Rod Action vs. Rod Weight

[WyFlyGuy]

Something posted in another thread got me thinking about a question I've had for a while now, but have yet to ask...

In the thread somebody asked about rod actions and what they mean. This was the reply...

Fast= broomstick

slow= those poles you use for a dome tent

moderate= somewhere in the middle

I always thought that the higher weight rod you had, the "stiffer" it would be (no jokes please :) ). However, I was fishing recently with my brother and dad and were comparing rods. We all use 5 wt. rods, but mine feels like wet spaghetti next to theirs. So, what's the difference between rod weight and rod action?

Thanks

[Curtis Fry]

IMO, you can't compare action with rod weight cuz each rod weight can have any variety of actions depending on how it's built and what it's made of. In simple terms, the rod weight is just a designation to tell you what type of line you can cast. Ideally, the weight is determined by the type of fishing you'll be doing.

[flintcreek]

Regarding weight, what would be the drawback of casting a 4 weight line and reel on a 5 wt rod? Stupid question I know.

[Cary]

lemme get some popcorn....

Carry on, I want to watch this one...

[Grizz]

lemme get some popcorn....

Carry on, I want to watch this one...


Ah, C'Mon Cary, your action carries alot of weight, let's here it.

peace

[nightfish]

This is from someone inside the industry, regarding rod/line weight designation and rod action:
QUOTE:
"It boils down to the common perception that rod’s have relative “weights” like lines. This has become a common misperception and is mainly due to the hijacking of the AFTMA standard by some rod manufacturers and sub-sequent slanting of its meaning. If you think about it, when someone says “I caught a nice trout on my ‘four weight’”, everyone assumes the speaker is referring to his rod. But technically there is no such thing as a four-weight rod—it’s a rod “intended to cast a four weight line”. The difference seems trivial but it’s important. The reason it’s important is that there is no standard of measuring a rods power, which is what determines how well it casts a given line weight. If you take a rod from one manufacturer and deflect it alongside the same line-weight rated rod from another manufacturer, they’ll deflect to entirely different points. Sometimes if you take two families of rods from the same manufacturer, they’ll deflect to entirely different points. This shows a huge variance in actual rod power. For some good articles on the issue, check out www.common-cents.info .



People are locked into the “Rod Weight” mindset and I believe it’s damaging to the sport overall. Part of the reason is that actual rod power vs. its line-weight rating has increased since the AFTMA standard was introduced, especially after the advent of graphite rods. Most consumers don’t see this—they assume that a four weight is a four weight is a four weight. Occasionally you’ll hear someone say that rod action has become faster with graphite rods; while true, it doesn’t relay the more important fact that rod power has increased. Rod manufacturers have been making the rods more powerful because when it boils down to it, a more powerful rod will throw a given line-weight farther. The line manufacturers have responded to this escalation by breaking from AFTMA standard and building the lines heavier—due to the perception that their lines aren’t casting well on popular “rocket” rods. It’s unfortunately a very complex issue that is partly justified and partly not.



The AFTMA standard was developed when there were few developed niche markets in fly-fishing. In 1960 95% of people cast a certain way with a certain style rod—that’s changed immensely in the past fifty years. Fly-fishing has become a very developed sport with a lot of niche markets, which has brought out the fundamental flaw with the AFTTA standard—it’s simply not flexible enough. Recognizing that it’s the line weight and not the diameter (the previous standard) that is important was a vital start, however it should have been left there. Label flylines as their actual head weight in grains and leave it at that. Then—the rod manufacturers would have to build rods to cast given ranges of grain weights, which is precisely what they do. A rod labeled “five weight” will cast a given range of grains comfortably. This would effectively remove all the ambiguity from making decisions about whether to “upline” or not. As it is now, we have a largely broken system that has consumers confused about the nature of rod power, action, and line weights. "

:END QUOTE

Let's see where my 30 seconds of cut/paste takes this thread :)

[WyFlyGuy]

nightfish - That actually makes a lot of sense (I think)

If you fish for bigger fish (e.g. Salmon) you will want to use a heavier line to handle that and, thus, a "heavier" rod.

