What is Traditional Angling?

[sam vimes]

Isn't balance more important than weight? I use both cane and glass rods that would be considered heavy compared to carbon equivalents, yet they don't feel heavy in the hand because the point of balance (with a suitable reel fitted) is a couple of inches above the handle.

If a decent carbon rod is so poorly balanced as to feel heavier than something over two ounces heavier, it's been designed by an utter moron. Poor balance, or extreme length, can indeed make a lighter rod feel heavier than bare weight figures might suggest. However, assuming that balance is not abysmal, you will definitely feel the difference using a lighter rod if you are holding the rod for extended periods.

 

[rob48]

Hi SV.
I'm guessing the 11'6" Sphere you refer to is the Hotrods model?
I know you've done a lot of weighing of rods and wondered if you've weighed the 13.6 and 15.6 spliced tip rods which I use a lot, to see how they compare with the alternatives available.
I know the Acolytes are very light but my Rive R-waggler light "feels" the lightest in the hand to me.

 

[sam vimes]

Hi SV.
I'm guessing the 11'6" Sphere you refer to is the Hotrods model?

It certainly is.

I know you've done a lot of weighing of rods and wondered if you've weighed the 13.6 and 15.6 spliced tip rods which I use a lot, to see how they compare with the alternatives available.

Here's a bunch of 13' hollow tipped rods
Browning Sphere Match ----------------------------- 144g
Drennan Acolyte Ultra ------------------------------- 146g
Drennan Acolyte Plus -------------------------------- 150g
Tri-Cast Allerton Waggler ---------------------------- 156g
Maver Matchwinner Liquid Crystal ------------------ 177g
Normark Microlight II -------------------------------- 177g
Normark Titan II -------------------------------------- 178g
Shimano Speedcast ---------------------------------- 193g
Daiwa (Tom Pickering) Matchwinner-S Waggler ---- 195g
Daiwa (Tom Pickering) Matchwinner-S Power Wag - 198g
Daiwa (Tom Pickering Matchwinner Waggler ------- 195g
Daiwa Air AGS ---------------------------------------- 205g
Shimano Aerocast ------------------------------------ 219g

Now for a bunch of longer and/or spliced tip rods.
13' Tri-Cast Allerton (spliced tip) --------------------------- 162g
13' Daiwa (Tom Pickering) Matchwinner (spliced tip) ----- 190g
13' Daiwa (Tom Pickering) Matchwinner-S (spliced tip) --- 198g
13'6" Browning Sphere Spliced Tip River ------------------ 162g
15' Drennan Acolyte Ultra ---------------------------------- 168g
15' Drennan Acolyte Plus ----------------------------------- 169g
15' Maver Signature Pro Classic ---------------------------- 179g
15'6" Browning Sphere Splice Tip River -------------------- 184g
17' Drennan Acolyte Float ---------------------------------- 199g

I know the Acolytes are very light but my Rive R-waggler light "feels" the lightest in the hand to me.

The Rive R-Waggler is the rod that I was suggesting as being 120g. I've not got one to weigh, but I'm told that the spec is accurate. It's certainly a rod that I'd like to get my sticky mitts on at some point.

That should alleviate insomnia for someone.

 

[rob48]

Blimey, thanks for all that, much appreciated.
Looks like the Browning S/Ts compare quite favourably weight-wise, with the Acolytes being the lightest as expected.
I haven't got a balance to weigh my Rive rods to the necessary degree of accuracy, unfortunately. Hope you get hold of one soon, an absolute joy to use.

 

[Steve King]

Traditional Angling means different things to different folk as others have mentioned already.

For me it means using quality gear mainly from the 70s, that I couldn’t afford at the time.

I had an 11’ split cane rod back in the day, but it was a horrible lifeless stick! Not sure what happened to it, but I have no wish to go back to a rod like that.

I enjoy using an Abu 505 closed face reel (eBay purchase several years ago) with a Normark Titan rod that I was given by a friend. The combo is still a joy to use for silvers, tench, bream and small carp.

