It is currently Sun Mar 03, 2024 6:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 40 posts ] New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:48 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
Sage's TXL 000 seems intriguing to me, expensive but intriguing. I had one in my hands and my first impressions were it was more rod than I believed it would be. Kinda like my Cabelas LST 2wt....more like a 3/4wt.

So does a Sage QDT000 fly line load it or does it need a heavier line?


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:19 pm • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 5497
I just got a TXL 00 and it is no 2wt. Fishing one will be your determining factor.
I can feel the difference between it and my cabelas 1wt. These sub zero rods were designed to use the special lines, and they will carry them. Jerry pointed out that the 00 will throw 0, but I have yet to try it.
You have pointed out something very well- that these TXL UL series rods have the feel of a heavier weight rod. This is because these rods were engineered to be effective fishing tools- not toys.

On another note, I fished this with 00 on Wednesday in Valle Vidal. The winds kicked up as storms approached, unfortunately I had difficulty and wished I had a 3/4. later after lunch with the winds subsiding, I cast it effectively and caught fish.

Image
les


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:59 pm • # 3 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 11/19/08
Posts: 1172
Location: Fayetteville, NC
In the sense that the 000wt rod was designed to cast the 000wt line--yes, it's really a 000wt. However, if you look at the grain weights of the sub-1wt lines that Sage markets against the AFTM standard (4wt-120gr, 3wt-100gr, 2wt-80gr, 1wt-60gr, 0wt-54gr, 00wt-48gr, 000wt-42gr), the Sage 000wt might be considered an honest 0wt (only 18gr less than the 1wt).
-CC


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:02 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
Art, I agree.

J.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:40 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
cross creek one wrote:
In the sense that the 000wt rod was designed to cast the 000wt line--yes, it's really a 000wt. However, if you look at the grain weights of the sub-1wt lines that Sage markets against the AFTM standard (4wt-120gr, 3wt-100gr, 2wt-80gr, 1wt-60gr, 0wt-54gr, 00wt-48gr, 000wt-42gr), the Sage 000wt might be considered an honest 0wt (only 18gr less than the 1wt).
-CC
I'm not totally in agreement with this line of reasoning. You can go by absolute weight when doing the comparison or you can go by the percentage increase in weight between line weights, in which case a 4 wt line is roughly 20% heavier than a 3 wt but a 0 wt is roughly 29% heavier than a 000 wt, and about 15% heavier than a 00 wt.

Looking at it this way I think the ought weight designations make more sense. I can say that a TXL 00 wt rod casts a 00 line beautifully but that is also has no trouble with a 0 wt line either. Much as you would expect a 1 wt rod to handle a 2 wt line with no problem.

I do think that this is something where you really need to fish these rods yourself and make up your own mind. I haven't talked to anyone yet who has actually fished a TXL has come away thinking they're toys or a fad, although I'm sure those folks are out there.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 4:58 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
I think the TXL series is overbuilt for the line weight. More like a 1 or 2 weight. That doesn't mean they won't cast the designated line weight though. The Dan Craft SIG IV series are slower. Look for a report from David on a sub-UL next week. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:10 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Zenkoanhead wrote:
I think the TXL series is overbuilt for the line weight. More like a 1 or 2 weight. That doesn't mean they won't cast the designated line weight though. The Dan Craft SIG IV series are slower.
I think a lot of folks would fall over dead if Sage actually built a slow rod. Image I believe the fact that the TXL has no problem casting the designated line weight says is all. With the nickel silver & wood reel seat it does weigh physically more than you might expect. The one I built up was 1/2 oz lighter because of the slide-ring seat I used.

On the other hand I had a 6'1" Dan Craft 0 wt and Don's correct--they are much slower rods if that's what you're looking for. I can honestly say though that I had more trouble in moderate wind with the Dan Craft than I did with the TXL, and for my style of casting the TXL was a much better fit.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:22 pm • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
I think Art is saying that Sage isn't really following the AFFTA standards for the ought weights. They are doing their own thing. The difference in weight between the oughts is negligible, but that doesn't mean Jerry Siem didn't tweak each rod model for the line weight, he obviously did.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:44 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 5497
OK, I see Art's point now. If you look at the Umpqua line wieght scale it reflects an absolute and a range. I think that AFTMA standards allow for a range within the 20 grains. Obviously that's not the case with the sub categories.
However, still those TXL rods feel great with the light lines. I don't think I would want to underline my Cabelas 1wt with a 00.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:47 pm • # 10 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
jkurtz7 wrote:
The difference in weight between the oughts is negligible,
But that's kind of what I'm saying is *not* the case. The physical weights are very light but a 0 wt line weighs almost 1/3 more than a 000 wt. and I think that's significant. I do agree that they didn't follow the AFFTA standards but only because they were never designed to go that low. I think it's all pretty cool stuff BTW--and fun to discuss!


