I was wondering what some of you think about overlining some of the ultra fast high end builders blanks. I've tried this on a couple of "fast action" blanks and have found that they are producing some of the nicest medium fast actions that I have casted to date. I realize that this would have to be done for each and every wt rod to know exactly which ones make the transition, but the two I have tried seem to be ever so slightly faster than the medium fast lowerpriced blanks. but damn if they aren't unbelivably smooth, and right on. I've only tried it so far with a 4wt and a 5wt so far and both produced a super nice med/fast feel. Anyone try overlining some of the heavier fast actions, and do you agree?

What ERN numbers do the rods have? Could it be that they are somewhat powerful, compared to their stated line weights.

Hey Larry,
As a generalization, modern fly rods are capable of casting 3 line weights - one under, one right on and one over.
It really depends on the individual rod and your need or preference.

To answer your question - it is probably more common to over line the higher line weight rods.

My favorite rod to cast a #10 intermediate and a #11 floater is a discontinued CTS Affinity-One #9.

Some rods are closer to the line weight than others. For instance - it would not be common to over line the Sage XP model. It is pretty much right on. The old Sage RPLX #10 was tough to load with a #10 line but the #9 RPLX was quite soft and would probably not be over lined.

Personally - too much is made of "fast" rods. It is too fast to load properly by many casters so they over line it.
Acceleration of the rod during a cast loads the rod - if you are unable to accelerate the rod sufficiently you will be forced to over line the rod to be able to cast it.
My favorite rods are fast taper but moderate fast action like the CTS Affinity-MX.

To make it even more confusing - not all #9 lines load a rod the same way. So, for example - a SA #10 may be needed when a #9 Wulff Triangle taper may load just fine.

Bottom line is that you must experiment with various line weights and not lock yourself into the manufactures specification.
Regards,
Herb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2010 11:55PM by Herb Ladenheim.

Seems to me under rating a rod has become a quick fix to race to get faster and faster rods. Like you said i feel alot of the rods on the market today advertised as fast are nothing more than rods with too much backbone in an effort to have a faster tip (I'm speaking more to freshwater troput rods). A buddy of mine has a sage 4wt that he uses for small spring creeks. The thing is so stiff that he spends more time untangling his line from his tip top. I tried it thinking it was his casting, but low and behold I was having a @#$%& of a time controlling it myself. Couldm't feel it load ay all!!! There is no way that that rod was a true 4wt as advertised. NO WAY. So beefed up the line and now it casts very well. At a certain point FAST becomes a liability. I hope the trend comes back to reality soon so that rods can once again be marked the way they should be. So for now, I think you've got to just try different lines with dfferent rods to find out which give the best actions. I starting to think it is a very important aspect to being a great fly rod builder. I wish there was a place you could test all the blanks with different lines and speed up the learning curve....LOL!!! Did the show last week have any casting areas?

Yes the show place has both inside and outside areas to cast and many rods were available to try out.

As Tom has said many times on this site: "any rod will cast any weight line" it depends upon how much line you have out to cast. The most important aspect in selecting a rod blank is..........what will you be using it for? Small creeks or streams casting short distances, large rivers for Steelhead with very long casts, or still waters from a float tube? Each requires a rod suited to it's circumstance.

In my experience I see most over-lining done to compensate for the wrong action for the persons casting stroke.

Action is where the rod bends, not how much power it has. The terms are being interchanged here.

But Larry is right - the number on the rod is subjective and most rods carry a number that only loads the rods easily at very long distances - that's what most consider a good rod - the one that casts the farthest with the rated line. So, you take what used to be labeled a 9-weight and label it as a 7. That way, it has enough power to easily carry a long length of 7-weight line. But the average guy fishing average distances will have a tough time doing much with it at average distances with a 7-weight line.

Fast action rods aren't hard to load and action really has little to do with that. They're just underlabled as Larry said. Moving up a line or two at average distances can be a big help for many fishermen. The CCS is the tool to let you know where you're actually starting but it'll give you a relative power number.

Yes, we had casting areas at the Showplace. Rather good ones at that. Several of us spent time casting fly rods on Sunday.

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

has anyone built a Forecast IF 662. Will it load a 2/3 Wt line. And with a 12-13" extension that has a handle and seat on it. It is a med-fast action

Bill - willierods.com

At some distance, yes it will load with a 2 or 3 line.

Remember, how much weight you put on the rod depends on how much of any specific line you have past the rod tip. 30 feet of a 4-weight line does not weigh the same thing as 15 feet of the same 4-weight line.

..........

I asked cause I picked up the Mod-fast one in RX6 but it is to soft. Or having a moderate flex had no power, like a wet nudle

Bill - willierods.com

Which means it would probably load very quickly at short distances with that line.

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

Any one have CCS numbers on the RX 7 6'6 2 piece ??

Bill - willierods.com

From the CCS data site on the left: AA between 55-67, ERN 2.97-3.12.

OOPS I should have remembered that site
Thanks George.

Bill - willierods.com

I have built a half a dozen IF662-4 blanks and the average ERN for them is 2.67. They are sweet litle rods for what they are intended: small water and small fish.

I originally built one last year after picking up the blank at the show and fished it often here in the Sierras. All my fishing buddies wanted one after trying mine.

A 2.67 ERN would indicate that a 3-weight line would work extremely well inside of about 40 feet. A 2-weight will also work but not with the ease that the 3 will at the shorter distances of say, 10 to 30 feet.

..........

I feel stupid asking this question but I'm new to rod building. Where do you get the ERN number for a rod blank? I saw this refered to a few times but don't know where or how to get it. Thanks for the info.

Jeremy

The Common Cents System. You can read it here: [www.common-cents.info]

Part 1 is all you need to read, and if you just want to obtain ERN figures and aren't at all concerned about the background involved, the last couple pages of that part are all you need.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A 2.67 ERN would indicate that a 3-weight line
> would work extremely well inside of about 40 feet.
> A 2-weight will also work but not with the ease
> that the 3 will at the shorter distances of say,
> 10 to 30 feet.
>
> ..........

Tom,
Just wanna make sure I'm right on this. According to CCS anything between 2 and 2.99 would be considered a 2wt right? Then 3 to 3.99 a 3 wt etc. Is this how I understand the CCS to explain things?

Not quite. Remember, fly lines are based on 30 feet of line, so for an average caster wanting to cast average distances, ERN=ELN. But when you move far inside or outside of the 30 foot range, you're back to having to move up or down a line size to keep the same amount of weight there.

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

As near as I can tell the "suggested line weight" of a fly rod blank is pretty much subjective and often reflects marketing considerations more than it provides useful information for matching fly rod to fly line. There are objective measurements of a blank's power, the ERN being one. An objective measurement will not communicate everything one needs to know about the ideal match of fly rod to fly line, but it will absolutely provide the angler with much more useful information to match rod and line than the present subjective numbers. The AFTMA is no more. Its replacement group could provide a great service to fly fishers by reforming how fly a rod's power is rated.
Fly lines sell for $65 and up. Buying several lines to find the right line for a fly rod becomes discouraging - and expensive.