It is currently Sun Apr 21, 2024 10:20 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 3 of 6   [ 110 posts ] New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:04 pm • # 41 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Grand is 1/2 wt heavy--Gold is standard weight.


Top
  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:11 pm • # 42 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 06/21/10
Posts: 219
jdub I am glad to hear that rio gold is not a half-weight heavy, maybe the rio gold 4w will be just right for my 7' 3w txl...

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

yes, and see my "professionally modified" JAF reels to balance the txl at a 5 oz package:

http://www.flickr.com/pho.../sizes/l/in/photostream/


Top
  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:53 am • # 43 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208
I have often wondered how many people think that line weight automatically equals "less capable rod". For example I have found that the TXL 000wt had an easier time landing 20" brown trout then the 080 SPL did. Personally I could care less about the whole CCS thing. All I care about is what the rod casts like and what the "fish on" feel is like. So therefore the only thing I worry about is the "action" of the rod.


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:55 pm • # 44 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
I think you indirectly made an argument for CCS, Sasha. I think the consensus here is to match the line to the rod. If the maker mismatches the rod and the line, the less discerning may be slow to discover the mistake. It sounds as if some of the regulars really like a 1 weight line on that 000. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:23 pm • # 45 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/10/09
Posts: 2238
Location: 208

I was more referring to the action of the rod when one has a fish on. I completely understand that changing line weight changes the casting action of a rod.

When I owned a TXL 000wt I messed around with different lines (000wt, 0wt and 1wt). While I personally liked the 000wt line on mine for everyday use; the action of the rod with a fish on was the same regardless of the line I was using. The biggest difference I noticed were slight adjustments to my casting.

For me first and foremost I concern myself with what the “fish onâ€



Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:26 am • # 46 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
That is interesting Sasha. That is the first I have heard of that consideration - the weight of the line in the guides as it relates to the "fish on" fight. It stands to reason that a heavier line will deflect the tip more from a static position. A heavier line adds "weight" to the hooked fish and dampens the vibration down the blank.

You give away the game with the comment about slight adjustments to your casting style to compensate for the line weight. That is precisely what the average angler either cannot do, or is not desirous of doing. The average Joe wants a line that places him smack in the middle of the big performance window defined by the rod. What got this thread going is Jerry's observation that Sage appears to have fudged on that window, ultimately to the disadvantage of the average Joe. My comment about different "sweet spots" was an attempt to explain why some few owners like to use the designated line weight.

I might also add that with extremely short casts, the natural roll-out provided by the tapered line is all that is needed to straighten it. This must be so with lines in the 4/0 and lighter range, as they weigh nothing for all intent and purpose and really do not deflect the tip of the rod in the backcast. David can weigh in here. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:46 am • # 47 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Zenkoanhead wrote:
What got this thread going is Jerry's observation that Sage appears to have fudged on that window, ultimately to the disadvantage of the average Joe.
Nah, that wasn't my intent at all.  I think I fish all my Sage rods with the specified line, although when I got my first LL 2 wt I fished it with a WF3 for a while.  I've always found Sage rods to be marked very accurately for my use.

My point was that I think the CCS numbers for the TXL are BS.  For the type of action they are designed with I think their marked line weights are accurate.  I've made that clear many times though so I wanted to know what all the other TXL owners thought.  That's why I started the thread and why I put the thing about TXL owners in the thread title.

With regards to a heavier line bending the rod more with a fish on?  I think I'd have to disagree with you there as I think the drag from the water and the weight of even a tiny fish will quickly offset the small difference between line weights.  A 4" 'gill probably weighs more than an entire fly line.

I like Sasha's point about how a rod feels with a fish on being a factor in his choice of rods.  That's one of the reasons I keep trying (and selling) slow rods--the Hardy Aln being the latest example.  A very small fish puts a great bend in the rod and makes it a little more fun.  I just don't enjoy casting anything that slow Image

 


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:09 am • # 48 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/08/10
Posts: 634
jdub wrote:
I like Sasha's point about how a rod feels with a fish on being a factor in his choice of rods. 
Hey, that was my point!!! Exact words! Look back at my previous post on this thread.
I think Sasha checks out my posts to get a few "pointers".