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:02 pm • # 11 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
The oughts obviously are the last word in gentle presentations. Sage is doing this on their own thing here, and Jerry Siem knows what he's doing. I certainly won't debate that.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:10 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
jkurtz7 wrote:
Jerry Siem knows what he's doing. I certainly won't debate that.
He's a heck of a marketer too, enticing pliable minds like my own on a regular basis Image


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:31 pm • # 13 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Well, I like the blank color, but the only one that felt right to me was John's, and that was a 1, as I recall.

As to the line weight discussion, I think the difference in line weight is fairly negligible. The difference is in the rod tapers. In other words, the rod tips are designed to flex to a greater degree by means of the taper, not the line weight. This is particularly noticeable in a fast rod. YOU are supplying the energy to deflect the tip, not the moving mass of the line. Depending on the speed generated by the tip and the relative stiffness of the PVC coating and the core, the line unrolls through the air. So the line is basically along for the ride. By gross analogy, A DT line and WF line behave differently on the same rod, but not due to the weight in the first 30 feet.

Now as the rod gets softer, the mass of the line starts to come into play to a greater extent, although swing weight is more pronounced. I think tip bounce may be an indicator of whether the line loaded the tip or swing weight. If the tip bounces, it was more swing weight.

This is more working hypothesis than usual with me, so well free to chime in [Jerry!]. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:03 pm • # 14 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
Wow! What did I start. The reason I brought this up, it seems fly rod performance is more than numbers. I'm not sure why the manufactures even label rods as it all can be false sometimes. I have a 1st Generation Sage GFL 8' 5wt that is 2.5 oz. If my Cabelas LST can be a UL rod, then my 8' 5wt Sage does too as it beats it hands down for delicate work (after all, isn't this why we go UL?)

My 6wt Ross Fly Stik, doesn't even come close to casting proper until I use at least an 8wt line.

I had 3 FLi Sage rods last year (sold them all), the 9' 4wt did it's best with a 5wt line and a 6wt line works fine too. The 9' 6wt was more rod than an old Fenwick Eagle 8wt I had and my 9' 8wt FLi was a beast! The last Sage rod I liked (other than the old 8'5wt) , I traded to Don and I need to buy it back, if it's not too late and it was an RP 4wt. IT seems Sage's end up being more rod than the label on the stick. This is my concern.

My PY Midge Taper just misses the UL boat by a sniffle, but it stomps several true UL rods (2 and 3wt) rods I've tried in fine work.

This is why I brought up the TXL 000. IS it a 000? IF I'm going sub zero, then I want to be sub zero, especially if it's going to cost that much.

Sorry for the rant. I spent several thousand last year on Sage rods and own only the two I had at first and both of them are 1st generation GFL rods. (the 8'5 and a 9'7wt and they seem to obey themselves and not demand more line than is written on the stick.) The RP 4wt got away and it was a nice caster for sure.

I guess I'm gun shy. Tempted but gun shy.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:57 pm • # 15 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Quote:
Zenkoanhead wrote:
This is more working hypothesis than usual with me, so well free to chime in [Jerry!]. Don
You won't get a rod taper argument from me--I don't know enough about tapers and actions to explain what's going on. I just know what is comfortable for me to cast.

I do think we've seen a trend with factory UL rods that you and I have both tried, including the TXL 00, Orvis 1 wt, Elkhorn, Sage LL and Scott 2 wt's, and Riffle 3 wt's. If I remember correctly in each of these cases you preferred at least 1 line weight heavier than I.

I don't know if this is because I learned on, and fished only fast action rods for almost 15 years, while you have had much more experience with bamboo and glass, but something in our casting styles makes our rod/line preferences constantly different in an almost remarkably consistent way, and yet we both manage to get line out on the water with the same rods Image


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:11 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
David Gale wrote:
Wow! What did I start.
Relax David, this is one of the reasons for this site. There is a lot of experience here and as you can see there are a lot of differing opinions as well and that's a healthy thing. I think you'll also notice the courtesy which is shown when expressing different opinions. This is one of the things that keeps me here and has turned me off on some other sites.

In regards to stated lines weights, I had an interesting discussion with Les while we were fishing a couple of weeks ago and I think the natural tendency is to compare all rods to what we're comfortable with. If you learned on and have fished 'glass or cane most of your life then you may not feel a very light and fast graphite rod loading *and* you certainly won't feel it loading like 'glass or cane would.

On the other hand, if you've spend years with light, fast action rods you may struggle to adapt to a very slow or flexible rod. I know I really have to concentrate with some of the slower rods that Don's let me try and while I can cast them it's not comfortable for me and I naturally try to speed things up or try a lighter line on them.

