Guys,,, is there a relationship, or a rule of thumb for lure weight and # test of the line to use with it.. For an example, say I have a 1/4 oz. lure, is there a range of line that I should use, like 4# to 6# test, or 6# to 8# test, or if I'm using a 3/4 oz. lure, I should be using a 15# to 20# test line, that sort of thing??? Any maybe someone could tell me what exactly that information means on the side of a blank???? Is that just a recommendation from the manufacturer? Is that the limits of the blank in some way?? I know personally of a customer of mine catching a PLUS 30 lb. fish on a 4# test line and an ultra-lite rod..

Thanks in advance,
Art

No, there is no relationship between the two.

The lure weight rating is what the blank should be comfortable casting. The pound test rating is a suggestion by the manufacturer as to the range of line tests that might be used. In some cases a manufacturer may wish to protect the blank by listing a line that he feels will break before the blank does. But in most cases, using the upper line rating and putting the blank under an improper bend will stlil break the blank before it breaks the line.

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

[Well, I hope I'm not too late here. (Browser crashed !!!). What I hope to add to this discussion, and ask about is a rod's line ratings and any assumptions about its reel's drag settings. Thanks, -Cliff+++]

IMO, the LINE # TEST that best matches a particular LURE-WEIGHT is almost entirely dependent on the LURE itself: the type of lure; on its weight; and the hydrodynamics of its action. These line # test recommendations for that lure are made by testing the lure performance with various line # tests. That has very little to do with the ROD used itself, really. And in some opinions, you could use almost any # test running line, or any # test leader, or any type leader material (FC, wire, etc.) you want. So long as you are catching fish! If you put a Loop Knot or a snap swivel or a split ring on the line, then you pretty much eliminate (or at least reduce) the problem of killing the lure's action from a rigid connection or stiff line. Those 'rules' of what line # test to use for a particular lure and weight usually assume the use of nylon monofilament fishing line. With the increasing popularity of the narrower and more supple braid lines, those line # test recommendations for a particular lure will need updating to include rec's for both mono and braid.

IMO, that correlation for matching a line to the lure is almost TOTALLY separate from the “LURE-WEIGHT” and the “LINE # TEST” Ratings of a rod BLANK's SPECIFICATIONS, written on the ROD blank and listed in a catalog. These rod ratings are derived from direct measurements of the rod blank's behavior / deflection under dynamic / static test conditions. These measures and indicators of the rod blank’s characteristics have nothing to do with the lure itself, other than the lure’s weight.

Notice that there is a close and predictable correlation between a rod blank’s “lure-weight” and its “line # test” rating. (A trolling rod may not have a lure weight listed because it is not used for casting.) You never see a rod rated for 10-20# test mono line listing a lure rating of 4-12 oz. That weight would overload the rod during casting. Nor do you see a rod rated for 30-50# test mono line listing a lure rating of ¼ - ¾ oz. That weight would never begin to load the rod as a spring during casting.

Then there is the whole nother consideration of the rod, not for its casting performance, but for its ability to handle the stress and strain on itself as a LOADED ROD, as a tapered tubular beam. What determines the upper and lower limit of the line rating? And how does that “line # test” rating correlate to an ACTUAL DRAG settings on the reel (in pounds of force, static or dynamic, on the rod). The range in the line rating may give a secondary indication of how limber the rod tip is, or how strong the backbone is, or what the action-taper of the rod may be. This is also a question that I have, since the assumptions behind this convention are not very obvious.

Art, since I am as interested as you are in a more extensive answer to your question, from a more technical standpoint, from someone like Tom Kirkman or Emory Harry or Bill Hanneman, I'll shut up and look forward, along with you, to hearing from them. Even if it means having to buy a back-issue of RMM ! Thanks for asking such a crucial question. -Cliff Hall+++

I don't know that I could give a more technical answer. I suspect that most blank manufacturers look at a particular blank, and say, "Okay, this little ultra-light won't be overtaxed if we put '2-6lb line' on the rod label." They probably consider what size reel and line would most likely be fished in the situation the rod or blank was designed for and let it go at that. It's just a general suggestion based on the reel and line that they feel will balance and work well with the particular rod or blank, with just a little concern over the blank's breaking point versus that of the line recommended.

Line does affect casting distance and lure depth. Larger line generally doesn't cast as far nor allow lures to run as deep. But I doubt those things are part of the consideration manufacturers give to their line suggestions.

..........

Thanks, Tom. - And the relationship between all this and the CCS System (or any other system for measuring the static or dynamic deflection)? Is that covered in the up-coming CCS website as posted *.PDF files, or the CCS back-issues of RMM: 6(2); 6(3) 6(4) and 7(2) ? (I glossed over the CCS stuff until a later time.) - Thanks, -Cliff .

Yes, but not pound test line ratings as they have nothing to do with any intrinsic property of a rod blank.

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

The issue of line and lure weight can get complicated and I think that Tom is correct that most blank manufacturers use their experience and just make a judgement call based upon their experience. However, it we over simplify just a little.

