Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 3 (4) 5 »


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2008/10/25 14:19
From York County
Posts: 2129
Offline
For me, 5/6, 4, 5, 4,7, and soon maybe 3. I have an odd arangement of rod sizes and weights.

5/6. My 8'6" 5/6 weight was my first. it was to long and hefty for the small streams I fished at the time, but would be nice for some large streams or the river.

4. My 7'6" #4 was a good companion for at least 10 years as I had downsized and it was a good compromise for all sized streams and fish even though I had lost some fish over twenty inchers. Cheap St. Croix and cheap Reel. Was good to me.

5. My 7'0" #5 was bought because I wanted a short punchy rod that I could use while navigating through the nastiest thickest jaggers that you could imagine along a certain stream or two that I fish and still have the ability to throw big buggers, streamers. Casts far for its size, but rod doesn't have the length backbone for some larger fish over 16-18 inches. Good specialty rod.

4. My 7' 9" #4 is a good all around rod for me. It is a moderately slow rod and I like that it has a nice full flex. This is my all purpose rod. It is just long enough, just heavy enough, that I feel I can comfortably fish most streams from small runs to large main stem streams without sacrificing casting distance or fighting ability.

7. Haven't used it much yet but it's ready to go.

Posted on: 2009/3/24 18:30
_________________
~ Fly Fishing ~ Personal therapy on the water. Equipment and travel rates apply.


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/1/30 10:05
From Jersey Shore, PA
Posts: 482
Offline
Now, my opinion: I think we should all meet in a big field or park with plenty of casting room and cast all of the rod lengths and actions and line weights - let's not forget weight forward, long belly and double taper - to see what the original poster would like best. We need to ensure it is a windless day. To simulate wind we need one of those really big fans like they use on the movie set. It would be fun!!

We'd have to decide whether we want to talk about the merits of the various rod lengths and actions and the same for differents line weights and designs before or after we cast all of the possible combinations. This may be the most difficult part of the process.

Posted on: 2009/3/24 19:32


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
"To simulate wind we need one of those really big fans like they use on the movie set."

Or we could just do it around the fire after a few beers at he Jam...

Posted on: 2009/3/24 21:29


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/7/23 18:36
From Stevens to Twenty mile
Posts: 263
Offline
fishrich, here is my take on this issue, its a non issue. Rod weight doesnt matter,rod size does. The difference between an 8 weight and a 4 weight is a matter of grains, period. There are 7000 grians to a pound do you think a 330 grain line or a 220 grain line realy make a difference???Its one of these things people who talk about fishing dwell on and those who fish dont give a rats arse about. Dry fly presentation is the only type of fishing that rod weight realy matters, around here a good willow swictch and the fly of the moment will catch as much fish as a $ 1000 Winston will. Take the rod you can throw the best and fish with it. Good luck.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 7:31
_________________
" political correctness is tyranny with manners"... Charlton Heston
" ..all we touch and all we see is all our lives will ever be.." Floyd


Re: Line wt debate
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 9061
Offline
Quote:

GreenWeenie wrote:
A well made fast action rod should flex near the tip even more than a medium action rod. However, the problem with most fast action rods (excepting high end rods like Sage Z-Axis, Winston Biix, etc.) is the tip is too stiff because mfg use larger diameter mandrels resulting in extra material because overall it is easier and less expensive to make a straight rod this way – but the tip section is too stiff for the rod and it doesn’t protect tippets nor allow “feel” when working in close. This results in most fast action rods being underrated by at least 1 line size and difficult to load at close ranges.

A well made slower action rod will actually have a slightly stiffer tip than a fast action rod but it will bend much easier into the midsection. However, a well designed medium action rod shouldn’t be so soft in the butt section that it bends into the handle because then it doesn’t have reserve power to make a reasonably long cast.

The major casting difference between medium and fast action rods is softer rods are generally more difficult to cast than stiffer rods simply because most people have a fast casting technique and end up overpowering a medium action rod with their own strength, as opposed slowing down and letting the rod load and do the work (timing and technique is everything with a slower action rod). So, for most people faster action rods are easier to cast and control especially at longer distances because they don’t deflect as much as a medium action rod when physically overpowered and are more forgiving on mistimed casts. With a medium action rod when you start to stretch your distance you really need to let the rod load and there is significantly less margin for error in your technique.




Very interesting stuff.

It’s very difficult to find a fast action rod that does it all. Your explanation in the first paragraph explains why that may be. I think that fast action rods get a bad name because there are so many poor ones out there.

