This is an older test of 5wt rods has some interesting results...

[tcorfey]

This test done in Norway back in 2006 between 8 5wt rods with 8 casters has some interesting results.

8 rods - 8 Casters

Regards,

Tim C.

 

[sweetandsalt]

It is interesting. I do not spend time on Sexy Loops, how many of you do? Clearly the group of casters were very talented as throwing a 5-weight 36 meters is no small accomplishment. I fail to get the Common Cents, ERN thing as the flexural profile of differing rods of the same actual line weight deviate significantly in profile with equal weight hung off their tips. I do not own a TCR but have extensively fished two, a #9 for permit and a #6 on the Missouri. These are not normal fly rods but highly specialized for distance accuracy with true weight lines and demanding of focus and timing. I do have a Scott S3 which likes to be overlined by a half size but is a normal fishing rod. I'm unfamiliar with the European rods included. It is no surprise that fast "stiff" rods with tons of lower taper power are going to hold more line in air while retaining a no-fold tip to speed a line for distance. It is also unsurprising that such rods are not the most intuitive and pleasurable to fish with.

 

[tcorfey]

I thought the standard deviation thing was most interesting, It would be interesting to see standard deviation used in accuracy tests with multiple casters. For example, in many shootouts the casters say this rod is more or this rod is less accurate at various distances and you know they are casting at targets. So if they used targets like they use for the casting accuracy tournaments and scored their casts then produced the results in say four rounds for each caster at 20, 40, 60 and 80 feet. That would tell you if each caster was able to learn how to adapt to the rod in a short period and how long it took most casters to adapt to the rod in use it would also be interesting to see if each caster had the same or similar accuracy results with a particular rod. I would like to see those results.

Regards,

Tim C.

 

[trev]

Is there a system or set of standards that can determine the actual line weight of a rod?

 

[sweetandsalt]

Is there a system or set of standards that can determine the actual line weight of a rod?

If there is, I do not know it. I start with what the rod maker says it is then try lines incrementally heavier and in some cases, less common in modern rods, a bit lighter (older Orvis and Winston rods). With a handful of exceptions, I find most all my contemporary trout rods favor a true weight line within the AFFTA spec window.

So, and I'm not quoting actual numbers here, a fast #5 rod like Sage ONE using the CC system rates as a 6.5(?) weight due to its lesser tip deflection. But in casting/fishing genuinely insist upon a true weight 140 grain SA MEDT (XXD), same line used by Sexy Loops. Putting on a heavy line like Grand just kills its tip responsiveness.

And, Tim, variation in individual cast performance as in this test may well be a reflection of lack of familiarity with and getting the precise stroke timing just right with some of these rods.

 

[el jefe]

It is interesting. I do not spend time on Sexy Loops, how many of you do? Clearly the group of casters were very talented as throwing a 5-weight 36 meters is no small accomplishment. I fail to get the Common Cents, ERN thing as the flexural profile of differing rods of the same actual line weight deviate significantly in profile with equal weight hung off their tips. I do not own a TCR but have extensively fished two, a #9 for permit and a #6 on the Missouri. These are not normal fly rods but highly specialized for distance accuracy with true weight lines and demanding of focus and timing. I do have a Scott S3 which likes to be overlined by a half size but is a normal fishing rod. I'm unfamiliar with the European rods included. It is no surprise that fast "stiff" rods with tons of lower taper power are going to hold more line in air while retaining a no-fold tip to speed a line for distance. It is also unsurprising that such rods are not the most intuitive and pleasurable to fish with.

Richard, I am with you in failing to get the CCS/ERN system, though I understand what they're trying to do. Like you, I have a Scott S3 (905, as in the test, versus your 904), and while I overline it slightly with a SA GPX WF5F, it does not at all feel like a 7.4 rod. In fact, I fish the S3 at the same distance as my Sage ZXL 590, which is lined with a true-to-weight line, and both feel like appropriate 5-weight rods, at my typical trout fishing distances of 25'-50', with most of my fishing done in the lower half of that range. I also had a TCX 690, which I lined with a true-to-weight line, but its charge was to reach distant pools at 70'+ plus. That thing did not feel like a normal 6-weight at all, but maybe around an 8-weight. It would seem like there is some disconnect between static measurements, a la the CCS/ERN system, and active performances, which reduces the usefulness of that system.

