It is very hard to quantify “stiffness” which is why it is a term that really has no definition and doesn’t really exist. I say it doesn’t exist as you might feel it is stiff while someone else might not feel the same thing. It is not measurable. As with many rods the ratings are related to action and power. When it comes to fly rods you need to go farther and look at The Common Cents System or CCS. Again, this will not discuss “stiffness” it will only give you the rating for the fly rod in grains, so you can more accurately understand of that rod is really a true 8wt or not. (sometime this is where “Stiffness” shows up because a rod that says it is a 6wt but when measured is really an 8wt). You add a certain amount of weight to deflect the blank 1/3 of its length, this also translates to a rods power in casting and spinning rods. It also helps with choosing fly lines if you do not have the rod in hand. The grain weight in pennies used translates to the AFFTA line weights. Part of the CCS is the Action Angle or AA. This gives you how fast that rod is by measuring the angle at where the tip deflects.
For anyone wanting to go down that rabbit hole of CCS, here is the link. This gives you all about the process and how to measure…etc https://common-cents.info
The CCS can be a bit technical, but it really is the only tool I’ve seen to accurately compare rods. It’s interesting because you’ll find that rods in the same family can be very different. For example, the T&T Sextant 7 and 9 are very different. The 9 has a faster action than the 7. I did measure them with the CCS and the data showed the difference - I’ll have to see if I can find that data. As a result, based on my preferences, I love the 9 but couldn’t get onboard with the 7. There really isn’t anyway around trying a rod to really know if it’s for you.
.02 cents—Action is not about speed- slow/fast- but rather the bend point of the rod from tip down. Recovery is more about speed- as in how fast the bent rod can return strait. My opinion is- today’s rod building material technology is really good. Take the top tier rod from every builder and the materials/techniques are all superb. It comes down to what the consumer is looking for terms of rod design/taper/personal feel. The same goes for each builders low end rod- essentially they are all the same- comes down to design/personal preference. No reason to over complicate rod/line weight- it’s just a label. There are rods in each category that some dudes would love/like/hate- everyone is different. It is possible for a rod to bend further down the blank, but recover as fast as a rod with small tip flex. No reason to over complicate — go throw em. Your Personal Feel/experiance over everything- Let the rod do work- nobody buys a race car to de-tune its performance-
This. Feel is personal preference. Go chunk some line with them and see how you like it. I ignore the well known rod testing report that is done every year. My favorite rods were always down the list and I really didn’t like the top rod they seem to always recommend. They aim at science, but there is still a lot of subjectivity in it.
@rovster I would recommend finding one of us with an older generation rod that you can try. I say that not only because an $1100 investment is significant, but because I have all kinds and really enjoy a couple of older rods. It takes a very specific and well-formed cast to make these new rods perform. The older ones are more forgiving. And really, are many of us making precise casts to fish at 100’? More like 40 or 50, much of time 30 or less. You will enjoy fishing with a rod that is fun to you. My favorite rods, given correct conditions, are a Sage XI3 and a Winston boron II mx.
This. Find one and cast it. When I lived in both S and N FL that was one of my favorite parts about being in the fly fishing clubs. At events I was the guy running around casting everyones rig to see what i liked……stealing their reel so I could try diff lines. We really encouraged it, and it is often an eye opener. A rod can be a dog (for my style) with one line on it, change the line and it comes alive! But what works for me might not work for your casting style.
Y’all are making my brain hurt and my eyes roll around in my head.
I know what I like and I like what I know. Without some type of industry standard, a lot of rod classification is opinion. I’ve read through this thread several times, and each time I pick up something different. Not right or wrong, just different. @nehrke nailed it when he said “find one and cast it” Every rod brand and model is different. Every line type reacts differently with every rod. And my style is different from your style.
Don’t worry not going to run out and buy an Asquith! I actually prefer the older rods or older “feeling” rods but I also have my limits. My favorite rods to play with are my Mangrove coast, Sage RPLXi, and a Loomis Shorestalker I picked up. These are the rods I enjoy casting the most. My shorestalker 7 I can cast all day. Great action but still responsive and I feel like I can really send it (for a 7). I do have a couple newer tech rods that are faster and stiffer but not sure I like those as much. Same as an old GL3 it’s quite floptastic but might have to just put a lighter line on it. I can cast it fine but I need to really go SLOW…
It is not easy to dig out of all the different colored curves, but Asquith is stiffer than NRX+ for the lower two thirds of the rod, then transitions to softer for the upper third. The light green Asquith curve starts out lower than the dark blue NRX+, but crosses over to higher at about the one quarter point. This means it is stiffer in the butt. Asquith then remains about the same distance above NRX+ for the next quarter, meaning they have about the same stiffness for this section. For the third quarter, Asquith rises its highest above NRX+ (stiffer), but then crosses under NRX (softer). This change from rising higher to dropping is where Asquith gets softer, at about the two thirds point.
It is fascinating how a rod that starts out like a broomstick in the butt can cast so effortlessly.
I’ve always found the CCS system to be overly simplistic way (and therefore grossly inaccurate) of looking at stiffness/action. Frequently had someone on a forum say xxx 8 wt rod is actually a 10 wt rod according to CCS and that’s why they can’t cast it well with an 8 wt line yet I have no problem casting an 8 wt line on said rod. The problem is that a fishing rod is a dynamic lever and not a static lever. There’s a force curve that would need to be graphed to see how it responds depending on the bend in the rod. I bow hunt and one of the things they obsess over on the archery forums is the force-displacement curve as you draw a bow which is influenced by the shape of the cams and the limb placement/angle. You can front end loaded draw, mid range loaded, or gradual ramp up, and each one feels different, and is harder for some people to draw and not others. This is also like how you might do the shock or fork shim stacks on a motorcycle suspension to get a certain feel and behaviour out of the forks and shocks. The bike might settle “X” inches with a certain amount of weight (like the CCS system) but would tell you absolutely nothing about how it feels.
Two things I wish fly rod companies would do that the golf industry has been doing for ages. 1) frequency test the rods. This is a machine that measures oscillations. Any rod(assumption here) is stiffer in the but and weaker in the tip. Throw it on a machine and read the numbers every 12” or something. 2) this is a big pet peeve, come up with a standardized way to swing weight measure rods. In the golf industry we have a special scale that holds the butt and suspends the shaft at a point at 13” from the butt. That would be my way of ending the confusion in the industry.
