Do Rods need a Test Curve

S

steph mckenzie

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
20
Location
In a House
Is it necessary for Rods to have a Test Curve if they already come with a Line Recommendation?

Does the Test Curve of a Rod indicate just how far it can be used to Cast a weight?

What would you rather see if anything on a Rod to show what it's intended purpose was for and what it is capable of achieving?
 
sam vimes

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,242
Reaction score
1,913
Location
North Yorkshire.
In my experience, quite a few manufacturers don't give line recommendations.
Some give casting weight guidelines instead.
I understand that Fox have recently released a carp rod that doesn't have a stated test curve, just a casting weight guideline.

Rods certainly don't need a test curve, when was the last time you saw a stated TC for any "match" type float or feeder rods? I suspect that some of the TC obsessives would have kittens if the TC ratings of some of the feeder rods out there were made plain.

I'd rather see casting weight guidelines, line guidelines and an indication of the action (tip, parabolic, through etc) than bare Test Curves which actually mean very little in isolation.
 
chub_on_the_block

chub_on_the_block

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,820
Reaction score
2
Location
300 yards from the Wensum!
A line strength and casting weight recommendation is probably more useful - so long as this is accurately described. I have found TC useful in that it sort of corresponds to the striking force (not necessarily the power) of the rod, and that would help determine the line strength for suitable hooklengths without cracking off on the strike. As the link Jerry puts up describes, the ultimate power depends more on the action etc, but to my mind the responsiveness of the tip under forces of say 8oz is significant and i think the TC hints at that?
 
Last edited:
barbelboi

barbelboi

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
15,246
Reaction score
4,202
Location
The Nene Valley
I believe that it would be easier to get a picture of rods if they were not just categorised by their test curve, which by itself is pretty meaningless, but also by their power curve.
Jerry
 
sam vimes

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,242
Reaction score
1,913
Location
North Yorkshire.
chub_on_the_block said:
I have found TC useful in that it sort of corresponds to the striking force (not necessarily the power) of the rod, and that would help determine the line strength for suitable hooklengths without cracking off on the strike. As the link Jerry puts up describes, the ultimate power depends more on the action etc, but to my mind the responsiveness of the tip under forces of say 8oz is significant and i think the TC hints at that?
Click to expand...

It only corresponds if the action is basically the same.
Put a 2.75lb through actioned rod alongside a 2.75lb tip actioned casting tool and the notion of them having the same "striking force" goes out of the window.

This is the problem with thinking in terms of TCs. If I say that I use a 2.75lb barbel rod, many conjure images of a 2.75lb fast actioned carp rod that bears no resemblance to the action of the same rated barbel rod. People get snotty and indignant due to their assumptions based purely on what a 2.75lb TC rating means to them.
 
dangermouse

dangermouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
42
Location
Thurnscoe
It seems to be a confusing subject. I was looking at the Daiwa Black Widow carp rods the other day (more out of interest than any real need for the rod) and it comes in 3 test curves 2.75, 3, and 3.25. All 3 rods are rated to cast up to a 4oz weight and suited for lines between 6-18lbs b/s and all have a casting distance of up to 110 yards, in fact the only difference other than the test curve is the weight of the rod.

So I can safely say I have no idea how to choose between them.
 
chub_on_the_block

chub_on_the_block

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,820
Reaction score
2
Location
300 yards from the Wensum!
dangermouse said:
It seems to be a confusing subject. I was looking at the Daiwa Black Widow carp rods the other day (more out of interest than any real need for the rod) and it comes in 3 test curves 2.75, 3, and 3.25. All 3 rods are rated to cast up to a 4oz weight and suited for lines between 6-18lbs b/s and all have a casting distance of up to 110 yards, in fact the only difference other than the test curve is the weight of the rod.

So I can safely say I have no idea how to choose between them.
Click to expand...

I think the old school way of recommending line strength from the TC of a rod was to use a line in the range 3 to 6 times the test curve or something like that - in the belief that anything lower and the rod wouldnt have the cushioning effect needed and anything greater could endanger the rod? Obviously both aspects would be determined by the rods action rather than its TC.

The modern use of heavy ledgers etc has certainly thrown a spanner in the works, initially feeder rods needed to be able to do this whilst still handling low BS hooklengths. Not sure how a rod can be designed to cast 3-4oz whilst handle hooklengths down to say 3Ibs. The TC alone would not help at all - the action would.
 
sam vimes

sam vimes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,242
Reaction score
1,913
Location
North Yorkshire.
dangermouse said:
It seems to be a confusing subject. I was looking at the Daiwa Black Widow carp rods the other day (more out of interest than any real need for the rod) and it comes in 3 test curves 2.75, 3, and 3.25. All 3 rods are rated to cast up to a 4oz weight and suited for lines between 6-18lbs b/s and all have a casting distance of up to 110 yards, in fact the only difference other than the test curve is the weight of the rod.

So I can safely say I have no idea how to choose between them.
Click to expand...

If those ratings are close to being true (I'm not inclined to believe a 2.75lb rod would be particularly comfortable throwing 4oz over 100 yards on a regular basis), I'd base it on how far you generally intend to cast. If it's on the shorter side of the scale, go for the 2.75s. If you are on a huge gravel pit and trying to cast to the horizon regularly, go for the 3.25s
 
dangermouse

dangermouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
42
Location
Thurnscoe
chub_on_the_block said:
I think the old school way of recommending line strength from the TC of a rod was to use a line in the range 3 to 6 times the test curve or something like that - in the belief that anything lower and the rod wouldnt have the cushioning effect needed and anything greater could endanger the rod? Obviously both aspects would be determined by the rods action rather than its TC.

The modern use of heavy ledgers etc has certainly thrown a spanner in the works, initially feeder rods needed to be able to do this whilst still handling low BS hooklengths. Not sure how a rod can be designed to cast 3-4oz whilst handle hooklengths down to say 3Ibs. The TC alone would not help at all - the action would.
Click to expand...

I still don`t understand how you`d choose between the 3 rods I mentioned. They all cast the same weight the same distance and handle the same line strengths and presumably the action on all 3 is similar the only difference is the weight of the rod and there`s only 1oz difference between the 2.75 and the 3.25 so why would I pick one over another?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top