Last year I built two 7'9" three weight fly rods, different manufacturers. I knew the CCS data for the blanks, both of which according to CCS data were more like four weights. Both were fitted with REC Recoil light weight snake guides. I have fished both rods using a double taper three weight line, on small streams. As predicted by the CCS data, neither loads particularly well at less than 30 feet. I can make the rods cast the line, but I'm required to think about my casting rather than just cast the rod.

My question centers around the total weight that loads the rod, the line weight in motion and the guides, thread and epoxy fixed to the blank. With regard to loadng the rod (causing it flex more during casting) would I have benefitted from using heavier guides on these rods? Would heavier guides change the perception of action (not the action angle)? Would I feel that the rod is loading better?

Thanks,
Jeff Shafer

If the CCS data tells you it's a 4 wt. Try 4wt line on it. I had several SCIV 5 wts St Croix's and found I liked them better with a 6 line on them. Maybe a friend has the line you could try it.
Leave the guides and just try the line. Sounds like the line is too light to load the rods at 30 ft.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2005 01:09PM by bill boettcher.

Thank you Bill. I'm sure that would help load the rod better. What I'm after though is the delicate presentation that the DT three weight line offers. Often I'm on smaller streams fishing small flies and would like to stay with the three weight line.

Jeff

Thanks David,
I've been fishing a DT four weight on my 863-4 DanCraft FT and really love it. I will be building the 904-4 soon and plan to use it with a double taper five weight on medium sized trout streams.

Jeff

I would think then you need a " true " 3 wt rod. Some thing with numbers in the middle to high 2's
You have nice guides on them. You should be getting good performance, but maybe only with a 4 wt line on them.
Got any friends that want a 4 wt rod?? Your chance to build the 3 wt you want

Now I am confused ??? Thought you wanted a 3 WT??????

Jeff--I built a custom Dan Craft Sig V 8943 recently for a fellow who really likes a smooth, full feel (he's been hooked on Scott G's for years, if that gives you an idea!). I used Forecast ceramic (TiCh) guides and actually added one guide instead of going for the bare minimum. The result was it loads with 4wt line as nice or nicer than my partner's who uses 5wt on his with H&H standoff wire guides, and has a wonderfully smooth action in the stroke while not being overweighted or rebounding on the unload.

So yes, you can make the rod feel like it's loading "differently" by using different guides and more or less of them. I do this with the 9' FT's as well by limiting myself to 4 guides on the tip to keep wieght to an absolute minimum up there as the tip is so soft already. I like the action much, much better than when I put 5 on the tip.

Hope this was somewhat helpful at least! :)

You could also put ceramics on which will be a little heaver

The CCS does not designate any rod as a "4-weight," or any other line weight rod for that matter. In fact, there is no such thing as "4-weight" rod, other than whatever subjective label the manufacturer wishes to put on there. As of yet, no one has ever devised any standard or power rating for what constitutes a 4-weight (or any other weight) rod. But depending on what the ERN figure is, you can tell what line is going to best load the rod at the distance you require. Sounds like you're on to that already.

Okay, so you don't have quite enough weight there to load the rod at those short distances. Yes, adding more weight in the form of guides, wraps, finish, etc, would help you load the rod with that particular line, but remember, the rod would then have to recover that weight as well. This means that it would react more slowly, oscillate longer after the cast, have a balance point nearer the tip, etc. In other words, you'd have to undermine the overall performance of the rod to achieve what you're after in the way you're after it.

Why not just move up a line size? The difference between a 3 and a 4 is minimal, and how delecate your presentation is has as much or more to do with your casting than is does with line size. You're in a bit of a corner with that rod if you want to use a 3-weight line on it and get the loading you desire. You can move up a line weight, cast with more "authority," overweight the rod with heavier components, or just build a rod more suited to the line you want to use. The first is the easiest and quickest, the latter is probably best. I really wouldn't consider the middle option. If you want to see what it would be like, take some fly tying lead wire and wrap it neatly around your rod near the tip. Now go back out and try it.