 

[desmobob]

It is interesting. I do not spend time on Sexy Loops, how many of you do? <SNIP>
It is no surprise that fast "stiff" rods with tons of lower taper power are going to hold more line in air while retaining a no-fold tip to speed a line for distance. It is also unsurprising that such rods are not the most intuitive and pleasurable to fish with.

I stop by Sexy Loops occasionally. Those guys are hard-core into casting tech and casting instruction. It's over my head, but interesting to read sometimes.

I thought the surprise was that the stiffest rods didn't cast the furthest... the rod that measured stiffest finished last, with the Orvis T3 and Loomis that finished as longest and third-longest casters being the two softest rods measured. The second place Sage was also in the bottom third of stiffness measured amount the rods.

I was also impressed that they added the SD measurement. That gives a nice impression of the rod's "freindliness" toward casters. The longest and third-longest casting rods also had the lowest standard deviations. Cool.

I only have one Orvis T3 (9' 9wt.) and it's my favorite striper rod. I broke it last spring and Orvis repaired it. I really enjoy that rod and I hope it lasts a long time!

 

[dr d]

hi,


i know there maybe a lot of problems - i try to solve them partially with painstacking precision

by mesurements>> handling fixed exact horizontal! deviations under 1°! then ccs/ern will be more exact.

beyond it use the 3,75°/15° measurements of theo matschewsky.first for exact line # and second for

another verification of power-factor(there maybe more in Internet under theo matschewsky 3,75°/15° - method).


alltogether give a reasonable exact "diagnosis" imho.


have fun.


thomas

 

[sweetandsalt]

dr d, You might have to write that in German and I'll have my wife translate it, you lost me.

desmobob, My wife's 7-weight is a T3, weirdo reel seat and all, an unsung Orvis rod.

el jefe, You know I run a GPX on my S3 too and while I say I'm going to replace it with a 1/2 heavy Cortland Modern Trout, I've yet to prioritize that. CCS aside, TCX is not a normal rod. Yes It likes a line like RIO Gold but is designed to aerialize lots more than the 30' front of the head thus, yes, adding to its grain weight load. Using a heavier line though ruins its tip responsiveness so the extra mass is supported by lower points in its potent taper for distance and line speed.

 

[tcorfey]

And, Tim, variation in individual cast performance as in this test may well be a reflection of lack of familiarity with and getting the precise stroke timing just right with some of these rods.

S&S you are exactly correct, that is information I would like to know about a rod. Is it easy for anyone to pickup a particular rod and get a reasonably accurate cast and at what distances is that true. Perhaps it is a rod that requires you to focus on your cast or is not conducive to less than perfectly timed casts in order to get it to perform. Maybe it is a rod that excels for most people at the short and mid ranges but is not terrific for most at longer range casts. I think the general public would find that information useful. Going four rounds would also let you know if it was easy to learn the rods characteristics or is it a case of some people get it and some don't.

Regards,

Tim C.

 

[dr d]

hi,

die ccs/ern - Vermessung muss sehr genau erfolgen>>>absolut horizontal (mit Fixierung des Handteils) und

Wasserwagen - Kontrolle.

Zur zusätzlichen Kontrolle muss man meines Erachtens in #3 -#7 die Theo Matschesky - Methode benutzen

(genauer im Internet beschrieben unter 3,75°/15° - Methode nach Theo Matschewsky).

Hierbei wird die Rute an einer Wand exakt horizontal befestigt und die Spitze mit 2 verschienen

Gewichten auf 3,75°(Schnur - Klasse) und 15° (Power) ausgelenkt.

Die Details findet man in seinem Aufsatz.


Viel Spass

Thomas

 

[Unknownflyman]

hi,

die ccs/ern - Vermessung muss sehr genau erfolgen>>>absolut horizontal (mit Fixierung des Handteils) und

Wasserwagen - Kontrolle.

Zur zusätzlichen Kontrolle muss man meines Erachtens in #3 -#7 die Theo Matschesky - Methode benutzen

(genauer im Internet beschrieben unter 3,75°/15° - Methode nach Theo Matschewsky).

