Rob, Torsten......
Ok, I have 2 TCR 5 weights. One has a designated 5 XXD line on it with 55 feet of line out past the rod tip. The second TCR has a designated 7 XXD line on it at 55 feet as well. All else being equal will the recovery speeds and AA be the same for both rods?
Frank
PLEASE NOTE: This is the Archived Sexyloops Board from years 2004-2013.
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/
Common cents
-
Frank LoPresti
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 6259
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
- Contact:
Hi Frank!
If you have two TCRs that are labeled as 5wt. we can assume that both rods have almost the same overall stiffness and AA. The Action Angle is the angle of the rod tip against the horizontal at a deflection of 1/3 rod lenght - a rod with a stiff butt and a soft tip has a high AA, one with a soft butt and a stiffer tip has a lower AA.
The TCR and the XP seem to have a very similar AA between 70 - 72 and also the AA seems to be constant within a rod series. The major separating factor seems to be really the stiffness between two different labeled rods.
The recovery speed of the rod depends on the mass you're accelerating and the potential energy you have stored in the rod. If you put an 7 wt. line 55 ft. outside the tip of an 5wt. TCR it will have a slower recovery speed than an 5 wt. line with the same amount of line outside the tip, for a given rod bend (the bend of the rod corresponds directly with Epot that is stored in the rod).
Bye..
Torsten
If you have two TCRs that are labeled as 5wt. we can assume that both rods have almost the same overall stiffness and AA. The Action Angle is the angle of the rod tip against the horizontal at a deflection of 1/3 rod lenght - a rod with a stiff butt and a soft tip has a high AA, one with a soft butt and a stiffer tip has a lower AA.
The TCR and the XP seem to have a very similar AA between 70 - 72 and also the AA seems to be constant within a rod series. The major separating factor seems to be really the stiffness between two different labeled rods.
The recovery speed of the rod depends on the mass you're accelerating and the potential energy you have stored in the rod. If you put an 7 wt. line 55 ft. outside the tip of an 5wt. TCR it will have a slower recovery speed than an 5 wt. line with the same amount of line outside the tip, for a given rod bend (the bend of the rod corresponds directly with Epot that is stored in the rod).
Bye..
Torsten
^^ Warning: The above text contains misspellings, grammatical errors and of course nonsense.
Frank:
The action angle will not change since that is an intrinsic property of the rod. Put on a 1wt XXD or a 50 wt, it will not change.
Recovery speed is not something that the current published CC system measures. Bill is aware that this is a critical component of rod rating, and is working on it as we speak.
I appreciate your Devil's advocate approach here, Frank. Really. It's only by answering such questions that a truly useful system can be worked out. I have no vested interest in the CC approach. I like it because it appeals to the engineering side of my brain. Up until Bill's CC system came out, everything else was too complicated or too wishy-washy.
Why are you holding out on telling me where this river is that needs flies big enough for a 7 wt? It's one thing to be a crusty old curmudgeon. There is no need to be so selfish about trophy trout water. If you tell me about that river, I will tell you where I saw a 12 lb Steelhead at 3 pm today. Sound fair?
Rob
The action angle will not change since that is an intrinsic property of the rod. Put on a 1wt XXD or a 50 wt, it will not change.
Recovery speed is not something that the current published CC system measures. Bill is aware that this is a critical component of rod rating, and is working on it as we speak.
I appreciate your Devil's advocate approach here, Frank. Really. It's only by answering such questions that a truly useful system can be worked out. I have no vested interest in the CC approach. I like it because it appeals to the engineering side of my brain. Up until Bill's CC system came out, everything else was too complicated or too wishy-washy.
Why are you holding out on telling me where this river is that needs flies big enough for a 7 wt? It's one thing to be a crusty old curmudgeon. There is no need to be so selfish about trophy trout water. If you tell me about that river, I will tell you where I saw a 12 lb Steelhead at 3 pm today. Sound fair?
Rob
-
Paul Arden
- Fly God 2010
- Posts: 23925
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
- Location: Travelling
- Contact:
-
Frank LoPresti
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 6259
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
- Contact:
-
Paul Arden
- Fly God 2010
- Posts: 23925
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
- Location: Travelling
- Contact:
Hey guys,
I think this information is very interesting and useful and I don't have a problem with it. As a replacement for rod AFTM numbers - which is what is being suggested here I think? - I don't think that this is a simpler system. Maybe our problem here is that this system is trying to replace us? So the question is if I gave you free reign to choose any combination of numbers what would you choose?
