There is a value to expressing a measure of taper because it predicts somewhat what the response will be to the additional forces in the haul. It also predicts in a derived fashion what the L(X-1) and L(X+1) will be, potentially saving two measurements.
So, the chart above could be variously re-presented as:
.....................................................L(9) in inches
Rod A (Sage GII)...........................66 (d)
Rod B (Scott S4s).........................70 (d)
Rod C (TF TiCR)...........................72 (d)
Where d = the calculated slope of the curve. How d is derived and how it is expressed can be debated and tweaked for maximum utility. Since one has to make a standardized single flexion x weight measurement, it would seem reasonable to standardize two additional measurements on either side of the primary measurement which would allow some degree of slope-of-curve determination. How precise this needs to be can be determined only by doing and using it.
In many ways this system is completely analogus to the CCS system in that it utilizes a measurement of stiffness and of taper. But there all similarity ends. It accurately predicts the rod “feel” and behavior in actual casting WITH a specific line. It predicts how over-lining or under-lining will affect feel and rod performance. It predicts how hanging a 600 gr L14 head on a rod will feel. It predicts how the rod will respond to the additional Force of a haul.
For the first time, by working back from a standardized F(X) measurement based on the standard AFTMA line weights it permits a singular ACCURATE rod weight designation OR complete abandonment of that system. Any rod (of equal length) of ANY wt designation will feel primarily the same in a full flexion cast as any other rod with the same L(9) number. And the taper designation allows a finer-tuned prediction of “feel” in the loading phase. More about that later.
Now….is THAT of any value to anyone?
24