Yellowstone Angler's new shootout: 8 weights
- This topic has 33 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated Feb 14, 2014 at 6:08 am by
.
-
Posts
-
In the law, we have a process called a <em class=”d4pbbc-italic”>Daubert test where the judge evaluates the underlying science to determine whether the process is duplicable, peer-reviewed, and makes accurate use of the scientific method. If not, the expert’s testimony isn’t allowed into court.
Hello Zach,
since I am new on your forum, I like to introduce myself first of all:
I am Bernd Ziesche (39 years old) from Hamburg in Germany. I am a full professional fly fisherman making my living on teaching most areas of it – especially fly casting.I like your (whole, first) post about the Yellowstone test.
Before starting to work full time in fly fishing business I used to work in chemistry. Developing new analyzing methods/tests was one of my main fields. Now we didn’t use the “Daubert” test to check (potential) new methods on duplicabilty and so on, but we had similar tests. Of course without the test results being duplicable all new methods were worth nothing. Nothing? Actually it was less than nothing, because those test resutls easily could lead into total wrong decisions being made. I personally think, it’s better to have no results than having wrong ones!
I found this within the Yellowstone website in that article about the test:
With this in mind we started looking at these very powerful rods and tested both their 7 and 8 weight models – but with a WF-8-F SA Mastery Bonefish Taper line. Both the 7-weight Method and the 7-weight Winston BIIISX felt a whole lot better in our hands with an 8-weight line. The 7-weight Method was especially nice. The 8-weight Method is also a very good rod, but with a #9 line! You’ll see my scores with it, using a #9 line and they were FAR higher than with the 8-line that it is rated for. Bill Blanton also agreed with me, and he really knows 9-weight rods as he is using them all the time for both snook and redfish. If you are in the market for the best #9 weight rod, pick either a G.Loomis NRX 9 foot #9, or this Sage Method 9 foot #8 and you can’t go wrong.
Ok, to be fair, this of course is just a small part of the whole article. Anyway this part (for example) may help me to mark a few things here:
First of all there is no such rod like a “7wt. rod” (being linked to a specific stiffness as one might think). Those rods were just recommended (by the rod designer, for example Jerry Siem on Sage method) to be usually best used with a 7wt. fly line. Interesting to know: Not all fly lines, which are sold as a 7wt. will be a 7wt. fly line in truth. SA stays with AFTMA classification here.
Fantastic: The rod designers (who I think are both doing a hell of a great job) recommended both rods for a 7wt. line and team Yellowstone used a 8wt. fly line to test them.
And then they were using a Bonefish taper fly line. That line offers a 46 feet head (usually to be aerialized before shooting on distance).
Great, so now what happens, if I want to use that rod in combination with a different fly line taper: Let’s assume a head length of 72 feet instead (which means I would aerialize much more line = more weight) before shooting on distance? Simple answer: The Yellowstone test won’t be representative for my purpose.
And how about using a fly line being labeled to be a 8wt. line, but instead having a true 9wt. inside the package? Simple answer: The Yellowstone test again won’t be representative for my purpose.
How about, if I want to use that Bonefish fly line (the very same line) but mostly don’t want to shoot on distance?
Again the test won’t be too well, because it includes way more than my main range of fishing distance.
I am not even bringing different casting styles, different wind conditions and a lot more key figures into play here. But there are plenty!
Finally I would ask team Yellowstone another question about measunring their casting distances:
Did they measure the distances until the fly or until the end of the fly line?
To get the leader straight on distance usually is everything but nothing even casting experts can duplicate again and again. Mostly it is the end of the line entering nearly the same distance, but definetly not the fly!
This is just one example of what can be done to change the method in order to make the results showing a lower standard deviation (measure until the end of the fly line, not the fly).I was testing the Sage Method in October last year. I was using a 5wt. LONGbelly line on the Method being recommended to use a 6wt. line for. Why? Because I wanted to aerialize a HUGE amount of fly line. Using a lighter line is like using a stiffer rod for the same line. And this extra stiffness offers me additional carry.
I am not saying, that I would get very different results when using the same fly line taper team Yellowstone were using instead. It’s just that I would optimize the test in order to create duplicaple results and then I also would not generalize the results regardless of all the different key figures of each fly fisherman’s personal situation. It’s never going to work that way.
Definetly I always would check what the designer made this rod for first of all!
Then I also would test it with a) different head length (different carries) and b) with different fly lines classes (at least three different ones).
