I was talking to a tenkara gear designer the other day about the problem of trying to accurately describe rod action. The conversation was especially interesting to me because this is a problem I face every time I write a tenkara rod review (and one I’ve often been criticized for). Part of the problem lies with the confusing ways in which rod actions are described, and part of the problem is that “action” is often in the eyes (or rather hand) of the beholder.
Our conversation began with the premise that the current system inherited from Japan that uses the 5:5, 6:4, and 7:3 designations is not only confusing, but usually inaccurate. These numbers only tell you where the manufacturer says the rod bends most easily–not how the rod actually feels. Notice I said where the manufacturer “says” the rod bends. This is because I’ve seen rods rated a 5:5 that were to me more of a 6:4 (for example) from several companies. And, I’ve seen companies change the rating, even though the design of the rod remained the same. They maybe came to the conclusion that the original rating they gave the rod was inaccurate.
And I can see why. Where do you really pinpoint where the rod flexes to settle on a number? With a heavy line and an aggressive enough casting stroke, I can get a 6:4 to bend into the middle of the rod (5:5). But it bends more easily into the 6:4 position. So is that a 5:5 or a 6:4? It seems like even some of the people who make rods have a hard time deciding.
Even if you could nail a 6:4 as a true 6:4, it still wouldn’t tell you how the rod actually feels. It won’t tell you how it’s going to collaborate with you on the stream. The rating doesn’t tell you anything about how the rod loads and unloads. For example, the Tenkara USA Iwana is a very different animal than the Tenkara USA Ito though both are rated 6:4. In fact, both are 6:4–just different 6:4s. The Iwana feels much “crisper” than the soft-tipped Ito and I imagine each would appeal to very different casting styles. Some might like the stiffer action of the Iwana and feel the Ito is too soft and vice versa.
There’s another rod rating system that is used by Chris Stewart of Tenkara Bum called the Common Cents system. It’s a little more objective since it measures the number of pennies it takes to bend the rod into 1/3 of its overall length–all of which is measurable. But I would argue (and I don’t think Chris would disagree with me) that this still doesn’t really tell you how the rod casts or feels. It basically tells you how stiff a rod is compared to others. Even though this system has its own shortcomings, I think it’s probably more descriptive than the Japanese system.
In addition to numerical rating systems, you have the even more vague adjectival descriptions. “Stiff”, “soft”, “fast”, “medium”,”slow”, “tip flex”, “midflex”, “full flex”, “crisp”, “whippy”, “noodly”, “clubby”, etc. are all commonly used to describe rod action. But these are even less objective than the two indices I mentioned above.
The main problem with adjectives is that they’re subjective. What might feel “too stiff” to you, might feel “soft” to me. Every experienced angler seems to have their own preference in rod action. And not only that, interpretation of rod action is different for everyone. I’ve actually had someone purchase a rod based on the way I described it but they didn’t like it because to them, it felt different that what I described. That’s because we all experience haptic feedback in different ways.
It’s even worse for beginners who don’t even have any experience to even know what they like or dislike. Ok, so this rod is “midflex”. Is that good? Is that what I want? No adjective can tell you that if you don’t know what your preferences are yet.
A while ago, I wrote a blog post suggesting we come up with a better rod rating system for tenkara. But in retrospect, I feel that since the idea I proposed combines two systems that are inherently imprecise coupled with the fact that rod action preference is so subjective, that that system wouldn’t be any better than any others.
So, what are we to do?
Getting back to my conversation with the gear designer…we came up with several very interesting ideas. Some of them were really out there and seemed like they might work, but as we explored them, we kept hitting a wall with each one. In the end, I think I came away from that convo with the conclusion that rod action cannot really be described. It can only be experienced.
That’s not to say that some index, rating, or description can’t help you narrow down your choices to help you find a rod you like. But until we become completely objective robots, I think the only way we can really tell if we will like a rod or not is to get it in our hands and actually cast it.
