Bs or diameter

When a rod has a line guide of say 2 to 6lb or a maximum of 8lb I assume it is the diameter of the line through the guides rather than the bs that is important! Am I wrong?

I go with the breaking strain Mike, as opposed to the diameter.

There's too much variation in diameter:breaking strain ratios for my liking.

Since all this diameter stuff came to be the trend I've largely ignored it in favour of the breaking strain, the variables in relation to the rod, the quality of the drag on the reel and the characteristics of the particular line in question also adding to an exhaustive quest to find an optimum and that's before we've even got to knots and knot strength.

I'm happy enough with the rules that I apply though.

I'll always buy a pound of tomatoes.

I'm with Binka on this one , Mike. It's a question of matching the strength of the line to the rod. You wouldn't - when playing a very big fish, for instance - want your rod to be damaged before the line gave way, as the line costs a couple of quid and the rod perhaps hundreds. Equally, there is no point fishing with a line far stronger than the levels of pressure your rod can apply - it will just make casting and general presentation worse. So I'd think in terms of a suitable range of breaking strains ( an engineer will be along in a sec to explain why that should be "breaking stress") For example, some of my old-school float rods suit mainlines from 1.5 to 3, maybe 4lbs bs. What can be interesting, is to play diameter against breaking strain for hooklengths, where you can, using some of the more hi-tech/pre-stretched lines find one for a given application that's thinner and stronger, size for size, than your mainline.

Behind all this are some big differences in the way different kinds of line perform. You can get a relatively thin line with a relatively high bs, and find it's great for pole fishing, where the elastic in the pole supplies the shock-absorption, and there's no wear via rod rings or reel rollers. But that same line could prove too "brittle" and fragile for use on rod and reel. Conversely, some relatively thick lines with relatively low bs can be much better for rod and reel use, as they are robust and a bit more stretchy, and stand up to the different strains and stresses of that type of fishing.

I feel like I might be confusing things, so I'll stop. Match your rods with lines of the recommended breaking strains, and buy "reel lines" as opposed to "pole lines". They know what you mean in a tackle shop.

I can't add much to this,i am with the others on Break strain over diameter,there is just too much variation in makes of line and diameter to be safe on,so i go for Break strain everytime,never (in my opinion) go above what you're rod can handle.

Me too. I have never got my head around diameter.

The only variance I do regarding line stronger than recommended for a rod is when fishing for carp on one of my club waters.

There is a type of long straggly weed that appears from time to time. It is random and seems to cut line should a fish charge through it. Horrible stuff. I go to 18lb bs instead of 12 or 15 just for the added security of abrasion and it seems to work.

I like to think I know how much the rod will take so I don't overload it.

I'll go with bs I think!

The rated line bs isn't a safe load rating. That isn't written down anywhere, it just isn't. I doubt there is a match rod anywhere that you could load to 6lb. Even 3lb is a massive load and I've actually broken a match rod loading it to 3lb. The rating seems to be nothing other than someone thought that's what it ought to be, no rationale at all.

Gordon, I have 3 rods that are line rated 2lb- 8lb, 1 is a match rod, the other a pellet waggler, ( both Daiwa ) and the other is a power waggler, I also have a match rod that is rated to 2.8 lb mainline and 1.8b hooklength, ( Drennan )
On the 3 rods the line is 5lb and 6lb, on the Drennan it is 2lb. Daiwa Airity Match is rated 2lb-8lb reel line, as are some other of their other match rods,

All I'm saying is that the rating isn't an indication of a safe load with a full bend in the rod.

The Power Waggler has handled low to mid double carp that I have targeted, I think if you play fish and not bully them in
the rod will be ok, what about carp anglers who may use a 1.75lb tc rod loaded with 12lb line ? they seem to do ok without breaking the rod. The rod you broke, did it ever fall onto the floor ? if so it could have put a couple of fine hairline cracks in the blank, and they have gone progressively worse until finally the rod went under pressure.

i dont still dont know why we have from bs to dia what is the point i will fish 2lb main line 1 1/2 and hook lengh on the river stick float or 2/12 main line for wagglers on the river and so on what advantage is there with dia instead

ps on the rods with bs on them most drennan rod it on the butt why dont they put dia they use bs

What on earth did we do before manufacturers gave us all this information on rods, line diameters, ratings for each rod oh yes I remember we used something called common sense.

