Jump to content
Fly Tying
Dondi12

One size larger

Recommended Posts

great thread. i'm going to try experimenting with different lines and my favourite rod. i don't spend big bucks on fly line, but they all different characteristics none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me see if I understand. Bear with me I use to ride the short bus. I should "experiment" with different line weights every time I purchase a new rod because the manufacturers can't be trusted to label their own rods correctly? With that said, wouldn't that GREATLY be influenced by my lack of casting ability? I cast o.k. In a pond. I think I can get it out there pretty good (50' plus) not always the delicate placement we all prefer. The occasional "cannon ball" happens because I still am trying to muscle it. But now I will try my 3wt. Line on my 4 wt rod and see what happens. I don't know that I'll be able to tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, let me see if I understand. Bear with me I use to ride the short bus. I should "experiment" with different line weights every time I purchase a new rod because the manufacturers can't be trusted to label their own rods correctly?

 

The main problem with the whole line rating on rods these days is over the past decade or so big name rod companies started pushing faster action rods like there was no tomorrow. Everything you read was telling you how you needed the fastest rod out there to be a good fisherman. You needed a super fast rod to cast super tight loops and punch out 90ft of line. Didn't matter if you were fishing a stream only 50ft wide, or using a indi rig and nymph/shot rig, they wanted you to believe you needed fast fast FAST...and a lot of anglers bought into the hype and believed it. So all the rod companies started trying to one up each other and make faster rods than the next guy. Problem is that there is no industry standard in line ratings on rods, a company can rate a rod with whatever line rating they want. So you started seeing rods that in all truthfulness were crisp 6wt's being rated as super fast 4wt. There are instances were you want a fast rod. Big rivers slinging a sink tip with big streamers, trying to punch a tight loop under low hanging branches, saltwater flats fishing etc etc. But truth be told the majority of anglers do much better with moderate action to mod/fast action rod that loads with the proper amount of line out from the tip.

 

That's why people such as myself that run a custom rod business will do as someone else mentioned and I ERN my rods so that I can tell my customers what the true line rating of a rod they get from me actually is. I've ERN a ton of factory rods just to see what is what and I've found 4wt's that ERN as high as 6.7 and 1wts that ERN at 4. So it is best to try a line wt up as well as a line wt down on a factory rod to see how it feels because you may end up finding it will cast better with a line other than what the factory put on the label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ERN = Effective Rod Number. It's the number you come up with by doing a common cents system test on a rod to determine the actual rod wt. Where as rod wts only give you whole numbers, for example 4wt or 5wt, the ERN will give you numbers to the decimal point such as a 4.8 for example which would mean it is in the upper end of a 4wt and more of a 5wt rod. Lots of good info on the CCS and ERN for rods here if you want to see a bit more detailed info on how they are done and what they actually mean http://www.common-cents.info/ It's something you can do yourself to test the true wt of your own rods at home. Just make sure you use the correct pennies to do the test as some year pennies have a different weight. I think it's 2001 and after where the weight of the penny changed, I'd have to look at my bag of pennies I use for my CCS to see for sure though what year it is, can't remember off hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are all different! Casting styles are different too! I have a 5wt multi tip switch line that works better on a 11, 4wt than 11, 5wt! I've even casted a 11/12 on a 15, 10wt rod! I use a 7/8wt line on my 7wt costal seatrout rod & a 8/9wt line on my 8wt coastal seatrout rod! Butter half wt up i say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presentation factor must come into play too. It has varying importance depending on the situation.

 

In some fishing situations -- like casting dries to spooky trout -- there is a penalty in using over lined, weight forward (WF) lines that splash down and pick up with more noise than do the lighter DTs.

 

Triangle taper(TT) lines with a long tapered front section in front of heavier WF segments can give delicate presentations at longer range but accuracy gets harder to achievement as you move to longer ranges.

 

Those heavier WFs do give good distance for weighted nymphs and streamers and generally fish across a variety of ranges whereas the TTs can be wimpy at shorter ranges unless you scale up with a heavier line.

 

Rocco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"It's the number you come up with by doing a common cents system test on a rod to determine the ACTUAL ROD WT."