Oh! Now this would already mean: 3 head length times 3 line weights = 9 fly lines for testing each rod. Such a Yellowstone test (many rods) would take a week or more now. Next oh: How about constant wind conditions during that week?In summary I see two main problems with the Yellowstone test:
1) Like you already pointed out well: too low duplicabilty of the test results.
2) Even, if the duplicabilty would be better, there seems not much sense in generalizing the outcome of the test, since we all have significant different circumstances we will be fishing in.After all I want to know which rod to use combined with which line in my situation. To find the perfect (or just a proper) answer, it takes a lot of knowledge mostly.
Of course everyone is free to just buy the Yellowstone test winning rod now. I have a feeling they may have it in their shop.At least in a serious rod test I would want to get some measured numbers for rod stiffness (how much it bends under a given force) and rod action (where it bends).
Btw in my experience Sage always was and still is among the very best warranties of all labels! I don’t agree with the Yellowstone test results though.
All my best
Berndp.s.: Nice forum!
Bernd thank you for the post. That was very interesting; I need to re-read it and digest a bit, but your comments on standard deviation make a lot of sense.
In most casting competitions here in the U.S. they measure to the farthest point the line travels, because you’re absolutely right; typically the fly doesn’t turn over. I’m not sure which of those methods this shop used, but hopefully they were at least consistent about it…
Zach
So much for my effort to have a lively discussion here… I’ll think twice before doing such a thing next time.
Actually Jay, I think it has been a pretty lively discussion. It just went in a different direction than I think you thought it was going to. I wouldn’t let that discourage you from posting in the future. My guess is you could post about the shoot out next time George has one and get completely different responses. Just my two bits.
Joel
Most everyone, myself included, likes to discuss the results of rod tests. And Bernd hit upon many of the variables that can affect the results, e.g., line taper, weight, belly (and front/rear taper) length, typical casting distances, fly, leader, etc. And let’s not forget density and cross-sectional area.
Some . . . many . . . years ago, at the fly fishing trade show, I ran into a shop owner casting new rods at the casting pool. He started out by removing the manufacturer’s reel, and mounting one he pulled out of his pocket. I asked him about that, and he said “The only way I’ll ever know how one 5-wt rod compares to another is if I cast them with the same line and leader, and there’s no way all these rods have the same lines on them.”
It’s been years since line makers stuck with the AFTMA 30-foot standard, except perhaps “standard” lines, and the rod makers certainly have no standard. Many/most will tell you that they will design a rod for an intended use, and if that use typically involves aerializing 40 feet of line, they optimize the rod accordingly. Consider, as Bruce Richards once pointed out to me, that on average every ten feet of line belly is equal to about one additional line weight. So when you’re aerializing 40 feet of line (and assuming it’s all belly), you’re loading that rod with roughly one extra line weight. Which can certainly add to the confusion.
Add casting style and abilities, and it’s easy to see that all the variables can quickly overwhelm any line standard or corresponding rod designations.
The point, if I have one, is that even using as standardized methods as possible, the results might prove “correct” for many anglers, or not at all for others. That doesn’t mean the tester was wrong. Perhaps s/he was just different. Or wrong . . . It’s all very subjective, once in motion.
Good thread, I think!
I think the key is to understand what a shootout like this is and is not. I can’t think of many instances where any test like this doesn’t have a significant level of bias. Especially once they start including fun to fish/got to have as a category it lets you know that personal preference is 7% of the value in a test where the overall variance was only ~15%.
My personal take away is that excluding suitability of specific characteristics to a caster’s style there is no discernible difference in performance quality between the top 7 rods. If someone has an extra $600 to spend because they like a name or think it looks better then good on them.
Additionally, as long as we have forums like this I would never use a shootout like this to make a decision when I can discuss it here until somebody decides to take me out and show me the difference 🙂 But it sure does make for some fun discussions.
Consider, as Bruce Richards once pointed out to me, that on average every ten feet of line belly is equal to about one additional line weight. So when you’re aerializing 40 feet of line (and assuming it’s all belly), you’re loading that rod with roughly one extra line weight. Which can certainly add to the confusion.
Good thread, I think!Hi Buzz,
good points in your post.
What Bruce doesn’t know about flylines, probably isn’t worth knowing. In fact some of what Bruce does know about flylines we probably wouldn’t want to know either. 🙂
Besides that it seems to be a bit of a rough formula he forwarded to you here, I think.
Ok, in average he is right about adding round about one extra line weight when aerializing additional 10 feet of line – yes, of belly. So at least this formula would work on medium to long belly lines.
BUT (and that is a significant but in my experience), we also have to take into account: One and the same line weight will have a significant different effect on how we feel the rod bending and unbending (loading and unloading, if you prefer) during casting, if we distribute it (the same weight) on different lengths of line.