Which brings us to an even bigger problem (and one that if solved, would also solve the problem at hand): the stunning lack of tenkara rods in brick & mortar stores.
Before I fished tenkara, I wouldn’t even have thought of buying a rod until I was able to test cast it first. This was for two reasons. 1.) the challenges I describe above also exist in western fly fishing. 2.) There was no way I would shell out $600 for a fly rod before casting it first. Granted, tenkara mostly doesn’t have the problem of #2 because tenkara rods are significantly cheaper in general and some companies offer a very liberal return policy so you can buy the rod online, try it, and return it if you don’t like it.
But I still think we need to get tenkara rods into people’s hands. Not only will it make rod selection easier and overcome the whole action rating problem, but it will also bring more people into the sport. I know this because every time I’ve put a tenkara rod into the hands of a skeptic, the first word out of their mouth is always the same: “wow!”.
So now I’ve come to terms with the fact that I don’t really have a good way to describe rod action in my rod reviews. Will I stop doing them? No. But keep in mind that what I write is the way I experience and interpret the rod. And until someone smarter than me comes up with a better system, your mileage may vary. That is, until tenkara grows to the point where a system is no longer needed and you can head to your local fly shop to test cast one for yourself. I hope that day comes.
Abe this is just another area tenkara needs to borrow from western fishing. No one really expects two 6 weight fly rods to feel identical. They can be different lengths, material, stiffness, etc. how do we know? We try the rods, we compare to what we have used before, but we all expect this when we go to buy a rod. Maybe what we really need is more chances to hold rods, try them, and cast before buying.
Nice read Jason. I agree that just like in Western rods, casting is the best way to compare rods. As Tenkara grows locally, I enjoy seeing rods folks buy from different manufacturers and having the opportunity to cast them side by side as well as compare quality of construction. As in Western fly fishing, I enjoy fishing with others and trading equipment to see what others select.
Great post Jason, and very good insights. I may have another a post in response to yours soon. It will be called “Getting rid of ratings”
I’m still solidifying my thoughts on how to describe or classify rods. The more I think about it, the more I come toward the conclusion that if ratings/classifications are not as important as experiences. In an attempt to simplify things, I think I’ll just get rid of ratings completely … I know there will be a lot of people who would miss it, or would argue with me on the merits of needing a classification/rating system, but I say if it is getting in the way and not adding a lot of value, then get rid of it.
Daniel, I think the last line of your comment really is the core philosophy of tenkara:
“but I say if it is getting in the way and not adding a lot of value, then get rid of it.”
It will be a while before the average fly shop carries tenkara rods, and even then not many will carry more than one or two manufacturers’ rods.
I was at a show this past weekend and spent a good bit of time talking to two different fly shop owners. Neither carried tenkara rods and neither was interested. One because no one had asked him for them and he didn’t want to go out on a limb with something he might not be able to sell. The other had looked at tenkara very carefully and decided it was of no interest to him because for him when a fly fisherman buys a rod, he often buys a reel, a line or two, a number of different tippet spools and flies. Lots of flies. Lots and lots of flies. He looked me in the eye and said this “one fly” thing was just crazy (from a fly shop’s perspective). Apparently fly sales are a very large part of his business and he sees tenkara as almost as bad for his fly business as it is for his reel business.
P.S. I don’t disagree with you on the Common Cents System not telling you how a rod will feel when casting it. It does tell you more than you knew about the rod without it, though, and it is consistent across manufacturers, which the 5:5 system isn’t, and it allows you to compare rods that weren’t rated by the 5:5 etc. system.
I think the length and weight of the rods are more important than the ratings but it’s useful to have even If its a bit rough. I’d still buy a rod if it didn’t include a rating as long as i knew the specs
I don’t expect I’ll ever see a rack of tenkara rods in any fly shop over here, it’s to small a market, I doubt it even still growing in the UK
Very interesting post Jason! My opinion is that the current action rate chart will disappear for something else that will be more accurate to the future Tenkara rods. The age of the ten segments rods is going to end for the sake of “more segmented” rods.