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

Thank you Tom. I was trying to tell him that

If you really want a 7'9" 3 weight, try the Pac Bay Tradition. The ERN is 2.97. I've built two of them, one with ceramic guides and the other without and both will cast a 3 weight Rio Pocketwater line anywhere from 15-30' without thinking a whole lot about the casting stroke.

Tom is right about the presentation being more of a problem than one line size. Your choice of leaders will be more critical than the difference between a three and four weight line in achieving the presentation you desire. I recently built on a blank that was sold as a 7' G Loomis 3# IMX and when testing it for the CC data it has an ERN that meets the the data for a four weight line. Like Bill, the last St Croix SCIV 5# I built on CC"s with a ERN begging for a 6# line. Rather than load or manipulate a blank in an attempt to fit a certain line weight catergory I would prefer to start with one that meets the ERN requirements for the line I wish to use. It is my belief that you will end up with a more versatile rod by doing so.

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"

This is good advice from Gerry!

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"

Well, it would be easy enough to try just adding a little weight. Use some lead tape. My guess is that you won't like the final result. I don't really know why. I have cast heavy, light line rods (bamboo) that felt fine, but when I have tried adding weight to a graphite rod I did not think I got the same feel. On problem is that the 3 wt line has a lot of air resistance and you can't just "lob it out there). I have to acutally cast it with a little line speed which the weight on the rod prevents or makes more difficult.

This is the reason for the CC system to start with. To be able to check a blank and predict how it will cast with a particular line. Like Bill said, I think you need to find a blank that comes out to a light 3 wt when you CC it. Took me a while to fully comprehend (okay, to partially comprehend) the system and how to use it. But it has save me from building several what would have been mistakes after I started using it.

Been a while since I looked at Steve's posted list of blanks. But that would be a good place to start. I have a feeling it is relatively hard to make a inexpensive, good, 3 wt blank. Probably a lot of design work to get it right. And not enough sales potential to get the costs back. Plus risk of breaking it, since it will be heavily loaded playing a large fish and casting long distances.

I am building a 2/3 wt Diamondback from an old Classic Trout blank and I test cast it with a 4 wt. Fortunately the 4 wt seems to overload a bit with 30 feet out, so I think I am going to like it with a 3. Wind blows where I fish, so I will carry a 3 wt and a 4 st line most of the time to fit the conditions.

I agree with what has been said before, don't hesitate to use a 4 weight line as the presentation difference is not much at all vs. a 3 wt. Now if you can't live with that mis-matched line and rod, ha, then go out and buy a Rio Grand line or an SA GPX rated 3 wt line as both of these lines are "designed for today's higher modulous graphite rods" and have a little more weight in the front end than the standard 3 wt line, wink wink, in other words they are more similar in weight to the standard 4wt.. I don't like adding weight to the rod itself as it can ruin the performance especially in such a light rod but that's just me.

I'm not sure what the definition of a "good" blank is, but I've built both Pac Bay Tradition and Forecast 7'9" 3 weights, and both test at 2.97 ERN. Both blanks fit my definition of inexpensive and both fit my definition of good. The only difference for me was the color, I preferred the burgundy.

I might add that you can indeed "load" the rod more with a different line design. A triangle taper or WF rated as a 3 weight might do the trick. Intermediate lines also seem heavier, perhaps because of the water haul effect. Of course you could switch to a oiled silk fly line and a furled leader and do it all, even if the silk is a true 4 weight. You might try Cortland's Sylk in a WF3F or 4 . All this said, I like 1 weight rods for your application.

Thanks Guys,

Even with the CCS data available to me I didn't protect myself, and built on blanks that I shouldn't have. The suggestions that I buy the right blank the first time were heard loud and clear. Just thought that fooling with the mechanics of the existing rods might help take care of the problem but it sounds like that's the least attractive option. I will give the obvious a try, a four weight line, and get over the desire to present a three weight.

Or build more short three weight rods.........

Thanks again

Like I asked before got some friends to sell them to ?? LOL --- @#$%&?

Jeff do try a furled leader. A fellow named Quigley sells them from California. Put on a 7 foot furled leader and add 5 feet of 6x. It will land softly, even with your 4 weight line.