The "Troutiest" of rods?

Big-Bass

Big-Bass

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
496
Ok, so doing some reading I hear two rods are the "troutiest" of all time...but can someone explain that?

9 foot 4 weight (not the standard 9' 5 weight)

and the 8'6" 5 weight

What are the advantages of the 9' 4 over the 9' 5? I have heard that many 4 weights today are like 4.5 weights and many 5 weights are getting closer to 6 weights from back in the day. Thanks!
 
By "troutiest" I think they are simply referring to the 2 sizes that are most often associated with trout fishing, most popular and / or most versatile for trouting.

As for deceptive labeling of gear, I agree. You buy a 4 weight....unless you have 50' of line out, it doesn't flex. Ok, you should over-line it with 5 wt line then. If that's the case, you bought a 5 wt that says 4 wt on the blank. Why not just buy a 5 weight to start with? If I buy a 4 wt, it's because I want a 4 wt. The rod makers should stop the shenanigans and make the label match the actual line weight.

I had a Sage TCX 5 weight 2 years ago. I'm positive it would have handled a 7 weight....no problem. To me, that's BS.
 
Is a 4wt line a 4wt line if its a "slightly heavier" on paper but is actually a 6wt AFMTA line, making it two full sizes heavier?

Are these deceptive practices, or are you all simply stupid?

-shrug-

I'm willing to believe far more people who own rods that say 4wt on them are actually fishing 6wts.

That might be why the common fishing rod through most of fly fishing history is a 6wt rod (case in point, when you find a classic, unmarked, garage sale rod, try it with a 6wt first). When I started, it was the 8'6" 5wt, and that was at the start of the stiffer-is-bester wars, I notice now 8 years later, you're being told to buy 4wt rods.

(which are 6wts, but I said that already)
 
Gary,

I'd be offended by that comment except for the fact that I am stupid. I think it's deceptive on the part of the rod companies. I started a good bit before you did and my first rod was a trout rod....7' 7wt. I also had a 6' 5wt. The 5wt was considered to be a light trout / small stream rod. Go figure.
 
I would like a standard so that I don't have to buy two lines before getting the feel right. As well, I can adjust my casting stroke, but would rather just know what I am getting when I acquire it. I actually really liked a light-feeling soft 5-weight paired to a double taper 3-weight line, anytime accept in the wind.
 
Big-Bass,

Calling one rod troutier that the next is hogwash. As long as the rod is less that a 9 weight.

I often have 3 rods with me:

6'0"-7'0" 2-5wt for small streams

7'0"-8'0" 2-6wt for medium streams

8'0"-9'6" 5-7wt for large streams

 
I do think the 8' 6" to 9' 5 weight is the most common fly rod you will see on trout streams. Those rods cover alot but not all situations.
 
The troutiest rods I have are a 7ft 3/4 weight eglass - got it's "Riffle" blank from Phil at Kettle Creek and a 7'6" bamboo 4wt Payne 100 taper - got the blank from Anglers Roost.

From what I've experienced (which is less than some others) whether it be e-glass or s-glass, newer glass rods are rated much more accurately than graphite rods.

I wonder if fast action graphite is inherently difficult to rate.


 
this to me is a pretty good explination of "modern" rod weight theory vs "true" AFMTA ratings. under lining rods so the "load" with 70" of line out giving you a longer cast sells rods at the shop...

http://www.common-cents.info/

but as for the troutiest i'd say call as many shops as you can, ask them that question, and when you get all that info let us know.

ifi were to make a general assumption based on what i have learned i would say a 9' 5 or 6wt on "average" from brookies to sea run steelehead.

thats a almost impossible question to answer, that you have asked.

as for my personal input as to how i perceive your question, i really like my 8' 3wt m series paired with a rio trout lt 3wt wf line. yet that rod, actual weight to load the rod 1/3 of the rods length is actually a 2.5wt. while the line is 170gr(AFMTA 5wt) @ 43'...but at 30' where AFMTA calls the loading point it's 100gr on the nose.
 
Calling one rod troutier that the next is hogwash.
 
springer1 wrote:
...
From what I've experienced (which is less than some others) whether it be e-glass or s-glass, newer glass rods are rated much more accurately than graphite rods.

I wonder if fast action graphite is inherently difficult to rate.


No, the market evolved to its present state. During the early 90's became more popular. With this new found popularity came a lot of people looking to buy fly rods. These guys would go to a fly shop and test cast some rods. Seeing that they could cast farther with the stiffest rod that was the one they bought. This caused what I call the "modulus wars". Each new series of rods used a higher modulus graphite to make the rod stiffer. When they could not use technology to create an advantage, they started to increase the distance cast used to determine the recommended line weight.

So, in short, the rod makers are playing games with the line weight ratings, but only because the market told them to.

Fiberglass and cane are niche markets which have not suffered as much from this phenomenon.
 
