I need to think about that fora while, but my first reaction is that the tip action you about line would still be fast as it is down to the taper of the blank.

__________________
Frank Williams APGAI

See Classified for;

Flouro Drop Style Indicators ¦ French/Czech nymphing leaders ¦ Hi-Vis tippet for indicators ¦
Kamoufil leader material ¦
Stroft ABR & GTM

Sponsored Kilimanjaro climb

Phone any rod manufacturer and ask them for a definition of fast actioned rod.

You will not get some convoluted explanation as to how much stress or action there is enacted on the rod by the end user, nor will you hear anything about what the rod is made of.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to this argument what a rod is made of, as a finished article each rod is what it is. Yes you can say this rod or that rod is slow or fast due to the component materials of the blank, and the quality of such, but that is not the definition of fast or slow, for the action of a rod.

When you bend a rod and let it go, a rod which recovers to the straight standing point quicker than another rod, is deemed faster than that other rod.

I can't see why this is a can of worms. It's as plain as day. TO ME

Is a rod that recovers quickly with a DT2 line still a fast rod if you put a WF7 on it?

I think that the answer is that there is no universal standard, so the definitions that we are using here are objective. The nearest thing I could find was the Common Cents system and Part 1 is often used by the rod building community as a reference:

The Common Cents System

In my opinion, this is a good baseline to compare rods static performance and there is a fair bit of data here, some of the results are surprising:

http://www.superbob.org/CC_Data.htm

If a rod sells better because it can be advertised as a fast rod, is it a good sales technique to declare it as a lighter line weight (in the hands of an AAPGAI standard caster of course)?

However, there are shortfalls in the Common Cents system because a cast is not static it is dynamic. Pt 5 does try to address the dynamic case but if you are an engineer/physicist, it is possible to get very anal about the variables and rubbish the attempt. If you are of that nature, I found this to be a good treatment:

http://www.hatofmichigan.org/uploads..._Casting_5.pdf

If you want to classify rod action then you need to define a standard casting stroke first. Anyone care to shoot for it?

So to take this one stage further, you have 2 rods that have exactly the same amount of deflection at the tip for a given load AND exactly the same recovery time but one has all its flex in the tip and the other one flexes all the way down to the handle.
Would the tip flex rod still be 'fast' and the full flex rod 'slow'?

Cheers

Andy

__________________
GAIC Single Handed Casting Instructor

http://www.andygreyfishing.com/

GFL., given the fact that I have just spent 4 months working with a designer of rods and have only just last week taken deliver of the first set of 9 prototypes. I can categorically tell you that the people I am working with see the designation fast, med, slow as a function of flex of the rod or taper of the blank and when they talk about recover rate they speak of in terms of the modulus or even tonnage of the carbon.

regards

Frank

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

Sorry, Andy re read your last post and it makes ore sense to me now, given that both rods recover at the same sprrd and deflect the same distance, even thout the AA may be different the tippier rod would be the faster as it more to do with the taper of the blank


regards

frank

__________________
Frank Williams APGAI

See Classified for;

Flouro Drop Style Indicators ¦ French/Czech nymphing leaders ¦ Hi-Vis tippet for indicators ¦
Kamoufil leader material ¦
Stroft ABR & GTM

Sponsored Kilimanjaro climb

Frank with all due respect, there's always someone reinventing the wheel. A common trend in angling.

I agree , but when you consider that the designation fast slow and medium first came about based on the taper of cane rods and it was only much later with the advent of carbon that tip recover rates came into common parlance I would ask you who it is that is reinventing the wheel.


Anyway I have explained it as I use it and understand it so I don't see that I have any thing further to say on the subject.

regards
Frank

__________________
Frank Williams APGAI

See Classified for;

Flouro Drop Style Indicators ¦ French/Czech nymphing leaders ¦ Hi-Vis tippet for indicators ¦
Kamoufil leader material ¦
Stroft ABR & GTM

Sponsored Kilimanjaro climb

[QUOTE=Frank;1189601]GFL., given the fact that I have just spent 4 months working with a designer of rods and have only just last week taken deliver of the first set of 9 prototypes. I can categorically tell you that the people I am working with see the designation fast, med, slow as a function of flex of the rod or taper of the blank and when they talk about recover rate they speak of in terms of the modulus or even tonnage of the carbon.

regards

Frank[COLOR="Silver"]

Frank

The reason they do this is because they can only control the static element of the design, you can come up with the same DBI ERN/AA on 2 rods using different tapers and materials. For example, you can make a thinner cross section rod with a stiff material (see youngs modulus)feel the same as thicker rod with a less stiff material.

But if you consider the force that is bending the rod to achieve the deflection, that will affect the action of the rod. This is effectively happening when we overline the rod. If you want to put a simple mental picture together, think of Newtons 2nd law as acting on the rod tip:

F(force) = m(mass) x a(acceleration)

The major variable that you can use (if you use a fixed length of fly line from the tip) is the acceleration. It is the rate of change of velocity of the rod tip and the mass that generates the force applied. It is then a factor of the rod taper and material modulus as to how quickly the rod returns to the static condition.

Fair does Frank, I think you were rather reluctant to get into anyway, as we all know it is a can of worms, whether it should be or not.

The point being we are being marketed rods with this information, so there should be some sort of clear definition as to what it means.

No one else gets away with making claims they cannot validate whilst manufacturing good for sale.

I absolutely agree, rod flex and recover speed as two standard measurements would be the way to go, but who is going to either set of accept the standard for the reasons I outlines in previous posts. To be honest I would be glad to see the CC accepted as industry standard but manufactures are worried that there lovingly crafted faster than light "FTL #5" would end up with an effective line number way above what they want so it would not sell.

Frank


Frank

__________________
Frank Williams APGAI

See Classified for;

Flouro Drop Style Indicators ¦ French/Czech nymphing leaders ¦ Hi-Vis tippet for indicators ¦
Kamoufil leader material ¦
Stroft ABR & GTM

Sponsored Kilimanjaro climb