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:12 am • # 49 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
1wt wrote:
jdub wrote:
I like Sasha's point about how a rod feels with a fish on being a factor in his choice of rods. 
Hey, that was my point!!! Exact words! Look back at my previous post on this thread.
I think Sasha checks out my posts to get a few "pointers".
I like 1wt's point about how a rod feels with a fish on being a factor in his choice of rods.  Image  (oops!)


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:26 am • # 50 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
Changing the line can and does change the entire behavior of the rod.  One can do that by changing casting style but changing casting style and line, add more versatility to any rod....or most rods anyway.  (Some rods want one line and that's that!)

I think we as rod casters could learn to open our minds to thinking outside boxes.  Rod Manufactures print a "box" on the side of the rod...we might start thinking outside that and heighten rod behavior awareness which might help in presentation.  After all, we had to open our minds when it came to rods under 3wt.

People progress more when they open minds and bounce things around with others who have open minds.  Or we can just follow labels.

Dave


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:41 am • # 51 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
David Gale wrote:
I think we as rod casters could learn to open our minds to thinking outside boxes. 
Hi Dave, I have no issues at all with using lines other than those listed on the rod.  I've done it on lots of rods.  My comments and the title of this thread are both very specific to TXLs.   I like TXLs with the line listed on the rod and don't think the CCS numbers are accurate for the type of rod it is.  

At the same time I recently fished the Hardy Aln overlined to try to dampen some of the tip bounce, and I have another 2 wt Forecast blank that I shortened and fish with a 3 wt line to get it to load quickly.

I'm all for trying as many lines as you have on any given rod to find what works best for you.  I'm also leary of declaring any rod a "true" whatever weight just because it works better for you with a different line or because of the CCS numbers.


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:52 pm • # 52 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
I misunderstood 1 Weight's point. He wants a rod sensitive to the fight of the fish akin to rods that telegraph the bouncing of a nymph on the bottowm of a stream. I am not sure if that correlates with fast v. slow actions however. I would have not have thought that line weight makes much difference to the "fish on" action, but I do think the slickness of the line does.

I also came to the wrong conclusion concerning Jerry's observation and TXL ratings. I assumed Jerry meant that the TXL are misrated, which I would now maintain that they are, based on the CCS. However, I also think there is a small sweet spot in the performance of the rod that will work with the designated line. Based on the CCS, I would look for a bigger sweet spot of performance right where the CCS/AA places it.

Jerry, I think the only way to test the validity of the CCS rating v. rod rating is to have average casters cast the rod with a variety of line weights to find the consensus. As a tip-heavy/slow man my personal opinion would probably differ from Joe average. Tip-heaviness is more important to me than plus or minus 1 line weight. Obviously I am also speculating that your casting preferences have colored your opinion.

How about a poll? Something along the lines of: Do you fish your Sage TXL rod (000 through 2 weight) with the line 1 size under, the rated line, or 1, 2, or 3 lines sizes over? Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:40 pm • # 53 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 5497
Don,
I like your idea of a consensus on lines v rods. 

Most of the information we are bantering around is opinion and should be taken as such. Last week, I mentioned the problem to Jerry when I came out and stated the TFO Finesse is a true 1wt as if that's an absolute. That comment stirred things up a bit, opinions swirled, and anger flared; the result was that some folks got down right upset about what a true one is or should be. After reading in between the lines, I came to realize that people had strong opinions about the way a rod felt to them, and we really have no objective way to test what a true 1 or 2wt is. Even CCS data won't convince everyone.

So let's consider your proposition to encourage anyone who owns or has an opportunity to test or fish a rod with different line weights. Let's post up the results and allow that we won't all agree on the results. The important thing is to put the information out there. Let the membership figure it out.


Les


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:53 pm • # 54 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Anyone care to start a poll on the TXL or the TFO Finesse? Les, it is not the purpose of the CCS data to convince anyone, really. If the rod cast better for you with a different line, so be it. Does not matter why in the end. But it would be of interest to make the comparison. Could be that Jerry is correct, there may be some peculiar tapers out there that do not fit the CCS model. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:02 pm • # 55 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 5497
Don,
It's a good idea having a poll-let me think on that one. But I'd like some direction on parameters, and I'd like to get input form some of the others.

