It is currently Sun Apr 21, 2024 10:53 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 2 of 6   [ 110 posts ] New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:21 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 11/27/08
Posts: 194
jdub wrote:[/b wrote:
It *is* a faster rod than the Superfine 1 wt and if you want it to cast like a Superfine or an SPL you *will* have to overline it.  My point is you're forcing the rod into an action you're more comfortable with and not the action it was designed for.  It doesn't make the 000 a 1 wt--it simply shows your preference for a slower action.

Faster rods will naturally cast more from the tip--that's not a bad thing--it's just a different type of action.  Now if you want an original unsanded Superfine to cast like the Trout Bum Superfine you'll need to underline it.  It doesn't mean either rod is mislabeled, they're just different actions.

Regards!
first off, i really do like the TXL 000.  it is a fantastic rod.

i often purposefully target small fish.  i fish a couple places where a 4" gill or a 6" bass are huge compared to the rest of the fish you catch.
fishing ultralight gives me a chance to make this type of fishing enjoyable instead of just dragging the fish in with 2 or 3 strips of line.

when i moved from a 4wt to a 1wt, i could tell a tremendous difference in the play of a fish.  
and i was coming from a very soft (for graphite) 4wt. 
i had the misunderstanding that if a 1wt bends halfway down the rod on a small gill, the same gill on a 000wt or 00wt rod would put a bend much further down the rod, maybe into the grip.

it was counterintuitive to me for a rod that is rated 3 line sizes lighter than another to seem so much stiffer (faster).
it seems i need to remove the connection in my mind between line size and the bend a fish can put into the rod.  

i think 1wt said what i'm thinking when he said that what really matters is how the rod bends when you have a little fish on.   
again i'll say, the TXL 000 is a fantastic rod.  i'll probably end up with another one someday.  
it was just my misunderstanding of what line ratings mean that led to a gap between my expectations and the performance of the rod.
not in a bad way.  i think the TXL 000 makes a great all around UL fly rod for many fishing situations.  i would not hesitate to chase big fish with that little rod.
i didn't realize it when i bought it, but i wasn't looking for an all around UL rod.  i was looking for a very limber, ultra specialized rod for tiny fish.

as far as tapers and actions of rods go, i am pretty ignorant. 
as the old cliche goes, "i don't know art, but i know what i like." Image

of course, all this could be due to variations in manufacturing.  it's not like your TXL 000 is exactly like the one i had.  Image  (inside joke:  jdub bought my TXL 000 Image)

great thread Jerry.

douglas



Last edited by jds on Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:24 pm • # 22 
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: 08/24/09
Posts: 340
Location: Sylvania, Ohio
Quote:
[Our preferences] . . . just are what they are and we naturally gravitate towards rods that give us what we like.
In the end, I couldn't agree more.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:25 pm • # 23 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Quote:
[b]toledotimber]The Sage Bluegill rod isn't even given a line weight but a grain weight instead (230 grains). That's equal to a high 8 / low 9 weight! For panfish! So the Bluegill rod will cast a mile, but it'll fish like a crane is my guess.
I have the opposite take on these rods.  I owned a Sage Smallmouth (passed along to another forum member now) and I really enjoyed fishing it.  At the same time I had the Smallmouth I had a very nice Sage 7 wt XP and after reading a bunch of comments on how the Smallmouth was just a gimmick and was really just like any other 7 or 8 wt, I took both rods out to compare.  The Smallmouth cast a LOT differently than the XP.  If you watched any of the Sage promotional videos they had one showing the guy casting the Smallmouth with what was almost an underhand motion.  I tried it and it worked great.  It was really a fun rod to cast and the taper made it feel very *unlike* my 7 wt XP with the same line.  Of course it's a heavy rod but it was sure a lot of fun to fling some HUGE poppers with it.

To me this is just another example of the numbers only being a small part of the story.  I think you really need to cast a rod and relying on CCS numbers alone may prevent you from trying some very cool rods.

