A wierd thing about casting distance

[Malcolm]

i'd propose that softer rods just max out at distance.

..and I'd propose that although they both have #5 on the butt, as the ERN of the Winston is 4.3 and the Helios is 6.7 that you overloaded your Winston and the Helios was just getting into it's comfort zone! Distance and whether the rod is soft or stiff really doesn't matter much.

[Traditionalist]

thats quite interesting, it seems the elliptical cast was already evolved before Lee Wulff used it, i looks the same, short rod/no stop, presumably he saw this visiting and fishing with the Europeans,

i'm a fanatical collector of Swiss and Austrian casts, i use Gunter Feuerstein's version of the snap Z a lot, very useful cast, any idea where i can find the ones lost to time?
strange thing is when i use these casts everyone says they can't be bothered with this new fancy rubbish :lol:

I have a few discs full of stuff somewhere, I fear they got buried when I moved house. I will see if I can find them.

TL
MC

[Traditionalist]

..and I'd propose that although they both have #5 on the butt, as the ERN of the Winston is 4.3 and the Helios is 6.7 that you overloaded your Winston and the Helios was just getting into it's comfort zone! Distance and whether the rod is soft or stiff really doesn't matter much.

Apropos of butt markings:  the Corries sang a little ditty about that;

On the bosom of young Abigail
is written the price of her tail,
And on her behind
for the use of the blind
is the same information in braille.

This information is probably at least as much use as what is marked on rod butts!

TL
MC

[scotty9]

i'd say thats bang on, but makes the last line a bit confusing, it matters when you have to present a fly in that one makes the distance with ease the other is overloaded and difficult of control.
the control you loose is precisely the control you need to keep the line above shoulder height away from snags.

Definitely.

I agree with Malcolm in the sense that talking about distance on a tape there isn't much of a difference but in a normal fishing style casting stroke there might come a point where the extra bend in the softer rod can become harder to control. You want economy of movement when you're fishing and when the point comes that your stroke needs to be too long or casting arc too wide for it to be comfortable fishing then step up to a stiffer rod. This you can overcome on the casting field and why you won't notice much difference there.

It's also the reason I tend towards stiffer rods. A 7' #3 (or#4, can't remember what it is) split cane rod is gorgeous for short distances but it becomes hard to control quite quickly. A stiff rod might be slightly less comfortable (very short stroke) at short distance but allows longer distance more comfortably due to the same relative short stroke. I tend to pick the rod that can most comfortably do everything. All rods are a trade off of pros and cons, it's about picking what you need or what suits your preferences if you are not willing to change - you get used to the rod you most often use.

Even after all that, I have to say at most of my usual fishing distances it doesn't really matter but it's nice to have the easy extra reach when you want it.

There's no such thing as a bad rod or best rod, it's the guy holding it that matters.

[Malcolm]

Alan,

It's got very little to do with the softness Alan and everything to do with the real rod rating.

I know that the Common Cents system isn't perfect but I find it much better than the figure that appears on the rod butt. The simple fact is you were overloading a 4 (ERN 4.3) weight rod and so no wonder it wouldn't be as stable as a 6 weight rod (ERN 6.7) at long distance with a 5 weight line.

If Winston made a rod with an ERN of 6.7 but stamped #5 on the butt - like the Helios - then it would do just as well I'm sure. In fact they probably do but they will stamp #7 on the butt.

I'll stick with the slow rods!

[Traditionalist]

I know that the Common Cents system isn't perfect but I find it much better than the figure that appears on the rod butt.

Agreed. Most definitely.  It is the only system that addresses many problems in any way at all.

TL
MC

[scotty9]

Alan,

It's got very little to do with the softness Alan and everything to do with the real rod rating.

I know that the Common Cents system isn't perfect but I find it much better than the figure that appears on the rod butt. The simple fact is you were overloading a 4 (ERN 4.3) weight rod and so no wonder it wouldn't be as stable as a 6 weight rod (ERN 6.7) at long distance with a 5 weight line.

If Winston made a rod with an ERN of 6.7 but stamped #5 on the butt - like the Helios - then it would do just as well I'm sure. In fact they probably do but they will stamp #7 on the butt.

I'll stick with the slow rods!

Malcolm surely the real rod rating as you mention is the same as the softness? All you are measuring is how much mass it takes to bend the rod to a given point. One of lower ERN is softer than one of higher ERN, softness and real rod rating are the same thing. I know this doesn't cover the full measurements of the CSS but for ERN that's all there is to it.

I agree that CSS is a step in the right direction for quantifying things but it's no substitute for trying different rods or the same rod with different lines etc. It still tells you nothing about how a rod will feel in your hand - which is the thing that matters most. I have never checked the CSS scale before buying a rod, don't see the point to be honest. I go out and cast them. If I can't cast it first it needs to be at a bargain price that I reckon I can sell on without a loss.

[Traditionalist]

It is impossible to quantify "feel".  I have had long discussions with Bill Hanneman ( Inventor of the "common cents system") on this. Unfortunately the common cents system is not as useful to "newbies" or those wanting to buy a rod based on data as some seem to think. You have to know quite a bit about it before it is very useful.  This is a pity, but it's just how it is. 

TL
MC

[Malcolm]

Scott,

I think there is a definition mix-up. Here is my take on it:

soft > stiff: this is a description of modulus so
    "Soft" would be greenheart, glass , low modulus carbon typically found in rods up to the mid 90's.
    "Stiff" would be very high modulus rods like the Sage TCX.

Slow > Fast: a description of action.
    Tip action is fast,
    spey action is slow.

ERN > rod rating:
"ERN" an objective line rating mechanism based on 30ft. So the Winston Alan mentioned is 4.3 so basically a 4 weight. The Helios is 6.7 so is at least a 6 weight. This despite the fact that both have #5 on the butt.

"Rod rating" (as put on the butt of a rod) a subjective line rating which may be based on 30ft but is equally likely to be something else entirely, like the ability of that rod to comfortably put out 100 feet of line of that line rating. 

............

Given the above it is quite possible to have a soft rod rated 10 or more. Some of the old 21ft greenheart vibration rods (ultra soft) had a real line rating of AFTM 20+

You can have combinations of the above: for example amongst rods you have tried:
Fast + Stiff: your Sage TCX
Medium + stiff: my Loomis Trilogy #7 that you tried
soft + slow: my Sparton 7.5ft 3/4 that you happened to cast 99ft! 

[Wildfisher]

I have had long discussions with Bill Hanneman ( Inventor of the "common cents system") on this.

I had long discussions with Bill too. He was hacked off when Magnus Angus and I published results of blank frequencies on the,   now pretty much dead,  Sexyloops forum,  measured with some gear I designed,  in HZ rather that CPS. It's the same thing, but Bill reckoned American / obsolete British Imperial units were better understood then SI units. I quickly  got fed up of Sexyloops and this kind of stuff, too many people talking shite about stuff they obviously knew next to nothing  about.  :roll: