Mathematical formula for number of fly rods needed...

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Dan Reynolds, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. Dan Reynolds Member

    Posts: 374
    Bozeman, Mt
    Ratings: +5 / 0
    Actually, there is a mathematical formula developed in research labs south of the border to determine how many rods you actually need.

    RYO + 1 = RYN

    Where RYO = Rods You Own and RYN = Rods You Need



    Found this on the web and got a chuckle. I can show my wife "mathematically" just why...although she never knows RYO for sure.
    flybill likes this.
  2. Porter Active Member

    Posts: 6,413
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +508 / 0
    Here show the wife this one.........

    [IMG]
  3. Dan Reynolds Member

    Posts: 374
    Bozeman, Mt
    Ratings: +5 / 0
    Love it Porter...I think my wife would see the math and go, "huh"?
    Mikey_Mac, Ed Call and Kent Lufkin like this.
  4. NCL Member

    Posts: 349
    Northern California
    Ratings: +24 / 2
    What I have suspected for years has now been proved mathematically
  5. Chad Lewis NEVER wonder what to do with your free time

    Posts: 881
    TriCities, WA
    Ratings: +152 / 0
    And the reward for greatest thread-jack ever goes to Porter!
    Dan Nelson and Bill Aubrey like this.
  6. RustE drifting about

    Posts: 94
    Great Lakes
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Every time I get hassled about fly rods:

    Why do golfers need 14 clubs?

    How many sets of golf clubs do you own?
  7. Bill Aubrey Active Member

    Posts: 939
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +165 / 0
    Guys, haven't you simply explained that most of those rods aren't yours, you're simply storing them for friends with less understanding wives?
    dfl likes this.
  8. Thom Collins Active Member

    Posts: 203
    Kirkland, WA
    Ratings: +65 / 0
    A = "You should spend some quality time with just you & your daughter"
    B = I want to spend more time fishing

    So,

    A + B = C

    C = daughter's 'little starter rod' aka the 3 wt I always wanted.

    And:

    A = "Dad, I want to go salmon fishing with you"
    B = "Hun, the kid needs a bigger rod for salmon fishing"

    So,

    A + B = C

    C = I can't believe I'm finally getting a 2 hander!
    Jeff Dodd likes this.
  9. Jim Darden Active Member

    Posts: 890
    Bellingham, Wa.
    Ratings: +215 / 0
    Damn....can't believe you guys need math to explain something so intuitive as the reason to buy more rods. Are you sure you went to grade school?
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  10. kmudgn Member

    Posts: 72
    Manhchester,NH
    Ratings: +32 / 0
    I must disagree with the formula posted by the OP. The problem is that the factor "RYO" is ALWAYS less than "RYN" no matter how many rods are added.
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  11. Trapper Badovinac Author, Writer, Photographer

    Posts: 444
    Helena, Montana
    Ratings: +589 / 0
    My formula is a bit different.

    I simply count the pairs of shoes in my wife's closet and add 1 rod to that number . . .

    Trapper
    upsops, flybill, Steve Call and 2 others like this.
  12. DonChilds Have Spey Will Travel

    Posts: 83
    Sedro-Woolley, WA
    Ratings: +21 / 0
    This is realy simple they were 50% off so honey I saved you money what are you complaining about.
  13. Rick Todd Active Member

    Posts: 1,860
    Ferndale/Winthrop
    Ratings: +236 / 0
    Jim-your problem is that Becky fly fishes, so the formula gets way more complicated, kind of a blending of Porters along with Dans-good thing you are an engineer so you can figure it out! BTW are you back from Florida? Rick
  14. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
    A demonstrable, solid, and repeatable proof! However, I believe we can take this logic further:
    "Idle hands are the devil's workshop"
    Therefore: where time=T, and:
    "time=$, and $=problems ($=P), then;
    T=$. Since it has already been established that $=P. and P=women/trouble are interchangeable, it can be said that: $=P=W/T where W/T=($)-, I postulate that women and monetary black holes are one and the same, sucking up all $ within the range of their event horizon (H).
    T=$; W=$=(H)
    Where there is a finite space available for womens' shoes (s) in a closet,
    W=S=(H)>(s); we now have proof of the cosmic Big Bang, where women try to fit too many shoes into a closet!

    How's that for an historian??:D
    flybill and RustE like this.
  15. rainbow My name is Mark Oberg

    Posts: 1,230
    Renton wa
    Ratings: +78 / 0
    Ha ha, i just blew coffee on the laptop. And I have no idea what that was, but it gave me a headache.
  16. RustE drifting about

    Posts: 94
    Great Lakes
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    Hence, the number of rods one can own is infinite.

    Storage space and financial limitations may apply.
  17. Chad Lewis NEVER wonder what to do with your free time

    Posts: 881
    TriCities, WA
    Ratings: +152 / 0
    Given enough resources (and possibly less women) we may need a bigger planet.
  18. wadin' boot Donny, you're out of your element...

    Posts: 2,013
    Wallingford, WA
    Ratings: +1,555 / 0
    His rods vs her shoes in the boot household As you can see I have about reached my threshold,whereas she has not. Diminshing returns to scale hit me somewhere between 5 and 6 rods, closest to what- for me- is my hoarder threshold. I have a harder time getting rid of books or music than I do rods. Slide1.JPG
    Chad Lewis likes this.
  19. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,224 / 0
    Why does the plot of her shoes look like a saw? Does she get rid of shoes on a regular basis? My wife sure doesn't.

    K
  20. wadin' boot Donny, you're out of your element...

    Posts: 2,013
    Wallingford, WA
    Ratings: +1,555 / 0
    Zappos. Free returns.
    Kent Lufkin likes this.