I personnaly don’t really consider action ratings on my Tenkara rods because there is no standard at all, as you did write the same action can describe two very different rods and, in my opinion, every angler, has a different feeling with any rod.
I don’t know if I ever see a Tenkara rod in a shop over here but it would be a sign of a deep change in the little world of fishing!
Great post Jason, sums up the problems we all have, rod producers and end users!
The big question – how stiff is stiff and how soft is soft. At TCUK we are working on the only answer as with any other “fly” rod is try before you buy. We are gradually getting our rods into dealers, retailers and distributors as fast as we can. Thus far it has understandably been fairly slow progress less so in continental Europe than Britian. However we currently have retailers in Norway, France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Sweden in addition to a spread across Britian.
We also have representation at as many of the fishing fairs and shows as possible throughout the year, so that anyone interested can try as many rods as possible.
If you get a rod in someone’s hand then it really doesn’t matter what classification, rating or measure you put on it!
Seems to me this is something you can not put into a number or even set of numbers. The regular fly rod people have not solved it. How about putting a standard weight on it and just showing the picture of the arc.
Like Jason, my company has tested hundreds of rods from just about every tenkara rod manufacturer in the world. What makes the Japanese rating system so ineffective is that there is no industry standard of measurement. Each manufacturer has their own method of determining the rod flex index. I like how Shimano rates their rods. They don’t. Shimano does not use the 5:5 type rating system. None of the Japanese rod companies use this confusing system for rating keiryu or seiryu rods.
The biggest contributor to confusion that I see coming from the Japaneses tenkara rod rating system is that western tenkara anglers are stuck thinking that a stiff rating like 7:3 or 8:2 means that the rod is stronger for fighting big fish. The Japanese rating system just describes where a rod flexes not how strong the rod is. I have several 7:3 and two 8:2 rods that are designed to catch trout in the 12″ maybe 14″ range and that is pushing the rod to it’s limits.
I describe a rod as having a tip flex, mid flex, or full flex. What western tenkara anglers need from manufacturers is a method to rate how much power a tenkara rod can generate.
In Japan, tenkara anglers target relatively small trout 6-12 inch range in very specific stream types. Japanese designed tenkara rods are engineered for that fairly narrow set of parameters. Western tenkara anglers are doing things with tenakra rods that Japanese rod designers have never considered. For the most part, western tenkara anglers need to know how strong the rod is more than where it flexes. I don’t give a rat’s ass what the flex rating is for a rod that I want to catch carp with is. I want to know if it has the strength and power to handle the size of the fish I am after.
So for all the tenkara rod manufacturers in the USA and Europe, work on a method for measuring rod power and suggested fish size or even species that the rod would work optimally for.
And a final note, get together as an industry and come up with an acceptable industry standard for measuring rods whether it is how/where the rod flexes or how strong the rod is. Right now, with no industry standards in place you are doing a disservice to your customers by making the simple complicated.
Excellent points John! I think what you say about standards should also be applied to level lines. So that a #4 lines is always xxx diameter, etc.
Good post Jason. You have identified a problem that confuses numerous anglers. Why is my 5:5 stiffer than your 6:4? Hard to sell items over the web without being able to quantify what it actually is. I think that Chris Stewart has the most objective system in place with his Common Cents System (CCS). Is is perfect? Heck no! But at least it will put the buyer in the ballpark. If I have two rods, “rod A” and “rod B”, and I am looking for another rod (of course we need more!!), then I can look at the CCS and see if the Wunder Thunder Rod I like is in the same area of stiffness as my A & B rods. At least I am close. Until someone comes up with a better mousetrap, IMHO, the CCS for web purchases is the best we have.
