Scenario: Builder tells customer, “Based upon your height, rig weight, and type of fishing, you’re best length is going to be X. Shorter, and your accuracy will probably improve, the rod will be lighter, more maneuverable, and more transportable, and you’ll give up some distance and hook setting ability. Longer, and you’ll cast further and have better hook setting ability”. Customer asks, “How far can I expect to cast with the length you recommend and how will that cast change by going with a different length? I really need to cast at least Y feet on the waters I fish”. Builder answers, “Based on my experience, your cast will be affected about Z feet” and customer replies, “Yea, but I don’t have your arm or your height. Isn’t there a method to calculate this?”

Goal: Rod builder tells customer, “Based upon testing by some of the world’s best builders and fishermen at the ICRBE, the ideal length for you is X. You can expect to gain very close to Y feet by going 6” longer and lose Z feet by going 6” shorter. Since we know how the cast will be affected, you can decide what minimum cast length will meet your needs and weigh that against the other aspects that will be affected by rod length in achieving the best compromise”.

Proposal: A casting contest of blank length as opposed to last year’s contest that focused on the caster/builder. Test rods from 5’6” thru 8’ casting weights from 1/16 oz thru 1 oz with experienced fishermen as close as possible to 4’8”, 5’2”, 5’8”, 6’2”, and 6’6” tall. Five casts per fisherman per rod. Use blanks from a different manufacturer for each category to eliminate specific manufacturing techniques as a variable. Build all rods within a specific category exactly the same, with the exception of number of running guides, with components most common to that application, and on untrimmed blanks from the same manufacturer. Use the most commonly deployed type of reel, line weight, and rig weight for each application. If time permits, include some less extensive “coffee can” accuracy tests.

I’m willing to supply all of the blanks and to serve as recorder. We’d need multiple folks to be willing to cover the other components and one or more folks willing to do the builds. I suggest that all rods used for the contest be sold at the Expo after the contest is finished and all proceeds donated to the Expo fund in appreciation for the reams of great information we glean from this site and Tom’s efforts. I’ve got a list of proposed blanks and components to match those blanks, but I’ll hold off on posting until and if we have a go.

Jason Cosby
Cos Rods



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2010 07:25PM by Jason Cosby.

Sounds cool.

Crickets? At least let me know what you think, even if you don't agree. I won't cry to Mom (I'll just go fishin').

Jason Cosby
Cos Rods

I am in, and willing to help out too with assembly/building and so on. It sounds like a great way for us to learn and experiment. My only exception is that you don't have a category for 5'10" fisherman (thats me) but if I hunch down a little I could get to 5'8" lol.

Seriously, let me know if I can help out. I am intrigued with the idea

Matt Smith
Greensboro, NC

i am willing to help, but one thing to consider is each person casts differently. a few years ago when i cut off the end of my index finger my casting style changed. sometimes size does matter and sometimes it does not. it affected my grip on a fly rod and makes it harder to hold the line on spinning tackle. i am 6ft 4"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2010 04:53PM by john timberlake.

Outstanding. We have a start. Height doesn't have to be that exact. The important thing is to cover the range from short to tall. I agree, casting style will be different for everyone, and that's why we would need to spread it across multiple anglers to get anything meaningful. Otherwise, I'd do it myself in the backyard. Thoughts, Tom, before we get any deeper into this?

Jason Cosby
Cos Rods

Jason,

I haven't made any decision to host the Expo again, yet. Nor where I'll locate it if I do. So this sort of thing is very much beyond anything I'm considering at this point in time.

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

I do not believe what you are attempting is possible. There are to many variables involved to be able to say that for a certain height or weight a fishermen should buy X length rod for the most distance, or most accuracy, or whatever. I have read through this topic several times and still cannot believe it will deliver any real information as to any sort of definitive information on the correct rod length for any person. I must be missing something.

Jason Cosby Wrote:

Customer asks, “How far can I expect
> to cast with the length you recommend and how will
> that cast change by going with a different length?
> I really need to cast at least Y feet on the
> waters I fish”.

