Testing the action with my ultra light rods!

[jpike16]

I have three ultralight rods, all of which are fast-action. For fun, I decided to test the action of each rod. I supported each rod handle on the floor and attached a 2-ounce weight to some line. I knew the results would vary, but I was still surprised by how different each rod handled the weight. By the way, I love all three of these rods, but they each handled the weight differently.

 

1. Dobyns Sierra trout and panfish, 6’2 (rod in the back)

2. St. Croix Avid panfish, 6’0 (middle rod)

3. St. Croix panfish, 6’0 (closest rod)

 

 

[bulldog1935]

The rod on top is progressive taper, and will have the most fish backbone.  

The other two rods are both para taper and, certainly, the rod on the bottom is the slowest taper.  

The rod in the middle should cast the farthest, by equally loading more of the total rod length. 

 

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

What you have there is three rods of all different power and action. The take away is really highlighting the subjectivity of manufacturer labels. 

[Craig P]

Great post and great responses so far. I geek out about this stuff and agree with @Delaware Valley Tackle

 

I often wonder if some of the manufacturers test their rods for their recommended weight, line weight and power or if they just print what the blank manufacturer states…and of course, if they actually test their rods too.  Anyone who builds rods understands that cutting an inch off high or low changes a lot about a rod.

 

Match everything correctly to your presentation and fishing condition……accuracy, length of cast, hook set and retrieving fish goes way up.  Yeah yeah, I know a 7’ MHF is a great all around rod, it is but when you pair everything correctly, it’s almost like being in cheat code mode. 

[MickD]

I'll repeat this post I made on another topic-fits this one better anyway:  As a side note on CCS and the subjective ratings given by manufacturers, we really need an industry wide correlation between CCS numbers and the descriptions.  For example I have two blanks from different manufacturers, both called medium light fast.  One measures a power number (ERN-effective rod number) of 9, Action Angle (the angle of the tip when deflected, a measure of action) 65, and the other is 19.9 ERN and AA of 77.  I have measured medium power blanks that range from less than 15 ERN to 25.9.  I assure you that differences of ERN and AA of 3 are significant and the rods will fish much differently.  This same kind of discrepancy is clearly there with finished rods.  Interestingly, major discrepancies exist even within a single brand's lineup.  Part of it is due to how the blanks/rods are being marketed.  For example, a medium power drop shot blank might have an ERN of 13, a medium power jig rod of 20.  With the growth of interest in baitcasting finesse (BFS) I'm sure we are going to see some rods called medium power that measure less than 10 ERN.  It would make more sense to agree on a correlation, then chose the rod for the technique based on actual numbers, not someone's interpretation of how it will be used.

 

Note: Use pennies minted after 1983 to make sure they all weigh 2.5 grams.  

[MickD]

15 hours ago, Craig P said:

 Anyone who builds rods understands that cutting an inch off high or low changes a lot about a rod.

Cutting off the butt changes little, but directionally it reduces power and slows the action.  Most of the time insignificantly unless you cut a "lot" off .  Cutting off the tip changes a lot, mostly with how the rod feels, directionally it increases power and slows action.  But I would NEVER cut anything off the tip.