If we have to wait for me to get organized, the thread is in real trouble.
The TFO and Bass Pro Dogwood Canyon rods will get measured this morning. The measurements I took on the bamboo rod were without guides and it is ready to be wrapped so it will be the first to be compared before and after, but that is still a day or two off for Flex Coat to cure.
In the mean time, I am going to see about putting together a data form to organize my data a bit better. I also want to get into the line measuring part of the system since I need to measure the lines on the TFO and Bass Pro rods to see how they match up with the rod measurements as I have no data whatsoever on those lines. I don’t even know what brand they are to go get data. In this part of the exercise, I will be attempting to apply the system to troubleshoot the clunky casting rod and to substantiate why the other rod seems easier to cast for me.
For the sake of comparison …do all folks take the labeled length as true or do folks actually measure each rod.
I’ve never actually measured my rods but assume there is some variance…guess I’ll have to measure mine:(…but as I said if comparing with other people’s results everyone should do it the same…
TFO Pro Series, 4pc, 9ft, 5W (Sorry, Bill. That is what it says on the rod.)
45 Pennies
ERN=5.65
AA=68*
So this translates to a rod that should load properly with a #5 line. I have not measured the line, yet, but it was designated a WF5F because I put the sticker on the bottom of the reel foot so I wouldn’t mix it up with the other reel with the #6 line on it.
Now for the other rod, the clunky casting one.
Bass Pro Shops White River Dogwood Canyon 2pc, 9ft, #6 (Again, what it says on the rod)
45 pennies
ERN=5.65
AA=68*
The same as the TFO! I measured both rods two times to be sure I was getting it right. I have not weighed out the line on this one, either, but if it has a true #6 line, the rod is over loaded most of the time. This would explain why it seemed to work a little better close in. I wasn’t loading it as heavy. It’s a 9 ft rod, though. Not really made for “close in”.
Have a Sage 5 wt 9 ft RPL 4 piece…broke 5 1/2 inches off the tip…replaced the whole section to original length…also put tip top on broken section as a backup…
Measured rod with both sections…
Full length rod,
41 pennies
ERN = 5.05
AA = 60*
Rod with shorter section…
48 pennies
ERN =6.08
AA* = 50*
My confusion is with the degrees…I would have thought the shorter rod would have been stiffer and faster…
Someone mentioned…“assuming a level floor”…when talking about setting up the horizontal rod butt and tip distances…sag is expected
Turns out my garage floor slopes and my measurement from the floor to horizontal rod butt is 56 3/4" and rod tip to floor is 57 1/4"…so how do I compensate for that?
I figured the 36" for the 9 wt rod from the 57 1/4" …but obviously there should be some sag.
There are a couple of solutions possible. Put a nice straight 10’ 2x4 down, prop whichever end to get it level and measure from that. Your measurements suggest there is only a half inch difference, but there is some sag in the tip that would make the difference much greater. If you can determine the true difference in elevation of the floor, with a laser pointer and measuring tape or something like that, then you will know that at a certain distance out, you need to compensate x amount. I think leveling the 2x4 is easier.
I took my vertical measurement from the floor to the center of the blank just in front of the grip. I did not compensate for tip sag. I subtraced the 1/3 figure from that measurement to get how far off the floor the tip needed to be.
?My confusion is with the degrees…I would have thought the shorter rod would have been stiffer and faster…?
?The part of the tip that makes it faster. That missing 5.5" adds leverage and therefore speed to the tip section.?
You have to be careful of the use of the words ?faster? or ?slower? . They are adjectives and have no meaning until you identify the noun they modify. Rods are often described as fast action when the speaker actually means fast responding or recovery.
A fast action rod is one which first appreciably bends near the tip. The AA provides a measure of this
A fast responding rod is a ?stiffer? rod which exhibits a higher fundamental frequency.
The action of a rod has no relationship to its stiffness.
If you cut off the tip of a rod, it will be shorter and have a faster recovery, but its action will be slower. Words do mean something, so watch your grammar.
I didn’t factor the sag in. I took the measurement from the floor to the center of the blank just ahead of where everything is clamped down which worked out to just in front of the grip, 51". Subtracted 36" from that and loaded pennies in the bag until I hit 15" from the floor with the tip.
The rod’s own weight is going to contribute to the loading to some degree, particularly on lighter rods.
Don’t overthink it or make it more complicated than what it is.
I’m in the process of going through my rods thinking it’s fun for me to “understand” them:rolleyes::rolleyes:.
It strikes me though that it’s a shame line weights aren’t weighed exactly…obviously there is a range and that range can go in the wrong direction to match a given ERN …e.g. if you have ERN =5.05 and a particular 5 wt line is on the upper end of the 2 wt line allowance…you will be close to one line wt off…correct?
An ERN of 5.05 would come very close to a 4.5W line. The Cortland Precision lines come in full and half steps (Almost like they were designed for this system) and the Scientific Angler’s GPX lines all weigh in about a half step heavy.
RIO and Cortland have weight information on their websites, but it is hard to come by most other places.
My experience with the CCS is that it will get pretty darn close…remember that the difference in line weights is something that can be adjusted to in how you fish the rod…none of us always casts with an exact amount of line past the tip. This varies, and that allows us to fine tune the rod/line relationship to suit both the situation and our personal casting styles and abilities.
What I like about a measuring system that has roots in reality is that it ‘explains’ a lot of things. Like why a rod doesn’t seem to cast well with it’s rated line…and you measure it and find out that it’s really more suited to lighter line. What the right line would be for an older rod that doesn’t have or has lost it’s markings. How to match a line to spinning rod blank that you want to make into a fly rod (something I’ve done a lot of). Things like that.
I agree with Buddy. I was not always an engineer. I started as a technician, taking what engineers designed and making it work. While an electrical Engineer will obsess over exact voltages, amperages, and the like, he forgets that most of his components that determine the voltages, amperages, and the like, have a tolerance of 10%-20%. He has a snowball’s chance in h3ll of getting those exact measurements, but the results are “close enough”. The engineer that has never been a technician has trouble seeing this.
The same thing applies to our situation. There is a gray area with the ELN. We can obtain lines in half steps so it makes sense to start with the line that the CCS tells us is the proper line to balance the system. That is getting pretty darn close.
If the ERN and ELN are close to X.0 or X.5, the choice is pretty clear. If we are at X.75 or X.25 what do we do? Myself, since I probably don’t put 30’ of line out there most of the time, but close, I would go with the heavier line and probably be just fine.
Yes, I have one, but what are you going to do wth the number you get? Compare it to another rod? What does that tell you? Everything and anything you do to a rod blank lowers the number.
Any angler can get essentially the same information using CCF without having to spend several hundred dollars for the tool.