 

"It's something you can do yourself to test the TRUE WT of your own rods at home."

 

Saying that the ERN number is "true" or "actual" is very misleading. There is no such thing. Rod weights existed long before the common cents system. The weights given to rods then and now are very subjective. The ERN number is objective, however, whether or not an individual agrees that a rod with an ERN of 5 casts best with a 5 wt line is STILL very subjective.

 

To my knowledge, no rod or line mfg uses the common cents system. I have noticed that some rod and line mfg give a grain weight window or range for their products. This is especially true for Spey and switch rods and line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not misleading what so ever. The ERN gives you the actual wt of the rod, that is a fact not an opinion and there is nothing subjective to it because you are using a known weight to flex the rod a known amount.

 

When you flex the rod 1/3 of the OAL length that tells you what it takes to load the rod to it's optimum point for casting. Just as you said about the grain ratings on switch/spey rods, how do you think they get that grain window rating? They measure the weight it takes to flex the rod X amount. That's what CCS does. The CCS gives you the ERN by using X amount of pennies to flex the rod 1/3 it's OAL. Then the number of pennies (a known weight in grams) is then converted over to an ERN. I am not saying you HAVE to line the rod to what you get with an ERN test.. I am saying the ERN will tell you the baseline of what line the rod should be rated for under NORMAL circumstances. Then you can play with other line weights to find what suits your needs from that point.

 

There's really nothing to disagree or argue over. It's simply a proven way to use the method that gives you the baseline rating of what a blank should be rated as under normal conditions based on the weight it takes to load the blank. What you choose to do with that info is up to the end user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite the contrary on the manufactures. When they are designing a prototype, its one of the formulas they use to come up with their design. Also the reason some people will find that their store bought 5wt performs better with a 6wt line. I have performed a CCS on a few like that and found that they actually come out to being in the 6wt range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The ERN gives you the actual wt of the rod, that is a fact not an opinion and there is nothing subjective to it because you are using a known weight to flex the rod a known amount."

 

It's the actual wt according to the common cents system. There is no law of physics that determines rod wt. The common cents system uses arbitrary ratios that approximate the subjective way of rating rods. There is nothing magical or scientific about picking 1/3 of the overall length for the deflection. Who says 1/3 is optimal deflection? It's just a nice round number that works. He could have used 4/9.

 

The CCS is a good consistant way to compare rods in an objective way. Certainly not perfect because it does not take into account dynamic factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know what, there's a reason I don't bother replying much to things on internet sites these days. Because there's always going to be someone that is going to argue something with you no matter what facts are given. Sometimes I think some people would argue about the world being round. I've given the link to those that would like to read up on CCS which is the accepted method of finding the baseline rating of a rod for all experienced rod builders. What you choose to do with that info is your choice, I'm not going to waste anymore time on it, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Steve, I guess with our combined 70 years of building, we don't know crap. I love wannabe's. We merely stated facts in the rod building industry, he stated a personal opinion with no fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not misleading what so ever. The ERN gives you the actual wt of the rod, that is a fact not an opinion and there is nothing subjective to it because you are using a known weight to flex the rod a known amount

Steve, I disagree with your statement slightly. If you and I both test a blank and arrive at an ERN of 5.5, we'll agree that we arrived at the the same objective value. But that doesn't mean you and I will enjoy fishing the same line weight through the rod, even at similar distances. I may love the rod with a four weight line and you may love it with a five weight line. So the ERN value, while an objective value, may mean something different to individual builders/anglers. Otherwise, the developer of CCS might have called the value ERW for effective rod weight.

 

Update: As I was thinking some more about this, I believe the original publication of CCS labeled what we now know as ERN as ELN, but this was too definitive as to what the value meant. Kirkman would know for sure.

 

Some people go into the CCS wanting it to give them all the answers, but it can't due to different casting styles and requirements. I am a big proponent of the system - obtaining an ERN value for a blank goes a long way for me in determining what line weight I will enjoy if I build the rod out. As you know, it also allows builders to use ERN/AA of an existing rod to try matching up with new blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...