I really haven’t kept up with rod technology…
With the newer graphites… and I’m talking from 20 or so years on… would it be that say a #5 now would be as powerful as a #6 back then?..I assume it would be certainly lighter???
Yes and no, it will depend on the manufacturer and models.
Obviously technology is much better then 20 years ago. Take a look at rods made with multiple composites for example.
The orvis zero gravity rods, a graphite/boron rod, are a good example of this new technology
Winston’s IIx graphite/boron rods would be another example.
I beieve these rods are stronger and lighter then their equivilent weight rods of 20 years ago without a doubt.
Rob
Hey idahofisher,
You mentioned the ZG and BIIx, boron/graphite mix rods…what’s the truth to Winston’s claim on the BIIx that you can cast it 30’ and 100’ with the same lack of effort and assurance of accuracy?
Jim, truthfully I think it would have to do with the casters ability more then any other factor.
I am sure a good tournament caster could probally cast almost any rod at least 100’, accurately.
On the other hand I seriously doubt that a beginning caster would be even able to make a cast of 100’, let alone accurately.
I have been fly fishing for more then 30 years I am not sure if I could do it with one of their rods.
Great marketing tool if it’s true though?
Rob
Rob,
You hit it right on the head…casters’ ability; and, the industry knows it: justifies asking for $650 for this magical rod that will make you a casting fool, bubba.
I’ve seen it a thousand times here and on other boards. The minute a newbie or one/two season fly angler posts that they can’t get any distance they’re told to get a better rod and voila!!! Problem solved.
Practice, practice, practice; 15-30 minutes a day and you’ll throw a Cabela’s Tradition 100’ after a month!!!
Wish I had the thousands of dollars I’ve spent in the last seven years learning that lesson!!!
>>Winston’s claim on the BIIx that you can cast it 30’ and 100’ with the same lack of effort and assurance of accuracy?<<
It seems to simply like a longer stroke with the same, smooth application of power that you would use on short to medium casts. I’ve had people cast my BIIx’s that had it in their heads that these were Winston’s ‘fast’ rods then proceed to overwork the rod. Once they learned to let the rod do the talking they truly learned to appreciate the range of those rods.
I don’t know how things work for everyone else but I always seem to sacrifice some accuracy for distance.
It didn’t take long for this thread to get away from the question! I have had some fiberglass and early graphite rods that contained glass. The stiffer ones certainly were heavy and the light ones were very soft. A 5wt was good to about 40’ and was excellent for close work and roll casts. However on longer casts they just folded up under the force required. (Let’s not start the over-40ft-cast sidetrack here.) Newer rods are stiffer for the same weight and usually increasingly stiff and light the more you spend. This leads to longer casts, easier mending, less fatigue, -and because the loops are generally tighter for a good caster - greater accuracy.
Jackster,
You got the point also; the caster makes or breaks a rod Mfr/Model, and generalities are erroneous.
And, there was no sidetrack on the original!!
I throw my Orvis TLS 5wt. 100’ and my custom 6’10" Stowaway 3wt. 70-75’ Sorry for any 5wt. that only gets 40’. But, I have a 75’X 175’ vacant lot next to me and I practice what I preach; PRACTICE!!! Therefore, I stand by my original statement: hype is hype, the caster makes the rod. The problem is, the vast majority of fly anglers practice their casting when they’re FISHING. Have a rotten day, it’s the rod, I need to get a new blankety blank and I’ll be able to cast.
Jim
OK, actually that’s what I thought JC meant when he said “no”. When I saw that I thought things out a little better…I hope…let me try re-questioning.
I’ve been using a Sage #6 for years for most of my fishing. Without getting into the “you should try the rod thing”…given newer technology could I expect to purchase a #5 wt and get the performance out of it as I was getting from the older #6 wt…or even better performance?
A few observations IMHO…
Sure the better caster can get more out of a given rod.
Yes, I would expect better performance of a modern #6 with an older #6…that’s just speaking …“in general”.
I guess the question is will a current #5 vs an older #6…cast as far…handle a fish…feel nicer in hand [lighter]…etc.?
Actually, the waters are muddied over this. JC is both right and wrong on this subject, but only because noone has truly defined a “5wt.” or any “wt.” rod. So that what one rod manu may label a “X wt.” another manu would label a “Y wt.” rod. If you check out the articles explaining the Common Cents System (Flyfishing Basics -> Rod Building -> Common Cents System) you’ll get some idea of why things get complicated. What we need are rodmakers to adopt the CCS’ equivalent rod number (ERN) and action angle (AA) nomenclature and things can be more cut and dry.
Even if the rodmakers would keep the old “wt.” system and tag it to the ERN (so that a “wt.” is tagged to the nominal ERN, so that an 5 wt. rod has a range of ERN = 5.1 to 5.9) it would be a big improvement. If you check out the CCS data site, some “5 wt.” rods have ERN’s much higher or lower than the 5.1 to 5.9 range, at least if rodmakers would agree to tag the wt. to the ERN you would know that, a 5 wt. rod would not have an ERN greater than 5.9 or less than 5.1.
Paul
I have to stick with my original answer.
Again line weight designation of a rod is based on the weight of the first 30’ of flyline and how it it effects the loading (bending) of the rod.
The original question was “are today’s rods lighter and stronger then the equivilent weight rods of 20 years ago”? Some are, yes!!!
I think that the following is a good example of this.
If you look at the weight of a new 5wt such as the Zero gravity rod compared to a equivilent model, say a Sage RP rod of 20 years ago.
The Orvis is lighter in weight even though they are both rated as 5 wts.
IMO this makes me believe that the weight to strength ratio of the Orvis rod is stronger then the old Sage, even though they are both designed to throw a 5 wt line.
Rob
[This message has been edited by idahofisher (edited 10 March 2006).]
Idahofisher,
Sorry, but I must disagree with you when you say, “Again line weight designation of a rod is based on the weight of the first 30’ of flyline and how it it effects the loading (bending) of the rod.”
The line weight designation (e.g., 6 Wt.) is nothing more than the subjective opinion of the rod’s designer relative to the AFTMA Line he recommends the angler use?i.e., his personal opinion.
On the other hand, the line number (i.e., weight) of the line the angler will wish to choose to use is a function of (1) the power of the rod, (2) the length of the line (or distance he wishes to cast the fly), and (3) the frequency of the rod (i.e., feel) most pleasurable to the angler.
Since the designer has no idea in the world as to the personal perferences of the angler, one might say that it is presumptive of the designer to put any number on the rod. It also can be confusing to anyone who is not intimately aware of that designer’s preferences and goals.
However, the designer does have the means of determining the strength, power, and frequency of any rod he might design. Consequently, if he were to provide this objective data on the rod (rather than his personal opinion), it would be a simple matter for any angler to fit the line to that rod which will best serve his intended application.
Castwell,
“If a #5 rod had the power of a #6 rod, it would be called a SIX…”
So, are you telling me that the number on a rod is an accurate measure of the power of that rod?
I guess I’ll have to stop by next month to say hello to LF and straighten you out—again.
Bill
Bill,
That’s exactly what I was getting at. Some rod manufacturers rate their rods for more than 30’ of line, therefore, a rod that would be labelled as a 7wt. for 30’ of line may be labelled as a 5 wt. or 6 wt. rod for a longer line. That is, and I believe you agree, why something like the CCS needs to be adopted by the manufacturers. Even if they went back to the 30’ designation for line wt. line manufacturers also mess with the standard weights so that they can sell lines that are guaranteed to increase casting distance.
Paul