Jason, I'm not sure any amount of testing is going to allow you to answer the above question with any accuracy. Without actually having the customer cast the rod, how can you tell them (based on their height) how far they will cast with a rod of X length and a lure of X weight? I feel that there are way too many variables that can come into play. Some that come to mind are: casting style, arm length (doesn't always correspond to height), strength, quickness, reel quality, reel maintenance, etc. For example, my main fishing partner and I are the exact same height, weight, and build. I built us identical 3C68MXF built as spinning rods. We use reels that are very similiar, but not exactly the same and we use the same line. However, I consistently outcast him by about 30% in distance. Why? Because of casting technique. If you were to have both of us come to you as customers, based on our physical stature, we should cast the same distance...but we don't. If that happens too many times, you're going to end up with a bunch of unhappy customers who aren't casting the distances that they were told they would.

To me (I could be wrong), it seems like fitting a person with a rod in this manner needs to be more like fitting a person with golf clubs. Everyone has a different swing and needs a different club length and stiffness. Not every person that is 6' needs the exact same club to hit the ball 150 yards. Each person should be individually 'fit' for the rod if they are wanting to cast an exact distance with it.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to act like a know-it-all and I'm not trying to discourage you. If you do get all of the testing done, I would be very interested in seeing the results.

Best of luck,
jeremy

Peter and Jeremy,

Agreed, this would not yield any scientifically quantifiable data. I have the work that Eugene has done on this and it's really a mind blow looking at the math. This is the next best thing in my mind in the quest to come up with a bit more factual data (I'm not enough of a math wiz to take Eugene's work any further). What I'm hunting for is trends, and that's why I'm trying to get a group together. Casting style and ability will most definitely be a factor, but remember that I propose each angler cast each rod. A lot of the most valuable data would be comparing the data of the same angler against themselves while on other rods. The data would not be of much use if the reel or stripper/transition guides setup changed within a certain class. The only aspect that could change and produce useful data would be the rod length. Again, this isn't a comparison of one angler to another, it's a comparison of rods and trends. If we see the same trends with all casters, we have something useful.

I'm not naive enough to think that this test would yield results like, "You're ideal rod length is 6' 3 1/2" and you should cast 77.3 feet". That's totally unrealistic. But we should be able to come up with something like, "Testing indicates that a person with your height and arm length will cast best with a rod of X length in this class. Testing also shows that you can expect your cast to change by X by adding or subtracting Y length". While it would be great to have every customer come by the shop and test until the ideal is found, this is not always possible. Even after questioning everything conceivable aspect of a long distance customer's needs, wants, style, anatomy, etc, we're still left with only a vague idea at best of what length is going to actually be ideal for them. That's where this sort of data would be most valuable.

Nobody's coming off as a know-it-all, the points brought up are all valid and things that we all ponder. This is just the best that I can come up with short of a major revelation by someone smarter that me. We've currently got three on board. Would this data be valuable enough to you to hop on?

Jason Cosby
Cos Rods

Do you remember the rod Eugene submitted for the distance contest at the Expo? Need I say more???? Concepts and theories are one thing but results are another. Eugene's math may look good on paper but it looked terrible out on the casting field. No offense to Eugene. But the proof is always in the pudding. As I recall his rod finished near the bottom of the pack even with two different people casting it who both did better with other rods.

I'm trying to get to the results, that's why I'm proposing a hefty results-based casting session. Again, the fact that two people did better with other rods is comparing different rod configurations, not isolated testing. We're not at the point as builders, evidently, where we can reliably and accurately calculate rod performance with math. Who knows, maybe Eugene's work will change that. I do know that there are an awful lot of smart people in the world and believe that it won't remain a mystery forever. Let me give a couple of examples:

I made my living as a mechanic for a number of years and was around when electronic fuel injection first hit the scene. It's pretty undeniable that EFI is vastly superior to a carburetor in every way except possibly repair costs. I attended training at GM headquarters and listened to the engineers responsible for putting some of the earliest EFI vehicles into circulation. Unlike carburetors, you can't be "sort of close" with EFI. it has to be accurate down to the last droplet of fuel. The number of parameters and influences on the internal combustion engine, much like rods, is huge. Those engineers didn't get to where they are by plugging in a few numbers and spitting out data. They spent literally millions of man hours over years with engines on a dyno isolating parameters and perfecting each one of them. The key was isolating, then going back and determining how those parameters effect one another (good mechanics will diagnose in much the same manner). Each engine had to be tested in this way, as there was no history to work with. In today's world, this is not the case. We have all of that hard earned data and an engineer can sit down with a new engine design and get very close to a perfect fuel mixture and ignition curve without having tested a thing. Isolating and testing rod length is, I believe, a step in that direction.

