I am currently in the process of gathering together an upper midwest expert panel of casters for a builders blank shootout. The panel will consist of FFF Certified casters, teachers, Guides, Etc (general all around great casters me not included). We will be assembling a group of the more popular 9' 5wt med/fast and fast action rods and taking them through some tests as to come up with what we think are the top "all around" fly rods on the builders market according to my experts. I will then put together an internet article as so it will available for free on the web.

1) what blanks would you like to have included in the shootout?
2) Should we stick with the manufacturers suggested line weights, or shall we line the blanks according to what the CCS system dictates?

These will only be blanks that are available to builders and companies who do not make ready to fish rods.


I am paying for these blanks out of pocket and I will try to include as many as I can, but would also take donated blanks if any of you manufacturers would like to get in.

Thanks, Larry Damore

PS If any of you builders would like to lend me pre built rods I would be happy to return them after our test is concluded.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2010 10:19AM by Larry Damore.

The problem with any such shootout lies with the criteria involved. Often, the standard fly fishing magazine tests end up naming the longest casting rod as the "best." And the longest casting rod will generally be the one with the most power. In other words, since there is no standard for what constitutes a "5-weight" rod, any rod of any power can be submitted under the label, "5-weight."

What you're going to find if you measure the relative power of each "5-weight" blank with the CCS, is that you're comparing apples and oranges to a great degree. None or few of the blanks will have the same power even though they all carry the same manufacturer line weight designation.

You have a difficult task ahead of you with mostly subjective opinions being your end result. But it'll be interesting see what your "experts' conclude.

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

Tom,
That is exactly were I am torn on this test. Do I line the rods according to CCS, or do I go with the recomendations? I'm not sure which will help the readers most. In any case we will try to evaluate the rods at short, medium and long distancesin terms of accuracy and feel. I have noticed just with my own testing that a more powerfull rod (CCS) does not always allow me to cast the furthest or give me the best turn over at those distances, and quite honestly those underlined rods usually dont perform well in close. I thinks its gonna be very interesting to say the least.

Make the test blind and the rods unidentifiable except for a code number that is kept secret. The easiest way to do that would be to strip any paint off and have all the blanks be bare graphite. I guarantee you that if people know what brand they are using they will let their preconceived ideas influence the results, it will turn into a popularity contest and have little value.

Larry,
I think it's wonderful that you are undertaking this project.
I agree with Mike; make it a blind test, at least as much as you can, if you're using another builder's pre-built rod.

If it were me, for the distance casting, I would group the rods according to ERN. Set a range of, say 5. to 5.9, as my definition as to what constitutes a 5 wt. Evaluate only rods that fall in that range. I would gather 9' advertised 4-6wt. rods (and that might not be big enough range to actually find a "true" 5 wt. from every manufacturer in the shootout). But, that's where I'd start. Eliminate the first subjective obstacles to a fair eval, i.e. the manufacturers' recommendations and reputations.

I'm not so sure that I'd worry too much about accuracy. IMO, that is more a function of the caster, than the rod.

After that I might assemble a spreadsheet of all the rods based on the stated ratings of line weight and action vs. ERN and AA. This will be a huge eye-opener for some folks. One manu's 4 wt.has the same ERN as another's 6. This company's "fast" action is a 65 AA. Someone else's is a 75. That sort of thing

I would certainly have guys cast them, just to see which ones "feel" better, and make note of that as well. This would probably be the funnest and least quantifiable aspect of the shootout, but interesting, for sure. Maybe, I'd put the accuracy element in this portion of the comparo.

Just some thoughts...I'm really looking forward to the results, however you decide to run your shootout.

You might want to unhide your e-mail, so we can contact you if we have loaners for your project.

George Forster
Fort Collins, CO



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2010 01:19PM by George Forster.

What "weight" blanks do you plan to compare? It wouldn't make much sense to compare a 5 wt. blank to an 8 wt. blank. I think you should follow the recommended line weight for the blank(s), and use the same line and leader for all rods. According to J. S. Mills' rules of inductive reasoning you will be using the method of difference. You must eliminate every possible difference between casting conditions and equipment except for the different blanks in order to draw credible conclusions. It would further validate your conclusions to conduct a "double blind" experiment, where neither the test caster nor the person who hands him the rod knows who made the blank.

BTW: You don't have to restrict your tests to distance. You can compare blanks on any number of criteria:

short range accuracy - 30'
mid range accuracy - 60'
long range accuracy - 90'
roll casting distance
price
weight
lifting power
even impact resistance ($$$ !!)

I think the whole problem begins and ends with "FFF Certified casters, teachers, Guides". I've fished with these so-called "certified" FFF people and they could cast long distance (straight) with some accuracy, but they could NOT grasp the concept of line mending or implementing a mend within their casting stroke. Makes you wonder what the criteria are for being "certified". My bet is it involves a whole lot of dollars but absolutely no cents (sense). I once belonged to the FFF. It's a "good old boys" club. Good luck trying to incorporated new ideas into this dis-organization - especially if your under 40 years of age!

Phil, if you just use the manufacturers line ratings then you WILL be comparing 5 wt blanks to 8 wt blanks! Thats part of the problem because any rod can be labeled a 5 wt no matter how much power it has.