It's hard call but when we do reviews here I never rely on the numbers and I don't think Les does either.  I want to try a rod and share the experience on how it compares to other rods in the same range.  It still doesn't take the place of trying one for yourself but I think it's better than looking up a number and making a decision that way.   Hopefully you guys are starting to know us well enough to connect the dots--if I like TXLs, new Superfines, and LLs and say that rod A is something that really works for me, you'll be able to compare that to Don's opinion when you know he likes slower rods, cane, and soft graphite.  Les likes a bit of everything but has a soft spot for 'glass.  J, I think, take a more methodical approach than Les or I.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:47 pm • # 24 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/08/10
Posts: 1651
   Interesting.......But that makes a lot of sense, I developed a fondness for faster rods. I guess that's why my TXL "0" feels so much better with a DT 0 wt line. The one and two wt lines worked fine, but I believe I prefer a rod that cast more from the tip. Thanks for sharing....................Don S...............in SC        Image


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:18 pm • # 25 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/08/10
Posts: 634
jds wrote:
i often purposefully target small fish.  i fish a couple places where a 4" gill or a 6" bass are huge compared to the rest of the fish you catch.
fishing ultralight gives me a chance to make this type off fishing enjoyable instead of just dragging the fish in with 2 or 3 strips of line.
Exactly!!! That is the "Joy" of fishing! I do the same thing. I might catch one bass, maybe 16", on heavy tackle..... a 6wt or a ML spin rod, but it is really more fun to catch 50 small sunfish on a UL rod.
Years ago, as a kid, I used to catch live minnows with a size 22 hook and a tiny chunk of bread. I put them in a minnow bucket for fishing later. It was much more fun than fishing for the big bass that would sometimes eat the hooked minnows! I would spend more time catchin' bait then fishing with a heavy rod for the big uns.
While trout fishing I have way more fun catchin' the 6" chubs than the trout!!!
With UL tackle, it's a blast!
It's gotten to a point where I only fish for little guys now. If I see a big bass swimming by, I don't even cast to him anymore!! I use tiny tackle and target tiny fish!
I release everything anyway, after taking a pic, so it's the numbers and fun that I like best.
Little fish eat little bugs........ and a UL flyrod is best for that.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:28 pm • # 26 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I guess I fall into a different category of fly rod caster...probably like many others...I am not one of those who only likes fast rods, slow rods or rods at points in-between......I have always said I match the stick to the game.  If I am casting #28 Midges to rising trout on a 7X tippet, the rod I prefer is a slow rod.  I want to 'cast' the rod with nice open and slow loops.  It helps keep wind knots down and it helps protect 7-8X tippets and it helps keep tiny flies hooked in a fishes mouth.  If I want to fire dries to wary trout, in possible breeze and over 60 feet away, I want a powerful rod (not necessarily a fast rod), but I nice progressive action and a 5-6wt.  If I want to fish strike indicators, I want a med action rod over 10 feet long.  If I want to fish #4 buggers for bass in structure, I want all kinds of power, a short, **** fast rod (My Sage Smallmouth- formerly Jerry's or my Ross Fly Stick 6wt- which casts an 8wt better, comes to mind), If I am casting double and triple leech patterns on one line....and sinking line....in some wind...for 3-8lb trout, I want a moderate action 9 foot 7-8 wt, again to keep loops large and flies away from each other while in the air.  In short, I would only limit myself if I said I preferred only Fast rods...or only slow rods...or only....etc.  Match the stick to the game.

I guess I veered from the subject some, sorry.  I do see where a TXL would fit in my fishing but probably not where Sage believed their rod would shine.  I do think Sage was mis-led, or at least have mis-led potential buyers who think they are buying a small stream rod for fishing fine tippets and getting the most from small game fish.  Probably some of the Orvis SuperFines I hear about or older Sage LL's or glass rods are better suited for that.  Definitely, many good cane rods are better as well.  An 8 foot rod is not a small stream rod and a fast 8 foot rod is not what you want for fine tippets, tiny flies and 'fluffy' fly presentations...at least IMHO.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:46 am • # 27 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/15/09
Posts: 518
I did a CCS test once and found my 0,1 and 2wt TXL's to all fall in the CCS 2wt. area. The 0wt. was on the light end and the 2wt. was almost a 3wt. I have owned 00wt.-3wt. TXL's and never had to over line them. I also did the test on 3 Z-Axis rods, a 3wt. that came in at a CCS high 5wt. a 6wt. that came in at a CCS high 7wt. and an 8wt. that came in at a CCS medium 8wt. Go figure the only rod that tested "true" was an 8wt. Z-Axis????? Like the 4' rod I just built, this experiment did not work for me either. I like to try new things some work some don't. I had fun trying it, but I don't think I will do it again. 


