Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Recommended reel weight for Sage One

  1. #1

    Default Recommended reel weight for Sage One

    I contacted sage tech regarding the ideal weight of reel (empty) to properly balance the Sage One 590-4.
    The response was: 4.1oz to 4.5oz.

    I wonder what weight of reel you guys have on this rod.I think my orvis battenkill is about 5oz.
    Im sure Gary will have his own opinion...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Blouberg
    Posts
    1,745

    Default

    Reel weight and balancing of rods is an interesting topic. Google it and you will be fascinated.

    My personal preference is for my equipment to be balanced. The assembled rod, reel, line must balance at mid point of grip.

    For light trout rods an imbalance is not as relevant as on a 10 or 12wt salt outfit, imo.

    There was a long, involved debate on stripersonline forum about this which makes for entertaining reading.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Western Cape
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    I agree Niel.... although for me, different fishing methods require a different weight reel, even for the same rod. When using my 4wt Sage 99 for stillwaters, I prefer a reel that is slightly lighter than the reel I prefer for Czech and French nymphing.
    Quote Originally Posted by NeilRowe View Post
    Reel weight and balancing of rods is an interesting topic. Google it and you will be fascinated.

    My personal preference is for my equipment to be balanced. The assembled rod, reel, line must balance at mid point of grip.

    For light trout rods an imbalance is not as relevant as on a 10 or 12wt salt outfit, imo.

    There was a long, involved debate on stripersonline forum about this which makes for entertaining reading.
    Disclaimer.... none of my posts are intended to be "expert advice"..just opinions from someone who is willing to help where he can.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Blouberg
    Posts
    1,745

    Default

    Quite.

    I flyfish though, so cannot comment on your reply

    Quote Originally Posted by Andre View Post
    I agree Niel.... although for me, different fishing methods require a different weight reel, even for the same rod. When using my 4wt Sage 99 for stillwaters, I prefer a reel that is slightly lighter than the reel I prefer for Czech and French nymphing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    4,268

    Default

    I have a ONE 6101-4 and fish it with a Galvan Spoke S5 (5/6wt - 4.45oz) and a Nautilus FWX 5/6wt (3.8oz) and it feels more comfortable with the Galvan than the Nautilus and now i know why - seems to fit more into line with the numbers you got from Sage. My rod is a line weight heavier and a foot longer so the extra half ounce on my reel puts it probably on the light side of the range at an absolute guess but it still feels perfect. The FWX would therefore be significantly under and may be why it doesn't feel as great to cast with on this rod.

    The Spoke S4 (4/5wt) is 4.05oz so that might balance the 9wt better.

    The interesting thing to me, when looking up all these weights now, is that the reel is actually heavier than the rod (3.5oz for the 10ft 6wt). I always thought the rods were heavier.
    "So hereís my point. Donít go and get your ego all out of proportion because you can tie a fly and catch a fish thatís dumb enough to eat a car key.." - Louis Cahill - Gink and Gasoline

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gkieser View Post
    I have a ONE 6101-4 and fish it with a Galvan Spoke S5 (5/6wt - 4.45oz) and a Nautilus FWX 5/6wt (3.8oz) and it feels more comfortable with the Galvan than the Nautilus and now i know why - seems to fit more into line with the numbers you got from Sage. My rod is a line weight heavier and a foot longer so the extra half ounce on my reel puts it probably on the light side of the range at an absolute guess but it still feels perfect. The FWX would therefore be significantly under and may be why it doesn't feel as great to cast with on this rod.

    The Spoke S4 (4/5wt) is 4.05oz so that might balance the 9wt better.

    The interesting thing to me, when looking up all these weights now, is that the reel is actually heavier than the rod (3.5oz for the 10ft 6wt). I always thought the rods were heavier.
    How do you like that nautilus fwx?been thinking of getting one?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Blouberg
    Posts
    1,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saflyfish View Post
    How do you like that nautilus fwx?been thinking of getting one?
    Why do'nt you consider buying local rather? New reel on market. Weighed, I think it's called. The other one, Shirlten, is also ok.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Gauteng
    Posts
    1,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saflyfish View Post
    I contacted sage tech regarding the ideal weight of reel (empty) to properly balance the Sage One 590-4.
    The response was: 4.1oz to 4.5oz.
    I wonder what weight of reel you guys have on this rod.I think my orvis battenkill is about 5oz.
    I'm sure Gary will have his own opinion...
    :-) 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkieser View Post
    I have a ONE 6101-4 and fish it with a Galvan Spoke S5 (5/6wt - 4.45oz) and a Nautilus FWX 5/6wt (3.8oz) and it feels more comfortable with the Galvan than the Nautilus and now i know why - seems to fit more into line with the numbers you got from Sage. My rod is a line weight heavier and a foot longer so the extra half ounce on my reel puts it probably on the light side of the range at an absolute guess but it still feels perfect. The FWX would therefore be significantly under and may be why it doesn't feel as great to cast with on this rod.
    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.
    Gary
    Flytyer - Where great flytying begins

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Blouberg
    Posts
    1,745

    Default

    Also some lovely magenta Abels, courtesy of Gerrit,on special at the moment

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Blouberg
    Posts
    1,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GGY View Post
    :-) 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.
    Gary

    Does your formula take into account the taper? For example, one could add a foot to the butt of a 9' rod and get a set of results. Or one could extend the tip by a foot and have little effect on overall balance

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •