Rod Action Poll
- This topic has 21 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated Mar 4, 2013 at 8:31 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I think this will be interesting.
There are two major factors affecting rod action, and they’re usually split apart. First you have recovery rate, meaning the speed at which the graphite returns from load to its normal shape (i.e. straight) and secondly you have stiffness, which is the resistance to load or bending inherent in the rod.
There are a lot of rods on the market which are marketed as “fast action,” but which actually have medium recovery rates or below–they are simply stiff and thus resistant to bending deeply. This means they don’t have as far to go when they recover to straight; the effect is a bit like moving the pitchers mound closer to home plate. The ball may not be coming at 100 mph, but if it has to cover less distance, the batter *perceives* the ball as moving faster, because he has less time to react before the ball crosses the plate.
Do me a favor and be honest here. When the poll results are in we’ll talk some about particular rod models that meet the criteria above.
Since I started building rods, this is a subject I have become very interested in. Dr. William Hanneman wrote a lot about this in his Common Cents System for evaluating rod blanks.
There are actually three important measures: Power (basically line rating, 5wt, 6wt, etc), Action (where the rod bends relative to load. I think this is what you mean by stiffness) and recovery rate (how fast the material in the rod returns to its natural state, i.e. straight. This is usually measured by resonant frequency). Resonant frequency is to a large extent determined by the materials used, ie, bamboo (lowest), fiberglass, graphite, boron (highest), but it can be influenced by design.
One thing I noticed in your poll, is your used of fast, medium and slow to describe recovery rate, when these terms are typically used to describe action (stiffness).
Bob –
I avoided using the term “action” on purpose, actually. I think that has become a catchall category that no one really understands.
“Power” I can see as a rating but for these purposes let’s assume we’re all talking about the same weight of rod. (Obviously some peoples’ preferences may change depending on the rod weight we’re talking about, but I am getting at the rod you feel most comfortable with for whatever fishing you do).
I really don’t understand what you (or rather the Common Cents guy) means by “resonant frequency.”
When a rod starts to recover from the load it springs back to its natural position (straight), but it doesn’t just stop there, it actually goes past straight and then again springs back slightly beyond straight, so it actually oscillates back and forth until it comes to a complete stop. This is often called the damping cycle.
Zack,
You have just dived into a very deep pile of sloppy cow poop. Hope you can find your way out, there’s more misconception and misunderstanding of rod action than there is of women. 😉
JCI’ve already voted, but to confound things further, I use and like both “slow” and “fast” rods depending on use.
I plan on living forever, so far so good.
Jon –
I have some unusual resources and this is a continuation of conversations I’ve had with actual rod designers.
So far I think we’re seeing some pretty accurate assessments of what people are fishing with.
In speaking with my rod design friends and writing articles about this stuff, the thing they all stress is what a dark art building a fly rod can be. They will tell you over and over that this is more art than science, and more about feel than quantifiable or measurable factors. They also will highlight the fact that each rod in a line must independently be “dialed in” to the overall feel the designer is going for. So for example if you design a fast action four weight at one end of a line and then an 11 weight at the other, it’s not like you can just take the four weight taper and ’embiggen’ by seven steps. Both of those rods essentially have to be designed from scratch with a single target point in mind. The designers get pretty hush hush about this but I have the distinct impression that the hypothetical four weight and its 11 weight brother might not even use the same graphite, and certainly not in the same configuration/layout.
You have considerations like blank wall thickness and diameter, for example. If you’re rolling graphite rods you can achieve some of the same effects by either (a) making the diameter larger but the blank wall thinner (for a given rod weight) or (b) making the diameter smaller but the blank wall thicker. You can achieve similar degrees of hoop strength with either method, but each is sort of its own “school” – Sage fly rods does the thinner diameter/thicker wall, while Scott fly rods does the thicker diameter/thinner wall, just for example.
Then you have actual taper design, meaning how much you’re going to change that diameter and wall thickness as the rod tapers to its point. This is very very complicated, especially when you’re talking about multi-piece rods. One of my friends told me when he designed his first fly rod the pieces didn’t even seat together properly because of a very tiny math error, and he had to start over.
Limberness versus stiffness is a function of the type and *amount* of material you use. The holy grail of rod design is a rod that flexes very easily (i.e. highly limber) but also returns to straight very quickly (i.e. very fast). This theoretically gives the caster the maximum potential ability to generate line speed while also protecting light tippets, and the rods that achieve this profile tend to be super-high-end feeling and can usually be sold for top dollar (and of course they also take the most expensive resins and carbon fiber mixes, so they’re expensive anyway). The downside to that profile is that it’s a little like a sports car: in experienced hands it’s special, but if you give it to Justin Bieber he is going to run into an interstate overpass. Because those rods are both flexible and fast, they magnify tip tracking errors and can be very difficult to cast.
Most “fast action” rods marketed today are probably in the medium fast recovery/stiff category, such as a Sage XP for example (to take a rod that is safely off the market for discussion). The stiffness of the rod resists allowing the tip to run out of plane, literally making most people better casters, while the speed of recovery is fast enough to generate fairly high line speeds but not so fast that it overruns people’s ability to react to it. This profile of rod used to be very difficult to make but in the last ten years the materials available and the techniques required have become commonplace enough that even a bargain basement Cabela’s or Bass Pro rod can fit this profile. Which is one reason why rods in general have become so much better in the last decade (with most of the movement being on the bottom end).