So, if I understand correctly, the action of the rod will be more important than the weight rating. I should pick the weight line that best suits the type of fishing I do, then pick a rod with the action that best suits my casting style and that is comfortable for me, right?

It's unfortunate that it has become so confusing.

That all being said, what are the advantages/disadvantages of a fast versus a slow action rod?

[royalwulff]

do you know when a graphite rod is measured in "modules of elasticity" -- how does that really affect a rods action? I know they charge more for those rods but I dont know if it really makes a difference but would like to find out. Maybe it makes a huge difference if your trying to make really long casts? The thing that really makes me wonder too is when Lefty Krey says that a fenwick rod is the best overall rod for the money but it has a lower MOE rating than most other rods, I am also sure that fenwick is paying him to say that. but why would he sell out to fenwick and not some other company, well I guess he did to TFO rods as of late.

[nightfish]

The benefits of rod action are dependant on the casters style in most cases. I can adapt my casting motion to make any action work, but my natural casting cadence works best with a mid-fast rod for all around conditions...medium sized rivers (provo), flies in the range of a #10 hopper to a #16 para adams, and casts of around 30-40 feet. A mid flex is also a nice choice for throwing streamers on small to midsized rivers, as the rod absorbs some of the shock a weighted fly causes, while still having the linespeed to turn over that big, wind resistant mass...I like the same for indicator fishing. For windy conditions I like a faster rod that can generate higher line speeds to turn over a loop into the wind. Conversely, when target fishing dries to selective risers, or on small streams, I like the shock absorber flex of a mid action to protect finer tippets.

Notice in the above, I said "I" and "my". You need to figure out the action that suits your casting style and your fishing situations best.

As for what weight line/rod, you should consider your target species. A 5wt is not an appropriate selection for Alaska salmon fishing. First, the line weight (in grains) will not effectively carry the larger, heavier flies through the air. Remember the most fundamental difference between spin casting and fly casting is that spin casting uses the weight of the lure/bait to pull the line from the reel, while the weight of a fly line carries the fly. In addition, the breaking strength of the different weight fly lines can be a factor. Fly lines generally have test strength between 12pounds and 30pounds. An 8wt line will generally have a higher break strength than a 5wt. Second, a larger rod simply has more load bearing material to it...say a 5 weight vs an 8 weight. The larger quantity of graphite can bear a greater weight load (bigger fish).

Flintcreek, putting a 4wt line on a 5wt rod will most likely just speed up the action of the rod a little bit. Personally, I would compare the different weight lines on the rod you are using and see which feels best to you.

[nightfish]

Modulus is a misunderstood term. The way you're thinking of it Chris, it is a measure of how quickly the carbon fiber returns to a "neutral" position when flexed. Modulus is also a measure of the diameter of an individual fiber compared to its physical weight. A high modulus rod will have a lighter physical weight, and usually a thinner wall. However, the higher the modulus, the more brittle the finished product. Rod manufacturers that advertise high modulus, are not always being truthful about the construction. They may use 10% 80million modulus in the butt, but the rest of the rod may be 40 to 50 million modulus. Some manufacturers use other materials as reinforcement, like boron or titanium. Cost is relative to materials, but it is more relevant to the technology that went into developing the taper that works best for a combination of base fibers, reinforcing materials and resins.

Spokesmodels don't mean much to me, unless they had a hand in design. However, I'm still waiting for Tony the Tiger to plug a rod, because, well...

[royalwulff]

thanks for the info nick!

[WyFlyGuy]

From an engineering standpoint (which is what I believe they are after) the modulus of elasticity of any material tells you how flexible it is. Higher modulus = less flexible. This also translates into it being more brittle as nightfish pointed out. Using high modulus graphite lets them use less graphite in the rod because the material is "stronger"

Just my $0.02

[royalwulff]

From an engineering standpoint (which is what I believe they are after) the modulus of elasticity of any material tells you how flexible it is. Higher modulus = less flexible. This also translates into it being more brittle as nightfish pointed out. Using high modulus graphite lets them use less graphite in the rod because the material is "stronger"

Just my $0.02

So a high modulus rod might not be as good as a lower modulus one if you like a softer rod. Anyone know what the average modulus rating is on a flyrod-- like sage or g Lomis?