Because such contests are about which rods the panel likes best and not which rod might actually BE the best, it really does not make much difference. Fun to do maybe but I have never based any of my buying decisions on what any panel of testers has said.

OK. I don't think the blind testing of manufacturers names will be of great importance. That is exactly why I am taking this as far out of the relm of custom builders as I can. Most of the people I have talked to have very little if any experience with custom built rods. So bias should'nt be an issue. We will base the tests on much more than just distance casting. Mending might be a bit of a problem because I dont expect this will be an "on the water" test but certainly accuracy at closer distances will be a big part as well as most of the suggestions mentioned. The reason I am going with FFF and similar casting experience is because I know they DO have the ability to get the most out of a rod concerning power in most cases. The problem I think that exists in the building world an many of these and other fly forums is that there are many average casters (no offense) that on a good day cant make a 5wt rod cast 60ft. They comment on a rods reserve power, but really have no no idea about the real "power" of a rod. Lets not forget that most average casters can not get 80ft out of a 5wt fly rod under any circustances. So that is why I need to find people who understand the true mechanics of fly casting. Hence why I will be looking to teachers and guides etc. For anyone that would like to contact me I will put my email up in my profile. Feel free to contact me if you would like to help. I will keep the testing team in the midwest however because I dont want to get into a position where I am mailing fly rods all over the country. The logistics just work a little better if I keep it close to home and near the streams I visit many times over the course of this season. The biggest obstical at this point will be how will we enter the rods. manufacturers recomendations or CCS. I will make that decision after some thought. Rest assured the spelling and writting skills will improve at the time of the article......LOL.....it won't consist of any of my thought babble....
For any of you Who may want to lend a rod or two I would only ask one thing. That it doesn't contain too much thread art and feather work. Some may disagree but I believe to much epoxy on a rod "may" have an impact on the action. That is why I want to keep them very basic and staight forward.

Given that it looks like there is alot of interest in this article I will jump on it right away.........Stay tuned...........

Larry Damore

Larry,
Excellent Idea !!!!
I'll give my short list, all personal favorites on 5 weight lines.
Sage Z-axis 590 2-piece
Winston WT 590-3
Winston IIT 590-4

Do you have a list of your chosen arms ?

Eugene Moore

Larry:
I have been carping (?!) about under rated fly rods for some time now. I agree with you, rods are frequently mis-rated. However, if you compare two rods using different lines on each one you WILL be comparing lines as much as and probably more than you are comparing rods. Take your absolute favorite rod and match it with the wrong line and it will cast like a dog. However, a competent caster can usually compensate for the mis - rating of a blank's ideal line weight by aerializing more or less line.
Most fly fishermen buy the weight line that the decal on the blank calls for. If you start shuffling lines around and mixing and matching various weight lines with different blanks your comparisons of the blanks won't mean much to most fly fishers unless you include a detailed explanation of which lines were used with which blanks, why these different lines were used, and what the effect of these different lines was when used with different blanks.
I also suspect the "Minnie Pearl" effect is particularly strong in the fly fishing business. [Minnie conspicuosly left the price tag on her hat - for obvious reasons.] A Timex performs its function as well or better than a Rollex, but this fact has little impact upon consumers' perception of watches. Great amounts of money are spent advertising brands of fly rods; probably more money than is spent on product development. If testers know the brand of the blank they are testing it WILL influence their perceptions, even if it is a model only available to custom builders.

Torin, you have obviously not gone through the certification process with FFF!! The process is very comprehensive, not just distance, but all aspects of casting and the ability to instruct the same. You may have been a group of "good old boys" but that is not representative of the entire organization!!

Your hidden point that Casting and fishing are different is quite true, but to belittle a fine organization but because of your bad experience is uncalled for.

WOW!! Look at the firestorm this is setting off allready. I can't wait to write the article and really get things flying....lol. In all reality its gonna be alot of fun. Even if there is no perfect way to do it.
At the very least it will bring on all kinds of discussion and some good debate.

Gentlemen,

Would your data be more meaningful if you have a device (mechanical caster) that cast the fishing line at the same rate of speed, angle and lb. of force ? Your Data will be consistent and there wouldn't be any credential disagreement.

Ben

If we all fished with mechanical casters then testing with one would be of significant value. Lacking that, the next best method is probably to achieve a general consensus from as large a sample of casters as possible, and hope our own tastes and casting strokes fall within the range of this sample. Of course, it is necessary to take care that different rods rather than different lines are being tested, and the rod's performance rather than the rod's marketing image is being revealed.

I have a few friends that builts battlebots. Having them design and build a machine that mount a fishing rod for rod performance testing is a breeze. Doesn't the rod makers have similiar mechanical device to test their raw blank ? Just Curious.

Ben

I did a few searh on "Robot Arm" and here is some good video.

[www.youtube.com]

Phil,

I guess i'll sum it up in more simple terms for you. I don't find it necessary to gain status acceptance within a organization just so I can take home a "plastic trophy". I cast and fish every bit as well as these "certified members" without having to be affiliated with an organization. Besides, while they're in their meetings "talking" fishing and casting, I'm out there "fishing and casting" fishing and casting.