

I'm not saying that this will work for everyone but it's always worked for me but then no one is going to tune in to see me press thirty 4 weight fly rods onto the floor either are they

Deflect on gentlemen

 

[osseous]

Kind of silly- as a fly line will distribute the load along the blank by dividing force among the guides, rather than concentrating it all at the tip top. They really should run a line thru the guides and hang the weight off it-

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[deceiverbob]

Kind of silly- as a fly line will distribute the load along the blank by dividing force among the guides, rather than concentrating it all at the tip top. They really should run a line thru the guides and hang the weight off it-

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Most of the weight will still be concentrated at the tip of the rod. Hanging a weight from the tip is essentially the same.

 

[silver creek]

Most of the weight will still be concentrated at the tip of the rod. Hanging a weight from the tip is essentially the same.

I'm not sure that it is the same.

We need an experiment to see if the hanging a weight by the tip or on a line attached to a line will be the same. My intuition says that there will be slightly less bending at the tip if the weight is hung by a leader attached to a reel vs a weight mono tied to the tip. In other words more of the stress of the force on the line will be distributed along the entire rod as it is during an actual cast.

How much of a change, I don't know; and whether the change is enough to make make a difference, I suspect will be dependent on two factors. The factors are the flex profile of the rod = more obvious on slower rod actions; and the greater the weight = more obvious difference,

The analogy I would make is that we get a sense of the "feel" of a rod when then wiggle it side to side in a fly shop, but it is not exactly the same as casting the rod.

Of course, I could be totally WRONG!

 

[sweetandsalt]

This is why my initial sense of a rod emanates from flexing it on a carpeted floor, increasing bend incrementally. I want to see where it bends, how much and how low and does the tip retain firmness. If I can flex it next to a rod of the same configuration I'm familiar with, I can learn even more. This is just and indicator, casting is required.

 

[bumble54]

For what it's worth, I have coat hooks in the hallway and some time ago I reversed one and hung my rods on them, one at a time, with butchers string through the eyes. Borrowing weights from the kitchen scales and hanging them on the end gave me a vague idea of how each of my rods bend and where stress points might be. Not made a halfpenny worth of difference to my fishing because I do that almost subconsciously and by feel. At least I'll have some idea of why my rods breaks and where next time I break one provided it isn't by walking into a tree whilst distracted. Rods broken whilst fishing 2, rods versus trees 4. Even then those broken whilst fishing where entirely my own fault, trying to lift too much sunken line when I got over excited when a very big fish moved and I rushed things.