If you could then tell us which rods come closest to your perfect score then maybe we could understand better.
Cheers,
Paul
PS nice to see you back Frank; hope you had a great trip!
I think this information is very interesting and useful and I don't have a problem with it. As a replacement for rod AFTM numbers - which is what is being suggested here I think? - I don't think that this is a simpler system. Maybe our problem here is that this system is trying to replace us? So the question is if I gave you free reign to choose any combination of numbers what would you choose?
If you could then tell us which rods come closest to your perfect score then maybe we could understand better.
Cheers,
Paul
PS nice to see you back Frank; hope you had a great trip!
-
sms
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:25 pm
- Location: Helsinki, Finland
- Contact:
Errr. There isn't such a thing really. Paul, you should know that. ???Paul Arden wrote:...for rod AFTM numbers.....
I'd really like to see the recovery speed in the CCS. It's coming alright and that's good. Also the balance point should be measured since it affects how light the rod feels. Bill is working on quantifying feel - something I don't really believe in. The quantifying part that is.
There is a problem with CCS since it measures ERN and AA only at one deflection. It's like if you'd look at engine's horsepower and torque on a data sheet but the power and torque curves aren't available. One point doesn't define the whole rpm scale of the engine. But generally, you know where you are. About.
So, for me CCS is something I can use to reduce the number of rods I have to try get my hands on to see if I really like them. But of course, this requires me to test different rods and to see what I like.
So one has to know what one likes and the CCS based numbers to find similar rods.
I'm here just for the chicks.
President of The Village Idiots of Vantaa Rapids
President of The Casting Federation of Finland
-Sakke
President of The Village Idiots of Vantaa Rapids
President of The Casting Federation of Finland
-Sakke
Hi Paul!
I also think that AFTMA numbers don't exist for fly rods - it was only specified for fly lines. The label on the rod is the fly line that the producer would recommend in combination with this rod for a common fishing situation.
It's your choice what line you are using, in my opinion it depends on the situation.
For instance my friend uplines his rod by one - not because he is a bad caster, I think he is a quite good one - because he needs accuracy at a distance between 20-40ft. And this is in my opinion more effective because the rod loads easier at this short distance, especialy static rolls are easier.
I'm always impressed which accuracy he gets with his nymphs.
I could imagine that short casts and especially static rolls are a pain with the TCR - I found already the RPL+ quite stiff (my friend asked me after I've shown him the RPL+5 blank if that is a 7wt. rod
). On the other side such a rod is surely quite good for distance and dry flies e.g. with the Austrian style.
I don't think that the CCS will ever be used as label by the big companies - but maybe as additional info in the datasheet it would be quite interesting.
And of course nobody wants to replace the test caster. In the car industry for example plays the test driver still a big role although they have developed much more complex measuring/simulation methods than we are discussing here.
You could ask the same question for the casting analyser that Bruce Richards and Noel Perkins have developed, why we need such a thing.
Bye..
Torsten
I also think that AFTMA numbers don't exist for fly rods - it was only specified for fly lines. The label on the rod is the fly line that the producer would recommend in combination with this rod for a common fishing situation.
It's your choice what line you are using, in my opinion it depends on the situation.
For instance my friend uplines his rod by one - not because he is a bad caster, I think he is a quite good one - because he needs accuracy at a distance between 20-40ft. And this is in my opinion more effective because the rod loads easier at this short distance, especialy static rolls are easier.
I'm always impressed which accuracy he gets with his nymphs.
I could imagine that short casts and especially static rolls are a pain with the TCR - I found already the RPL+ quite stiff (my friend asked me after I've shown him the RPL+5 blank if that is a 7wt. rod
). On the other side such a rod is surely quite good for distance and dry flies e.g. with the Austrian style.I don't think that the CCS will ever be used as label by the big companies - but maybe as additional info in the datasheet it would be quite interesting.
And of course nobody wants to replace the test caster. In the car industry for example plays the test driver still a big role although they have developed much more complex measuring/simulation methods than we are discussing here.
You could ask the same question for the casting analyser that Bruce Richards and Noel Perkins have developed, why we need such a thing.
Bye..