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:09 am • # 28 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Much of this material has been kicked around, but there are a lot of new members who didn't see threads that are now years old. Come to think of it, we didn't reach a consensus then either!

I would maintain that many rods have more than one "sweet spot". However, there will be a big one right where the ERN/AA says it is. Might be a little sour to some, too sweet for others, but it will be there. I think this discussion is more about the other "sweet spots", the ones that match your "taste" [pardon my metaphor]. I think rod makers tend to label rods whatever they want, but it could also be that their designated rod rater gravitates to one of those other sweet spots and the rest is history.

I have some evidence for this theory. Both Les and Jerry are excellent casters. Some of the best I know. This means that their test casts might mirror that of the designated factory guy, with the same result. They find that alternate "sweet spot" and the rod really performs. One of the thundering herd (me) comes along and cannot replicate the cast and therefore cannot find the alternate spot.  I can, however, tweak that big "sweet spot" a little.  As others have said, they can alternate their casts to find those other spots.  David comes to mind here.

Years ago Jerry and I figured out that we have different casting strokes and therefore much different tastes in rods.  But that is not really a reflection on the ERN/AA of a rod. I might add that if you are looking for really limber sticks, I think the Dan Crafts Sig IVs, and some few cane rods, are hard to beat.  Don  


Last edited by Guest on Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:31 am • # 29 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
Looking over my small collection of factory rods, There are but a few of them where I prefer the line that is written on the side of the rod.  One is my Sage RP 4wt,  Another is an old USA made Fenwick Eagle 6 wt, the last is the Sage Smallmouth 290gr, though I think it would gladly handle the 330 gr line too.

My custom rods from Don have been pretty close to what he told me to use....."this one will perform with a 3wt through a 5 wt, depending on the fly and casting style."......"Use one of the Sage QDT lines, say from 000wt through 0wt.".....or better yet, "Varnish up some 30# Micron and try that".  Come to think of it, Rod Factories would be more honest in their marketing if they designated a line weight rating "window" rather than a specific line weight....but that would shatter the fun that anglers get when they say, "I have my 000wt with me today."  What fun is there in saying - "I brought the 000 to 1 wt with me".


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:30 am • # 30 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
A window would be more accurate, but they would fudge on that too, throwing us way off. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:47 am • # 31 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
Could it also be that rod manufactures intentionally 'under rate' a rod for warranty reasons?  I have talked to many anglers about this and most of them shot my reasoning down...but I insist an over lined rod that might be 'abused' over years of aggressive, inexperienced casting styles is eventually going to develop problems consisting of everything from 'sets' to weakened ferule seats, etc.  By intentionally 'under rating' a rod, it is going to be harder to harm the rod and lets face it, when a manufacture builds a rod and sells it, they have to factor in all possibilities, including inexperienced casters who might be a bit too aggressive in rod handling and casting as well as those who haven't learned to continually check ferule tightness...all of which leads to broken rods and angry customers who are going to lay blame on anything except themselves.  Buy under rating a rod, the manufactures have a built in system that might lessen those potential problems.   Maybe none...or very few of you will agree with me on this one but I am suspicious.  I have yet to talk to a rod manufacture sales rep who recommended lining a rod with any line other that what is written on the rod itself.....now why else would they do that.  A real fly angler will always test different lines to find the sweet spot....but the manufacture writes the rod rating on the blank and that's the end of it! 


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:46 am • # 32 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
Zenkoanhead wrote:
A window would be more accurate, but they would fudge on that too, throwing us way off. Don
Don nailed it, window is exactly right, and that's how rods are designed. It doesn't matter what the action is, it matters what the window is for the rod.

