Walter & Group...
As an engineer, Troy Miller has an interesting perspective on terms pertaining to fly rods. It makes good sense to me, so I'll share it :
Gordy
There are a wide range
of definitions of these terms, and the fact that we can?t quite land on a
concise description of these two (action and power) adds to the charm and
mystique of rod design. We have the Orvis Flex Rating system, Common
Cents, Scott?s deflection ratings, Don Phillips concepts, Tim does ECHO this
way, etc etc. I?ve given a number of presentations on rod design (both
bamboo and tubular composites), and while I?m no expert, what I present makes
the most sense to me. That?s the key -- each of the systems out there
makes sense to somebody, but not everybody. If it were possible to come up
with one perfect action/power for a flyrod, we?d have reached casting nirvana
and only one rod company would survive ? the one that invented and patented the
utopian rod. Not gonna happen?
The way I describe
action and power is pretty simple. And I don?t actually use those terms
with students. I describe rods as existing within two spectrums ? soft to
stiff, and slow to fast. These are discrete ranges, not necessarily tied
to one another. It?s a matrix, really. 3X3, with Soft/Medium/Stiff
along one axis and Slow/Moderate/Fast along the other. I explain that in
my mind, the way a rod loads (where it bends) depends mostly on its stiffness
profile, while the way it unloads depends on the character of the material it?s
made from. I think of the soft/stiff spectrum as relating to statics and
slow/fast as relating to dynamics. I can take any rod, clamp off the cork,
and hang weights from the tip to determine where the rod bends under different
loads (stiff or soft). Then I can take a rod and bend it a certain amount
? then release the tip and observe how quickly it returns to straight with the
load removed (fast or slow). I can make a rod very stiff with a low
modulus material (my buddy has a 7-wt Eustis Edwards bamboo rod that will cast
from 20 feet to 110 feet in two strokes). It?s HEAVY, slow, and powerful
(stiff) ? and it casts itself once you put it in motion. It is a GREAT rod
for throwing big deer hair bass poppers. On the other hand, we can make a
soft and very fast rod by using a super-high modulus material ? but only a very
thin wall of it on a fairly steep taper. For instance, Sage?s SP series
(Graphite IV) was a very crisp dry fly rod in the lighter line weights, a
pleasure to fish. Soooo light and accurate, capable of loops that would
pass through a screen door. Static loading shows the rod clearly as a
medium-soft rod, but the unloading was very rapid when the load was removed (at
the stop).
Having said all that, Tim is right. With most of today?s rods, if you have a stiff rod, it?s usually fast. And if you have a slower rod, it?s usually soft. This has to do with durability/practicality more than anything, I think. If you want a rod that will hold up, you need a certain amount of wall thickness. If you try to make a really soft rod from a hyper-fast material (high modulus), you can?t use very much of it, and it will likely break under normal fishing conditions. If you want a super-stiff rod from a low modulus material, you?ll have to make the wall very thick and/or the diameter relatively large. This will make the rod extremely durable, but be so heavy that you can only fish it for minutes at a time. Think of using a solid e-glass boat rod blank to build a flyrod from? So there are not too many examples of rods in those corners of the matrix today. If you plotted points for every rod currently in manufacture today, there?d be a thick cluster of points in the stiff/fast corner, and then a trend line of points thinning out toward the medium-slow/moderate corner. Virtually no points in the less practical corners. As an engineer, I see this as a very good example of intelligent design to satisfy intended purposes.
Regards,
Troy
Miller
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Troy.. This speaks to the confusion which can result when discussions tend to take the narrow approach that all "slow action" rods must be "soft" and that all "fast action" rods must be "stiff". Certainly not always the case.
I'm intrigued by the idea that these properties could be plotted on a graph ! No two rod designs would necessarily occupy the same plotted position.
We might, for example, plot "slow" to "fast" on the abscissa and "soft" to "stiff" on the ordinate. Points "P" at the intersections of the derived axes would give us a single numerical rating for each rod similar to Tim Rajeff's !
A stiff rod can have less "strength" than a limber one or vice versa if we look at strength as resistance to breakage. In addition, a slow action rod can be designed to handle a heavier fly line than a fast action one and, therefore, could be considerd a more "powerful" rod.
A lot to to ponder as we seek to plunder the mystique !
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GREASED LINE" MATERIALS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Misako Ishimura on greased line fishing. She brings up a point I hadn't considered :-
Hi
Gordy,
Are all these greasing materials are friendly to the
environment?
Misako Ishimura
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~