What most fly fishermen who read those tests are looking for is which rod was able to cast the furthest (it must be the best). And the rod that does that will be the one which is most closely matched, power-wise, to the line chosen for the "test." Trouble is, since no two of those rods are likely to possess the same power, it's not really a test at all. Unless all the rods feature at least the same power, nothing has been proven.

There is an art and even a science, of sorts, to advertising and marketing.

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

it,s a lever..that,s all i need to know..lol.

How does it feel to the end user?

Tom is right on. I thought after my last post that all the test showed was which rod cast the test line the "best." Use a different line and you'd most likely get a different answer.

You made my point, Tom. A power rating is a physical property of a blank, a quality that can be determined numerically and reliably replicated. Even the "weight" of a fly rod refers to a measured quality: the weight of the first 30' of fly line which that blank is best suited to cast. Admen have even corrupted that objective measurement by proclaiming "The most powerful 5 weight rod made" - that's because it is a 6 weight !

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom is right on. I thought after my last post
> that all the test showed was which rod cast the
> test line the "best." Use a different line and
> you'd most likely get a different answer.


Bingo.

........

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You made my point, Tom. A power rating is a
> physical property of a blank, a quality that can
> be determined numerically and reliably replicated.
> Even the "weight" of a fly rod refers to a
> measured quality: the weight of the first 30' of
> fly line which that blank is best suited to cast.
> Admen have even corrupted that objective
> measurement by proclaiming "The most powerful 5
> weight rod made" - that's because it is a 6 weight
> !


And another Bingo.

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

You can take all the objective scientific measurements you can muster up, but you still have to personally try it to know if you like it. Everyone has different likes and dislikes, biases and perceptions. Based on this there is no way any set of objective parameters would define the best rod for everyone. Double blind testing under controlled conditions is the way to go if you are trying to prove or disprove a scientific theory. But it means nothing if you are trying to tell someone what’s the best rod based on objective measurements. Because what’s best to you may not be what’s best to me. So for companies to perform and list a bunch of esoteric measurements, is basically a waste of money for them, because only a few will know what they mean.
Norm

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can take all the objective scientific
> measurements you can muster up, but you still have
> to personally try it to know if you like it.
> Everyone has different likes and dislikes, biases
> and perceptions. Based on this there is no way any
> set of objective parameters would define the best
> rod for everyone. Double blind testing under
> controlled conditions is the way to go if you are
> trying to prove or disprove a scientific theory.
> But it means nothing if you are trying to tell
> someone what’s the best rod based on objective
> measurements. Because what’s best to you may not
> be what’s best to me. So for companies to
> perform and list a bunch of esoteric measurements,
> is basically a waste of money for them, because
> only a few will know what they mean.
> Norm

That was the point I was trying to make, and I agree with your statement. There are alot of specifics that can be quantified that are of great interest to me personally, but as we have both said those metrics would be meaningless to most people.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom is right on. I thought after my last post
> that all the test showed was which rod cast the
> test line the "best." Use a different line and
> you'd most likely get a different answer.



Thats not just the case with fly rods , change the line on any rod/reel and it will perform differently . Testing blanks for performance characteristics WITHOUT components would be ideal but i don't see it happening . I prefer high mod rods because they are capable of releasing more stored energy but only if designed correctly .

Actually the parallel on casting and spinning rods wouldn't be changing the line, but rather changing the casting weight/lure. On a fly rod, it's the line that supplies the weight. Yes, spinning and casting rods will be affected by line type, but only marginally in terms of how the line loads the rod.

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

I knew it wasn't a great comparison because spinners and fly rod outfits cannot be measured the same way but i wasn't sure how to word it , you filled in the missing pieces that makes it easy to understand .

if i,m after a big fish, i,ll need a stronger lever to cast that big ol' bug and land that big ol' bass..lol.

Norman's response right on! I build only fly rods, and my customers seek many characteristics of a rod, many of which have no metrics obtainable.

They want to know how it fishes, with casting an important factor.

Each one is different and may be looking for different defining factor.

Phil Ewanicki , now i feel your pain , i think it's become obvious that people continue to come back to the personal preference thing which is just "Basic common sense" which i know is not the info you were interested in . Phil wants hard data on dynamic efficiency of each blank prior to adding components , i want that also , i'll have Norm get right on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 03:47PM by herb canter.

Please define "dynamic Efficiency."

Here's the problem with data other than the true power and action of a bare blank. All the other measurable s, the way a blank oscillates or whatever, are affected by the components used to turn it into a fishing rod. That alone makes any such data collected from a bare blank, pretty much useless, because once the blank is turned into a fishing rod, those properties no longer exist.

Aside from the fact that manufacturers know that most people could care less about such information, why would a manufacturer publish data that they know will be meaningless in their products real world application?

Phil Erickson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
" Please define "dynamic Efficiency."


If you look up " Dynamic Shaft Fitting Addendum" which discusses graphite golf shafts and how they test them and compare the differences and performance characteristics you will get the idea , it's complex though and i'm no engineer . I know exactly what Phil is talking about though when he requested that he wants a system that can produce concrete numbers that show real world differences between blanks , saying this rod will outcast that rod and this blank is smoother than that blank is just not going to work for Phil , Phil demands proof . Unfortunately no hard factual proof is available from manufacturers so this is not good news and Phil is not going to be a happy camper .

I like to know what I'm paying for. Others like to have people tell them what they are paying for- in general terms such as "Smooth" and "Powerful" and "Accurate" and even "Soulful". I have no problem with that - if such information makes them happy I wish them well. A "system" which compares how far in actual feet and inches two rods cast and how close they cast to a target is not too much to ask.

David Baylor, you make a whole lot of sense..