It is currently Sun Mar 03, 2024 6:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 1 of 6   [ 110 posts ] New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:51 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
I was just looking for CCS data for the TFO 1 wt and I came across an entry in the Sexyloops database for a TXL 00 wt: ERN=1.60, AA=68. I also found another builder whose TXL 0 wt had an ERN of 2.0.

So all you TXL ought weight owners, do you think Sage is pulling a fast one on us and incorrectly labeling 1 and 2 wt rods? And are we all flailing around with underlined rods when we could be much happier fishing heavier lines on these rods? :-)

I think you all know what I think so let's hear from you other TXL owners.


Last edited by jdub on Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:58 am • # 2 
User avatar
Jr. Member

Joined: 03/17/10
Posts: 52
Way I see it, regardless of weather my 00 is a 1 weight, a 0 or a true 00, I like it. It works well with the sage 00 line and I can't get any other brand anyway. I like the rod, its the lightest I own.

That said, my 4 weight TXL does respond very well with a 4 weight line. Having tried several brands, it works better, in my opinion with a "true" 4 than one of the half sizes like a Rio Grand.

Sage has been know for selling rods that should probably be listed a size or 2 higher for years. As the craze for faster and faster rods grew, Sage did just that. Many of their rod series cast much better overlined, perhaps the TXL is no different. Tough to say though when Sage is the only brand of sub 1 weight lines on the market.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:14 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
I think the CCS system is a great tool, and I've found it to be accurate for me. One has to do it right though. For instance, if you don't compensate for tip droop when the rod is clamped, then you get a reading that is lighter than it should be, or if you make the tip level with the floor and the butt up at an angle, then you'll get a heavier reading. Everything has to be done right or the reading is skewed.

As with other things, like rod tapers for instance, many people don't understand the whole picture.

J.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:44 am • # 4 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 1359
the deal with CCS is its not an END in itself; In my way of thinking it is a tool for COMPARATIVE MEASUREMENTS; one rod to another; not an end in itself. I think the OO weight for example is Sage's interpretation of what an OO weight is supposed to be; and since they are the only show in town, it is what it is. But, if someone else had an OO weight, the buyer/user could gain useful information comparing the OO weights.
Since there really are no standards, only parameters as related to line weight; one companies one weight may be much different than other companies' one weights. That's how I see it anyhow; the sage OO is really an OO, though it may cast better with a #1 weight forward line-p-


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:43 am • # 5 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/08/10
Posts: 1651
.....Well........After reading this, I just had to put my 2wt SLV reel and line on the TXL "0" to see how well it worked.......Much to my surprise, it worked very well. I was not able to get any more distance, but it did roll out a nice loop.   HOWEVER, it did NOT feel as good as the DT 0 did.  No doubt it could be fished with a 2 wt WF line, but it lays out so much better with the lighter line. I think this says a lot for the little TXL. And as Jerry said......I feel sure it would work with a "00" DT line also.  Sooooo.....NO I don't believe my rod was mislabeled, I do believe the TXL is a wonderfully "flexible" (pun intended) fishing tool.  Just my $.02........
...............................Tite lines and aggressive fish...................................Don S. in SC      Image


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:45 am • # 6 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
I wouldn't even know how to perform a CCS test on one of my rods nor would I likely take the time to do so.  Personally, I have paid little attention to what is written on the rod other than the rod length.  The line rating is just a suggestion from the manufacture....and perhaps in some cases, a misleading starting point in the name of marketing.  I've never cast a TXL rod before other than pretend in a fly shop.  I think they are a great rod for some applications and would fill a niche in my fishing nicely...but not necessarily the 'tiny fly on fine tippet' niche.  I'm thinking more of tiny poppers and larger (#16=12) dries for small pan fish on heavier (>6X tippets). 

AS much as I love Sage rods, I just think they along with most of the rest of the fly fishing crowd have fallen for the fast action rods leaving little market or interest in slower rods.  What a shame, but why would they tool up for a rod that only a few weirdos like me would have interest in?

Back to your point on CCS, I think rods likely have a larger window for suitable lines than the manufacturer meant to set up.  What is never taken into account is that we fly rodders just cast rods different.  That is why I think that so called 'fly rod/reel/line combos' sold are a bad idea and can lead to unhappy customers who think that fly rod is no good, when it might have been that the line was no good, or even worse, a first time buyer ends up with potentially bad habits in casting because the a different line might have worked better for him.  Hope all this made sense. 