With changes in rod and line offerings, you can only really use the advertised line weight as a starting point. Even if the AFTMA ratings are correct for BOTH the line AND rod you're casting, YOU may feel a different line on a given rod feels more comfortable to you.
 
shortrod wrote:
So, in short, the rod makers are playing games with the line weight ratings, but only because the market told them to.

This is exactly the problem. Lines fell right into place because with your new rods you suddenly required new lines, because a rod that let you belt out 70' casts with ease wasn't remotely useful at 20' ranges with the appropriately rated lines.

So, the out of spec line was created where we call a 160 grain weight line a 4 even though by the established standards its a 6.

Everyone wins, because now manufacturers are colluding on a technology blitz where you have to spend more.

That said, I think this trend is starting to turn, now.

shortrod wrote:
Fiberglass and cane are niche markets which have not suffered as much from this phenomenon.

Fiberglass has its own distinct form of idiocy, which is directly inverse to what's happening with graphite.

There, people are so obsessed with having the slowest rod on the planet, they will consistently demand that rods be overlined so as they load as deeply as possible.

I suspect bamboo aficionados have a brand of idiot unique to them, too.
 
For those who fish graphite rods, how many of you overline them?

I never have. I'm not sure if I'm missing out. Or if it's a matter of the rod models. Or of casting style / preference.

I'm just curious whether over-lining is a common thing. Or done in a small percentage of cases.
 
troutbert,

In general I do not overline. But I have always rejected the rods that would require it.

The one exception is a used rod I bought for my son, it is an Orvis "Western 2" made in the 90's. It is marked as a 2wt but is clearly a 4wt. We test cast it with a 4wt line before buying, so no surprise.
 
My 7'9" 2 weight is my baby - and I guess I would consider it the "troutiest" of all of my rods. It certainly wouldn't be very practical to fish for anything else with.
It's a Loomis IMX - rather fast action. And I do overline it with a 3 weight line. It just feels better making mostly short casts on the smaller streams I fish with it
 
I overline my small stream rod. Sometimes By 2 1/2 line weights! I do not generally overline my larger stream rods.

The reality is that it depends largely on the distance you want to cast. With any given rod, if you are going to ONLY cast very short distances, you are probably better off overlining it. If you are ONLY going to bomb out casts, you should probably underline it (if you are casting far and want the heavier lines for wind concerns, start with a higher weight rod!). At average distances, or varied distances (most leeway), stick with the rod's natural rating (which may be different than the labeled rating, depending on model).

Fun, isn't it. Yeah, we're coming full circle. At the shop, they hand you a strung reel and a bunch of rods. You start bombing out casts, and buy the rod that'll throw a whole freakin line. You ignore the one that feels best at the distance you will fish it. And the rod which cast that whole line is the stiffest one, that should be rated higher. It casts so far because it's underlined. That's a 5 wt line they gave you, and that rod is actually a 6wt, despite being labeled a 5 wt.

Now you have your mislabeled 6 wt at home, and you bought a 5 wt line to match, and now you don't like how it feels when you actually fish it at normal distances. It's not loading. But you have this unnatural objection to overlining, a rod labeled a 5 wt just should not have a line labeled a 6 wt on it. So, somebody re-labels a 6wt line as a 5 wt for you. At some point, somehow or other you try out this line. And then you go online raving about how great this line is that turned your rod from a dud to a great fishing tool, buy the line, and every other idiot does the same and loves it too for the same reasons.

Today's 5 wt just became yesterday's 6 wt, both rod and line. Congrats. You've re-invented the standard.

Rinse and repeat. Soon, this rod and line will be labeled a 4 wt, and then a 3 wt, etc. And someone will wonder what this whole light rod/line craze is.
 
^One of the best pcrays ever IMO!
 
tb - I overline my small stream rods too...mostly 5wt lines on 4wt rods. The rods are rated to load with a certain amount of line of a certain weight (whatever is printed on the rod) out. For small stream casting, you're generally casting with less line out than whatever that amount was it was rated at...I think it's usually something like 30 feet, but the exact number isn't really important for discussion here.

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.

Try overlining by one line weight some time on one of your Brookie rods and make casts in the 10-20 feet range. This is a common length of cast when I Brookie fish. Regardless of action, my guess is you'll find the rod loads more efficiently with the heavier line weight at those distances. The one downside to overlining is that when you come across that one long, wide open pool, the heavier line hurts you when you need to bomb a really long cast (longer than what the rod was rated at) out there. Still worth it IMO as this is a very rare occurrence when small stream/Brookie fishing.
 
Fiberglass has its own distinct form of idiocy, which is directly inverse to what's happening with graphite.

There, people are so obsessed with having the slowest rod on the planet, they will consistently demand that rods be overlined so as they load as deeply as possible.
LoL. What newer fiberglass brands are you referencing? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really interested in which one(s) you would use as examples.

The fiberglass rods I use are not over-lined, and while not fast action, are hardly noodles, rather moderate ...... you know, the type action that the Madison Avenue crowd says is only for beginners :)



 
Back
Top