Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JohnP

Weight Watchers

38 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Here’s a nice look at one rod in the 10 weight class over a 20 year span

 

from 3 7/8 to nearly 5 Oz

 

quite intersting, don’t you think ?

.

 

2B9625E3-CE84-4439-9466-74F576B3DF75.jpeg

430683C8-93B2-41B7-974B-406B7781552F.png

25A60C8C-CCCD-4CA9-974E-308A8E5307A1.jpeg

7ADE287C-A44E-496C-A045-54DAD127AAE7.jpeg

Edited by JohnP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall weight is a bad metric. A better one would be the  blank weight if available, or the weight of the first three sections. The reel seat hardware and fighting butt and grip materials will all increase the weight but wont necessarily affect fatigue like you would think it would. The sage salt hd has a pretty fancy reel seat compared to the other rods you listed and that is probably why it is heavier. Also, even the weight of identical models can vary a bit depending on the cork quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Agree . All up weight is not always indicative of quality and performance.

 

Even a lighter blank. A blank can be made lighter to impress in the specs game but compromises may have been made.

 

But it is still interesting. With modern pre pregs Nano fibres etc we could reasonably expect today’s rods to be lighter.

 

Rods have improved somewhat over past twenty years. Interestingly  the rods of yesteryear and talking salt water here were often marketed as being able to cure your casting ills as they could magically form tight loops and send your fly out there in the toughest of conditions.

 

Rods often sold today using similar babble BS speak.

 

What has not changed is that most of us are not as good as the rods sre still. 

The Angler generally speaking has not advanced casting wise at all. In spite of forums. Videos and Availability of Teachers.

 

The fix go buy a new rod.

 

I still use some of my 20 year old rods because they are still good not because of sentimental reasons.

 

 

mike

Edited by Mike Oliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if you are an engineer and you try to explain this to your customers or management 

 

Would you say the product is 33% heavier than it was 20 years ago?

 

or 20 years ago they were not exactly telling the truth ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is "swing weight"? To what extent is it affected by the actual listed rod weight? Which is more important in casting comfort and performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tin Boat said:

What is "swing weight"? To what extent is it affected by the actual listed rod weight? Which is more important in casting comfort and performance?

Essentially, swing weight is a function of the rod's moment of inertia about the axis with which it rotates about (usually somewhere in the foregrip for a fly rod). The more weight that's out from the blank, the harder it is to make it's angular velocity increase (harder to rotate quickly). You can test the effect this has rather easily with a baseball bat. Hold it by the handle with one hand, then wave it like you would a fly rod while casting. Then, repeat, but hold the opposite end of the bat in your hand. It becomes very obvious the significant effect that swing weight has on a fly rod. The actual listed weight has little actual bearing on the rod's swing weight. What will effect swing weight the most is the weight of the sections furthest from the handle. The lighter those sections are, the lighter the swing weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

John

 

Enineers tend to have a much greater attachment to truth and facts than 

CEO’s and Marketing  types.

 

We are in the business of making things and solving problems.

 

We have to face down questions of the type you have posted.

 

We have been doing it for along time. If we did not  face up to the money men  the safety of a great many people would be at risk .

 

Money men have been known to  to over rule us Engineers. Ever heard the words said by people who are not even qualified to make the assessment. It should be oK. It is not needed. But what about the cost. It’s taking too long. It’s only a small risk. Its costing  us  too much money

 

Mass is not the only measure when it comes to evaluating a  fishIng rod.

 

If a company can make lighter than competition and maintain durability and performance  or even better still increase it then they gain a real competitive  advantage. If they can also at the same time manage any cost implications then   They should earn a bigger slice of the market.

 

They deserve it and the marketing, men don’t have to dream up babble  speak BS.

 

Mikey

Edited by Mike Oliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 mins ago, RedGreen said:

Essentially, swing weight is a function of the rod's moment of inertia about the axis with which it rotates about (usually somewhere in the foregrip for a fly rod). The more weight that's out from the blank, the harder it is to make it's angular velocity increase (harder to rotate quickly). You can test the effect this has rather easily with a baseball bat. Hold it by the handle with one hand, then wave it like you would a fly rod while casting. Then, repeat, but hold the opposite end of the bat in your hand. It becomes very obvious the significant effect that swing weight has on a fly rod. The actual listed weight has little actual bearing on the rod's swing weight. What will effect swing weight the most is the weight of the sections furthest from the handle. The lighter those sections are, the lighter the swing weight. 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 mins ago, RedGreen said:

Essentially, swing weight is a function of the rod's moment of inertia about the axis with which it rotates about (usually somewhere in the foregrip for a fly rod). The more weight that's out from the blank, the harder it is to make it's angular velocity increase (harder to rotate quickly). You can test the effect this has rather easily with a baseball bat. Hold it by the handle with one hand, then wave it like you would a fly rod while casting. Then, repeat, but hold the opposite end of the bat in your hand. It becomes very obvious the significant effect that swing weight has on a fly rod. The actual listed weight has little actual bearing on the rod's swing weight. What will effect swing weight the most is the weight of the sections furthest from the handle. The lighter those sections are, the lighter the swing weight. 

great analogy....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Probably has more to do with current flyline ratings/vs AFTMA standards...match the rod to the line grain weight it can cast and it correlates to old school standards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 mins ago, surfrat59 said:

 Probably has more to do with current flyline ratings/vs AFTMA standards...match the rod to the line grain weight it can cast and it correlates to old school standards...

