Thanks Thanks:  4
Likes Likes:  45
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    Quote Originally Posted by mike_r View Post
    Perhaps not a term that describes a given rod taper, yet one that has been ponderous for me is the term, “Power” as applied to a rods’ description. G Loomis fly rods and I believe conventional fishing rods were described by two attributes:
    Action
    Power

    An example would have been the Stream Dance GLX HLS Fr1085-4
    Action: Fast
    Power: Med-Stiff
    I think of "power" as analogous to horsepower and for a fly rod, I think it is the "lifting power" of the rod. "Rod power" is how much dead weight the rod can lift. I think this is a good definitions for all fishing rods.

    For example, in fishing this would be a powerful rod.



    However, some carve out a unique definition for fly rods which is how much line of what weight can the rod cast? So if a 6 wt rod can cast a heavier line further than a 5 wt rod, a 6 wt would be more "powerful." And if one 6 wt rod can cast the 6 wt further than another 6 wt rod, it would be more "powerful."

    But in fact if you have a fast action 10 ft 5 wt rod and the same rod in a 9 ft 6 wt, the 10 foot 5 wt would be able to lift more weight. The reason is that being 1 foot longer, the 10 foot 5 wt would have a thicker rod butt and the strength of the rod butt determines how much stress the rod can take before it breaks.

    Read this post in which I try to define the characteristics of a fly rod.

    Fly rod line rating, power, and action - an explanation.
    Regards,

    Silver



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

  2. #22

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    hi,


    also imho highly interesting and actual>hp:tom morgan rodsmiths>>>tom morgan´s rod philosophie (graphite).

    he was experienced with hundreds of tapers a.s.o.


    have fun and stay healthy.


    thomas

  3. #23

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    I don't know what manor of piscatorial beast the strong youg fellows in Silver's image are lifting from the deep but that is what a boat rod with roller guides is for, not for casting. There are situation s a fly rod is called upon to do heavy lifting too; in the end game of fighting a big tarpon, certainly tuna forms of any size, even a big bass down in a rip. So we use #9 - 14-weight rods in these lifting scenarios. Sometimes the best rods for this fishing are not the sweetest casters though there have been significant improvements in recent years. Often in a saltwater series of fly rods you will experience a design shift. The #'s 7, 8 maybe even 9 are lovely casters with accuracy and distance dialed as a priority while the 9 or 10 and above are geared toward lifting and durability while doing so.

    In trout sized rods I see "power" differently. Sure, of course, two same configuration rods can significantly vary in lower taper power reserves and the one with "more" will likely cast further in the same casters hands. However, there isa amore fundamental desigh reason for power reserves. Al rods must taper from tip to butt hence the butt is always thicker. Each section of the taper at its core must support the section above. The tip alone can not support the weight of the dynamic cast line mass without a stronger mid taper so when a deeper flexing rod has a softer mid taper too the tip is more prone to unsupported counter flex effecting the loop formation capability and accuracy. And when the entire rod blank flexes into the cork, the rod is bumping against its limitation of line support and control. Maybe OK if your specific habitat only involves short casts but there is more; even then these supportive transitions also enable line speed. So even on a little spring creek in order to unfurl your loop and control your leader so as to waft the fly upon the surface with grace and precision, some line speed is a prerequisite. This is the most important part of "power" in a trout rod, its supportive contribution. Naturally as habitat scale increase along with demands for more widely varied presentation distances, power increases are advantageous. And that does not necessarily mean going to a 6-weight. I have a particular 9'/#4, an NRX, that has suitable lower taper potency to present artfully at distances an average 5-weight would start to have trouble straightening its leader out at.

    This afternoon I hope to take new to me Sage Trout LL 8 1/2'/#4 to the park to fish for grass. This is a small stream rod and though they may cast the same line, it and the NRX would never be selected by me to fish the same water. This is a medium flexer with a very slender butt that has just enough reserve to support its quick recovering tip to control line and long leader a little further out than I would likely require it to. I'll try two lines today.

  4. Likes fly2field, FlymanSJB liked this post
  5. #24

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    Quote Originally Posted by okaloosa View Post
    wondering what you think of this (I enjoy his euro nymph rod reviews very much)
    Fly rod review protocol | Trout & Co
    Anyone who went to this fine link, tell me what you think. Clearly serious and thoughtful and in-line with our thread here, there is an important component of this ERN evaluation that mystifies me. Adding pennies to the bag to get the tip of a horizontal rod to flex to the distance equal to 1/3 its length supposedly determining the weight of fly line to ideally flex the rod is totally dependent on the design of the taper. I guarantee you that it will take a pile more cents to bend my Igniter #5 tip to the same point as a Trout LL tip or to bend a Winston Pure tip...yet all may like the same true 5-weight line. Common Cents just does not take our subject here, Taper Design, into account. Is there some logic I'm missing?

