Mass weight, castability and accuracy

[harry]

Recently I've done quite a bit of reading on spey rods, trying to figure out what makes them work. Spey rods are primarily roll casting tools and it appears that the better ones have what can be called moderate actions, bending well into the mid-section and even the handle of the rod. They all have fast racovery rates, made possible by high-tech graphites and highly developed lay-up techniques. The good rods have quite thick and stiff tips to cope with the twisting forces generated in especially the single spey cast (and Skagit casting, I assume) and to maintain good accuracy. They are superb in their ability to convert the stored energy of the rod into line speed with very little effort.

And then I read Fran Betters' view on light rods and that really got me thinking. His opinion is that many manufacturers (even the more classy brand names) may have gone overboard with the lightness thing. Many of the new light weight rods have gone too fine in their tip sections, a feature that inhibits the stability of the rod and one would assume casting accuracy. The fine tips also vibrate too much, not good for smooth energy transfer. They also collapse too easily. It appears that Fran would advocate a moderate(ish) action with a stiffish tip, features mostly absent in modern single handed fly rods, but prevalent in the modern spey rod. Could it be that the so-called modern fly rods require too much input from the flyfisher (energy put into casting)?

What about wooden handles for fly rods? Some of the forum members are of the opinion that it will add too much weight. I've seen the option offered on a good number of high-end custom rods and if you ask me I will say that it looks stunning. I wonder if we are not confusing the mass weight of a fly rod with its swing weight. I've always added weight to the butts of my very fancy 62 million modulus graphite bass worming rods to improve sensitivity. I never noticed the extra weight, but bite detection was greatly improved. Those rods felt tip-light. A wooden handle of the right proportions should not add to the perceived weight of a fly rod. What do you think?

[Michael]

Recently I've done quite a bit of reading on spey rods, trying to figure out what makes them work. Spey rods are primarily roll casting tools and it appears that the better ones have what can be called moderate actions, bending well into the mid-section and even the handle of the rod. They all have fast racovery rates, made possible by high-tech graphites and highly developed lay-up techniques. The good rods have quite thick and stiff tips to cope with the twisting forces generated in especially the single spey cast (and Skagit casting, I assume) and to maintain good accuracy. They are superb in their ability to convert the stored energy of the rod into line speed with very little effort.

And then I read Fran Betters' view on light rods and that really got me thinking. His opinion is that many manufacturers (even the more classy brand names) may have gone overboard with the lightness thing. Many of the new light weight rods have gone too fine in their tip sections, a feature that inhibits the stability of the rod and one would assume casting accuracy. The fine tips also vibrate too much, not good for smooth energy transfer. They also collpse too easily. It appears that Fran would advocate a moderate(ish) action with a stiffish tip, features mostly absent in modern single handed fly rods, but prevalent in the modern spey rod. Could it be that the so-called modern fly rods require too much input from the flyfisher (energy put into casting)?

What about wooden handles for fly rods? Some of the forum members are of the opinion that it will add too much weight. I've seen the option offered on a good number of high-end custom rods and if you ask me I will say that it looks stunning. I wonder if we are not confusing the mass weight of a fly rod with its swing weight. I've always added weight to the butts of my very fancy 62 million modulus graphite bass worming rods to improve sensitivity. I never noticed the extra weight, but bite detection was greatly improved. Those rods felt tip-light. A wooden handle of the right proportions should not add to the perceived weight of a fly rod. What do you think?

Hi Harry

Interesting post, and food for thought. Here is my 2c worth.

The Spey rods (double handed rods) were designed, as you rightly say, for roll-casting BIG flies and heavier lines. They need to be longer, and more "whippy" to generate a lot of pace through the "strike-zone" of the cast, where it casts the weight of the line forward through it's forces. (Think of a golf club...the moment of impact "strike-zone" is the moment the club head travels at it's fastest and is accelerating). When spey-casters get this tecnique right...they can cast a FAR line out.

Now, on a normal fly rod, roll-casting is NOT as easy as roll-casting with a spey rod (maybe I should say "effective" instead of "easy"...as it takes a lot of skill to do it properly). But a nomal fly rod can definitely cast a line much more effectively than a spey rod can, with normal casting actions (2 o'clock / 10 o'clock action).

Spey rods are designed to roll cast big flies and generate a LOT of tip speed, to cast the line far in one shot. Normal fly rods are designed to cast a wide range of fly lines with a normal casting action...they are not designed to optimise roll-casting. But, the better a fly rod is designed, the better it will cast normall and roll-cast.

I think Fran Better also has a lot of his own "old-school" idea's...much like certain bamboo true nuts cannot accept that a graphite rod is 100 times better than a bamboo rod.
Talking about rod "lightness", many people also want the lightest reel possible...sometimes opting for co-polymer or plastic reels (because it's just "there to store line most times" they say...). How wrong they are. a Reel needs to balance out the rod...so going TOO light, you are now putting a much heavier swing weight into the front section of the rod. This results in bad casting tecniques, and fatigue in the caster.
With a good rod, and a reel that balances it out well, and a good casting action and tecnique...casting should seem effortless, even very satisfying.

a Good rod, that's balanced with a good reel and a good line, will not vibrate in the tip.

