I have several Lew Childre fly rods, 9/5 2 piece. Single foot guides, they USUALLY pull line from the reel without even trying. CANNONS they are.
Buddy Sanders,
allow me to quote from a few of your replies and comment the quotes:
“Here’s what you missed. To compare apples to apples here, we have to get the rod to flex the ‘same’.”
No, to compare apples to apples regarding whether shortening a rod will make its action slower or faster, we need to apply the same force - not give the rod the same flex.
“The ‘Weight’ of the rod refers to how much energy is required to flex the rod.”
What flexes the rod is not energy but force - or weight, if you like.
“Shortening a rod blank from either end slows the action of that blank.”
No, shortening a rod from the front end (where the blank has the smallest diameter) will make the action of any rod faster, because the force applied to the rod now results in a smaller torque to any part of the rod having the same strength as before (given that torque is FxD , where F is the force vector applied, and D is the distance vector between the applied force and the point of torque). Hence we can compute that the rod will recover earlier and with a greater velocity over a shorter distance - making its action faster.
The results of shortening a rod from the back end will depend on the qualities of the particular rod, and might therefore need to be treated individually for each rod.
JC…what was it about casting the underlined rod that made it so devastating?
Thanks!
Charlie
Okay guys,
I’m going to give this up.
I’m not capable of explaining this.
I’ve HAD it explained to me by experts, several times, so I ‘believe’ I’m correct.
I have been wrong before, and while I don’t think I’m wrong about this, you’ll have to ask someone with more expertise in explanations.
I can see it, I can ‘prove’ it with the rod in my hands, but I just can’t type it out so it convinces.
Maybe it’s just a mater of terminology, but who really cares at this point?
Buddy
[url=HTTP://HOMETOWN.AOL.COM/RSAN2708/INDEX.HTML:a70d9]HTTP://HOMETOWN.AOL.COM/RSAN2708/INDEX.HTML[/url:a70d9]
Take it from an old retale guy. The manufacture only has to have 1/2 the inventory to make a sale same with the shop selling it if 2 guys come in one looking for a 5 one looking for a 6 you need only stock 1 rod model 5/6 to make 2 sales!!! and that is the real reason.
Regards
Rich
Russ Darr,
Thank you for your response. Just to be sure that I understand, when a rod has a duel line weight recommendation the lighter of the two, is the recommendation for the first 30’ of line?
Acknowledging that you may not want to speak for the entire industry, would it be your guess that this would be true of most manufacturers that show two weights?
I was delighted with your statement that the industry is moving away from showing two line weights on one rod.
I understand that it is best to cast a rod with different line weights before purchasing.
SlamminSalmom,
Thats been my position. I felt that if the manufacturer, with the rod in his hand, couldn’t tell what weight of 30’ of line cast the best with that rod, how could I tell by reading the catalogue?
OkieBass133,
Thanks for posting the chart.
Gardenfish,
When you have a setup that works for you, that’s all that matters. Being able to purchase one that works well by mail is another thing.
fcch,
It’s clearly better if you can try the rod and several different lines, but there are sponsors on this site who I cannot visit. If I am to buy their products, it must be by mail.
I wish that I had your friend’s talent.
Grey-Sedge,
No, it sure doesn’t mean that the rod is bad.
Rich Ward,
Are you saying that it’s a “one size fits all, world”? You may be right.
Bob
chascomly,
I don’t mean to take words out of JC’s mouth, but my guess is this. We know that weight is what flexes a rod, and 30 feet of a 6 weight line weighs X-amount of grams. If you switch to a 3 weight line, you should be able to cast a considerably longer amount of line to equal the weight of a 6 weight. I’m also assuming that the rate of acceleration of the casting stroke, combined with perfect timing has a great deal to do with success. The devastating part is the tremendous amount of line you SHOULD 
be able to cast.
Make sense? Holy Cow, I getting way to anal.
A free gift waits for those who ask.
Lotech Joe
[This message has been edited by LotechJoe (edited 01 March 2005).]
