Hi, Iv'e been wondering how to word this, but here goes. Some months ago, I was talking with Stevie Parkes, of Zenith Fly Rods and latterly with a leading retailer and got to thinking of what would benefit the new rod buyer.

Besides the look of a rod, it's furniture and fittings if you will, how would a new rod be able show it's power? When you pick a rod up, you don't know it's true potential until you try it.

Some retailers don't have a trial area, where you can put the rod through it's paces. So what can we do to help the new rod purchaser, in having some idea of what he is spending his money on? The answer has to be a Universal Rating system, similar to that of fly line ratings.

It doesn't have to be difficult either. For instance, you could use a semi-circle with the easy casting action on the left, middle to tip in the centre and Fast tip on the right. We've all seen rods, depicted as crisp actioned or more middle than tip, but a better description, would be a diagram that is simple and straight forward. A picture paints a thousand words they say.

Why let someone spend money unnecessarily, when in the blink of an eye, they have an idea of a rods, flex and it's true characteristcs. I think this would benefit everyone and save time and money.

The only difficult part now, is getting people to see what they think about it, plus any other recommendations.

If you think this is feasable then let me know. I'd be interested in your comments.

Best Regards

Smudger564

First task is to convince manufacturers that they will make more money with the new system!

The fly line rating system isn't fool proof either, tapers have a profound effect too. After all it is only the first 30' that is a uniform weight.

A universal system is a great idea in principle, blooming hard to pull it off I'd imagine. Another flaw is that a first time rod buyer is likely a pretty useless caster who won't know the first thing about a rod, why it is different to another, what it's to be used for, how to cast etc etc etc. Ability is an issue - most rods are likely sold due to psychological reasons more so than raw performance. I don't mean that negatively but everyone is looking for something different.

I for one do not have a preferred action and don't give a hoot what the manufacturer writes on the label or how they describe it. It is how I feel it and how well it performs in relation to what I want it to do. I have rods ranging from pretty darn bendy to stiff as a poker, they are all used for different things, I like them all. There is a very hard task of taking objective and subjective aspects and making a useful scale.

I wish you the best of luck though, it would likely be a useful asset. Hopefully you will get some useful comments on this. I am skeptical about the viability of it but would love to be shown otherwise!

Thanks Scotty9, nice assesment, we'll see how this fares with others and maybe some manufacturers eh?

regards

Smudger564

Yeah please do pursue it. Will be very interesting as to how it transpires.

Regarding psychological aspects - very simple not related to actual casting.... I was speaking to the fishing manager and store manager of the Orvis Kelso shop. When enquiring why the helios and hydros come in such a shiny varnish it is simply because customers want a shiny rod on the shelf. Matt finish rods do not sell well. Yet this is crazy considering the amount of flash you get from the varnish! Comes back to the marketing - so I'd imagine any new system would need close work with the marketing work of the manufacturers. Good luck with it!

It's been tried before (probably on many occasions), for example see here:
http://www.common-cents.info/

This might be of interest also: Sexyloops Rod Database

James.

the orvis flex rating sounds like the closest commercial attempt to your suggestion, ie. the helios tip flex is 9.5 etc, not ideal if other manufacturers dont use the same index though and there are some other variables to consider,
i'd like to hear David Norwiches take on it.

posted that twice! duh.

Scott, as I'm sure you know, try telling that to RIO/Scientific Anglers with their "half a size heavier" lines

Hi All

There are some stating that the industry should start using ERN and AA numbers. Now I believe that this would be better than the single current AFTM ratings however the common cents system is far from infallible. The CCS system assumes that all rods are designed to flex the same amount. The CCS system works on a third of the length but not all rods are designed this way and this is why blanks such as the FT ones I use and the blanks in rods like the TCX and TCR seem to come out at the wrong ERN value using CCS. This is because they designed to flex far less....say 25% of the length.

I think also the the term 'fast action' is the most over used description in the rod industry. Lets face it 'fast' is a positive word when it comes to a sporting action and 'slow' is a negative term. Where as in reality a mid or through action rod is sometimes better than a tip or fast rod. We should use the words fast and slow for recovery rate only (frequency(another subject entirely)) and the action description which should be tip, tip/mid, mid, through etc

So, if we really wanted to describe a rod properly, it would have;

Flex point (tip, mid/tip etc)
AFTM number (yes I know not ideal but we need to match to lines somehow)
Frequency (recovery rate, higher the number faster the line speed)
Weight of blank

Only with at least these could a discerning angler possibly get an idea of what to expect. There are some many other factors too such a dampening of the blank, swing weight etc etc.

Will we ever get all this......unlikely


Steve

__________________
Steve Parkes

www.atomsix.co.uk

info@atomsix.co.uk

Terenzio silk fly lines

Atomsix furled leaders

previously
www.zenithflyrods.co.uk

you have only added frequency to what currently exists