Redington CT & Sage LL

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Codioos, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. Drifter

    Drifter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    903
    I agree that it is not all about the graphite and much more about resins used with the graphite that change strength and gives the differences between graphite rod blanks like the nano tech and the helios tech to g5 tech and what every company changes to try and up the game as far as making a better rod then the competition.

    I really liked the LL graphite "MIX" which was probably fiberglass resin.
     
  2. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Washington
    Whatever epoxy they used to bond it, it sure as hell was durable. I don't think I've ever met anyone who took proper care of one and actually blew one up.
     
  3. Kyle Smith

    Kyle Smith DBA BozoKlown406

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,918
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Location:
    Bozeman, MT
    All this graphite talk cracks me up. I've never cast a rod that made me think the graphite was lacking. Sometimes they aren't as well-made, or a series is just poorly conceptualized. But the graphite used only affects the weight, and that's a matter of modulus (stiffness). High modulus graphite is also brittle, which is why so much has been put into nano resins and silica scrims and shit like that. SO much work is put into getting all this graphite and resin just right, when personally I've never cast a graphite rod that felt heavy. Now, if they can come out with a 10 footer that feels like a 9-footer I'll be convinced. I know that the Sage ESN feels like a 10-footer (and a nice one), same with the Helios.
     
  4. Drifter

    Drifter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    903
    Kyle - you state you have the "4711 LL" would you mind doing a write up on how the rod blank is rolled? how the taper is from top to bottom? how strong is the butt section? What do you think of the graphite - resin "mix" in the LL how does the rolled blank "feel"

    Even if it's just your opinion I would be very interested on your write up on that rod.

    Would someone else like to give a write up on the 389, seems plenty have them or love them. I'm very interested!

    Would anyone like to compare the two rods "LL against the CT" and how the blanks are different? how the graphite and resins are different? How one "feels" different then the other?

    Why the hell buy an LL if they are the same? I thought this was the original posters question. I must of been wrong!
     
    Codioos likes this.
  5. wichaka

    wichaka Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    White Salmon, Washington
    I just got a CT 7'6" 3wt awhile back, and would like to compare to LL 3wt, as well as hearing what a CT 8'0" 4wt compares to the 4711 LL.
     
  6. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Location:
    Near the Fjord
    Well, I may have to step out tomorrow and try my 279LL against my CT 3wt.-8'-6" and see how they feel. I use a 3wt. line on the Sage 2wt. LL.
     
    Mark Kraniger likes this.
  7. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    7,800
    Likes Received:
    2,729
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    Same reason the RPL, the XP and, more recently, the Z-axis are no longer being made... flyfisherman are as gullible to marketing hype as cutthroat are to goldenstones.
     
    orangeradish likes this.
  8. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    7,800
    Likes Received:
    2,729
    Location:
    Ruby Valley, MT
    We disagree on guns, but not on flyrods... imagine that :D
     
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  9. Codioos

    Codioos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Spokane

    Yup, thank you.
     
    Mark Kraniger likes this.
  10. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,183
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Location:
    Not sure
    Several points in reponse:

    First, the LL and the CT are NOT the same rod. Some folks posted they thought they were identical (most likely because the blanks are similar in color), but several knowledgeable sources insist that in fact they're not. Remember that the LLs were designed almost twenty years ago. While they were (and still are) remarkable rods, they were built using design, material and assembly technology that's nearly two decades old. If anything, IMHO the CT is an updated version of the LL.

    Second, neither the LL or the CT are for any- or everybody. They both have a decidedly moderate action that I for one think is delightfully out of step with the progression towards making faster and faster action rods every year. As primarily a bamboo rod fisher, both have a much faster action than I'm used to, but not so fast that they feel out of control. But that's me. For the fisher that likes a fast rod and has the stroke and control to get the most out of it, neither the LL or the CT might be a good fit.

    Third, contrary to one poster's opinion in another thread on the CTs, in my firsthand experience, the 3wt CT is NOT limited to casts of 40 feet or less. I've lawn cast my 8' 3wt 6-piece CT nearly the entire 90 foot length of a Scientific Angler GPX DT4. I'm far from an accomplished caster, but if I can get out a good 75-80 feet of line, with a little patience and practice, anyone can.

    Finally, the CT is far from being the best or most perfect rod available. They're a darned good rod and priced at around $100 or so, I think that makes them one hell of a value (especially for the 6-piece version), especially when one considers how much the market still values a twenty year old LL.


    As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking forward to a side by side comparison between a 379LL (7'9" 3wt 2-piece) and my CT 803 6-piece. I'll do my best to eliminate as many variables as possible by using the same lines and reels and use a 100 foot tape to actually measure and photograph the distances of the best casts with each. If time permits, perhaps I can persuade one of my bamboo rodmaker friends to 'mike' both rods' tapers so we can compare them using direct measurements. Finally, I'll recruit some other friends to join the party so the final report won't just reflect my own biases.

    K
     
    Codioos likes this.
  11. Stew McLeod

    Stew McLeod aka BigMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    Renton, WA
    Look forward to the analysis
     
  12. Codioos

    Codioos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Spokane
    The "nuts and bolts" of why I posted this thread. Hoping somebody who had both rods could and would do a little science experiment for me. It would be great to hear your results and some pictures of the event. Thank you.
     
  13. wichaka

    wichaka Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    White Salmon, Washington
    I just picked up a Sage 379 LL, and will be comparing it to my 376 CT with some WF line as soon as the snow disappears.