A better example might be trumpets (I know, but humor me). The trumpet began life over 5,000 yeas ago, probably further back than any fishing rod (tree branches don't count). We first discovered that putting strategically located holes in sea shells made a musical instrument. Over five millennium later, we still don't know a lot of why a great instrument plays the way it does. Progress has been made almost entirely through trial and error. With that much history, there are rarely advances made today, and almost all of those are made by accident. Move the water key a tiny fraction of an inch and destroy or improve the way it plays. Why? We still don't know. There are a bunch of examples like this, but you get the point. Sometimes we have to figure out what works and later (sometimes MUCH later) figure out why.

I'm not one to accept that we've stretched things as far as they will ever be taken. I don't think it's possible for rods to be any more complex than NASA putting rovers on Mars, though they may be as complex. Still, there is an awful lot of brainpower in the world and more than enough to at least get significantly closer than we are at the moment.

Jason Cosby
Cos Rods

First,
I did not subnit the rod to the competition. I was requested to build it by another individual.
Second,
I suggested the rod not be entered into the competition having already conceded.
Third,
I've had 3 different people cast that rod distances over 145' and one up to 165'. Per the rules of the competition.

Now that you've had your laugh.

Eugene Moore

I was not getting a laugh. And I know that many people cast extreme distances with their rods UNTIL they got to the competition. Then all those extra long distances suddenly dropped. My point is that all the engineering concepts and theories are great on paper but for whatever reason they do not always pan out in the real world. A matter of not applying them correctly maybe, I do not know. But that rod did not cast as well as most of the others. I DO remember that.

Peter;
Let’s get the facts straight before someone is offended or misinformation becomes common thought.
First-
Knowing that Eugene could not make the competition, I was the builder who suggested that he build the rod and that I would cast it in the competition.

Second-
Unless some one took the rod from me or from the friend who was holding it along with my other rods and cast it with out my knowledge, I was the only one to cast that rod.

Third and most important-
The rod’s performance (or lack there of) was not due to any design flaw. But to the fact that Eugene chose an extra fast blank that because of its quickness and power would not load the using the light 6lb line with out snapping off the casting plug
Limiting me to more of a lobbing type of cast. This did not allow me to load enough energy into the blank to cast substantial distances. I had the same challenge with one of the rods I built, snapping the line and limiting me to more of a lobbing cast with it also. Next time I will use the same rod and enter it on the braided side. Where it can be loaded and cast effectively.
I would also have no challenge entering Eugene’s in the braid side knowing the results of both would be far different.

Forth- Eugene’s rod performed about the same as several of the rods that utilized larger sized guide trains.

Fifth- there were a couple of reasons for the all around shorter casting distances that many experienced when they tests their rods before the expo
1- Stiff cross winds robbed some to much of the distance possible by causing large billows in the line (especially on the rods that had to be lob cast because the plug and lines were higher above the tree line loosing some of the advantage of the trees deflecting some of the wind on the lower casts).
2- The plug used was more of a tear dropped shaped whiffle ball type of design, (lager and hollow in the middle) then most casting plugs creating wind drag which cut down on every one distances. Many of the pretest casting was done with more aero dynamic plugs or lead weights which is why there was so much discrepancy between competition’s results and testing results posted prior to the Expo.

Six- I know from my own casting of his rod that with 10lb line and a smaller sized casting plug Eugene’s stated casting distance a factually accurate!

Bickering certainly won't tell us anything about rod length. People in my line of work have a saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Jason Cosby
Cos Rods

I thought more than one person cast it. I was wrong then. But it does not change the facts that everyone cast in the same direction against the same crosswind and everyone used the SAME casting plug. So all that is a wash. Everyone knew going in how much weight was going to be cast and that it was going to be a rubber plug not a lead weight. Part of rod building is selecting the right blank for the weight being cast. I guess we will never know but I think the reason it did so poorly was the huge butt guide. I have tried rods with these overly large butt guides and then swapped them out for higher frame smaller rings and found a BIG improvement in casting distance.