As for me, I tend to 'tame a fast rod down' with over lining and I tend to want to 'speed' up a loose rod with by under lining.  Maybe what I always wanted was a med fast rod which I would probably either under or over line anyway.

sorry for the long post.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:45 am • # 7 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 08/17/09
Posts: 108
Never cast a TXL, would like to.  Actually I would like to cast every dang rod out there, I'm a junkie.  I have always had a problem with the CCS.  As J. mentioned, there are too many ways to get different readings.  Mine don't always agree with what others get.  I have settled on what I think is correct and try to do it the same everytime.  Tip droop is just one of the issues.  Is the protracter exactly level?  Did they use the correct pennies?  I seem to have issues with trieng to measure old fiberglass.
I say try all the lines you can get your hands on and use what feels right to you.  Who cares what it says on the rod as long as it'sfun!

Mike


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:47 am • # 8 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 1359
good post david; and right on; that's why we all like different rods; your casting stroke is probably different than mine; and what you want the rod to do is probably different than what i want; thus we have a different taste and a different "feel"; and we're not wrong; I've got a lot of rods i love that were bought from someone that didn't like them-p-


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:35 am • # 9 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
ERN of 1.6 for a TXL 00? Sounds right to me. [Told you so]. I suspect owners tip-cast the lighter lines. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:11 am • # 10 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 05/16/09
Posts: 2123
Zenkoanhead wrote:
ERN of 1.6 for a TXL 00? Sounds right to me. [Told you so]. I suspect owners tip-cast the lighter lines. Don
The DC you sold me handles a SQDT 00 line beautifully.  It would handle a 000 or a 0 line just as nice.  I just need to adjust my casting a bit.  Perhaps anglers need to be as flexible as their rods.  A few examples:  My Sage 5wt 8 foot rod from the early 80's.  It casts beautifully with everything from a 3wt to a 6wt.....it all depends on how far you plan to cast, how you cast and what you cast.  The nice thing about a moderate rod is the only thing you need to alter is the casting speed.  With a fast rod, you must apply a few more 'motions' to the rod to get it to be versatile in line acceptance. 

In all fairness, I would really like a TXL someday.  I think it has a place in my fishing and I just like Sage rods...though I complain about them alot....just something cool about their logo on the side of the rod and they are well made and nicely finished.  What I am concerned about is if a Sage TXL 00wt is a 1-2wt, what is their 000wt....their 0wt and their 1 wt?


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:39 pm • # 11 
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: 11/27/08
Posts: 194
i always thought the TXL 000 felt like a 1wt.  i never even got around to trying 000 line on it though.
i put 00 line on it and i felt i was having to tip cast it, like Don said.
it could be my imagination, but i always thought it fished stiffer than the Superfine Trout Bum 1wt.

i think the TXL 000 is a great rod, don't get me wrong.  i just thought it was a better 1wt. 

the SPL 080, on the other hand, feels to me like what i expected from the TXL 000.
the SPL 0wt has a nice bend with a fish and feels like you are fishing an ought weight rod.

douglas


Last edited by jds on Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:56 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Zenkoanhead wrote:
ERN of 1.6 for a TXL 00? Sounds right to me. [Told you so]. I suspect owners tip-cast the lighter lines. Don
Ha! Image  The perfect example of why I think CCS is whacked!  You fish almost every rod we've tried 1 or 2 line weights heavier than I like them.  LLs, TXLs, Scott F, Superfines, Elkhorn,  the list goes on and on.  This makes me think that CCS is biased towards some magical medium action rod that flexes to some arbitrary point on the blank that this guy picked because that's how he thinks a rod should flex. 


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:04 pm • # 13 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
jds wrote:
i always thought the TXL 000 felt like a 1wt.  i never even got around to trying 000 line on it though.
i put 00 line on it and i felt i was having to tip cast it, like Don said.
it could be my imagination, but i always thought it fished stiffer than the Superfine Trout Bum 1wt.

i think the TXL 000 is a great rod, don't get me wrong.  i just thought it was a better 1wt. 

the SPL 080, on the other hand, feels to me like what i expected from the TXL 000.
the SPL 0wt has a nice bend with a fish and feels like you are fishing an ought weight rod.
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!


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:17 pm • # 14 
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: 09/21/09
Posts: 413
Good answer jdub !


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:28 pm • # 15 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/17/08
Posts: 4828
Zenkoanhead wrote:
ERN of 1.6 for a TXL 00? Sounds right to me. [Told you so]. I suspect owners tip-cast the lighter lines. Don
1.6 is a 1wt, NOT a 00. I'd say that 1.0 would be about right for a 0wt, and maybe just under that for the 00, and 000wt.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:32 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
Flickfly wrote:
Good answer jdub !
I think most of us understand this stuff already.  And I've known since J started this forum that I like faster rods than the majority of UL anglers out there.  It's not like it's a competition or anything so it really doesn't matter other than I like folks to give a rod a fair shake and not dismiss it because of some numbers.