TXtrout mentioned before that TFO rods are overlined a lot. My Local shop carries TFO and they told me the same thing. There certainly are plenty of TFO rods that don't fish all that well with the rated line in the 20 to 30 foot range. For instance there are guys that will buy a TFO TiCr 5wt and overline it with 6wt because it doesn't have a window in the 20 to 50 foot range. Take a look at the CCS numbers on the TiCr and they all rate at one line wt heavier than marked. CCS is designed to tell what line weight loads at 30 feet. The TiCr rods are designed for distance casting, and have a window that is further out than 30 feet, so that's why many will overline it for normal fishing distances. It's the same with other rod companies too, but not all rods are designed to start loading at 50 or 60 feet.

For me, I like a rod that tends to cast and fish in the 20 to 50 foot range, but with a double haul you can got out to 60 feet. These are the distances that I fish the most, and other people do too. It's been said many times before by others that most trout are caught at 30 feet or less.

One has to chose a rod that casts and fishes in the window that is most suitable to their average fishing conditions.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:39 am • # 33 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
I debated as to whether to use the term "window" or "sweetspot" to decribe the best casting confluence but choose "sweetspot" because we tend to think of just one "window". The ERN/AA describes a large window/sweetspot, but I maintain there are multiple windows/sweetspots, not just variations within a single big one. One of those alternate windows might be described as a tip cast. The TXL ULs may have more than one window/sweetspot, it is not simply a matter of staying within the parameters of the ERN/AA big one. So J. and Jerry may be correct if there are multiple windows/sweetspots for the same rod.

David, you raise an interesting point, because it is easy to badly overline a rod and not realize it until it fails. Overlining a rod badly tends to make it mushy, and you might continue to add line weight thinking you are too light when the opposite is true. I doubt factories do this though. I think there is a panache from casting a rod mislabeled as lighter than it really is. No one can see the line designation!  This holds true until you hit 3 weight status, and then everyone except our board members start getting nervous.  Don


Last edited by Guest on Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:05 am • # 34 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Zenkoanhead wrote:
This holds true until you hit 3 weight status, and then everyone except our board members start getting nervous.
Too funny!  But true. Image


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:11 am • # 35 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
David Gale wrote:
I am not one of those who only likes fast rods, slow rods or rods at points in-between......I have always said I match the stick to the game.
Excellent points, David!   A lot of you have a huge variety of fish that you regularly target and that makes a big difference when selecting a rod and action.

Because I do most of my fishing in northern and central Texas I don't experience that and I'm sure it clouds the way I look at things.  For me I can purposely target a few very large bass and fish something large enough to cast a life size rat, or I can do what I always do and fish a light rod knowing that I can catch a lot of small to medium sized fish and that the occasional very large fish will be nothing but a sharp tug on the line following by a parting of the tippet.

The pleasure of casting a very light combo all day always seems to win out for me.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:39 pm • # 36 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 06/19/10
Posts: 1926
Location: Chile
David Gale wrote:
Could it also be that rod manufactures intentionally 'under rate' a rod for warranty reasons?  I have talked to many anglers about this and most of them shot my reasoning down...but I insist an over lined rod that might be 'abused' over years of aggressive, inexperienced casting styles is eventually going to develop problems consisting of everything from 'sets' to weakened ferule seats, etc.  By intentionally 'under rating' a rod, it is going to be harder to harm the rod and lets face it, when a manufacture builds a rod and sells it, they have to factor in all possibilities, including inexperienced casters who might be a bit too aggressive in rod handling and casting as well as those who haven't learned to continually check ferule tightness...all of which leads to broken rods and angry customers who are going to lay blame on anything except themselves.  Buy under rating a rod, the manufactures have a built in system that might lessen those potential problems.   Maybe none...or very few of you will agree with me on this one but I am suspicious.  I have yet to talk to a rod manufacture sales rep who recommended lining a rod with any line other that what is written on the rod itself.....now why else would they do that.  A real fly angler will always test different lines to find the sweet spot....but the manufacture writes the rod rating on the blank and that's the end of it! 


