I remember that quite some time ago a fly-fishing magazine used to get a bunch of expert fly fisherman/casters together and in a double-blind trial give them several fly rods of the same line weight and length to test cast.
At the end of the session each expert independently rated the rods and discussed the pros and cons of each rod. I found such articles to be highly interesting and informative, but I have not seen an article or comparison test like this in years. I realize such tests will probably make some sponsors or potential sponsors unhappy, but I would really like to see a re-creation of this type of test with currently produced rod blanks. Any suggestions? Any chance of such a comparison trial being conducted today, or do spin doctors (pardon the pun) rule access to comparison of products?

I didn't find them to be of much value because they weren't comparing apples to apples - not all the "5-weight rods" had the same power. Thus, they weren't even remotely similar. The ones that won rave reviews for their ability to cast the rated line the farthest were simply the most powerful ones (but they didn't tell you that). The ones that cast the best close in with the rated line, were less powerful. Frankly, I found those tests to be very much along the lines of a farce. If they really wanted to perform an apples to apples test, they'd use the ERN rating to gather and assemble the rods. Then you'd have rods possessing the same relative power and meaningful comparisons could then be made. But few manufacturers would want you do that - then nobody could stack the deck one way or the other.

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

The trials I remember included discussions of such details as tracking, accuracy, suitability for marked line weight, and effectiveness at short, medium, and long distances - many topics of interest to fishermen as well as distance casters.

Suitability for marked line weight isn't really an issue. Any rod will cast any line weight and that's something I have come to believe. The distance it will do it at though will be different based on the power of each respective rod. I agree with Tom that these have never been apples to apples comparisions and were only intended to lure consumers into buying a new rod. "Win the race on Sunday and sell cars on Monday."

Distance casters need only select a more powerful rod in order to cast further. I remember one magazine doing the "great eight weight shoot out." I could have won that with any rod by taking any company's ten or eleven weight rod, scratching that number out and writing in an eight. That would have given me the longest casting eight weight in the test. The longest casting rod will almost always be the most powerful one.

I think accuracy is a function of the person doing the casting not the rod.

Those comparisons were stopped because of the advertisers pulling their ads.

Regards,
Todd Vivian
Mud Hole Custom Tackle

todd@mudhole.com

/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2008 02:49AM by Charles Clayton.

Any time you publish comparisons which are based soley on subjective opinions, then that's what you have - opinions, not facts nor results. Unfortunately, many readers didn't consider this and took those opinions as facts or results, which they weren't. No wonder some of the advertisers pulled their copy.

We would get into the same thing with tests or comparisons on blanks. Publishing inherent properties such as length, action, power, weight, etc., would be fine, but as soon as we go beyond that we get into mere opinions, and you can already get those just by asking - we wouldn't want to represent them as facts.

I don't want Phil to think anyone is jumping on him about this request. I know many fly fishermen enjoyed reading the "tests" but I still question the true value of them and really don't see any need for that type of thing here. Besides, who will be doing the testing and publishing the "data?"

This is why I think it's best for companies to publish as much actual data on their blanks as they can (the Common Cents System provides objective data, not subjective opinions) and then let educated rod builders crunch the numbers and decide for themselves what blank would be best for their particular application. And, you can always post a question here asking what other builders in your shoes are using. Take all those opinions and whittle them down into what you think will work best.

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

It isn't always possible to test cast a blank before purchase. Before parting with a wad of cash, amassing as much information as possible seems prudent. Given a choice between ad copy, testimonials of unknown individuals with unknown expertise and unknown motives, and the admittedly subjective judgment of recognized experts from a double-blind trial, I would still like the opportunity to consider the latter.

Seems reasonable to me, but I can't imagine who is going to undertake the task of doing such tests or how they'd go about it. But if they do, hopefully they'll let you know. Or if you decide to do it, let us know.

If the manufacturers ever adopt the CCS, you'd have a ton of information to go, but only 1 or 2 have done that thus far. At this point they only give you the length and number of pieces. Many have even stopped listing the physical weight of their rods and blanks.

I used to own and operate a fly shop and invariably after one of the supposed "tests" would run, guys would come in wanting to buy the rod that had "won" the test. In many if not most cases, the rod they purchased wasn't a good choice for them and their style of fishing. Many came away convinced something was wrong with the rod they bought because it "didn't perform like they said it did in the test."


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