Zach
Jon –
They also will highlight the fact that each rod in a line must independently be “dialed in” to the overall feel the designer is going for. So for example if you design a fast action four weight at one end of a line and then an 11 weight at the other, it’s not like you can just take the four weight taper and ’embiggen’ by seven steps. Both of those rods essentially have to be designed from scratch with a single target point in mind. The designers get pretty hush hush about this but I have the distinct impression that the hypothetical four weight and its 11 weight brother might not even use the same graphite, and certainly not in the same configuration/layout.
Great topic, this has always intrigued me for this very reason. You see somebody online looking for a rod recommendation for a 8wt and somebody else comes along and recommends rod X because they have a 3wt that works really well. What? How can you compare a 3 to an 8?
there’s more misconception and misunderstanding of rod action than there is of women. 😉
JCYou cannot be serious….or you found a stash of the good stuff in one of your old gear bags. 😛
Zach,
I completely get what you’re trying to do here, I just feel that it isn’t as really possible to pigeonhole action, there are just too many subjective aspects, you as much as said so in your reply. What I think the question should be, “what sort of rod action do you like for what kind of fishing?” because obviously there are many styles of fishing and many interpretations of what works best. I have several duplicate size/wt rods that have very different actions for different applications, so what do I prefer, it depends on whether I’m nymphing or sight fishing for stripers on the Cape, etc.
Best,
JCI am having a difficult time deciding what category the rods I love should be placed in. I fish a Sage 8wt Xi3, and 10 wt Redington CPS, or TFO BVK for most saltwater. For fresh water big trout, I love a 10 foot 7wt Z-axis and 10 foot 7wt Loomis native run or a 9 foot 7 wt TFO BVK, or for small fish a 5 wt z-axis. Where do these rods fit?
I totally agree that some models of rods of different weights fish totally differently. For example, I love a sage xp 5wt but I absolutely hated the 8wt. I was fishing them for different fish and with different lines.
It would probably get too complex but it would be interesting to see how everyone would characterize their rods according to the criteria you listed.
I plan on living forever, so far so good.
Jon –
Allan got closer to my intent, I think. After letting this conversation run for a bit I was going to ask people to characterize their rod of choice according to the chart above and see where everyone stuck. Based on the poll results so far I think this board is better educated and more honest about what they are “feeling” and expecting than I would expect to see in the general public, for whom “fast action” means an enormous range of things. That’s not the public’s fault; it has to do with how wide that term has been spread by advertisers. Any time the buying public learns that a term like “fast action” is equivalent to “good,” you can be sure that as many products as possible are going to scramble to use that term.
Incidentally here are excerpts from a very well-thought-out response from a manufacturer who’s been tracking this thread about efforts to “categorize” action, specifically via the Common Cents system:
The CCS is an interesting subject, and one that often generates quite a bit of controversy. I’ll address ERN specifically, although some of my comments can be addressed to the system as a whole. While I admire the intent of the CCS in trying to capture the intangibles of fly rod action, it’s my belief that the system does fail to account for some of the necessarily subjective attributes of fly rods.
As an example, if you were holding two six weight rods – one intended for use in saltwater, and one for trout, I would expect those rods to behave in a very different manner, and I would use each rod for a different purpose. A saltwater six weight would require greater stiffness for casting at longer distances, generating higher line speeds, and picking up longer lengths of line. A freshwater six weight would be expected to load at closer range and provide better tippet protection. Are both of those rods six weights? Their ERN rating would probably differ by a full line weight or more, but both would load and deliver a fly with a true six weight fly line for our estimation of their intended use.
I do believe that there’s value in using the CCS to better understand the nature of fly rods, particularly in developing a consistent vocabulary to describe a rod’s action. Where the CCS stumbles (in my opinion) is that it fails to take into account that rods are not fished in a vacuum, and that subjectivity in rod rating is a reflection of their varied use.
To circle back to what I assume was implied in [the correspondent’s] question, many have the belief that rods are designed and then cast with a selection of fly lines to determine their rod rating. In reality, the rods are designed around a fly line and an intended fishing range. Choosing to over or underline one of our rods will effectively move this range in, or extend it. While I haven’t run an ERN test on any [rods in a particular series], it wouldn’t surprise me to find that their ERN differs from our line rating.
I thought that was very instructive and it shows you how much thought goes into this from a manufacturing perspective.
Zach
As an after-thought and in reply to the previous post, obviously perception of rod action can be modified by line selection for different applications and even by selection of flies. In my first post about rods I like, I failed to mention the lines I like to fish with these rods. This influences where I fish these rod/line/fly combinations (e.g. big deep rivers vs big shallow rivers; or long-shots at tarpon I see vs. short shots at fish I see vs deep fish).
I guess the bottom line for me is I really do not care what category my rod fits in. Also, without having well defined terms this is not a very useful exercise for most of us. I know what I like and what will work for me in different situations. I also know I can modify my stroke to account for many varibles and and make any rod work.
Zach,
Yes, what CCS reveals is interesting and your guy, speaking about the two six wts is on the right track, but does not mention that most freshwater lines conform to AFTMA specs and saltwater lines tend to run one or two wts over, so a moderate FW six wt would naturally have a lower ERN than its SW counterpart designed to cast a six wt SW line.
I have two 9.5′ six wt rods from the same manufacturer, they have similar feel, they both cast a six line, but the SW (faster taper) rod is happiest casting the overweight SW line.
Best,
JonIs it weird that I voted “Super fast recovery/Limber” with a couple of modern fiberglass rod models in mind?
I also had a specific type of fishing in mind, as well. Skip to a different scenario, my answer would change.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.