Are overweight lines getting out of control?

#61
Like Stonefish I like all the choices we have. It would be nice if there was a simple way to designate them. Sometimes it's impossible to compare one to another when one manufacturer give weight of the entire head and another the entire head length. With all the different head lengths available it can get even more confusing for people.
If rod companies marked single hand rods like the double handers it might help. For instance rod wt. 5,6,7 etc. then suggested grain window 150- 225 grains? and line companies gave you the first 30ft. and entire head wt. ?
Maybe all that info would just make the problem worse? I don't know got to be something they could do.
 
#62
New and modern certainly isnt automatically better all around. For many situations the classic stuff is just as good as anything.

However there is definitely a time and place where newer rods shine.

I spend a lot of time searching for resident coho. Generally I don't spend a lot of time blind casting, I'm usually on the move looking for signs of fish. When I'm moving along at 8-10 knots and a coho jumps 40' from the boat, I will often only get one shot at it. The ability to grab a rod with a "ridiculously heavy" shooting head and drop a cast into the vicinity with just a single back cast is crucial and often the difference between a hooked fish and moving on in search of more fish. Can a classic rod with a standard line make a 40' cast and catch fish? Sure. But often only with several false casts. Personally I'd rather catch fish than not, so I'm grateful for modern tools that help me do so.

To the same point, when I need to throw a weighted fly 70' from my anchored boat to reach fish feeding on a current seam, and there is 10 knots of wind to contend with I am very thankful for a fast action rod and a shooting head line. Again a classic rod and line can get the job done, but generally only with several false casts. False casting = fly not in the water. Fly not in the water=Not catching fish. As SF often says, Puget Sound is a numbers game. The more casts one makes, the more fish one can catch. More casts per hour= Fly is in the water more= more chances at fish.

False casting is fun and looks pretty but its basically wasted time and energy that serves little purpose in the saltwater realm. Heavy shooting heads eliminate the need for many false casts and I'll never be convinced that that is a bad thing.
 

David Dalan

69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E
#64
Agree 100 percent. Time to move away from a line weight number. Now rod manufactures should pring a grain weight recommendation on rods
I'm not (I was not...2014!!!!) pooping on the standard. But here is an example. What weight of Scandi head should be matched with a single handed, 10'6" 8 weight? I use the fighting butt as a second grip. Turns out a 320 grain scandi is great, and most of the time I use it without the tip. So its basically a Scandi/skagit head. But most of my tinkering is based on different grain heads, so grains on the rod would make more sense for me in most cases.

I'm sure that's clear as mud.
 
#65
New and modern certainly isnt automatically better all around. For many situations the classic stuff is just as good as anything.

However there is definitely a time and place where newer rods shine.

I spend a lot of time searching for resident coho. Generally I don't spend a lot of time blind casting, I'm usually on the move looking for signs of fish. When I'm moving along at 8-10 knots and a coho jumps 40' from the boat, I will often only get one shot at it. The ability to grab a rod with a "ridiculously heavy" shooting head and drop a cast into the vicinity with just a single back cast is crucial and often the difference between a hooked fish and moving on in search of more fish. Can a classic rod with a standard line make a 40' cast and catch fish? Sure. But often only with several false casts. Personally I'd rather catch fish than not, so I'm grateful for modern tools that help me do so.

To the same point, when I need to throw a weighted fly 70' from my anchored boat to reach fish feeding on a current seam, and there is 10 knots of wind to contend with I am very thankful for a fast action rod and a shooting head line. Again a classic rod and line can get the job done, but generally only with several false casts. False casting = fly not in the water. Fly not in the water=Not catching fish. As SF often says, Puget Sound is a numbers game. The more casts one makes, the more fish one can catch. More casts per hour= Fly is in the water more= more chances at fish.

False casting is fun and looks pretty but its basically wasted time and energy that serves little purpose in the saltwater realm. Heavy shooting heads eliminate the need for many false casts and I'll never be convinced that that is a bad thing.
Nick, I rarely false cast. One roll cast, a back cast with a haul, Then back out. I usually use an Outbound intermediate. I do the same thing with my 5 wt. on a river. I learned a long time ago that a false cast only three purpose: to get more line out, to change directions, or to dry a fly. If I false cast I generally screw up a cast. The less false casts, the more your fly is on the water. Hence more opportunity. Maybe more hook-ups.
 

Jerry Daschofsky

Moderator
Staff member
#68
Agreed. I have many older rods by Sage and have found that I prefer them over the newer ones. Could be from familiarity. I don't know but as it stands now, I'm closer top the end of my fly fishing than the beginning so I won't probably be buying any new rods. I'll probably be selling.
Agreed. I still love my RPL and RPL+. Have one new Sage, and only keep it for sentimental reasons.
 

Porter

Active Member
#70
Should I roll my eyes or laugh out loud?
That ranks right down there with the common cents method.. probably pretty popular on rodbuilding.org though.
Jerry Seim and Jim Bartschi believe in it as do many of the good rod designers. But hey if you think it’s just a marketing term well then that is your problem. I know I do not want to purchase from any rod building company or builder that doesn’t take swing weight in to account when building a fly rod.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#71
Jerry Seim and Jim Bartschi believe in it as do many of the good rod designers. But hey if you think it’s just a marketing term well then that is your problem. I know I do not want to purchase from any rod building company or builder that doesn’t take swing weight in to account when building a fly rod.
Don't buy a Burkheimer then and they are among and more likely the highest performing rods on the planet.

The truth is that rods with less mass does not increase their performance nor does it make a better fishing tool.
Another fact, if your rod has so much seing weight that it makes you tired you are either a poor caster or you aren't healthy enough for the type of fishing you are trying to do..

We found it common that increasing the tip mass of a rod gives it higher performance. No not common, nearly universal. It's not about stiffness either otherwise we could hsve got the same results by switching to a higher modulus material.

Thus adding material to the tip increases both swing weight and performance.

So uh yeah reducing the swing weight of a rod is just marketing dusguised as a feature.

The only thing a rod designer should be thinking about is how does a rod cast and fish. It weighs what it weighs when you get it casting perfectly. Considering the weight before the cast is simply bad design.
 

Wyobee

Active Member
#73
I swear to god someone is going to start marketing keto lines, just from this thread's feedback
Truly, if I was in the flyfishing industry anywhere from builder, guide, to salesman this site is a great resource to learn and hone your knowledge of everything flyfishing. I'd say alot members have PhD or better knowledge of the sport and its equipment. I think the kids would call you influencers.
 

Porter

Active Member
#74
Well there are rods for everyone. Tested out some single hand burkheimers, nice rods not
bad but not the best I have tried, at least for me. There are those that like light feeling rods, some like heavy feeling rods, and a bunch like in-between I’m sure. . Nothing wrong with either. I prefer rods with less swing weight, especially 6 and above in weights.
 
#75
I've never been one to care much about weight in a fly rod but recently added a couple of Helios 3D six weights and they are so light its just mind blowing. Really makes a difference after a day on the sound making hundreds of casts.

I know swing weight is a different concept... These are just the first rods I've fished where I have really noticed the weight... Or lack thereof
 

Latest posts