Having only a year of Tenkara experience and having only tried two rods to date (TUSA Iwana and Amago), the current rating systems (6:4 and CC) were helpful for me. Of course, as you’ve mentioned, I had to make some assumptions, about action and stiffness, but making those across rods from one manufacturer was much safer than comparing two different companies. All in all, it helped me move forward faster in a decision than if there had been no ratings of any kind at all. Personally, I’d prefer a company give me more info than less, even though I know it’s an art, not a science – make their best estimate at where the rod bends, it’s relative stiffness/limberness, and it’s action. Give me all three. If I find that I disagree, I can cross check the accuracy of the companies estimates across their line of rods by asking others about their experience, reading online or buying additional rods from the same manufacturer. On the other hand, I think buying blind with no estimated descriptions of the rod would prevent me from buying or significantly prolong my decision.
I also think that level lines could have a mass per foot measurement along with standard diameter. The longer your lines get, the more important total line mass becomes. And for short line fishing, that mass measurement can help you figure out which line will get the most efficient use of energy from your rod.
I don’t know where the idea that 3.5 level line is all you need for every line length and every rod. It is important from an efficiency and accuracy standpoint to match the line weight and length to the casting action of the rod. As you change lengths, you need to compensate for mass or your rod/casting efficiency gets all out of whack.
Sure, you can cast any length from 10′-25′ of 3.5 level line from any rod, it is just not efficient use of energy and power. There has been a trend to sacrifice efficiency for simplicity for the sake of simplicity. Inefficient simplicity it just like pushing on a door that says “Pull to open”.
Don’t get rid of some type of rating system in favor of nothing. Something is better then nothing. Traditional fly fishing gear have fast/slow rating and everything in between in their advertising. It does not tell you how a rod will feel in hand but at least you know you will be using a different casting stroke , shorter casting distances and so on.
A 5:5 will be different then a 6:4 , at least in the same manufactures product group. Might not compare across all companies the same but neither does traditional fly rods. Could you imagine going to a fly rod companies website and not have any line ratings or rod action descriptions?
When I decide what traditional rod to grab of the shelf for a day it has nothing to do with action . It has everything o do with conditions. For example large or small body of water , wind conditions , size of the fly’s I will be throwing and finally size of fish I will be catching.
I frequently choose a 5/6 weight for bass. Unless It’s windy or I’m using bulkier surface poppers. Then I will go to an 8 weight. How that rod “feel’s or “bends” is the least of my concerns. I care that it will chuck what I want in the conditions I’m in.
Saying all that I would love to see Tenkara rods rated in 3 ways. Stream size ( length of takes care of that) size of fish the manufacturer feels the rod can handle most effectively and finally flies it can throw. For example a 12 foot for 14” or less fish on weighted /streamers fly’s size 10 or smaller. Don’t even need words, a rating chart with pictures will do.
Not perfect but tells me a lot more then 5:5 or 6:4
It’s not a problem with the ratings, it’s just how it’s done. Change may come as our influence on Japanese products increases, but it’s really not a priority for anyone. Mainstream fishing rods (not fly) are rated in pounds, lure weight and speed of flex which gives us a lot of info, but in practice a $500 rod will probably perform a whole lot different then a $50 rod with the same ratings.
This same dilemma exists with golf shafts and manufacturers and golf is ginormous compared to Tenkara.
I rely on Chris, Tom, Jason, etc. to get an idea regarding rods and brands. I like the Common Cents database and Teton’s chart, it’s a starting point. Then as previously mentioned, experience becomes paramount. But even with a better rating system, we will still disagree about which rods are best and for what purpose.
So although I agree that the ratings could be better, I don’t think it’s all that important. It’s part of the fun of Tenkara; figuring it out for yourself.
But… if we have to have a new rating system:) I’d like to see first a strength rating like Trad fly fishing, but not necessarily equal, let’s say 5 for middle of the road 8-12 inch Trout rod. Then a flex rating, 6 for a 6:4 rod. And finally a Tippet rating or pounds test rating, but we’ll use 5 for 5x tippet here. So 5-6-5, perfect, right?