I think you've probably seen it said here numerous times that before buying a rod you should cast it with different lines and not just different lines weights. There seems to be as much variability in *feel* from line model to line model as there is between different rods of the same weight.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:24 pm • # 17 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
jdub wrote:
Quote:
Zenkoanhead wrote:
This is more working hypothesis than usual with me, so well free to chime in [Jerry!]. Don
You won't get a rod taper argument from me--I don't know enough about tapers and actions to explain what's going on. I just know what is comfortable for me to cast.

I do think we've seen a trend with factory UL rods that you and I have both tried, including the TXL 00, Orvis 1 wt, Elkhorn, Sage LL and Scott 2 wt's, and Riffle 3 wt's. If I remember correctly in each of these cases you preferred at least 1 line weight heavier than I.

I don't know if this is because I learned on, and fished only fast action rods for almost 15 years, while you have had much more experience with bamboo and glass, but something in our casting styles makes our rod/line preferences constantly different in an almost remarkably consistent way, and yet we both manage to get line out on the water with the same rods Image
I've cast some pretty fast rods the past few years. I demoed a Sage Z Axis 5wt this summer and it was the first time I held this model in my hands. I am not expert caster, even with 30 years fly fishing behind me but I do know that for me, the faster a rod gets, the better performance as far as distance is concerned but I give it all up in 'lack of personality' in the rod.

I think it is all up to each caster, what he likes best. For me, I cut my teeth on Fenwick Eagles with it's moderate to moderate fast action. Sage's RP comes the closest to that for me with it's light weight. The old Sage GFL was close to...but slightly more moderate. I sometimes fish some pretty small flies. IMHO, a fast rod is just no good, for me atleast, playing a fish on small flies. I was so frustrated last fall into winter, I sold my FLi's and went back to the old GFL, and even an old South Bend Glass rod. I broke less tippets for one thing and had more solid hookups with softer rods.

I fish my Ross FLy Stik and believe me, I can haul fish, big fish from the 'salad' but it takes heavy duty leader to keep breakoffs to a min. My old GFL rods were less of a prob.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:26 pm • # 18 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
jdub wrote:
David Gale wrote:
Wow! What did I start.
Relax David, this is one of the reasons for this site. There is a lot of experience here and as you can see there are a lot of differing opinions as well and that's a healthy thing.
I think you'll also notice the courtesy which is shown when expressing different opinions. This is one of the things that keeps me here and has turned me off on some other sites.

In regards to stated lines weights, I had an interesting discussion with Les while we were fishing a couple of weeks ago and I think the natural tendency is to compare all rods to what we're comfortable with. If you learned on and have fished 'glass or cane most of your life then you may not feel a very light and fast graphite rod loading *and* you certainly won't feel it loading like 'glass or cane would.

On the other hand, if you've spend years with light, fast action rods you may struggle to adapt to a very slow or flexible rod. I know I really have to concentrate with some of the slower rods that Don's let me try and while I can cast them it's not comfortable for me and I naturally try to speed things up or try a lighter line on them.

I think you've probably seen it here numerous times that before buying a rod you should cast it with different lines and not just different lines weights. There seems to be as much variability in *feel* from line model to line model as there is between different rods of the same weight.
I'm fine. I'm just trying to decide if the TXL would be for me....before I spend that much.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:12 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
David Gale wrote:
I'm fine. I'm just trying to decide if the TXL would be for me....before I spend that much.
Trying a Dan Craft would certainly be a less expensive way to try an ought weight and might give you the more moderate action that you're enjoying with some of your other rods.

In the case of the TXL if you have a fly shop nearby you might be able to test cast one just to see what if feels like, or just come on down here and I think Les and I can take you out on a creek to try one out Image


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:51 am • # 20 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Jerry. What you say is definitely true about my liking a heavier line weight, but I don't know that that fact is in opposition to my hypothesis. If a slower casting stroke deflects the tip less, one would imagine that the corresponding lines would not be the same. Now it could be that the heavier line deflects the tip a bit more for a good cast, but it may also be that the heavier line "rides" better on the unroll.

What interests me is David's comments on presentation. Obviously David has an expectation that a 000 line should present better than a 1 weight in terms of delicacy. If both cast well (on TXLs, say), yet both come down with the same landing, then something is amiss. I confess I use heavier flies than David's midges, so I only notice such things with no fly on.

Now a 5 weight line on his PYM is, well, a 5 weight line. It has that mass over its 30 feet. So if it lands with the delicacy of a 2, something must have happened in the rod that made it perform that way. I suggest that the speed and taper of the PYM tip is the key. The line unrolls and is spent at the point of landing.

Of course the physics here are literally fluid. If more of you owned Snowbee presentation lines with the 15' front tips, we could really get a debate going. With that long, long, front taper, you are not casting a lot of mass in the front of the line. I find that a fast graphite casts this line much better than does cane, contrary to expectations. David's RP has one currently (and I will trade it back David).

David will have a report on what I consider a "true" sub-0 rod shortly, but I won't give the surprise away. Don


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 40 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


- OurBoard Support -