Bernd Ziesche
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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. 😀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!