In my opinion, we did this to ourselves. Tenkara rods are designed for catching trout in moving water, in mountain streams. Simple as that. But as soon as they were introduced to America, people started asking, but “Can I catch bass with them?” “Can I catch stealhead with them?” “Can I fish in lakes with them?” “how about carp?” “what about bonefish?” and on and on and on. The answer to all of these questions is yes. Not my business, do what you want with them. But why? What’s next Tensharka? It’s a trout rod. We should stop trying to quantify what is designed as a trout rod as an all rounder.
When you put into perspective…scratch that…when you put BACK into perspective what a tenkara rod is designed for, catching trout, the rating system shouldn’t be very hard to figure out. I feel that if the rods are put into 3 power category’s and 3 flex ratings, in general, it should be very easy to determine what to expect out of a rod. Yes you can have a short powerful action rod that is mid flex. It’s probably going to be on the heavy side of short rods, because it is a stout design. Used for tight quarters and big fish. Coincidentally, you can have a short light action rod that is tip flex. It will weigh less than the short powerful rod because it will be a slim delicate design. Used in tight quarters and small fish. Power rating, flex rating, simple.
I personally don’t see what’s so broken with the western line rating system. I have never bought or used a 6wt rod and felt that it was a 3wt in disguise. Some of the flex ratings are subjective, but again, I have no rods rated as a tip flex that I would consider a full flex. There’s going to be overlap no matter what. Can I cast a 5wt line on one of my 6wt rods? Yep. Can I cast a 4wt line on one of my 3wt rods? Sure. Is it perfect? No, but it won’t cast a 3wt line perfect either. Nothings perfect right? Too many variables appear within all of the manufactures using different materials and designs. Because of this, there is no fix for these types of overlap.
The real problem, Jason, is what you said. The lack of “purple cows” and a lack of competent designers having a sound foundation of what a tenkara rod is supposed to be. There has been mentioned in the past that some companies simply take a keiryu or seiryu rod design and put a handle on it and call it a tenkara rod. That’s called repackaging, and not necessarily good R&D.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Tom Davis’ Rod Flex Index system, which with the the CCS system and the tippet strength recommendations put out by the rod maker does give a pretty good indication of a rod’s relative strength and its casting action, at least to a greater extent than has been available to us before. Here, take a look: http://tetontenkara.blogspot.com/2013/04/rod-flex-index.html
Verbally trying to describe how it feels to cast with any particular rod is a very hard thing to get a handle on because no two people experience a rod’s casting action in exactly the same way.
For sure, the rod makers need to adopt some kind of industry wide objective standards regarding what is a fast, a medium, and a slow rod action, as well as tippet ratings related to the fish sizes and water types the rods are designed to be fished for and in. Sure casting any rod is the best way to go. But lacking the opportunity to cast the rod you want to buy, being able to look up the rod’s Rod Flex Index, its Common Cents Rating and the rod’s usable Tippet Strength Rating will provide anglers with a lot more verifiable information than we have had at our disposal in the past.
It is hard to tell someone how a rod “feels” when you cast it or fish it. I don’t really see anything wrong with rod rating systems in and of themselves. After all, all they are are weak attempts to take something that is subjective and distill it into something objective; something that can be measured. The pleasure one feels, that dopamine hit to your brain, when that rainbow takes your fly is not quantifiable. Therefore why should the rod be. Rods, however, are manufactured items with materials, tolerance, etc, and in as much, their characteristics can be measured. Then after they are measured, different rods can be categorized and classified. This classification can then let anyone know APPROXIMATELY how the rod will feel or behave in the hands of the average person. The CCS and RFI are just trying to measure, in a simple reproducible manner, these characters of any given rod. They are not perfect in any way, however.
As I have always said in my reviews: To know how a rod feels, casts, fishes, you must feel, cast and fish it YOURSELF. I think all of us would agree on that.
Tom Davis is a genius.
I think his Rod Flex Index is the best at quantifying a rod’s measurable and physical characteristics.
So looking up his chart can get you in the ballpark of what to expect.
After that you just need to fish with the rod.