Nice theory, also keep in mind that most of the guys (80%) buy a rod or two and they need to know "the number" to buy the rest of the setup. But they fish so now and then that it just works for them. If you don't believe me, ask a shop owner or a shop rep the things that happens when a rod is labeled 4/5 wt... the guy who is gonna buy this get nuts trying to figure out if he/she choose the right line and reel... now think of the same guy/gal on the river doing not so good at casting thinking for him/her self... I should buy the other line/reel weight.... I knew the rep sell me stuff I dont need keeping to themselves the good stuff!!! :lmao:


Top
  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:11 pm • # 37 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
jdub wrote:
David Gale wrote:
I am not one of those who only likes fast rods, slow rods or rods at points in-between......I have always said I match the stick to the game.
Excellent points, David!   A lot of you have a huge variety of fish that you regularly target and that makes a big difference when selecting a rod and action.

Because I do most of my fishing in northern and central Texas I don't experience that and I'm sure it clouds the way I look at things.  For me I can purposely target a few very large bass and fish something large enough to cast a life size rat, or I can do what I always do and fish a light rod knowing that I can catch a lot of small to medium sized fish and that the occasional very large fish will be nothing but a sharp tug on the line following by a parting of the tippet.

The pleasure of casting a very light combo all day always seems to win out for me.
I think that is the lure of UL fly gear....to have fun, not get tired of casting rods and little fish are just as fun.  This past year while targeting Smallies on a local lake with my 5-7wt rods.  I began to pack my Cabelas PT+ 2wt along too.  I found schools of small bass that hung out near the shore line, in and around the rocks.  I started taking them by sight casting to them with a Prince Nymph.  I caught dozens of bass from 6 to 12" and had a ball.  It was funner than dredging the rocky depths for large bass using a sinking line and big flies and a big rod.

Dave


Top
  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:26 pm • # 38 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 06/21/10
Posts: 219
I just got a 7' 3w TXL, and have only fished a bit with it.  I know most of you guys have 7'10" TXLs, but I fish for PA wild brook trout -- rough hiking to small streams.  A 7'10" rod is too long to cast given the obstructions on small PA brookie streams.  And wild brookie fishing often requires a rough hike, and a 3pc rod of that length isn't a good thing to carry. 

I am always trying different lines on different rods, and I can love a rod on one stream, and need more range on another stream.  I think that fishing for trout on various size streams with and without hard hikes changes things a lot versus pond or lake fishing.  I actually need all these fly rods, just kidding.  Image  I almost always use sidearm casts and fish dry flies, for example.  I can rule out 2 pc rods given the hikes to many places I fish.  And I make a lot of very short casts, maybe 15 feet ... on some streams, I won't make a 25 ft cast all day.   And the craziest thing I'd ever catch is some 14" brown trout interloping on a big hole in a brookie stream.

As noted, we all like different actions, and while I really liked the TXL on a rare brookie stream where you can make a few 40' casts, it seemed like it wanted a slightly heavier line than the Rio Gold 3w I put on it first.  (That's a 3.5 w line, right?)  I will try a Rio Gold 4w since the TXL will mostly be for bigger brookie streams.

Yes, Orvis makes some very light rods, but I had "1 oz" 7 foot superfines that needed a lot of reel mass to balance, so the 7' 1 oz Superfine package wasn't much lighter than the 7' TXL package.  I find I really enjoy casting a light package on these little streams, put me out on a pond or bigger river without so many obstructions and it's fun to cast heavier setups.  My three seven footers (Elkhorn Western, St Croix Imperial, and TXL) and 7'3" Mystic 2w will all balance with light reel mass, so the packages are about 5 oz.  The Sage seems like the longest caster of the seven footers, while the Elkhorn is a smooth featherweight and the St Croix 4 pc is great on effortless 15'-30' casts.
 

    


Last edited by Guest on Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:25 pm • # 39 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 06/25/09
Posts: 3259
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
bobkent10 wrote:
As noted, we all like different actions, and while I really liked the TXL on a rare brookie stream where you can make a few 40' casts, it seemed like it wanted a slightly heavier line than the Rio Gold 3w I put on it first.  (That's a 3.5 w line, right?)  I will try a Rio Gold 4w since the TXL will mostly be for bigger brookie streams.

    
The Rio GRAND is the half line size heavier line (though the Gold is a great line but I haven't tried it with a TXL) - though it looks like you meant to write Grand?


Top
  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:36 pm • # 40 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 06/21/10
Posts: 219
I thought rio gold was a half size heavy...that not right? 


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 2 of 6   [ 110 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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:  
cron


- OurBoard Support -