    Just whipping the rods back and forth in a casting motion, the CT appears to be bit stiffer overall...but still a soft rod comparable to most of today's rods.
     
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  14. wichaka

    wichaka Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    White Salmon, Washington
    Alrighty, got out last night on the lawn and here's what I found. And I do emphasize the "I"...your mileage may vary.

    I have a Sage 7'9" 3wt 2 piece Light Line (LL) and compared it to the Redington 3wt 7'6" 4 piece Classic Trout (CT)
    To keep things even, I used the same reel and line set up on both. I used a Redington Drift 3/4 reel, with about 50+ yards of backing and Rio's Trout LT WF3F line. I placed a 6X 7 .5' tapered leader on that, and tied on an old size 16 soft hackle wet fly with the barbed hook cut off, so it wouldn't snag the grass.

    As a side note, am not sure how anyone could get the manufacturers noted amount of backing on this reel, along with the fly line and not get the line scraping on the reel frame. If fly reels had line levelers like spin/cast reels do, then maybe...but for the way I think the most of fish...we just reel in the line, we don't concern ourselves about leveling the line out.
    Anyway, with the approx. 50 yards of backing and the fly line, it fills the spool pretty much full, and still allows some space so it doesn't scrape the frame. Okay, 'nuff of that.

    To qualify my expertise. I started fly fishing late in life, around 20+ years ago...am 50 now. Did not do it consistently thru the next 10 or so years, but have really picked it up hot and heavy the last 5-7 years or so.
    I started out with an old Cortland GRF 1000 8'6" graphite rod rated for 5/6, which to me is like casting a broom stick, compared to other rods I've cast. Didn't have the funds to get what I wanted. I cast many a rod over the years and knew my casting style worked with the slower rods.
    I finally was able to pick up a Sage RPL in 8'6" 5wt, as I've heard so much about them. That rod is a perfect fit to my casting style. But when I looked around for lighter wt rods, I was able to adapt my cast style to them pretty easy. 'nuff about me.

    I've not cast a lot of light weight rods, such as 2 & 3 wts...but have cast some over the last year or so looking for a good solid small stream rod.

    I started with the LL first. And it definitely is a soft rod that casts like a feather. Can get out 20+ feet of line with ease and pretty much pin point the fly where I want it. I could get more line out, to the 30 range without much effort. When pushing it to the 40 feet mark, the rod had to do some soul searching to do it. It has the back bone, but I could tell that's not what it was made for. I have cast some 2 & 3wt rods lately, but the LL definitely will set the fly down lighter than anything I've cast so far. Am guessing its the combo of the rod and line?

    Next was the CT. Right off I could tell I would need to change my casting style a tad, as the rod is a bit stiffer overall. Not to say its a broomstick, but if the LL is considered a med, then the CT would be a med-fast. I could effortlessly lay out line to 30 feet, and out to 40 without too much trouble. I went beyond that, it flexed but didn't complain when pushing to 50 feet and beyond.

    The next test I did, was to cast both rods after dark. This way I could concentrate on the feel of the rod only, not where I was casting and what the fly and line were doing. This really brought out the feel of the rods. After doing this, I highly recommend it. Since you can't see anything, the only thing you have is the rod...its feel and balance.

    Conclusion; Not sure who said that the CT is the LL reincarnated, but they need to be slapped! They are not the same rod, not close. The CT is a faster action rod. Still soft by some of today's rods, or so it seems, but the LL is a softer rod by comparison. I was able to lay out the fly so delicate on the grass last night. Was able to do the same with the CT, but just not quite as quiet as the LL.

    I've heard some say that the CT is the poor man's LL...not sure if that would be correct either. The LL is in a different class than the CT, no doubt there. Compared to other 2 & 3wt rods I've cast over the last few months, for the price, the CT is everything I've heard it to be. If I didn't have the LL would I be content with the CT? Yep.

    I will probably use the CT as a backpack rod, as it breaks down smaller than the LL. The 4 piece rod with its case is a nice short package. Am still looking for an upper end 4wt rod, like a Scott G or a TMF...but will most likely pick up the 8' 4wt CT until then.
     
    Kyle Smith likes this.
  15. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,183
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Location:
    Not sure
    Great review wichaka - thank you for taking the time to cast both rods and for writing up your impressions. Your idea to cast them both a second time after dark was truly inspired.

    I have spent time fishing an identical 379 LL and the 8' 6-piece version of the CT, although not side by side - yet. I was able to do a side-by-side comparison of the CT and a Sage 389-5 SP. Although it's a foot longer than the LL, I (subjectively) regard the SP as a bit faster than the LL. In comparing the SP with the CT, there was no question that the CT was a slightly stiffer rod with a bit faster action, which would make it faster yet than the LL.

    Two thoughts come to mind after reading your post: First, your CT was a 7'6" version - 3" shorter than the LL, while mine is 8' - 3" longer. I wonder how the two CTs might compare and whether the shorter rod might seem faster?

    Second, isn't it interesting that no rod manufacturers refer to their products' actions as 'slow'? 'Medium', 'medium-fast', 'fast', and 'very fast' are all terms that appear frequently. But why not 'slow'?

    I wonder if the rod manufacturers think their overwhelmingly male would be as likely to take to a rod with a 'slow' action as they would a 350 pound stripper at a bachelor's party?

    K