Line Weight
The line weight rating on a rod that will not exceed the rods strength and result in a broken rod is mainly a function of 1. the rod's tensile strength 2. the angle that the rod is being held at and 3. the rod's action angle.
1. The rod's tensile strength is naturally determined by the rods power.
2. As we raise the rod's tip and the angle gets higher and higher we are increasing the stress on the rod because the applied force is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller portion of the rod or area of the rod. It is being concentrated more and more toward the tip of the rod. (Remember stress is the applied force divided by the area). If we raise it too high we call it high sticking and we can break most rods with a line that is much less than the line rating on the rod with a high angle.
At least one manufacturer that I am familiar with rates their blanks at a 45 degree angle. In other words they say with a load on the rod if the angle of the butt of the rod relative to the ground or water is 45 degrees or less the line should break before the rod does. But if the angle is higher than 45 degrees the rod may break before the line does. Using 45 degrees as the limit seems very reasonable to me and I wish that more blank manufacturers used this criteria rather than just warning about high sticking and not telling us how high is too high.
3. We must use a lower line rating for a rod with a high action angle for the same reason. A high action angle rod that has most of it's deflection in the upper part of the rod is tending to concentrate the force, applied load, into a shorter portion of the rod.

Lure Weight
The weight of the lure, really it's mass, determines it's inertia. When we cast a lure we must overcome the lures inertia so as to accelerate the lure, increasing it's velocity and the higher the velocity the farther we can cast it. (remember force is proportional to the mass times the acceleration). So the more the lure weighs, the higher the mass, and the faster we try to accelerate the lure, the farther we try to cast, the more force is being applied to the rod so the higher the stress on the rod. And just as above this force will be concentrated into a smaller portion of the rod if the rod has a high action angle. So we should use a lighter lure with a higher action angle rod.

I would argue that the line rating and the lure weight should be related in that if we try to accelerate the lure too rapidly, or cast too far with the rated lure weight, the rod should have a line rating that results in once again the line breaking before the rod breaks. However, I am not sure that the blank manufacturers really do this.

All of this says that if we high stick a rod or if we attempt to cast a lure that is heavier that the rating on the rod or if we exceed the line rating on a rod we may very well exceed the amount of stress that the rod will tolerate and we are in danger of breaking the rod.

I hope I said all of this reasonably clearly.

The issue of line and lure weight can get complicated and I think that Tom is correct that most blank manufacturers use their experience and just make a judgement call based upon their experience. However, it we over simplify just a little.

Line Weight
The line weight rating on a rod that will not exceed the rods strength and result in a broken rod is mainly a function of 1. the rod's tensile strength 2. the angle that the rod is being held at and 3. the rod's action angle.
1. The rod's tensile strength is naturally determined by the rods power.
2. As we raise the rod's tip and the angle gets higher and higher we are increasing the stress on the rod because the applied force is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller portion of the rod or area of the rod. It is being concentrated more and more toward the tip of the rod. (Remember stress is the applied force divided by the area). If we raise it too high we call it high sticking and we can break most rods with a line that is much less than the line rating on the rod with a high angle.
At least one manufacturer that I am familiar with rates their blanks at a 45 degree angle. In other words they say with a load on the rod if the angle of the butt of the rod relative to the ground or water is 45 degrees or less the line should break before the rod does. But if the angle is higher than 45 degrees the rod may break before the line does. Using 45 degrees as the limit seems very reasonable to me and I wish that more blank manufacturers used this criteria rather than just warning about high sticking and not telling us how high is too high.
3. We must use a lower line rating for a rod with a high action angle for the same reason. A high action angle rod that has most of it's deflection in the upper part of the rod is tending to concentrate the force, applied load, into a shorter portion of the rod.

Lure Weight
The weight of the lure, really it's mass, determines it's inertia. When we cast a lure we must overcome the lures inertia so as to accelerate the lure, increasing it's velocity and the higher the velocity the farther we can cast it. (remember force is proportional to the mass times the acceleration). So the more the lure weighs, the higher the mass, and the faster we try to accelerate the lure, the farther we try to cast, the more force is being applied to the rod so the higher the stress on the rod. And just as above this force will be concentrated into a smaller portion of the rod if the rod has a high action angle. So we should use a lighter lure with a higher action angle rod.

I would argue that the line rating and the lure weight should be related in that if we try to accelerate the lure too rapidly, or cast too far with the rated lure weight, the rod should have a line rating that results in once again the line breaking before the rod breaks. However, I am not sure that the blank manufacturers really do this.

All of this says that if we high stick a rod or if we attempt to cast a lure that is heavier that the rating on the rod or if we exceed the line rating on a rod we may very well exceed the amount of stress that the rod will tolerate and we are in danger of breaking the rod.

I hope I said all of this reasonably clearly.

Sorry for the double post. I attempted to remove the second one with the edit function but it did not seem to get the job done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2005 02:19PM by Emory Harry.

Emory - Thanks for elaborating on the particulars of this discussion and addressing my questions. And, Thanks, TOM, for your bottom-line perspective and revelations.

I guess that, short of having a brother who is a mechanical engineer who designs fishing rod blanks, or works in archery designing bows and arrow shafts, or in aerospace composites, most of my even more esoteric considerations will remain a subject for future investigation. It’s not like the manufacturers are out there divulging their proprietary information. Or how much – or how little – R&D and QC-QI is involved in their operations. Given how frugal rod-builders are in general, and the specialized market, and the tight profit margins, I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised. –Cliff Hall+++