On the other hand I'm not out to convince anyone that their preferred rod action is wrong--it can't be--it's all just personal preference.  And over the last couple of years I've bought (and sold) several very cool cane rods, a few 'glass rods, and even some slow to medium graphites.  I've really tried to give the whole medium action, soft rod thing a fair shake but at the end of the day I always end up holding a fairly fast rod Image

I'll have to admit I'm a little surprised by how many guys are overlining TXLs.  Again, there's absolutely *nothing* wrong with that--I guess I'm just one of the few who really like them using the marked line weights and so far that includes a 000, 00, 1, and 2 wt.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:35 pm • # 17 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 12/22/11
Posts: 2056
Thought that might wake you up Jerry! Everything you say is true, except that my choice of a heavier line usually puts me at the upper end of the rod ERN, not into the next bracket. If rated as a ERN 1.3 I will prefer a 2, etc. It is also true that you can design a rod to be tip cast, using either a drop off in taper toward the tip, a stiffer blank, or some other engineering. The TXL 1 is the lightest of the series that felt "right" to me. However, my casting style is definitely incompatible with the 000, 00, and 0 rods, so who knows? The D.C. Sig IVs suit me much better. Don


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:05 pm • # 18 
User avatar
Hero Member

Joined: 02/08/10
Posts: 634
Great thread! My take on this whole thing is it really matters most how the rod bends when you have a little fish on.
Really, I can cast a slow, med, or fast rod with no problem at all. I can underline or overline also with no probs.
When you cast a tiny dry as compared to a big tungsten bead head...... now that will cast a bit different. A long fine leader compared to a short heavy or a braided. Big difference!
I overline when I use beadheads with flouro. But I don't overline when I use sink or sink tip lines.
The "ERN" and the "CCS" are standards, but the manufactures will tell you what makes them money!! That's why nobody wants to put the rod weight on the rod. Well Sage does it, but usually puts on a lighter weight than it really is. Orvis is the lightest so they print it on every rod and all over their advertising.
It's all advertising to make us buyers purchase more overpriced stuff. But I can't think of a better thing to spend money on!
It's cold outside, so I'm going to build a UL. Maybe a 0000? By CCS standards maybe it's just another 1wt! LOL


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:03 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: 08/24/09
Posts: 340
Location: Sylvania, Ohio
My matter-of-fact nature drives those in my house crazy sometimes because I tend to deal with things in terms of absolutes--black and white wth very little gray. I can see how, depending upon one's nature, CCS data could mean little to almost nothing. Just my personality, but I like empirical measures; therefore, I like the CCS method of determining a rod's line weight and action angle. I also think Sage and others (Loomis comes to mind) really underline the numbers on their rods. 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.

Then again, if putting a rod of one listed weight and a line of another together makes a person happy and he can cast well, more power to him.

My $.02.


Top
  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:12 pm • # 20 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/18/08
Posts: 3185
Location: Texas
1wt wrote:
Maybe a 0000? By CCS standards maybe it's just another 1wt! LOL
Sad, but true Image

It doesn't surprise me that the SPLs and SLTs are seeing a resurgence.  They're great little rods and are definitely going to give you more of a bend with a fish on, and I don't think there are a lot of us here who really like fast rods, and the SPLs are a definite step towards a softer action.

One thing that I think I've known subconsciously for a while but that was really driven home by my little slow/med Hardy Aln (which has found a new home) was that even though a pretty small fish could bend that rod in half I didn't enjoy casting it much.  I heard in described in another Gierach book that a cane rod excels at casting a line where a graphite excels at shooting a line.  I think there's a lot of truth to that.  I don't have a naturally slow graceful casting stroke--I tend to like to flick line out whether it's 10' or 50' and fast graphite allows me to do that.

One more thing that really came alive for me with my first TXL was that you can have a fairly fast rod that can really flick some line out but at the same time the tip is sensitive enough to transmit every little bump and nibble of the fish.  For me that's the best of both worlds.  I had a fast little Cabelas TQR 2 wt that I loved to cast but the tip was a little too stiff to transmit much feedback.  At the other end something like the Hardy Aln allows you to feel what the fish is doing very nicely but I don't enjoy casting it.

This is all great stuff.  I hope I haven't offended anyone--like I said before our preferences can't be wrong they just are what they are and we naturally gravitate towards rods that give us what we like.

Thanks for all the comments!


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

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


- OurBoard Support -