Hierbei wird die Rute an einer Wand exakt horizontal befestigt und die Spitze mit 2 verschienen

Gewichten auf 3,75°(Schnur - Klasse) und 15° (Power) ausgelenkt.

Die Details findet man in seinem Aufsatz.


Viel Spass

Thomas

Translation to Engelska

Hi,

the ccs / er measurement must be carried out very precisely >>> absolutely horizontal (with fixation of the hand part) and

Water cart control.

For additional control I think you have to use the Theo Matschesky method in # 3 - # 7

(described in more detail on the Internet under 3.75 ° / 15 ° - method according to Theo Matschewsky).

The rod is attached to a wall exactly horizontally and the tip with 2 rails

Weights deflected to 3.75 ° (line - class) and 15 ° (power).

The details can be found in his essay.


Have fun

Thomas

 

[trev]

Is there a system or set of standards that can determine the actual line weight of a rod?

If there is, I do not know it. I start with ...
.

so, there is no "actual line weight" of a rod except that perceived as best in the hand of a user. The "actual line weight" of a given rod might be #4,#5, or #7 as perceived by different casters?

I see the point of this study as showing that the stiffness of the rod with a given line has less to do with the cast distance than the skill of the user. It appears that all users were able to adapt to the varying stiffness and complete extremely long casts.
It also appears that some users adapted better to one rod than to another.

For readers not familiar with CCS; The Common Cents System
https://common-cents.info/CCS_basic_Layout_1.pdf

 

[sweetandsalt]

Translation to Engelska

Hi,

the ccs / er measurement must be carried out very precisely >>> absolutely horizontal (with fixation of the hand part) and

Water cart control.

For additional control I think you have to use the Theo Matschesky method in # 3 - # 7

(described in more detail on the Internet under 3.75 ° / 15 ° - method according to Theo Matschewsky).

The rod is attached to a wall exactly horizontally and the tip with 2 rails

Weights deflected to 3.75 ° (line - class) and 15 ° (power).

The details can be found in his essay.


Have fun

Thomas

Hi
the ccs/ern - measurement must be done very precisely - absolutely horizontally (with fixing of the hand-part) and
water trolley - control.
For additional control, I think you have to use the Theo Matschesky method in #3 #7
(more precisely described on the Internet under 3,75°/15° - method according to Theo Matschewsky).
Here, the rod is precisely mounted horizontally on a wall and the tip is railed with 2
weights to 3.75° (cord - class) and 15° (power).
The details can be found in his essay.
Enjoy!

 

[trev]

A link to Theo Matschewsky's essay would be nice, especially if it is translated into English. All I found with a search was various Facebook pages.

 

[trev]

Wasserwagen - Kontrolle.= water trolley - control? = (maybe?) spirit level to set the grip perfectly horizontal

 

[80302]

This is the kind of rod performance shoot out I like to read about...
The Yellowstone version was all fine and good until I saw the the "Got to have it " category.

 

[dr d]

here´s the link:


Die wahre Schnurklasse: Ruten einfach vermessen

have fun


thomas

 

[dr d]

Die wahre Schnurklasse: Ruten einfach vermessen


thomas

 

[sweetandsalt]

so, there is no "actual line weight" of a rod except that perceived as best in the hand of a user. The "actual line weight" of a given rod might be #4,#5, or #7 as perceived by different casters?

I see the point of this study as showing that the stiffness of the rod with a given line has less to do with the cast distance than the skill of the user. It appears that all users were able to adapt to the varying stiffness and complete extremely long casts.
It also appears that some users adapted better to one rod than to another.

trev, That is not what I intended to suggest. I think most all well designed rods do have a "correct" line match up that is mostly accurate to their rating. Sure, most rods can throw heavier lines for specialized purposes reaching lower into their tapers. But I'm referring to pure casting as with a dry fly rather than a sunk head for streamers for example. I have a brace of 5-weights; the shorter more moderate action one excels at loading in close and is sharp out to 50', the 9' one is fairly fast and is best from 40 - max distance...both are happiest with exactly the same #5 RIO Gold.