A comment on underlining. I have in the past put a DT2 on a 6’6" 5wt fiberglass rod. I was amazed how much line I could carry, and I’m no expert.
Jim
Mukluk,
Yes, the line weight recommendation is suppose to refer to the first 30’ of the line, because that is the standard. But remember that most casters are carrying more line in the air than 30’ and because of this, and the taper design of a double taper, double tapers actually end up being heavier than WF’s once you get beyond the first 30’. This is also why double tapers are still fairly polular with people that like to do a lot of roll casting.
Russ
Lotech - thanks for the explanation - that makes sense!
Another reason for manufacturers to get away from the dual line designation is that by doing so, they can increase the number of rods sold. If common thought is that a rod can be over/underlined by one size from the recommended, a rod designated with two weights - say 5/6 - can adapt to two other lines - 7/4 - thus handling 4 weights total. A rod with one size designation can only handle 3 line sizes, thus the consumer needs to buy more rods to cover his range of fishing.
Charlie
“5/6 would refer to a rod best suited for a DT5 or a WF6.
Even though the first 30 feet of a DT5 and a WF5 would have the same grain weight, once you get out of the head in your casting on a WF and into the running line you’ll have a lighter line in the air.”
Cortland, the above information confuses me (not a difficult feat to be sure). I understand the x/x (ex: 5/6) weight designation refers to DT/WF lines. Since as you point out that both DT & WF lines of the same weight actually have the same weight in grains (mass) up to where the WF tapers down into the running line, the WF line, foot for foot, actually weighs less than the DT. I can understand that. However, if the WF line after the 1st 30ft is lighter than the DT line of the same lenght, then shouldn’t the DT line refer to the HIGHER portion of the x/x rod designation, as in (WF)5/6(DT)?
Line weight is determined by the weight of the first 30’ of line…A WF line is thinner than a DT line(of the same number) once you get beyond that first 30’. Thus the first 30’ of line may be the same, but measuring 40’ of line makes the WF lighter.
At least that’s my understanding…
I will say this 1 more time The double line marking has nothing to do with the LINE it is done strickly for the dealer. The 3/4,5/6 and 7/8 were never intended for fly shops they were for full line sports stores they only need carry 3 models to fit every sale.Do you want a light, med. or heavy rod. I have sold thousands of thies rods. if the guy said med. you looked over your shoulder to see what line you had the most of and that would determin if it was a 5 or a 6 you may not like it but that is the truth!!!
Rich
Rich,
Your assertion about the double line rating being for non flyshop retail, though I do think there is some truth to it, seems in contradiction some evidence from products available in the past and today. Though I’m not an expert on the retail history of rly rods, I do recall some guy named Press Powell explaining to me the DT/WF meaning on the rods his shop produced. I don’t recall seeing Powell rods in sport shops and as far as I can remember, most of the pre-Schwab Powell rods that I remember had dual ratings. Same with today’s Hexagraph rods for another example. One of my local shops that has been in business for 35 years has some old Sage models with dual ratings.
IF that were the case Would not a rod line would look like this 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7 7/8 I have never seen it this way But will tell you I have never sold powell rods But i did sell sage from the time they made salmon and steelhead drift rods I don’t rember Jimmy having any dual line rods even when he was with fenwick before sage. but I have been wrong before. could be this time too.
Rich
Rich,
As I said, I think that you are correct, at least with respect to some rod series. Perusing current catalogs shows some low end models with few rods in series and few or no overlaps. But today you see dual line designations on some two handed rods series (Loomis GLX 8/9,9/10,10/11, 11/12 for example). In less expensive models, the Cortland CL series is an example that has dual designations for 3/4, 4/5, 5/6 … 9/10. Different length and piece combinatins too so there are seven different 5/6 models.
Regardless of what is intended, I find the dual designations often confuse newbies. It seems that some companies have dropped them in recent years - like on the St. Croix Imperial and Redington Red.Fly series.
[This message has been edited by tailingloop (edited 04 March 2005).]