Let’s focus on a specific example:
Two heads outside the tip falsecasting…
a) a head of 30 feet weighing 210 grain (AFTMA 8)
b) a head of 40 feet weighing 210 grain (AFTMA 7 following Bruce his rough formula)
Head a) and b) are providing us the same overall weight, but the shorter head will feel significant more heavy during bending and unbending the road while falsecasting it. That is because the longer head offers a different relationship between the mass still in motion (fly-leg) and the mass already being stopped (rod-leg). And then both heads are also offering a different amount of surface, which has its affect on the level of skin friction DURING acceleration. Resistance DURING acceleration is what marks a high percentage of what we feel during casting!
Again to keep this simple: Offering the same line weight, the shorter head will feel heavier.
This mans I agree with Bruce about his formula in regard of weight (and weight only), 10 additional feet of line belly are comparable with adding 1 AFTMA class roughly. But it does not compare to the feel we have casting the same length but in one AFTMA class higher! (back to my example: head a) feels heavier)I asked him about that, and he said “The only way I’ll ever know how one 5-wt rod compares to another is if I cast them with the same line and leader, and there’s no way all these rods have the same lines on them.”
In fact I like to have one of my favorite lines (I use most often) with me on tackle shows, too. So to some degree I agree with him. But I think it again needs a lot of experience to compare rods based on that. Such a method easily can result in finding the one rod matching best for exactly that line. Using a different line might result in a different favorite rod. Personally I am casting with many different setups all year long, so I can transfer the feel I get when casting with my fav line on different rods. It’s just that I needed many years to get to that point.
I would always recommend to look at the fish and the avg. fishing situation first. Then decide for the flies and leaders. Then go on to the ideal fly line and finally match the rod a) to the fly + leader + fly line + fishing situation and b) to the fish (for example strong fighter or not?).
Poblem often is: Too many fly fisherman buy the rod first, because it is the most expensive tool in the box :).
Greets
Bernd
p.s.: Very complex topic :). Not easy to put in short words, especially for a none native english guy. 😀I think these shootouts are a joke. I think Zach hit the nail on the head. To me they are a commercial for whatever they want to sell that year. One needs only to look at their deflection charts from shootouts past to see rods with the exact same blank scoring different. I don’t care how good a fisherman He is…this is about sales
I think I was too harsh here…and for that I apologize. I really think they are doing the best they can and I certainly could not do a better job. Reading through the whole thing again they are pretty clear that these are their opinions and they do in fact welcome feedback. I must have been on a bad mood when I originally posted…
I think the key is to understand what a shootout like this is and is not. I can’t think of many instances where any test like this doesn’t have a significant level of bias. Especially once they start including fun to fish/got to have as a category it lets you know that personal preference is 7% of the value in a test where the overall variance was only ~15%.
My personal take away is that excluding suitability of specific characteristics to a caster’s style there is no discernible difference in performance quality between the top 7 rods. If someone has an extra $600 to spend because they like a name or think it looks better then good on them.
Additionally, as long as we have forums like this I would never use a shootout like this to make a decision when I can discuss it here until somebody decides to take me out and show me the difference
But it sure does make for some fun discussions.
Clay that was extremely cogent analysis, and you broke it down a lot better than I did.
So Mr Andersson has done a shoot out on 8 weight reels.
It’s completely laughable that he is giving the sound reel makes and the reel case/pouch so much weight, 10 points each.
And to top that, the handle design is give 20 points.
And, as always, “fun to fish, got to have” has hefty 20 points.So just in these categories, there are 60 points out of the 270.
However, the tolerances are only give 10 points to play with, likewise craftsmanship and maintenance free.
Anywho…
ps. they did a video blog of the “shoot-out” and they state that they couldn’t take all the reels to the field test. Which in my mind just make the entire thing a joke… The Galvan, and I love Galvan reels, was not taken on the field test, yet places 3rd??? Huh, did they not do the points system first, then take the highest scoring reels for testing…
What a load of rubbish, unfortunately, what he publishes determines if I can pay school fees and gas…
Hi Zach and others,
My problem with these “shoot-outs” is that they try to quantify their opinions. If they only left out the numbers (which aren’t reproducible anyway), and listed the rods and reels from most to least favoured by the experts, it would be completely clear that it’s about opinions. Applying numbers implies it’s science, and it’s a very long way from that.
The current format of these shoot-outs reduces the credibility of the company and I would never buy anything from them. I simply don’t trust them.
Cheers,
Graeme
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.