Les


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:15 pm • # 56 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
I think the poll should be rod specific, if that helps. I might also add that the CCS is an objective standard.  However, that does not necessarily mean that there are not gaps in its designed purpose.  As I now understand Jerry's argument, he is positing such a gap.  To test that theory empirically is the purpose of the poll.  

I might add that if we can identify a gap in coverage, we may be able to figure out what caused it. That would actually be pretty cool.  Most ULers like to get out of the envelope now and again.  Don


Last edited by Guest on Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:39 pm • # 57 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
I don't like the idea of a poll.

Only because I might find out I'm the only person here who likes casting TXLs using the line weight printed on the rod--I can't deal with peer pressure ;-)

Just kidding! If you want to set one up go for it!


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:23 pm • # 58 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/08/10
Posts: 634
Zenkoanhead wrote:
I misunderstood 1 Weight's point. He wants a rod sensitive to the fight of the fish akin to rods that telegraph the bouncing of a nymph on the bottowm of a stream. I am not sure if that correlates with fast v. slow actions however. I would have not have thought that line weight makes much difference to the "fish on" action, but I do think the slickness of the line does.
Actually, I meant that the most important thing to me is how a small fish will bend my UL rod for the most fishing fun for me. I don't even own a TXL ..... yet, but I have a Orvis Superfine 1wt. And how light the rod and reel are for the best time on the water. IMHO the lighter the better.
And telegraphing a nymph on the bottom is really the same with any graphite rod. You can feel any tap with a fast or slow rod. Graphite rods are great for that, much better than glass. Most use braid on graphite spin rods just because of that..... plus no stretch and no memory.
The Superfine is a high modulus graphite rod that is super light. It has a full flex action. A fast rod, but flexes like a slow bamboo or glass rod. Stiff high modulus graphite but a skinny shaft to give a total bend. Most fast rods are fast because they only tip bend. Great for long casts, but they don't load for a short cast.
When I cast 20' of line it will give a perfect quiet presentation every time and when a 4" gill hits my fly it will give a wonderful full rod bend fight.
I've found that the super high modulus graphite rods are all fast...... and expensive!! And flex back very fast. If you put expensive graphite on a skinny rod it will flex fast and bend all the way to the cork. A fast rod that is designed to have a slow action.


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:40 pm • # 59 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Now my head really hurts! I guess my perception of "something happening" on the other end of the line is a combination of rod bending and the telegraphing of info back down the blank. I really never thought much about the distinction. I guess I like a blank to load deeply in the cast, but want more of a telegraph from the fish in the fight, no matter what the blank is doing at the time. In fact, a big fish is more nerve racking than fun. David, how would you describe the fight with the DC 0 weight? That rod bends down to the cork, but I wouldn't describe it as ultra-sensitive during the fight, more like a soft spring. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:04 pm • # 60 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I really don't want to play here Don,.....but if I were to choose a rod that makes a fish feel good, I would say I like the feel of a fish on the end of a proper bamboo rod.  I have never thought about...or even come to any conclusions that a fish will feel different because of line size.  Rod yes, but I never thought about line size.  I suppose it's true.  To tell the truth, I prefer to play small fish on light,soft rods.  I prefer to play big fish on bigger rods.  Actually, playing a big fish on a really light rod is disturbing to me.  When I was into chucking bass plugs on a casting stick with a level wind reel, I believed that you get more from a big fish from a bigger rod (to a point) than you do from an UL rod.  IMHO, the same holds true for fly rods....which is why I don't understand why some of you prefer to play 20" Browns on TXL 000 Sage rods.  I think you can get more from the fish by putting more pressure on the fish.  Oh sure, I've had some pretty exciting times playing larger trout on some of my UL rods, but it all seemed rather like the fish was playing me, rather than the other way around.  It would race around, jump, carry on and was all pretty delightful on the end of one of my rods but in the end, I feel the fish never showed me it's best.

Back to playing fish on different rods,............To be truthful, I choose the rod, more for the presentation of fly, fly size and fishing situation rather than the fight of the fish.  A soft rod is for light tippets, tiny flies and 'fluffy' light presentations on clear water.  I didn't choose that rod because I would get a good fight from the fish.  


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 3 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 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 -