  6. Thanks okaloosa thanked for this post
    Likes FlymanSJB liked this post
  7. #25

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetandsalt View Post
    Anyone who went to this fine link, tell me what you think. Clearly serious and thoughtful and in-line with our thread here, there is an important component of this ERN evaluation that mystifies me. Adding pennies to the bag to get the tip of a horizontal rod to flex to the distance equal to 1/3 its length supposedly determining the weight of fly line to ideally flex the rod is totally dependent on the design of the taper. I guarantee you that it will take a pile more cents to bend my Igniter #5 tip to the same point as a Trout LL tip or to bend a Winston Pure tip...yet all may like the same true 5-weight line. Common Cents just does not take our subject here, Taper Design, into account. Is there some logic I'm missing?
    I read the link. I'm not that familiar with the Common Cents approach, but here it is: The Common Cents System. Taper is accounted for in this system through something called the "action angle." It seems to be nothing more than an attempt to develop a universal rod weight and action rating system. Something the big manufacturers will never get behind, obviously. I'm sure there are others here who can go into it in detail and it's probably been discussed extensively in the past. It seems to follow something Kelly Galloup says in one of his videos about how the rod manufacturers, in their race for fast action rods, just basically started understating rod weights, calling a true 6 or 7 weight a 5 weight, or something like that. My one foray into fast action rods happened about that same time. I bought a 5 weight Scott STS that would cast a 5 weight line about half a mile. It makes a nice 7 weight for trout distances.
    "Calling fishing a hobby is like calling brain surgery a job" ~ Paul Schullery

  8. #26

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    It is that Action Angle I'm refereeing to above with the pennies required to bend the tip one third the rod's length which can not compensate for actual line appropriateness. Kelly was involved in St. Croix's development of "Bank Robber" a super fast and powerful rod and one example of fast that does require a size or two up-lining...not a bad rod though if used as Kelly intended.

    I fished a Scott STS, two actually, one a 9 1/2'/#8 salmon rod that was really smooth with a true weight long belly salmon line and the other similar to yours, a 9'/#4, a very nice rod in the GLX/XP class that was a novel break for Scott and I fished it too with a true #4 line, nice rod. The latter Scott S3 did need a 1/2 size overlining as it was developed using awful SA GPX.

    Where in Montana do you reside?

  9. Likes fly2field, mandotrout liked this post
  10. #27

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    S&S: As I said, my understanding of the Common Cents thing is fairly limited, but from my quick skimming of it, I thought the number of pennies in a bag required to flex the rod one third of its length was supposed to determine inherent "power" of the rod, which is equated with the line weight best suited. The action angle is the angle the tip makes from horizontal once the rod is "loaded" to flex one third of the length. They use this to describe whether say, a given 5-weight (based on the number or pennies) is a medium, medium fast, or fast action rod. This, says Common Cents is related to the taper of the rod. Again, I'm no expert and I don't necessarily agree completely with the system, but that is what it seems to say relative to taper and inherent power. Also, the system was developed about 20 years ago, and clearly rod taper design and materials science have advanced significantly over that time. I haven't really been able to determine where the definition of a rods "power" (using their terminology) is determined by flexing the rod one third of its length came from. Is that an industry definition?

    I still use my 5-weight STS for stillwater fishing, but I do overline it with a true 6 weight line.

    I live in Helena. I enjoy your descriptions of fishing the Missouri. I spend a lot of time around Craig in the off season.
    "Calling fishing a hobby is like calling brain surgery a job" ~ Paul Schullery

  11. #28

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    I’m glad SnS started this thread, but it IS remarkable just how much unneeded and confusing information there is. That is what happens when an industry has very little standardization. What is a practical fly fisherman to do? So, And I do this from time to time (usually for my nephews and other people who are impressed easily), I open my mouth and clear up an entire body of information. I don’t really expect any of you to send money for the contribution I’m about to make... well, some cool flys would be nice. (Pm for address.)

    Here goes, and don’t let the simplicity fool you.

    If you can cast it left handed over 30’ it’s not really a 3wt, it’s a 4.
    If you can cast it left handed over 40’ it’s not really a 4wt, it’s a 5.
    If you can cast it left handed over 50’ it’s really a 6.
    If you can cast it left handed over 60’ it’s really a 7.
    And if you can cast it, left handed, over 70’, its at least an 8wt (with a shooting head)(and your drunk friend is measuring)

    Okay, that covers the trout distances and it should help any serious angler if applied correctly. I’m hoping one of the moderators will be suitably impressed and give me next years NAFFF subscription for free. I’m tired of sending in my $50 bucks every year.

    Gregg

  12. #29

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    Why with the left hand? Anyway, no. As described above about the purpose of power in trout rods, as you lengthen line out the tip-top you are certainly increasing the mass load on the rod. This does not make the rod change its line rating though, rather illustrates how the increasing power as you bend the rod into lower, thicker sections supports the upper taper. Line rating by the makers is the weight of line required to optimally load the rod to cast thirty feet of line out, rod design facilitates increasing resources to cast longer heavier loads of line without collapse...or not. A 5-weight rod viewed in slow motion at 65' would likely illustrate the tip almost fully straight with the line with the effective casting point in the taper somewhere lower down the rod.

  13. Likes FlymanSJB liked this post
  14. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    L'Étoile du Nord
    Posts
    2,873

    Default Re: Rod Taper Design Language

    It`s no Secret, or maybe it is that with modern rods, even though the rod casts the same lines, the rods perform way better in all aspects and I can do way way more with less rod, Large fish are way more easily landed with a modern 3wt or 4wt than an old softer rod as far as power. its not likely no matter how hard you pull and use the reel your going to break the rod.

    Hell I landed a 25 LB northern pike on my fast graphite walleye rod, and pretty handily, and its about like a 4wt in size.

  15. Likes herman35 liked this post
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Understanding Rod Taper/Design and My Quiver
    By brokeoff in forum Fly Rods
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-12-2018, 07:15 AM
  2. What taper design roll casts the farthest?
    By madison320 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-16-2017, 07:29 AM
  3. NIB Panasonic DMC FX66 Lumix PINK Digital Camera JAPANESE LANGUAGE ONLY
    By Ebay USA in forum Digital Cameras for sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 11:00 AM
  4. Veiled Language in Posts;
    By Ard in forum Forum news and announcements
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-10-2011, 11:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Do Not Sell My Personal Information