I just think that all this stuff printed on rods/lines is a marketing tool I cant remember ever looking at what line strengths the rod is suitable for, When I fish the rod/line are something that I don't think about when playing a fish its a sort of natural feel for what's going on that I rely on to give/ gain line.

Pre-Stretched lines were traditionally measured in diameter and used on the continent while stretchy lines were measured in breaking strain used in the UK y tradition because we used running line methods as a primary

When fishing the pole its a eaier way of measuring your line, 2lb breaking strain does not mean anything but 0.12 does, because the elastic is your stretch. Different manufacturers vary so much, they have different b/s at different diameters but diameter is always the same.

Example

2lb maxima (a reel line) put on the pole would break far far far far higher becasue of the way its set up, maxiama breaks higher anyway but with the elastic it would make it even stonger. now Preston powerline (a presteched rig line) in 2lb B/S would break miles below the 2lb maxima but is a good compareble becuase it would still break higher than 2lb because preston reflo powerline is unstated just like maxima, i
E it will break higher than stated on the spool.

How confusing for the consumer is that? So if we refer to maxima as 0.12 and preston reflo powerline as 0.09 oh that makes sense now maxima is stronger.

A different measurement for a type different product, that's the way I see this topic ?

thecrow said:

What on earth did we do before manufacturers gave us all this information on rods, line diameters, ratings for each rod oh yes I remember we used something called common sense.

I just think that all this stuff printed on rods/lines is a marketing tool I cant remember ever looking at what line strengths the rod is suitable for, When I fish the rod/line are something that I don't think about when playing a fish its a sort of natural feel for what's going on that I rely on to give/ gain line.

Click to expand...

And a bit of a fashion thing, too? A bit like Tshirts with meaningless writing on.

There is some value, though, in manufacturers' indication of what range of lines the rod is designed to work with. And I suspect the practice began, on match rods at least, back when the commercial carp boom was taking off, and they wanted to flag up that the rod had been designed for this exciting, suave, powerful, brave, intelligent (am I doing ok, carp fans? ) species.
I have two Daiwa Amorphous Whisker 13's here, both from around 1994, one designated "Light" the other "Heavy Action".
Iirc, the heavier one - heavier! They're both featherweight - was rated for line up to 6lb. And it does indeed have a more powerful action and deals with carp, chub and barbel very nicely. That information was in the catalogue, but not on the butt.

I agree about the need for "feel" in playing fish. And no amount of information on the butt makes a rod good or bad. But good manufacturers produce rods of carefully graded actions/power, and the line rating guidelines are sensible and helpful. I was surprised to read about a rod being broken while fishing with 3lb line. That's unfortunate. But it could happen for all kinds of reasons and doesn't take away the fact that many match rods these days perform comfortably with far heavier lines, in keeping with the large target fish on many match venues.

With regards to manufactures info on rods, I'm not 100% convinced they are anything other than a guide. I mean look at Daiwa for example years ago 12oz to 5lb (team Diawa x) then 1-6lb (tourney) 2-6 (tourney Pro)

I felt a massive difference in power from the tourney to the tourney Pro but next to no difference from the team Diawa x to tourney, but an extra 1lb was added? And the power difference between between the original and pro was significantly stronger but no extra BS was added?

Take it as a guide and as the crow states above just replace with good old fashioned common sense.

Here's a cut and paste from a post I made some years ago...................

Here’s part of an interesting article that I read some months ago:

Let's take a hypothetical situation; but answer in your own mind. What rod would be the most powerful between a 13’ match rod and an 11’ 1.25lb Avon rod?

How many of you went for the Avon? Chances are you'll be wrong. If you don't believe me, and you have access to both, I'll offer you a challenge. Thread up both rods and attach a spring balance to the end of the line on each in turn. Bend into both with as much gusto as you dare. You are not looking to determine a test-curve, as that is not 'real-world'. No, real-world is where you have a decent fish heading for a snag and you bend into it to stop it in it's tracks and that will require you put a much greater bend into the rod, down to the handle if you can/dare.

