Interesting article about rod balancing
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Jan 17, 2006 at 11:47 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
This is just theory on my part, but maybe the article begs the question whether the sole purpose of rod balance is to lengthen the cast.
Without at least a little weight in the reel, the fulcrum point of the rod will be in front of the caster’s hand.
Here is a qoute from another site that I think makes good since.
I think the simplest point to take from such an article is that building a rod that is as light as is practical will reduce fatigue (that’s what all that inertia you have to overcome from the extra weight causes, fatigue).
‘Balancing’ a fly rod isn’t possible, and adding additional ‘weight’ to that end is not productive OR helpful when you consider CASTING the rod. How you ‘hold’ it while fishing is awefully subjective and there are several variables, but I’d argue with confidence that adding the weight required to ‘balance’ a nine foot fly rod to horizontal in any ‘static’ situation would be more destructive to effective casting AND generate more fatigue over a fishing day than having the lightest practical outfit.
Old ideas die hard. Even here, where you’d expect this to be common knowledge.
I’m a bamboo guy, and I see this discussion played out a lot in cane circles, where the rods are heavier than today’s graphite.
I’ve tried heavy reels which obstensibly “balanced” my 8.5′ cane rods, and also fished all day with lighter reels (the static balance point was way up the rod).
My take is that lighter is better.
Highstick nymphing is about the worst thing you can do with a cane rod, and I came away from one of my infrequent nymphing sessions less fatigued with the lighter reels. It’s hardly scientific, but my results suggest I won’t be doing what a few cane guys do — adding leadcore line to their reels to bring the balance point down.
Today’s graphite rods are so light, I doubt that much needs to be done — even the lighter reels should probably provide enough balance.
FWIW.
My Dancraft SigV’s are thin walled 53 million modulus and are very light. I usually try to go with a reel that is a size or two smaller to keep it as light as possible
BTW I just finished a 8’4″ 3/4 SigV that I think could be the best small Trout rod I have ever held ($93 blank). I’m using it with 3wt line currently but I was told it really shines as a 4wt. I may go with a nice DT 4wt on the spare spool just to see.
I think a little more weight in the back end might be an improvement.
On the other hand, now that I think about it, sometimes I have the same opinion about women.
Does all of this beg the question, “Are we sissys if we can’t cast 9 oz of fishing equipment for a day?” 😉
Splitshot-
Yes.
Unless you are physically handicapped, there is no reason an ordinary person could not cast a fly rod with or without any reel. I never consider whether a reel balances a rod. The manufacturers have already done that. Having a rod out of balance has less than a 5% effect on a caster’s skill and, unless the rod is particularly meaty, on fatigue.
This is a tempest in a teacup.
Zach
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.