Give any good caster an old fibreglass or graphite rod with a thicker tip-section to cast, and then give him a Sage or any good new technology graphite rod that has a tip size of 4.0 or even 3.5 (that's the thinnest of any current good 5wt rods) to compare. I bet you now that he would cast further, more accurately, and have less fatigue with the new rod, no matter how thin it is.

[harry]

Hi Harry

Interesting post, and food for thought. Here is my 2c worth.

The Spey rods (double handed rods) were designed, as you rightly say, for roll-casting BIG flies and heavier lines. They need to be longer, and more "whippy" to generate a lot of pace through the "strike-zone" of the cast, where it casts the weight of the line forward through it's forces. (Think of a golf club...the moment of impact "strike-zone" is the moment the club head travels at it's fastest and is accelerating). When spey-casters get this tecnique right...they can cast a FAR line out.

Now, on a normal fly rod, roll-casting is NOT as easy as roll-casting with a spey rod (maybe I should say "effective" instead of "easy"...as it takes a lot of skill to do it properly). But a nomal fly rod can definitely cast a line much more effectively than a spey rod can, with normal casting actions (2 o'clock / 10 o'clock action).

Spey rods are designed to roll cast big flies and generate a LOT of tip speed, to cast the line far in one shot. Normal fly rods are designed to cast a wide range of fly lines with a normal casting action...they are not designed to optimise roll-casting. But, the better a fly rod is designed, the better it will cast normall and roll-cast.

I think Fran Better also has a lot of his own "old-school" idea's...much like certain bamboo true nuts cannot accept that a graphite rod is 100 times better than a bamboo rod.
Talking about rod "lightness", many people also want the lightest reel possible...sometimes opting for co-polymer or plastic reels (because it's just "there to store line most times" they say...). How wrong they are. a Reel needs to balance out the rod...so going TOO light, you are now putting a much heavier swing weight into the front section of the rod. This results in bad casting tecniques, and fatigue in the caster.
With a good rod, and a reel that balances it out well, and a good casting action and tecnique...casting should seem effortless, even very satisfying.

a Good rod, that's balanced with a good reel and a good line, will not vibrate in the tip.

Give any good caster an old fibreglass or graphite rod with a thicker tip-section to cast, and then give him a Sage or any good new technology graphite rod that has a tip size of 4.0 or even 3.5 (that's the thinnest of any current good 5wt rods) to compare. I bet you now that he would cast further, more accurately, and have less fatigue with the new rod, no matter how thin it is.

Michael

Sorry om so 'n ou koei uit die sloot te grawe. I've read your reply many times and always came away not quite convinced by your argument of what makes for a good rod (and I'm not talking about cane rods, where you and I will most probably never agree. But that is another argument).

I once heard the good Dr Sutcliffe say that casting is about casting and fishing is about fishing. I'm not saying that casting should be thrown out the window, but rather that the objective of the exercise should be the fishing bit, where you have the fly in the water. The rod/line combination is the tool that you use to present the fly to the fish as efficiently as possible, maximising the amount of time that the fly is in the water. To me this means that the rod should be efficient with picking line up from the water and changing the direction of the cast to where you want it to go with as few false casts as possible. If it can be done in a single motion (pick up straight into the back cast, change direction and lay out the forward cast with the required accuracy and distance control, all within a practical fishing distance of say 40 feet) I would say that the rod is a good fishing tool. I'm not so sure that some of these modern fast actioned rods that you have to overline by as much as two weights to make them work well at close range are actually efficient fishing tools. And I am certain that there will be high risk of snapping the tip off with the twisting forces (torque) thus created.

My question really deals with rod action and more specifically whether actions with some similarity to the modern spey rod would not make for greater efficency and accuracy while we are out on the water. In my mind a rod with a stiffish tip and moderate action would handle the change of direction well and load more efficiently. The very fast recovery rates provided by modern graphites and layup techniques will still give the high rod tip speed that you need to lay out a long line. Older rod designs like the Orvis Western actions and the first generation of the T&T Horizons had what felt like moderate actions, but were actually weapons of note if you needed to cast a long line. Some anglers will say that Sage reached the pinnacle of rod design with their SP series, moderately actioned rods that almost cast themselves. These rods were, and still are, excellent fishing tools, even for close quarters work. So, in essence it is about the way the rods bends, and not about recovery rate only. There must be more than one way to create line speed, while getting on efficiently with the job of actually presenting a fly to the fish.

Another thing, some of the newer salt water fly rods now have more moderate actions in their heavier weights. This was done to create rods that are quicker to load and that will give good line speed with less effort. Not having tried one, I would assume that they will handle big changes of direction well and that they will roll cast a heavy sinker to the surface with ease.

Just my opinion, though.