Register now on! Login


Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

« 1 2 (3)

Re: The "Troutiest" of rods?

2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 855
Due to their age or their lower end costs, all my rods are slow to medium action. I don't know much about fast action rods and what little I do know about them, I'd just as soon I'd never learned it.

I don't like them...

That said, I only routinely over line one of my rods, a 9' 6 wgt. Diamondback Americana. It is the rod I use for smallmouth on large creeks and small rivers. I think it works best for this fishing with a 7 wgt. line. I can throw a popper farther with the 7 wgt. on it.

On the other hand, I'll sometimes underline my Far & Fines and my FF605 glass with a DT4 if I'm fishing small flies in clear water (which I don't really don't do that much of, seeing that I feel about the same way about very small flies that I do about fast rods.

In either situation (over or under line), it may actually serve a purpose or it may just be nonsense/voodoo. I have no idea. I only know its what I do...

Posted on: 2013/8/26 19:38

Re: The "Troutiest" of rods?

2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 908
Bottom line: X feet of 5wt line weighs more than X feet of 4 wt line. Therefore at shorter distances (up to the distance the rod was rated at), the heavier weight line will load the rod more efficiently. At extremely short distances, 2 or even 3 line weights may be what's needed to load the rod most efficiently.

F = m * a

So, yeah, well, there are really two ways to look at it.

Increase the mass of the line (the common route as described), or improve your casting so as to impart a greater acceleration on the given mass of the line to create the force to load the rod.

So when you need to reach out an extra 10 or 15 feet while fishing (an effective upping of the rated line weight beyond the tip), do any of you guys swap out spools to a lighter line weight, in order to make the rod work most 'efficiently' while on stream? If you can't adjust your casting to account for the speed of the rod or the distance you're casting, then a little practice probably wouldn't hurt. If you bought a 4wt and need to load it with a 6, then sorry, you bought yourself the wrong rod for your skillz and there are better options out there for you, thanks for playing, Sage appreciates your business, wait 'til you see next year's line up!!!

As far as the original post...the troutiest rod of them all?
Either an 8'/5wt or 7'/4wt in cane, there ain't nothing 'troutier' than those and they will cover all your bases. "It's a poor craftsmen who blames his tools."

Posted on: 2013/8/26 19:42

Re: The "Troutiest" of rods?

2011/5/3 12:22
From South Lebanon Township, PA
Posts: 1932
tomi - No, I don't switch spools in that situation...but that's just out of laziness and not wanting to carry a spare spool all day. I'd agree doing so would help with the longer cast and presentation that's needed there. As you mentioned, I just adjust my cast as best I can to throw the longer distance that's needed. It's just that in the small stream fishing I do, those longer casts (say the 30 ft. the rod was rated at, or longer) occur maybe a handful of times per outing. 99% of the other casts I make in a given day on a small stream are under 30 feet. I'd guess 90% are under 20 feet. I'd rather have to adjust my cast to try to compensate for throwing too much mass a handful of times per day on long casts, than adjust my cast for throwing too little mass on nearly every other cast I make during the day. My Brookie rod is a 4wt. If I were to fish it on a larger, more open stream where I was expecting to regularly make 20-30 ft casts all day long, I'd put on my reel with 4wt line.

I get what you're saying, and your physics is sound, but why work harder than you have to? If you're making short casts all day long, overlining the rod will make it work the most efficient at those short distances. For short casts on small streams, both the 4wt and 6wt in your example would be equally inefficient if they were strung with their listed line weights because you'd be working harder (more acceleration) to load them at those short distances.

Posted on: 2013/8/26 20:59

« 1 2 (3)

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


Remember me

Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected facebook instagram RSS Feed

Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment

Copyright 2014 by | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by