I haven’t posted for quite a while, but I have a question you guys might be able to help me with. I build fly rods for myself and my buddies. I recently built a 6 weight 9’ rod from a cts affinity X blank Herb Ladenheim got for me. I call the rod my “zip-zip” rod: fast, light, accurate, Flick of the wrist and the fly is there. I can cast further than I will ever need to, but the rod doesn’t really “breath” until about 40 feet. Great streamer rod. I now want to build a 4 weight, 9 ‘rod and thought of cts for a blank. Question: does cts maintain the same fast action through all its X rods, or does it adjust to the fishing demands of a 4 weight— a bit slower, a bit softer, a bit more feel? Opinions about cts lighter line blanks or alternative blanks very much appreciated... thanks.. Mel

My Affinity X 4wt is a fast and powerful 4wt. If you're looking for something a little more medium fast than fast ask Herb about whether he can get an Affinity MX. I have one in a 5wt and it sounds a lot like what you are looking for in a 4wt. It may be my favorite rod to cast. I love the Affinity X and have two in the 4 and also an 8wt but the MX I think is the sweet spot.

When I built my 8wt, I inquired about 8'6" 4wt MX with Herb, he stated at that time he could still get one from CTS though that was last year. Never hurts to ask.

I have never tried the Affinity M though I would like to, it seems to have replaced the MX but is supposed to be a slower action than the MX.

Jamie

You would think that a 4-wt is a 4-wt (and it should be). But many manufacturers will alter the power of the longer rods so that a short 4-wt is less powerful than than a longer 4-wt owing to the idea that the longer rod is intended to cast longer distances. Ask them for the CCS ERN number and you'll know how the power compares to your shorter 4-wt..

......

CTS Affinity M meets your requirements.

Do any blank manufacturers still use the standard deflection test using weight in grams divided by inches of deflection to determine the "weight" of the rod and the line weight it should use? If not, what method do rod makers use to determine the "weight" of the rod?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2020 10:16AM by Phil Ewanicki.

Mel,
The short answer, for all manufactures, is sometimes.
I remember the old Sage RPLX. The #9 was very soft. The #10 was a bear.
The Sage Xi2 #10 was un-castable with a #10 line. The lighter rod weights were better.
The CTS Affinity-# #8 is much faster than the Affinity-X #6.
It is very difficult - and perhaps impossible - to create the same exact action over a whole series on the same model.

I assume that you refer to casting distance of 40' - vs line overhang out of the tip when you talk about "breathing".

If I know I will be casting a short line I will overline the rod. That may not work for you due to the line hitting the water harder.

Jami M. brings up the Affinity-MX. That is still available and may be what you need. The "X" and the "MX" share the same tip. Their mid/butt sections are softer so you can load deeper with the same line weight. Therefore the "MX" is a slower blank than the "X".

I recently built an Affinity-M #8 for myself. The "M" is called a "Smoother" more moderate blank by CTS.
It has a stiffer tip than either the "X" and "MX". And it has a more moderate mid/butt section than both the "X" and "MX".

This makes the Affinity-M a slower blank (i.e. it locks-up closer to the butt than either the "X" or "MX.
This will help your closer-in casts.

Personally, I like a faster rod and will tip cast 1 or 2 line weights up for my short work - sight casting. But I'm strictly saltwater - so far at least.

Regards,
Herb

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do any blank manufacturers still use the standard
> deflection test using weight in grams divided by
> inches of deflection to determine the "weight" of
> the rod and the line weight it should use? If not,
> what method do rod makers use to determine the
> "weight" of the rod?


No, they simply design a rod to cast the intended line weight at some unspecified distance. For instance, they figure that a 4-wt rod in a 7 foot length isn't being used to cast a 4-wt line very far, and thus it will be less powerful than their identical 4-wt rod in a 9 foot length which they figure will be used to cast longer distances. Beyond that, no two companies' 4-wt rods (or any other weight) will necessarily possess the same power. What one company deems a 4-wt may be what another company will deem a 5-wt, etc.

..........

So other than the length and weight of the blank there are no physical or quantifiable measurements available to describe or qualify rod blanks! This has to be a boon for people who make and sell fly lines. This was not the case in the past when the Observed deflection of a rod in inches created by a weight measured in grams gave a quantifiable and consistent suggestion of what combination of line and rod would be reasonable. Opinions are interesting but differ wildly. Facts, such as inches and grams, provide at least a known starting point (versus opinion) for selecting a line to mate with a rod, or vice-versa.

