TFO Blanks Available

[GonetoSeed]

I thought some of you guys would be interested in this thread from rodbuilding.org

http://www.rodbuilding.org/read.php?2,148917

The site that is mentioned concerning the testing is:

http://www.superbob.org/CC_Data.htm

The list is in alphabetical order. The column that measures action is the one titled AA (Action Angle). The basic way to read it is the larger the number the faster the action. Between about 65 & 70 the blank is considered fast. Any blank over 70 is way fast. For example, if you look under the Fly Rod tab for data on factory rods, you'll see that the Sage TCR measured 73.

Another interesting thing is that the blanks' power ratings would seem to be "underated", especially for the heavier line weight rods. Their 5wts would be more like 6 or 7wts in some manufacturers' line-ups. That is, they are rated for casting a lot of line (80'+ of a 5wt line weighs more than 45-50' of a 6wt line and therefore needs a more powerful rod so as not to overload). I think this is in line with peoples comments that they boom out a lot of line with these lines

[Ivan]

and what it's significance. Thanks for sharing that link. It was a real eye opener. I found the forecast ratings interesting. I have always felt that they where not fast action sticks.

it seems like the TFO Pro blanks are pretty fast compared to the TicCr.

[Ivan]

Just bringing to the top.

[GonetoSeed]

In the CC system, the blank/rod is mounted/held by the butt using some sort of fastner and extended horizontally, then weight in the form of post-1997 pennies (because by law they must weigh an exact amout of grains) are added to a baggie clipped to the tip of the rod until it bends 1/3 of the length of the blank/rod. The Effective Rod Number (ERN) is the number of pennies times their weight in grains divided by a constant number (can't remember what it is). The constant is used to turn the grains into a simple number scale. What the ERN measures is the relative power (stiffness) of the rod or how much static weight it takes to bend (load) the rod for that 1/3 bend. btw, the 1/3 is just an arbitrary decision. It was chosen by the CC developer (Bill Hannemen) based on his experience with how much a rod bends under normal casting. What is most important is that it is consistently used so that the CC system provides relative, comparative numbers.

A protractor is used to measure the angle at the tip of this 1/3 bend. The angle (Action Angler) is a measure of the action of the blank/rod. The larger the number the faster the action, (the bend is steeper earlier in the 1/3 of the total bend)

It is tempting to equate ERN to a single line rating of the rod. What it actually is intended to do is give the angler an idea of what range of AFTM line weights will load the rod for a range of casting distances. However, that does require knowing a lot about the actual weight in grains of the distances of line that will be casted - weigh the length of line in grains and divide by the same constant which gives you the Effective Line Number. A blank/rod and a length of line with equal ERN and ELN should work together pretty darn good.

A more practical use of the linked table is to understand that the ERN does line up pretty close for the AFTM line ratings for ~30-40' (this really depends on the line manufacturer sticking to the AFTM standard). So if the ERN for a blank is 5.5, it loads well with 30' of AFTM 5wt line. For some anglers, this blank/rod would be a "true" 5wt. So another way to use the table is to look at the manufacturer rating column and compare that to the ERN to see if there is a difference. You can use that difference to understand a little more about how the designer intended the rod to be used. For example, if the manufacturer rating is 5wt and the ERN is greater than 6 (6.5 for example), then the rod is actually more powerful than a "true" 5 wt. The blank will either load optimally with about 60'+ of AFTM 5wt or ~30-40' of ATTM 6wt.

This is not neccessarily about more precision, it's about getting in the right ball park.

For me an interesting thing about the table, is that the manufacturer ratings and the ERNs are usually pretty close in the "lighter weight" blanks/rods ("4" wts and below). I think this is because the designer believes that these rods are going to be used for small waters and closer distances. In "5" wts and especially "6" wts, you start to see the gap open up. I think the reason is the designer believes that these rods are often going to be fished at distances greater than 30-40'. That is the old (1962) AFTM standard is not very relevant. And since during the growth of the sport, we seem to have lost the old rule of thumb about when to upline or downline, the designer thinks he is "helping" the angler match the right line to the longer casting/fishing distances. imo, this is actually close to reality with "7" wts and above. If you're buying a "7+" wt rod, you are probably not intending to fish close in and an ERN of 8.5 to 9.5 is appropriate (ELN of ~60-70' of AFTM "7" wt line, depending on the taper).

The problem that arises in practice is most typically around "5" and "6" wts. It happens when the angler buys what he/she thinks is "6" wt. The rod got a lot of rave reviews in magazines or kudos on NGTO for casting performance. One of the reasons it is a great distance caster is because it actually has an ERN of say 7.5. This 6wt may really shine when fishing big Western rivers or light SW, but when trout fishing at 40-50' the angler has a hard (not impossible) time loading the rod with their favorite brand/taper AFTM 6wt line.