The current uplined line weighting shenanigans is the other way around. It's the result of companies marketing "faster, stiffer, more powerful" rods which people then buy to make themselves feel good about their casting ability and then find out they cant cast them with a regular line so then line manufacturers decide make new ones they can actually cast.

 See the description for SA MPX: "Built a half size heavy to load rods"

Rio Grand: "A full line size heavier to easily load fast rod"

 

Also, there is no real metric that makes one rod an eight weight and another a nine, its all arbitrary. I like prefer to cast some of my 8 weight rods with a 6 weight line because I like how it feels. Am I doing it wrong?

 

Edit: just reread this and it sounds very confrontational, sorry if it sounds that way to you

Edited by iamnobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Iamnobody

 

I know surfrat and he is a very cool guy.

 

Your above post I think in a very few words encapsulates all that has gone  wrong. Very well put thanks for doing it.

So often in posts we see the not so magical words should I up line this new rod even before the guy has had his or her hands on it.

 

Personally it drives me nuts.

 

We have a new  guy Gooner  asking for help and it is so hard to help him buy his first set of kit.

 

It is hard enough for the guys who know the score and realise that you have to do your home work on fly lines and then really you have to get your hands on rods of interest to know which line you really need or if in fact you need to drop down a rating in the rod.

 

It is total crap. It is a good way to disscourage new enterants to the sport and kill your business. 

 

Buying habits Its are changing and guys buy more on line than ever before. Industry wake up.

 

 

The industry has not been helpful in resolving this at all. Their  answer is a sticking plaster  which is not waterproof . So we have a line  std not perfect but a reasonable starting point and they go and stray from it  and add further confusion  by staying with the same notation by calling a line say a 6 or a 9 when they are nothing of the sort. It really is BS.

 

It is Imposible to know well all the rods out there and how true to their rating they are. Made more difficult as rods have a short life before being replaced.

 

They need to rearrange the following words 

 

Foot themselves in shoot the.

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Oliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I love stirring the pot on an absolutely lousy day, when my fishing plans go to sh*t

 

 

 

C68999E8-80BB-4A7F-BD1C-40F6F1361F76.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If manufacturers can start using CCS, or at least make the data available to consumers, then that would be a fantastic step towards more effectively quantifying and relaying how a rod reacts to a defined load. Line weight numbers, and flex profiles will finally become an objective thing in the industry of fly fishing. It's going backwards in the sense of more numbers and more things to look at, but I'd strongly argue that it's a lot better than what we have to deal with now. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a lot more objective than manufacturers seemingly listing something as a 6 or a 9 wt in their eyes, when that number really means something very different to others.

 

For lines, we already have an objective system. The problem is that manufacturers don't adhere to it. They abandoned it eventually because rods abandoned accurate recommendations, and lines had to follow suit. As a result, we're stuck reading and hunting (for possibly hours) for the exact objective information on a line we're considering. Taper profiles, grain weights, head lengths, blah blah blah it's a headache. Some manufacturers provide the grain weights, which is a godsend, but it would be nice if they would adhere to the line weight system as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The weight thing is very interesting, especially if it refers to blank weight, otherwise not as much.  I wonder if/how the smaller diameter of most blanks these days effects the weight since smaller diameter almost for certain must mean thicker walls to maintain hoop strength. 

 

But Mike Oliver is so correct ... the great majority of fly fishermen can't cast a lick.  Sold fly rods for a long time and can't tell you how many times back then guys would talk a good game then go out to test cast the rod and mostly flail.  The percentage of decent casters was less than 30%, really good ones barely 10%, and true rod jockeys who could punch their loops through a brick wall - maybe 2 or 3%.  And the sad thing was most of the mediocre casters would almost instantly cast better after the most minimal suggestions.  Wait a touch longer on back cast, stop higher on forward cast, keep hands closer together when hauling, etc...and BOOM the lights would go on and what seemed a mystery a minute before was now something they could decipher.  I know what it feels like, two future friends had years before put their hand on my shoulder and smiled when I started waving my rod around like a nut.

 

!0 minutes of practice (using correct form and technique) a couple times a week in the spring before the bass arrive is worth much more than a new rod.  Stand at a 45 degree angle to your direction of casting and watch both your forward and back cast.  It's too bad Lefty is gone.  He made casting look so easy all of us watching believed we could fire it 100ft!

 

I will say most new high end roads are easier to cast because they have a longer loading window.  Nonetheless, don't think you'll get better while fishing.  Generally we're too focused on catching to spend any limited fishing time developing our method.  

Edited by mumichog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.