Torsten
^^ Warning: The above text contains misspellings, grammatical errors and of course nonsense.
-
Bill Hanneman
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
- Contact:
Frank LoPresti,
What are your arguments? Let's hear them.
The only thing the CCS does is provide objective numbers concerning the intrinsic properties of fly rods.
If you are simply against knowledge, I can't argue. If
CCS is too complicated for you, dont use it. That is a subjective decision I won't argue.
However, if you want better explanations, just ask. But don't expect it to do something it was never designed to do.
Bill
What are your arguments? Let's hear them.
The only thing the CCS does is provide objective numbers concerning the intrinsic properties of fly rods.
If you are simply against knowledge, I can't argue. If
CCS is too complicated for you, dont use it. That is a subjective decision I won't argue.
However, if you want better explanations, just ask. But don't expect it to do something it was never designed to do.
Bill
Frank:
Too easy to poke holes in? Get to the point Frank. What is your question?
Perhaps it is just me, but I get the impression that you haven't actually looked at the CC test. Neither it seems, has Paul. Perhaps Bill will send you both the details, so that you can get up to speed? I don't want to sound negative here, but to paraphrase a quote from a physicist- These questions aren't right. They aren't even wrong...
Let's take the issue of summing up a rod with one number or term. I don't see how that can be done. It certainly isn't the current situation - ie 9 ft, med fast action, 5 wt. The simple fact of the matter is that a rod has certain characteristics that are not amenable to distillation into a single number- at least not one that anglers could digest. If you doubt me, read the papers from Hoffman, Hooper, Perkins and Wertheimer et al. Thus, to suggest that Bill can use coins, lead shot and a protractor to turn a state of the art fly rod into the number 7, is a bit of a tall order... I guess one could run the CC numbers together and make a psuedo single number to describe a rod, but that's just smoke and mirrors stuff. He isn't that kind of guy.
Yet again, let me stress that the CC system will not replace casting instructors, gravity or Prozac. It simply sets out to produce easy to replicate data that defines the intrinsic properties of rods- relative to each other. It will not account for differences in casting style, casting ability or Feng Shui.
Too easy to poke holes in? Get to the point Frank. What is your question?
Perhaps it is just me, but I get the impression that you haven't actually looked at the CC test. Neither it seems, has Paul. Perhaps Bill will send you both the details, so that you can get up to speed? I don't want to sound negative here, but to paraphrase a quote from a physicist- These questions aren't right. They aren't even wrong...
Let's take the issue of summing up a rod with one number or term. I don't see how that can be done. It certainly isn't the current situation - ie 9 ft, med fast action, 5 wt. The simple fact of the matter is that a rod has certain characteristics that are not amenable to distillation into a single number- at least not one that anglers could digest. If you doubt me, read the papers from Hoffman, Hooper, Perkins and Wertheimer et al. Thus, to suggest that Bill can use coins, lead shot and a protractor to turn a state of the art fly rod into the number 7, is a bit of a tall order... I guess one could run the CC numbers together and make a psuedo single number to describe a rod, but that's just smoke and mirrors stuff. He isn't that kind of guy.
Yet again, let me stress that the CC system will not replace casting instructors, gravity or Prozac. It simply sets out to produce easy to replicate data that defines the intrinsic properties of rods- relative to each other. It will not account for differences in casting style, casting ability or Feng Shui.
-
Bill Hanneman
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
- Contact:
Paul,
The CCS was not originally intended to be a replacement for rod numbers— only a way to provide useful information about any rod. (Although it has effectively done just this in the field of rod building where it is extremely important to know how a blank will perform before buying it and using it to build a rod.)
On the other hand, Rod numbers tell you absolutely nothing about a rod except for the line its designer recommends—however he doesn’t tell you what the length of that line is required. (Don’t try to tell me that all designers use 30 ft.)
Of course, the CCS is not a simpler system—just a more useful one for describing rods. Manufacturers can put any number they wish on their rod—no one knows what it means, anyway.
Please don’t worry about the CCS replacing you or any other angler. It is you and only you that can make the subjective decision about what you like or want in a new fly rod. However, you can’t make any meaningful decision without some objective information. Also, you need it so you can effectively communicate what you desire to your favorite rod builder, fly shop owner, or catalog order department.