The system you are referring to was coined by Cortland. It fell short however, because using a given weight and then measuring deflection was upset by the wide variety of actions found in different rods. This is why in the CCS the constant is the distance (based on a percentage of rod length) and not the weight. Two rods with different actions but with the same power will measure the same on the ERN power scale.

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

My 9ft 4wt 4pc Affinity X has an ERN of 5.05 with an AA of 69 degrees. Fast and starts to load well with a typical wf4 line at about 40 feet. I'm looking to load it with one of those "half line weight heavier than industry standard", so that it loads a little closer.

Thanks to all for the terrific feedback. Looks like the MX would be the ticket.... thanks for writing Herb. I’ll be in touch. I hope you are well and virus free. I took my Sage Method 6 and CTS 6 to a nearby river to compare. Used an MPX line. The Sage is light, fast, accurate, and casts for distance. The CTS is lighter, with a quick recovering tip that makes me look like a terrific caster, more accurate, and casts for distance more easily than the Sage. I only need one fast 6 weight, so the Sage is for sale, if anyone is interested. It’s a terrific rod.... The CTS is very accurate at all distances, just point and shoot, but after about 30 feet of fly line the mid-tip comes into play, the rod transmits more feel, and casts longer than I can. I guess I’d like a shorter trout rod that casts under 40’ like the 6 weight does over 40’! Again, thanks all...

Mel, your experience with the CTS rod is exactly what my customers are saying about those I have built for them.

Mel,
Check with Herb and see if CTS still offers the Vintage, those blanks in 4 and 5 wt, 8-6 length are excellent trout blanks, they were the "slowest" or "deepest flexing" Carbon blanks CTS offered. If they do not offer that, the M or MX are good options to.

Bill, Mel,
Yes - CTS still makes the Vintage (FV) I just ordered one for a customer the other day.
You also may want to take a look at the CTS glass line of blanks. Bill can give you more info on those. The 7'6" #3 is a dynamite blank for shorter casting distances.
Herb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2020 11:10AM by Herb Ladenheim.

I concur an ERN is a more accurate and useful way than simple deflection for matching rod to line, and I am well aware the "best" line for a rod being cast by a double-haul caster is not the "best" line for the same rod being cast by someone who can't cast 50 feet. Fly rod ads lack Useful [numerical] information to match line weight and caster with a particular blank.

Hi, Phil.

I am currently looking for another 10 weight blank for big Northern Pike and Muskies and have always wanted to try a CTS blank. I know some things about the Affinity X but I am intrigued by the MX because while fast is nice, I find it weird to have to overline a rod. The MX is not listed on CTS' web site and not sure why. Herb Ladenheim is also telling me about the rod he designed, which is apparently called an FSA.

How would you compare the MX to the X in the 10 weight? Have you ever built out one of these FSAs?

Thanks,

Tony

Sorry to revive this old thread, but I wanted to check and see if you built this MX and have any line recommendations. I'm working on an 8'6" 4wt. MX right now that I'm planning on using for my dry fly fishing and I'm thinking of pairing it with the rio technical trout or SA trout taper, but would be interested to hear your experiences with it.

Hi, Nick. I have not built any CTS fly rods. I did not like that I could not pin down the grain ratings, but I know many people like them. You could talk with Barry Weaver of Dream Weaver custom rods. He might know more about these CTS blanks as he builds a lot of them. Of course, you could talk to the man himself, Herb Ladenheim who brings them in from NZ

I'm going to reply here in case anyone else goes looking for this info. I finished my 8'6" 4 wt MX (built with single foot recoils for anyone who cares), and I'm using SA amplitude trout (120 grain first 30', so true to weight). I took it out for a little test casting to see how it felt, but haven't put any fish on it yet. I found that it loaded with no problem with relatively little line out of the tip (~10 to 15 ft). It really hits its sweet spot in the the 20-30 foot range which is about the range most of my casting is done at. My test casting was done in some relatively strong winds which isn't great for that line taper, but I'm confident I could easily make 50+ foot casts with it if needed on a calmer day. All in all, it's pretty much exactly what I was hoping for and now I can't wait for the hatches to really begin in the next few weeks.