See, with an Avon, the action is 'all-through'. So, by the time the rod bent anywhere near to its full load it is bent down to the handle. This will give you a good 90 degree bend, which might be reflective of it's test-curve, i.e. 1.25lb of force.

So how would the match rod have faired?

There is a good chance that the match rod will have a test-curve somewhere around 8 ounces. So, after a decent strike the rod would have achieved its' test-curve. BUT, as match rods tend to be more tip-actioned to progressive the bend at the point of test curve will still be within the top third of the rod. There is still two thirds of the rod with which we can apply a loading to. This is all IN ADDITION to any test curve. It could be that, by the time we have applied considerable (but safe) force to either the point where the blank 'locks-up' or we reach the handle, there may be 2lb or more of pressure exerted on our spring balance.

Are you surprised that the match rod came out on top? For many years my favourite barbel rod was an old 12' match rod. The top half soon bowled over but the real strength lay in the amount of force that could be exerted between the mid-point and the handle.

So you can start to see that action has perhaps a bigger part to play than test curve alone. The two do need to be considered hand in hand. But that is not to say that two progressive actioned 1.75lb rods will be as powerful as each other. Physical construction and tapers will determine that. Beyond action there are other factors which play a part, such as blank diameter, wall thickness and material strengths. This is why there are always new rods available on the market each year. There are just so many permutations to arrive at the end result - a fishing rod.

I believe that two separate issues are being talked about here. The first being rod ratings and the second using line breaking strain rating over diameter (or vice versa).

When it comes to rod ratings, I've long held the belief that they are little more than an arse covering exercise by the manufacturers. However, there's a dollop of the rod's intended use thrown in. It's worth bearing in mind that the only manufacturer that I know of, that has consistently put line ratings on their rods, is Drennan. Their old ranges were invariably given ratings that seem very light compared to current rods. I'm convinced that they were pretty well under-rated in line with the fishing fashions of the day. A few other manufacturers have taken to giving line ratings, but only in their catalogues, not on the rods themselves. However, it's worth taking some of these with a pinch of salt. I know that Daiwa have made more than the odd mistake with catalogue listings of rod line ratings over the years.

It's also worth being careful with terminology. Whilst a pellet waggler rod is undoubtedly used in matches, it's nothing like what many people mean when they say "match rod". I'd expect most pellet waggler rods to have an upper rating of 8lb. For a "match rod" to have such a high rating would be relatively unusual unless it had some kind of prefix such as "Specimen", "Carp" or "Power". The size of the rod rings should give a vague idea of the intentions a manufacturer had for a rod. That's not to say you couldn't squeeze 10lb line through the rings of the average match rod, but it's really not what they intended for it. Good luck trying to cast all but the heaviest floats with such heavy line. I'd like to come and watch, for a giggle.

When it comes to choosing line based on diameter rather than breaking strain, I'm not a fan. I understand, and accept, the theory, but I'm not entirely happy with it. It relies on you being rather intimately acquainted with the properties of the line concerned. A higher diameter does not automatically equate to a higher breaking strain, as some folks seem to believe. That only applies to the same type of line from the same manufacturer. Beyond that, it takes a good understanding of the lines in question to make decisions based on nothing but diameters. It's also worth noting that both stated diameters and breaking strains can be rather inaccurate. As a rule of thumb, standard monos, especially old types such as Maxima and Sensor, tend to be under-rated for breaking strain. Hi-tech lines (pre-stretched mono and fluorocarbon) tend to be over-rated.

sam vimes said:

I believe that two separate issues are being talked about here. The first being rod ratings and the second using line breaking strain rating over diameter (or vice versa).

When it comes to rod ratings, I've long held the belief that they are little more than an arse covering exercise by the manufacturers. However, there's a dollop of the rod's intended use thrown in.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Its nothing more than a very loose indication of the sort of work the rod might be capable of. Chances are any decent rod will perform perfectly well outside the range indicated by anything on the blank.