So you are giving me free reign to pick any combination of numbers. Of course, you recognize my choice will depend upon where and for what I intend to fish. That is why the angler can not be eliminated from the choice. You will always be needed.
Now, if someone were to offer to build me a new rod, here are my specifications.
length - 8’9”, graphite, 2 piece, ERN 3.4, AA 69, CCF 92.
Now, I would expect that a competent rod builder would go to Rodbilding.org and click on the CCS Data site (upper left hand side of page 1) which would lead to Superbob’s site.
From there, he would check the tables and determine the source of the blank which most nearly meets my requirements. If he couldn’t match it exactly, he could tell me how close he could come and I could decide whether I wanted to compromise power, action, or tip speed.
From this, you can see how the CCS can help an angler get the performance he desires. It is also obvious that the angler must know what he wants.
When my finished rod is presented to me, I would expect that it would be very similar to the “old” Sage 398 LL except it would have a slightly faster action and tip speed.
I hope this example makes the concept clearer. It also demonstrates why it could be economically profitible for rod manufacturers to generate and supply the CCS values to Superbob and/or publish them in their catalogs
SMS,
I don’t know about considering the balance point an intrinsic property of the rod. Balance point seems to me to be primarily a function of the reel’s weight and its position.
I’m sorry you don’t believe in quantifying feel. I’ll just have to change your mind.
Yes, you are correct. One does first have to know what one likes before one can duplicate it. Sorry it it isn’t a mind reader.
It seems I can’t win. The CCS is too commplicated for some and others fault it because it rates the rod on only one point (length/3). I would recommend you check out RodMaker Vol. 6, Issue 3, where I introduce and explain The Big Picture. I believe you will find it is almost exactly what you seek.
My best to all,
Bill
The CCS was not originally intended to be a replacement for rod numbers— only a way to provide useful information about any rod. (Although it has effectively done just this in the field of rod building where it is extremely important to know how a blank will perform before buying it and using it to build a rod.)
On the other hand, Rod numbers tell you absolutely nothing about a rod except for the line its designer recommends—however he doesn’t tell you what the length of that line is required. (Don’t try to tell me that all designers use 30 ft.)
Of course, the CCS is not a simpler system—just a more useful one for describing rods. Manufacturers can put any number they wish on their rod—no one knows what it means, anyway.
Please don’t worry about the CCS replacing you or any other angler. It is you and only you that can make the subjective decision about what you like or want in a new fly rod. However, you can’t make any meaningful decision without some objective information. Also, you need it so you can effectively communicate what you desire to your favorite rod builder, fly shop owner, or catalog order department.
So you are giving me free reign to pick any combination of numbers. Of course, you recognize my choice will depend upon where and for what I intend to fish. That is why the angler can not be eliminated from the choice. You will always be needed.
Now, if someone were to offer to build me a new rod, here are my specifications.
length - 8’9”, graphite, 2 piece, ERN 3.4, AA 69, CCF 92.
Now, I would expect that a competent rod builder would go to Rodbilding.org and click on the CCS Data site (upper left hand side of page 1) which would lead to Superbob’s site.
From there, he would check the tables and determine the source of the blank which most nearly meets my requirements. If he couldn’t match it exactly, he could tell me how close he could come and I could decide whether I wanted to compromise power, action, or tip speed.
From this, you can see how the CCS can help an angler get the performance he desires. It is also obvious that the angler must know what he wants.
When my finished rod is presented to me, I would expect that it would be very similar to the “old” Sage 398 LL except it would have a slightly faster action and tip speed.
I hope this example makes the concept clearer. It also demonstrates why it could be economically profitible for rod manufacturers to generate and supply the CCS values to Superbob and/or publish them in their catalogs
SMS,
I don’t know about considering the balance point an intrinsic property of the rod. Balance point seems to me to be primarily a function of the reel’s weight and its position.
I’m sorry you don’t believe in quantifying feel. I’ll just have to change your mind.
Yes, you are correct. One does first have to know what one likes before one can duplicate it. Sorry it it isn’t a mind reader.
It seems I can’t win. The CCS is too commplicated for some and others fault it because it rates the rod on only one point (length/3). I would recommend you check out RodMaker Vol. 6, Issue 3, where I introduce and explain The Big Picture. I believe you will find it is almost exactly what you seek.
My best to all,
Bill
-
Bill Hanneman
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
- Contact:
-
Bill Hanneman
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 0 guests