How are fiberglass rods rated

[Baron]

It seems they don’t often carry the same nomenclature as theGraphite rods. I have this old Wright McGill and it is Marked. 6wt. Feels like 1-2.

 

[afishinado]

Baron wrote:
It seems they don’t often carry the same nomenclature as theGraphite rods. I have this old Wright McGill and it is Marked. 6wt. Feels like 1-2.

If it's labeled as a 6wt it is a 6wt.

Fiberglass rods made back in-the-day tended to be very slow action much like casting a wet noodle. That's why it feels like a 1-2 weight.

Modern fiberglass rods generally are a little faster action (al dente noodle).

You may want to cast a few glass rods to find one that suits your casting and fishing before you spend money to buy one.

 

[brain]

same nomenclature, they just normally include AFTMA in the line with the rating. American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Assoc.

 

[Bamboozle]

There are more than a few people out there (me included) that feel that today's modern graphite rods are "under" rated to make them feel faster to appeal to the fast rod crowd.

That's the reason so many anglers use overweight fly lines, so they can get them to flex. That's also the reason why so many people are inclined to fish older rods with a line weight lighter.

Fish the action you like, however you get there, but the older rods are rated correctly.

 

[Baron]

Thanks all. Guess what I'm saying is that the ratings are missing on many of the rods. So Im confused as to wether the rod will be as capable of the wind resistance, distance and accuracy as I'm used to.

 

[redietz]

Baron wrote:
Thanks all. Guess what I'm saying is that the ratings are missing on many of the rods. So Im confused as to wether the rod will be as capable of the wind resistance, distance and accuracy as I'm used to.

Yes, but you'll need to change your casting stroke.

 

[Baron]

Bob, I'm assuming you mean slow it down and pause briefly on the backend slow the letdown in front? Also it should be shot higher in the back to avoid loosing flys? That is what I have to do with my old Mcgill wright noodle that I have whereas the rod that just broke was stiff and much more direct in the backcast and the delivery.

 

[redietz]

Yes, you need to use a slower casting stroke than on the broom sticks you're used to.

 

[Baron]

Broomstick, not that I'd know the difference at this point, but that is appropriate in describing my fast tipped modern rods to the old one. and all the modern ones are BUSTED.

 

[redietz]

You have to understand that there's a bit of tongue-in-cheek here. Fans of faster rod disparage slower rod as "wet noodles"and fans of slower rod disparage faster rods as "broom sticks." Those particular names have been thrown around for decades. (I've even seen some medium action rods described as both, depending on who's doing the naming.) Using either term is just a short hand way of expressing our preferences.

FWIW, I've only ever cast a full 90' line twice in my life while actually fishing; once with a glass rod, and once with a bamboo rod. (I wasn't actually trying to do so on either occasion; I couldn't do it again on purpose.) I've never managed to do so with a graphite rod. Others will have had exactly the opposite experience.

 

[Baron]

It seems to me that with graphite rods the action and distance is set in stone. And my little light action is more pliable, more forgiving. But it would seem that I'd like a little heavier fiberglass than that when tossing frogs and streamers. I know that the word parabolic action used to be a big term years ago but that is kind of what I'm hoping for in this next rod. The furtherest I cast on lakes is 50' and I only do that in one stump field where I can't really sneak up on them. The rest is probably 20-30 '. On rivers, which are rare for me, I work a bit further out. I could be wrong but in most of my warm water areas I'm not so sure that more distance equals more success.

 

[Baron]

Bob, is it possible that the bigger the quarry, and the windier it is and further I must cast then the more I'd probably be happy with graphite. I assume this but don't really have any experience to support it. It follows that I bet most spey guys are graphite followers.

 

[redietz]

Spey guys, yeah, but that's mostly because of the length of the rod. Glass gets heavy in longer lengths, and you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to cast a 12 foot glass rod. (Although I do own a glass switch rod.)

No problem with bigger fish or flies, though. Back when I was a teenager, I'd sometimes cast the smaller sized Hula Poppers with a 7 weight glass rod for bass. (Not the best use of either a fly rod or a Hula Popper, but I wanted to if it could be done) and I still cast deer hair frogs with glass from time to time. A few years ago, Lefty Kreh wrote that the guys who need a 14 weight rod prefer glass, because they're less fragile than graphite when you're dealing with 400+ pound fish.

Still, it's a matter of personal preference, and it seems you prefer carbon.

 

[Baron]

Bob,
as usual my grammar was off in what I posted. I was trying to say that the graphite rods I've had are not as pleasant as the lite little fiberglass Jobber that I have.
I'm hoping that the new fiberglass 7/8 that is coming is appropriate for 8wt line and the bigger streamers I'm chucking.
I hope that is clearer.

 

[RLeep2]

Depending on how old the rods are that you describe as having no line rating nomenclature, they may be labeled with the previous line rating system which was 3 character alphabetic. They'd have to be pretty old, in the 50 year plus range, but it's possible.

Here is the old classification system: https://www.fishinginschools.org/cafcas/oldvsnew.htm

The text says the alphabetic system was obsoleted in 1961. I'm not so sure... I seem to recall a couple of new glass rods from the late 60's I bought that still used the old system. But maybe not..

 

[Baron]

I'm amazed that someone didn't find the present system sooner but I guess there are so many variables coming into the mark over the years it was difficult to nail down.
Very unusual.......that old way.

RLeep2 wrote:
Depending on how old the rods are that you describe as having no line rating nomenclature, they may be labeled with the previous line rating system which was 3 character alphabetic. They'd have to be pretty old, in the 50 year plus range, but it's possible.

Here is the old classification system: https://www.fishinginschools.org/cafcas/oldvsnew.htm

The text says the alphabetic system was obsoleted in 1961. I'm not so sure... I seem to recall a couple of new glass rods from the late 60's I bought that still used the old system. But maybe not..

 

[Bamboozle]

With the exception of much older rods, Orvis used the old letter system in conjunction with the "modern" number system on bamboo rods into the 1980's, maybe even beyond that, but the "newest" Orvis bamboo I own is from 1985.

The old letter system was based on diameter, not weight so for example, the comparison between a HEH and a DT5 could be considered approximate however, the letter designations were for silk lines.

I have never compared a vintage silk line and to a vintage plastic line and more than likely, not many people have either. Comparing a vintage silk line to a modern plastic line isn’t necessarily a fair comparison because when they marked rods with letters & numbers, a WF or DT wasn’t necessarily the same as it is today.

That leads me to believe any whinging regarding using a lighter numerical line weight on a vintage rod with a letter line weight designation, is more about a dislike for slower actions versus inconsistencies between the two systems.

FWIW – I only use modern silk lines on my bamboo rods and they measure up just fine to modern plastic lines, in regards to weight.

 

[Baron]

This is like visiting a candy shop learning these things. I wish I'd started earlier in life. I'm so new to this that I've only used the line that I bought with the reels, all WF. I won't make changes until I can be sure that there is a good chance of improving the odds. I suspect that a DT would be better for accurate delivery.
Are silk lines as strong as modern materials?

 

[brain]

silk lines are very labor intensive. they are not as long as modern lines, and for the most part they are a level "taper".
interestingly enough, it's not terribly difficult or expensive to get new "modern" silk line...pretty it's all chinese made but still.

 

[Baron]

Uh Oh. Level taper? Is this the term I read about when discussing old Martin reels called level lining?