DonAndersen Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Guys, read over the information presented @ http://www.common-cents.info/. Here's' my take on the info. What the guy is attempting to determine in the line weight, rod action and frequency of any rod by using methods readily available to all. Has he succeeded. I'm not sure. He introduces both techniques and formula without defining what they are. I've read and reread the stuff and I'm still looking for answers. I have may just plain missed them. Still, if the measurement system works, I'm sure the it would put a lasso around a lot of the subjective opinion on what is meant by slow>fast rods. Took me a while to figure out that limp tips were fast rods. That certainly makes sense after I thought about it for a while. His take on multiple section rods is right on. But what I'm doing now is weighting some of my fly lines. Will post results after the weekend. Then I'll do some rod testing. What should be required reading for all is Tom Kirkman's Editorial on Fly lines. regards, Don Quote
DonAndersen Posted February 26, 2008 Author Posted February 26, 2008 OK - well, I weighed some of my lines. Got tedious once I past 20. Here are the results. Process: 1] All lines had only 30’ weighted 2] Scale used is a RCBS Model 502 Scale that is used to measure rifle powder to 1/10 of a grain. 3] All measurements were taken indoors. 4] AFTMA = American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association 5] All lines were used except where noted Manufacture Model Line Wt. Sample weight AFTMA standard AFTMA tolerance Sci Ang Mastery DT2F 82.5 80 74>86 Cortland 444 DT3F 99.5 100 94>106 “ 444 DT4F 122 120 114>126 “ 444 DT5F 144.5 140 134>146 Cortland 444 DT5F 132 140 134>146 Sci. Ang. Mastery DT5F 135.5 140 134>146 Air Flo Nymph tip WF5F 162.5 140 134>146 Sci. Ang. Unknown WF5F/S 153.5 140 134>146 “ 444SL DT6F [new] 159 160 152>168 “ 444SL DT6F 154 160 152>168 “ Clear Cameo WF6I 154 160 152>168 “ 444 WF6S rate4 172.5 160 152>168 “ 444 WF6F [new] 159.5 160 152>168 Cortland 444 WF6S rate6 165.5 160 152>168 Unknown WF6I Neutral density 186.5 160 152>168 Air Flo Slow glass WF6/7 183 160 152>168 Teeny WF- sink 20’ tip 153 Sci. Ang. Steelhead WF7F/S –10’tip 179.8 185 177>193 Sci. Ang. Steelhead WF7F/S –10’tip 189.5 185 177>193 Sc. Ang. Unknown WF7F 191.5 185 177>193 Cortland 444 DT8F 199.5 210 202>218 And what does this mean. Well, Air Flo is a tad heavy. Cortland sinking lines may or may not match box label. So for the Commonsense Method - choosing a fly line just got harder. What must be born in mind is that I have none of the "new" taper lines companies are bringing out. Be aware though, from what I read, is that they are NOT conforming to the AFTMA standards making your matching of line>rod even more a crap shoot. As you can see, most of my lines are Cortland 444's. I like 'em. Back to the basement for more testing. regards, Don Quote
hydropsyche Posted February 26, 2008 Posted February 26, 2008 Very interesting,Don. Thanks for the legwork and exposing some myths/things to be aware of. Quote
Cutman Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Just read the Common Sense System (CSS) article. Very interesting. The part about the DBI makes sense to me. Can't weight to measure my rods to see if the numbers confirm my impressions of their actions. If there was a standardized system used by rod manufacturuers, it would be a lot easier to buy the right rod. At the moment, most of what we have is hear-say and marketing hype unless you can gets your hands on a rod for a meaningful test. Parker Quote
maxwell Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 its pretty sketchy dude. there are so many taper designs more than one type of graphit used and some are blends too make rods weight and flex different. it allso determins the responsiveness of the rod. so as teh sport progresses to does the rods and the "grain windows" it can be hard too do te research and get streaight answers from some manufacturers on line and rod grainage! best bet is too listen too someone at your local flyshop or pick up a fe cheap lines and experiment for youself! Quote
Cutman Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 its pretty sketchy dude. there are so many taper designs more than one type of graphit used and some are blends too make rods weight and flex different. it allso determins the responsiveness of the rod. so as teh sport progresses to does the rods and the "grain windows" it can be hard too do te research and get streaight answers from some manufacturers on line and rod grainage! best bet is too listen too someone at your local flyshop or pick up a fe cheap lines and experiment for youself! But that is the point, i.e. that the system provides quantitative measurements that should predict how a rod behaves, facilitating comparisions between rods made of different materials and with different tapers. As I understand it, adding the line weight to the rod and meauring the frequency (CCF) my give you an idea of the responsiveness of the rod with the line weight added. Also, frequency may be a factor of taper, among other things (e.g, stiffness, action, etc.), but it is still measurable and therefore comparable. I don't think for a minute the system will be implemented bymanufacturers, but I have not heard of anything better. At the very least, it gave me some insight into the physics of rods. Quote
Harps Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Hey Don, The Common Cents System has been under quite a bit of criticism in the past couple of years. It is so far (IMHO) the best attempt to classify rod action but it is far from a system that a buyer could use. Sexyloopers have been discussing it for quite some time, and while it is great for putting comparable numbers on rods, it has a hard time quantifing "feel". Likely feel is a combination of the numbers that suits one caster and not another. The complexity of the system (and simplicity) is demonstrated when you compare a series of rod and get a bunch that feel different, but have similar numbers. Tackle Database of CCS values. If you have time to read there is a big discussion here. I've got to head out now, but when I'm back I'll look for the thread on pros and cons of CCS. Lots of good stuff on this all over the Sexloops Board, plus Bill Hanneman answers questions. Quote
Conor Posted July 12, 2009 Posted July 12, 2009 Max- CCS can tell you a lot more than the overall 'weight' of a rod blank. It can give you a decent grain window on a blank. Blanks with a larger grain window are typically very fast tapers with light tips that taper to a stiff butt. For example, if I do a CCS measurement of the first few feet of my DanCraft Ft 5 wt I get just about a five weight. As I increase the length, the weight number increases to about 9 at the full length. And guess what, the rod throws a 5 wt with a fast tip action and an 8 with a more moderate fast action. I hope that the CCS guy does something to incorporate swing weight into his system. That might go a long way to getting a 'feel' value for a blank. Also, the line scale is a great tool. If you have any unlabeled, unknown lines laying around, you can get a AFTM number with just a printer and some cardboard. Brilliant. Don- when weighing a line I think the rule is to not count the level tip as part of your 30ft. Find where the taper starts and go from there. There is some variance between brands and the length of the level tip, but I don't know if it would really be significant. Quote
gentlemang Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Interesting discussion here. Any new comments for this old thread. Greg Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.