:-) Glad Sage gave you good advice. The shorter rods are easier to balance, since the "(1st class) lever" portion of the rod (towards the tip) is both shorter and has less mass than on a longer rod (the "fulcrum" would be at the balance point).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le...inciple_3D.png
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...PUuONbK-yLN1KQ
Taking a simplistic view that on a 9ft rod you have 1ft behind the fulcrum (

**a** = 1), with 8ft past the fulcrum (

**b** = 8) and allocating a RELATIVE mass value of 1 unit to the mass past the fulcrum (

**M2** = 1 unit), then the calculated RELATIVE mass value of the mass behind the fulcrum (

**M1 = M2*b/a = 1*8/1=8** units).

**M1 **would be the relative mass of the reel+line+backing+rodbutt+handle.

Now if we extend the rod to be 9+1=10ft, then

**b** = 8+1 =

**9**. Assuming that the RELATIVE mass value of

**M2** increases by 9/8*1 unit = 1.125 and increasing this value to

**1.2** to take into account the thicker blank = more mass required to have a practical 10ft rod.

Then the calculation of

**M1 = M2*b/a = 1.2*9/1 = 10.8** = RELATIVE MASS (or 35% more than M1 for a 9ft rod).

**Thus a 10ft rod takes roughly 35% more mass to balance it ~1ft up the butt than a 9ft rod.**
Even if we do not increase

**M2** by any more than 9/8*1 = 1.125, we still end up with a 26.5% required mass increase in M1 to balance the longer rod.

(Calculation is a little simplistic, since the formula really should be integrated over the mass/length along both a & b but the general logic is sound, the reel is not placed exactly at the end of the rod and is actually below the level plane etc.)

4.5oz is about right - your Battenkill *may be a little heavy, but it may not matter much.

Yup. I fish a 6oz (~180gram) reel (+ backing & line = ?oz) on my ONE 6101 and it balances where it should, so 4/5oz Spoke may be on the light side.

## Bookmarks