 

[no-one in particular]

Well, I can't give you weights of fly rods as I don't own any. I'm also stumped for 12' float rods as it's not a length I buy. I have no idea what kind of rod your Macro 12' Test might be but if it's an Avon/barbel rod I dare say I might have something to compare. However, I have three 11'(+6" in one case) float rods. I'm assuming that your 11'er isn't intended for particularly heavy work. If so, the following shouldn't be outrageous comparisons. An 11' Acolyte Ultra comes in at 127g. A Browning Sphere 11'6" is 131g. A Daiwa Matchwinner-S Stick Float shortened from 13' to 11' is 167g. The full 13' rod is not especially light at 198g. Realistically, your 11' rod is close to 100g heavier than a light 11' rod and 55g heavier than a relatively heavy (modified) early 90s rod. That's over 3 ounces and close to 2 ounces respectively.

I suspect that none of the rods you've weighed is anywhere close to being light in comparison to the lighter end of the modern rod spectrum.

By comparison they are not light but I don't find them heavy to use in their own right, the 184gr rod is the one I have used the most over the last 10 years so I must mentally compare other rods to it. The greenheart rod is just an experiment at this stage but at 222gr I didn't find it heavy which I thought I would. The Marco at 383gr is very heavy and I am sure a modern similar type rod will weigh a lot less, but I still like it for other reasons. and I will probably use it for Mullet and it will be propped up in a rest. It's a shame I don't still have what where top end split cane roach rods in their days as I have held them and I would hazard a guess they were in the 180-220gr mark but it is just a guess. The 108gr cane fly rod compares very well with the 112gr modern carbon fly rod I thought.

I like the action, the feel and the look of all these rods generally speaking and that is important when selecting a rod I like to use and that it suits the species and style I am using and the cost is a factor as well; at some point the weight of a rod would negate those points if it got too heavy but apart from the 383gr Marco maybe' I don't find 180-220grs will do that so far; that's not a heavy rod to me per-say; I am quite comfortable holding them for an hour or two.

But I completely understand if I wanted a purely trotting rod if I was going to do that all the time I would want the lightest rod possible and the modern ultra light rods would be the thing to have. One day I will treat myself to an ultra light modern rod and it will be likely that I will become hooked and then find my other rods heavy and will not want to use them anymore; we will see.

It certainly has been more interesting with actual weights on display,. One mans heavy and another mans light can be two different things so actual weights has helped define it to a much better degree.

 

[108831]

How can you possibly balance a split cane rod,the reel would have to weigh a ton....

 

[theartist]

I just weighed my rod, always knew it was heavy but compared to those on Sam's list it's a brick at around 300g. Still feels balanced paired with a light reel, I think you can get used to where the balance is in your set up especially if it's the only rod and reel you use for most your fishing, like and extension of your arm

 

[David Rogers 3]

How can you possibly balance a split cane rod,the reel would have to weigh a ton....

Most of my cane rods have a point of balance an inch or two above the handle with the reel fitted at the top - usually a centre pin (Trudex, Rapidex or Aerial) or a Mitchell 301 (I'm left-handed). The rod handles are long enough to tuck under my elbow and consequently I can comfortably hold them all day.

 

[rayner]

I don't know how much my rods weigh. I could weigh them I suppose, I don't hold them not so much, if I did hold them it would be impossible to feed as often as needed.

 

[108831]

Most of my cane rods have a point of balance an inch or two above the handle with the reel fitted at the top - usually a centre pin (Trudex, Rapidex or Aerial) or a Mitchell 301 (I'm left-handed). The rod handles are long enough to tuck under my elbow and consequently I can comfortably hold them all day.

Ahhh,but you have been to the gym all week,lol...

 

[no-one in particular]

There was a a thread about this some time ago, it was recommended to attach weight to the rod to get the balance right which most thought was best just above where your top hand was. I never got round to it but if balance is an issue seems a good way to go. I don't have any ultra light rods but would the lighter they are the more problem with balance?

 

[David Rogers 3]

Somewhere at the bottom of my "Bought because I thought it might come in handy but have never used" box in the garage is something similar to this (although I think the set I bought was made by Normark): https://www.amazon.com/Fishing-Rod-Weight-Balancing-Kit/dp/images/B003TPVHKU

 

[sam vimes]

I don't have any ultra light rods but would the lighter they are the more problem with balance?

