Lifting power of a fly rod

[VGB]

I think it would be like trying to balance two very long chopsticks

PS You is gonna starve in China unless you packed a fork

[Paul Arden]

Haha I was more thinking about the leverage from the weight of the net.

Can't watch your video, Sakari; but will try later on a VPN.

Cheers, Paul

[sms]

Paul, it is the same I posted earlier in another thread. It is the one with fish scale and I am holding the 4kg watering can in different angles.

[Merlin]

Hi Vince

Many books on fly fishing illustrate the advantage for the fish of a long rod, this is why big game rods are very short (e.g. 5’4 feet). Although this is not a thread on rod ratings, be sure that what I write here is founded. If you want a first idea, look at this.

Reality is complex since there is no universal rating for different type of rods (action), this is due to the sensitivity of some rods to inertial effect, which can compensate speed, and also to non linearity. On top of that, you have the perception of the rod designer himself. The rule of the thumb I gave is a realistic average view for saltwater rods in the 8 to 12 range (if you want a more precise figure, just compare the number of grains), I did a more sophisticated private study on the rod rating subject, but it is not for publishing, and no, rod length does not influence rating directly, this is where I disagree with the CCS (anyone having news from Bill?).

I am speaking of stiffness measurements for small load; you can see what it can give with a high load (extract from the 8 rods shootout from the Yellowstone Angler): you cannot tell about the rating of rods when seeing that, it may just give you an idea of the “action” of these rods.

Merlin

[VGB]

Haha I was more thinking about the leverage from the weight of the net

Mines about 7ft, I think the carp boys use much longer.

Regards

Vince

[VGB]

The rule of the thumb I gave is a realistic average view for saltwater rods in the 8 to 12 range (if you want a more precise figure, just compare the number of grains), I did a more sophisticated private study on the rod rating subject, but it is not for publishing, and no, rod length does not influence rating directly, this is where I disagree with the CCS (anyone having news from Bill?).

I am speaking of stiffness measurements for small load; you can see what it can give with a high load (extract from the 8 rods shootout from the Yellowstone Angler): you cannot tell about the rating of rods when seeing that, it may just give you an idea of the “action” of these rods.

Merlin

Hi Merlin

I think we are getting crossed lines here. Are you saying that for your rule of thumb that there's approximately 15% of difference in stiffness between single line weights, is independent of length? If so, I would disagree.

Going on to your second part of the post above. Since we are dealing with large deflections with fighting fish would you agree that's stated line weight has limited utility when dealing with the ability of the rod to fight fish unless you are really putting a significant bend into the rod? I think James article is excellent on this point.

Regards

Vince

[Merlin]

Hi Vince

Yes, line number has little to do with fish fighting although a stiffer (heavier line) rod can give some advantage if the caster has the physical strength to take it, otherwise it will turn into a loss.

On rating, I confirm we disagree, I have several evidences I am on the right track, and it does not correspond to CCS. Let's consider two rods, a 7' and an 11' which follow the CCS recommandation (same relative deflection). The shorter one is much stiffer than the longer one (cubic of its length), and at the same time its equivalent mass is lower (less rodmass anyway for a given type of rod), so you end up with a very fast 7' and a very slow 11'. It just incompatible with reality.

Merlin

[VGB]

On rating, I confirm we disagree, I have several evidences I am on the right track, and it does not correspond to CCS. Let's consider two rods, a 7' and an 11' which follow the CCS recommandation (same relative deflection). The shorter one is much stiffer than the longer one (cubic of its length), and at the same time its equivalent mass is lower (less rodmass anyway for a given type of rod), so you end up with a very fast 7' and a very slow 11'. It just incompatible with reality.

Hi Merlin

I'm glad we are on the same track with the first point but I think we still have crossed wires on the second, I never mentioned CCS. My position on CCS is the same as it was 5 years ago at Post 58, have you changed your mind?

http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/cgi-bin/theb ... 4714;st=50

Regards

Vince

[Merlin]

I am sure I did not Vince. Give me a reason why the stiffness of a rod must change for a given line weight as the length is changed.
Many thanks in advance.

Merlin

[VGB]

IGive me a reason why the stiffness of a rod must change for a given line weight as the length is changed.

Sorry Merlin but I have no idea what your question is meant to mean, are you talking about large scale deflections?

Vince