K.I.S.S. And I would bet money that most fishermen would agree. Probably most rod builders too. We're not stupid but we would rather build rods and go fishing than have to study the science behind somebody's informational gobbledygook.
Forum: rodboard

If you look at the first post in this thread a guy asked what the numbers meant. 3 or 4 posts under that another guy starting telling him that the numbers were about bending the rod back 1/3rd and using weight. Too much trouble for me and most others I think.
Forum: rodboard

Tom Kirkman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wayne Hart Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Loomis system seems good enough for me. It > has > > been in use for 40+ years now. The first two > > numbers are inches in length and the third > number > > is the rod power. So 784 is
Forum: rodboard

The Loomis system seems good enough for me. It has been in use for 40+ years now. The first two numbers are inches in length and the third number is the rod power. So 784 is 78 inches length and the power is a 4. I have no idea where they get the power number or how they figure it and do not care. As long as a 4 is stiffer than a 3 and less stiff than a 5 I’m good. And apparently so are millions
Forum: rodboard

Got my magazine today and learned this message board has been sold. I joined here all the way back in 2005 but today is my first post. Mostly I listened and learned and always enjoyed reading the info from so many fine rod builders, better builders than me. Never went a week without tuning in here for awhile to catch up.I remember when there were a dozen maybe more, rod building message boards. S
Forum: rodboard