Not in my experience. However, anglers seem to have wildly differing ideas of what constitutes perfect balance. As far as I'm concerned, the perfect balance point is not at the reel stem as many seem to believe. Rods balanced at the reel stem feel light but very odd in use. If the balance is further back it can render a rod downright unpleasant to use. Ideally, I want a rod/reel combination to balance 3-6" or so in front of the reel stem. Only on 15'+ rods would I expect to see much more. However, I'd shy away from such rods. If you find a shorter rod with a balance point significantly further forward, it's simply not a very well designed rod.

 

[no-one in particular]

Somewhere at the bottom of my "Bought because I thought it might come in handy but have never used" box in the garage is something similar to this (although I think the set I bought was made by Normark): https://www.amazon.com/Fishing-Rod-Weight-Balancing-Kit/dp/images/B003TPVHKU

I cannot remember what was recommended but some sort of lead strip, maybe those car wheel balancing leads weights would do. Wouldn't be difficult to tape on unobtrusively I would have thought; all sorts of these available on Amazon and eBay and quite cheap. Some non lead ones as well.

 

[liphook]

Clifford Constable developed the Wallop Brook rods. Short split/built cane rods of 8ft and less excell at small stream fly fishing as the action of the cane itself will provide very controllable loops and turnover to a suitability balanced outfit (with correct line and leader) at the required very short to medium ranges. What they also have is 'notch strength' second only to hollow glass - S glass has made a well received comeback for similar reason's (see the Epic range etc). Many carbon rods struggle to match this short range feel and certainly do not have that 'notch strength' unless they have a lot of glass in their make up.
At the end of the day we all choose the tackle, baits, species, venues etc we like and it would be very boring if we all did the same! I choose to use the stuff that suits me and that includes cane, glass and carbon across my areas of interest.

 

[John Aston]

At the risk of sounding a philistine , and also not having a clue what notch strength is , I will say that the Wallop Brook I had was a sweet little thing but is totally eclipsed, in every respect apart from aesthetics , by my cheap as chips Shakespeare Agility Rise 6ft #3 . I fish some small and very overgrown wild trout streams and its fast, crisp action is just what I need . Some prefer a very slow action for this fishing- it seems to be received wisdom .But I like to be able to do a very fast cast with the minimum , or no false casting at all ; the Agility is also brilliant at roll casting .

 

[liphook]

See my last sentence Grayson - what suits you is what you should use, theres no snobbery in it for me. Notch strength is a physical property that allows a rod to take knock or two. Carbon is poor at this whereas the 'ballistic' glass rods are virtually unbreakable in normal use. It's a handy property for fishing in amongst trees on natural trout streams.

 

[steve2]

If you look in many old angling pictures the reel is further down the handle than on modern rods, I assume this was to balance the rod.

If I put a light weight modern reel on my cane rods in the normal position they can all become top heavy. But there again I have put a big pit reel on some of my more modern rods they are also way out of balance. The modern reel position is a compromise that alters the balance of the rod depending on the weight of the reel you decide to use. With sliding reel fittings you have a choice.
We all of us have rods the feel better depending on what reel we use.

 

[John Aston]

In

See my last sentence Grayson - what suits you is what you should use, theres no snobbery in it for me. Notch strength is a physical property that allows a rod to take knock or two. Carbon is poor at this whereas the 'ballistic' glass rods are virtually unbreakable in normal use. It's a handy property for fishing in amongst trees on natural trout streams.

Of course. Snobbery shouldn't have much place in fishing . Notch strength - that makes sense , and most of my old glass fly rods were near indestructible. But I do find the majority of carbon fly rods pretty strong , and I am not remotely careful with my gear - but when you do break one it can be spectacular.

A friend showed me his new glass fly rod last year - he is very experienced angler and I will admit to thinking he'd given leave to his senses by spending a couple of hundred quid on a shonky glass rod . It was a revelation , and infinitely better than any glass rod I'd ever used. I was almost tempted . But not quite !

But you'd have to have wrists of steel to fish a double handed cane salmon rod. Ouch - even an hour with my 10' sea trout cane rod was purgatory .