My favorite rod for trout is a Sage XP. The Sage Z-axis is close, with a little less power for longer casts. I can cast my XP with a rod length of fly line off the tip, using very little effort, while being both accurate and delicate. The rod can also easily handle casting the entire taper plus, and have some guts left for a haul to shoot the line. Someone once described a 5wt XP as having a 4wt tip, a 5wt middle and a 6wt butt. The perfect or near perfect rod should be able to cast well near and far, and IMO, being able to cast a tight loop helps for accuracy, casting in the wind, and shooting the fly into tight places, is a big advantage under all conditions.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 8:44


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15169
Offline
seems to be the only rods that are only good for dapping in trickles are the discount junk that don't have enough guides and the fenwick one I brilliantly had spinning guides put on for those ice in the guides mornings.
However anyone claiming line wt.doesn't matter would quickly change their mind on a big windblown river with a weenie roast rod-lol

Posted on: 2009/3/25 9:56
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
Grains really only matter in a sinking situation..and then they really matter. Floating lines float and the an appropriate rod throws it. The bigger disagreement here seems to be the rods flex or action. I used to love my old Shakespeare Fiberglass Wonder Rod for roll casting. Until I bought a fast action rod. Ironically my mid flex rod was worse than either of them. It was odd to me that the better roll casts came from rods on opposite ends of the spectrum. Like anything else go with what works for you. If there was any black and white to fly fishing there would only be one kind of anything to buy.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:35


Re: Line wt debate
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 17:32
From Gettysburg
Posts: 9237
Offline
fishrich,
Your original post asked whether we'd recommend a 3 or 4 WT as a first fly rod (unless I missed something in the follow on posts). I'll second the many recommendations for a 5WT. In the last decade or so general purpose fly rods for trout fishing (all FFing really) have grown longer, faster and for lighter lines. When I started FFing for trout over 30 years ago the standard trout rod was a fiberglass 7 foot rod for a 5 to 6 WT line. By the 80s fly rods were typically 8 feet or more and now many folks recommend a 9 foot rod with a 4 WT line for trout fishing. I don't even remember lines lighter than 4WT back in the 80s. Now they have 0 or 1 WT! It's getting absurd.
Personally, I've evolved in the other direction and tend to prefer extremely short fly rods (under 6 feet) for a lot of my trout fishing. I certainly don't recommend a short 3 WT (or even a long one) as a first fly rod - usually I steer new FFers toward 8 to 8.5' rods for a 5WT line.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 17:42


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2006/9/12 12:07
From Berryville Virginia
Posts: 329
Offline
okay, IMO it really doesn't matter. I can cast a full line with a med or fast action rod (who cares and Your answer is correct who cares). But what does a bamboo guy know, it is all physics. I'm concerned about conditions and fly size. I'm not going to fish the surf with a med action rod, full sinking line, 5 inch weighted streamer or a weight crab. The rod is not going to perform. The fly rod has to have the butt to make this happen, as well as tech. It is the knife at a gun fight syndrome. Who is going to win??? Please remember line weight is line weight and not condition and a fly attached rated.

Joe E

Posted on: 2009/3/25 18:13


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/7/23 18:36
From Stevens to Twenty mile
Posts: 263
Offline
Most of you fish with light weight rods , you can throw an 8- 10 weight farther and have it land soft enough not to spook a Bone,Red, or Permit but its too heavy for Trout?,thats absured but then we have people that wear wades to non wading water ,go figure.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 11:53
_________________
" political correctness is tyranny with manners"... Charlton Heston
" ..all we touch and all we see is all our lives will ever be.." Floyd


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Quote:

brookieaddict wrote:
but then we have people that wear wades to non wading water ,go figure.


I hope you're not thinking of a time you spotted me doing that.

I sometimes put them on when I have them. It allows me to be comfortable when walking through snakey looking territory, and allows me to walk out of the special reg section and keep fishing.

At the paradise, I usually swing by after fishing other sections. If I don't take them off to go into sheetz, I'm certainly not taking them off to keep fishing.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 11:57


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/7/23 18:36
From Stevens to Twenty mile
Posts: 263
Offline
jayL, just pokeing some fun at myself, thats all. I usualy have my waders on also regardless of the Regs. Some paterns are too hard to lose if ya know what i mean

Posted on: 2009/3/26 12:04
_________________
" political correctness is tyranny with manners"... Charlton Heston
" ..all we touch and all we see is all our lives will ever be.." Floyd


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15169
Offline
I never saw anybody in waders at paradise-a few raised eyebrows on that-lol

Posted on: 2009/3/26 12:15
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Quote:

brookieaddict wrote:
jayL, just pokeing some fun at myself, thats all. I usualy have my waders on also regardless of the Regs. Some paterns are too hard to lose if ya know what i mean


Gotcha. Nice to meet a fellow wader enthusiast.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 12:48


Re: Line wt debate

Joined:
2007/10/7 0:44
From philadelphia
Posts: 876
Offline
once again i'm the odd man out.if i had to choose one line weight it would be a six.best all around weight there is.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 14:11



« 1 2 3 (4) 5 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes
No
Thinking about it
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com