There are two shops in Utah that have Tenkara rods and I purchase stuff from them like tenkara rods (TFO) and flies and tying materials whenever I can to support the cause and spread the Tenkara love.
One shopkeeper was really impressed by the hi viz fluoro we use as an option for his Czech nymph sighters.
Lefty Kreh had an interesting interview on The Itinerant Angler podcast where he argued that lower cost entry point to flyfishing will attract more people to fishing which will in turn help fly shops stay in business. He used the example of a bass angler that will only spend $50 on a reel but has a. $50,000 boat.
Diversify or die.
Tom’s comparison snapshot is the best system of all. putting aside the ratings, it compares rodsfor stiffness and length. This allows you get the feeling of how a rod might behave by looking at the similarity to a rod with which you are familiar. e.g. if you own an iwana of a certain length, you can see that what other brands/models are stiffer/softer, and lock in quicker.
Combined with Chris Stewart’s photos of rod flex, you can get a pretty good idea of how a particular model and brand rod will cast even before picking it up.
thanks guys!
Perhaps the Japanese never developed a more comprehensive or standardized way to classify rod action simply because they don’t have to. They have a lot of brick and mortar stores that carry their rods. People just go there and find out first hand how the rod feels in their hand.
It has generally been my experience that companies making competing products delight in keeping certain specifications vague. They invent some small feature that is different from their competitors product. Invent their own term for this feature and hype it as making their product superior. Some companies use the ratio numbers, which have no industry standard. Other companies skip the ratio numbers and invent their own proprietary adjective term that you can’t really compare to the alternative product.
I think the Japanese rod makers don’t see the lack of a standard way of describing rod action as a problem. It seems to be mostly a problem for blog writers and their readers, and for people who either buy or sell rods online.
People who do not have the opportunity to hold the rod in their hand before purchase or who mostly sell rods online. Well, It’s up to them to develop and agree upon something that works for them. I haven’t a clue about it. Chris’ and Tom’s ideas seem promising. Indeed, I recently mentioned a rod to Chris I thought looked interesting. Turns out he had tried one and found it to be a 6 penny rod. Oh, much to soft for my taste. But the manufacturers specs looked like it may have been fun.
Chris,
Next time you meet a fly shop guy who rejected carrying tenkara gear over fear he won’t sell enough flies, concerned about the “one fly thing”, just point out that the one fly guys share their one fly with six or more rods. ; – ) Or maybe not. You do a great job with rods, let the fly shop guy sell flies.
John V.
I doubt if fluoro level line of the same 号 number varies much from one line manufacturer to the next. 3.5号 line from Sansui or Sunline or anyone else’s line probably weights about the same for a given length. The specific gravity probably varies slightly which will change the weight/length a little.
Generally FC line has a SG in the range of 1.75 to 1.9. Calculating the grams/foot for a given size of line gives small decimal numbers. Therefore the mass/longer length is easier to work with.
Due to manufacturing tolerance no line is completely uniform in diameter over its length. The line diameter being very small it is difficult to measure. So line makers use standard textile methods to calculate the average diameter of their line. They use one of two units of measure either the denier number ( X grams/9000m of line) or the decitex ( dtex), X grams/10000m of line.
QC of avg line diameter is calculated by taking the square root of the denier number divided by ( specific gravity x 9000 x π ) then multiply the result by 2. Use the same forumula with the dtex number but substitute 10,000 for the 9000 factor.
For example the denier for 1号 FC line is 340. The specific gravity for FC line is ~ 1.78. Which will give you about .165 mm. The standard line diameter for 1号 line.
Anyway, if it is of any help here are the denier numbers for fluorocarbon line from the yoz-ami.jp web site.
2.5号 850, 3号 1020 , 3.5号 1190, 4号 1360.
Divide by 90 for grams/100m. Divide again by 100 to get grams/meter. Multiply that result by .3038 ( = 12/39.5) to get grams/foot. Example 3.5号 1190 = .1322 g/m or .040 g/ft. Maybe close enough for the line mass calculations you would like to do.