2013 8-Weight Challenge: Fly Reel Review
- This topic has 28 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Mar 14, 2013 at 2:39 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Makes for some interesting reading. I’m quite suprised at some of the results. I hope it is appropriate to post this here.
http://www.tridentflyfishing.com/blog/2013-8-weight-wt-challenge-fly-reel-review?utm_source=Web+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f88cc0d149-8_weight_Challenge3_10_2013&utm_medium=email#.UT3rNUq7BkbThis article is well-written, although they’re overlooking the fly reels article we (I) wrote in American Angler when they say magazines have ignored this subject.
I think they’re off base in preferring the lightest possible reel. You need the reel to counterbalance the weight of the rod and thus pull the swing weight of the outfit down into the base. A heavier reel can counter-intuitively make a rod feel lighter and arguably easier to cast throughout the day. It’s the same principle behind why the best drift boat oars are typically weighted in the handles–it levels out the teeter-totter and makes it all easier to manipulate.
“As rods get lighter, you need lighter reels to balance them.”
That’s theoretically correct but they’re missing the forest for the trees; rods on average have lost weight in the tenths of an ounce range at most, whereas reels have become ridiculously light – losing several ounces versus the “norm” of 1995 or so. The result is rod designers are increasingly having to account for an overly light reel in trying to reduce swing weight.
The other major failure I would point out is the same problem George Anderson’s reviews have: not everyone is represented. Notably, I don’t see Nautilus, Galvan, or Bauer represented, and the absence of Nautilus is particularly remarkable given their popularity in the saltwater market right now.
I spoke with Ben Freeman, who is the author of the article, and he said they included the reels from manufacturers who responded to their request for testing equipment.
Zach
I do know from doing some work in the audio arena (hi value domestic audio equipment) that you are very much dependent on manufacturers/distributors wanting to participate.
Many don’t bother to respond or are just not interested… C’est la vie!I’m glad you found it interesting, I’m going to have a good look now I’ve got home.
Gerard –
The problem in the fly industry is that many of the manufacturers have been burned by fly shops (notably a certain fly shop) requesting these testers then dogging the product when it happens to be one the shop owners do not sell.
I am here to tell you, there is great variability in rod preference, but that variability exceeds the actual differences between rods.
I’d give the test a pretty good rating simply because it’s strictly objective, they don’t even get into fit and finish. I think showing preference for light weight is perfectly acceptable, too light has to be better than too heavy, that said, if one messes about with different weight reels on the same rod, I would challenge them to feel a difference while staying in reasonable limits. One thing I’d like to see though would be start up inertia with the spool at different levels of fullness, things get a lot more sensitive when there’s a bunch of line out between the drag of the line and the decreased diameter of the spool. The amount of drag pressure available by itself is pretty dubious, how well you can adjust the amount of drag would be more useful info. But, like rods, you can hardly make a bad choice, it’s mostly how much money you want to spend and which features are important to
you.
JCThat review is really good. A couple of points they missed – – – or maybe I missed in a quick read of the comparison. One, the drag off the reel is only a fraction of the drag at the rod tip, with a well bent rod. Lots of friction over the guides. So a four pound drag at the reel is a lot more measured outside the tip top of a bent rod. Plus, while there’s really not a particular downside to having a tremendous amount of drag (e.g., the Hardy’s 30 lbs), it would never be used under most any reasonable fly fishing conditions. Even if a much greater than 20# class tippet was used, there are very few fly rods designed to support (literally) 30# or heavier tippets. Even if you point the rod at the fish, with a direct pull off the reel, try holding a steady 10 pounds of drag on a fly rod, much less 30 pounds (OK, I am getting older). Then there’s the stability of a drag. Some drags (notably the cork ones) typically work very well, AS LONG AS they are maintained to the manufacturer’s specs (whatever lube is recommended). But some cork (and other) drags “chatter” when too dry, and slip if wet, and can take a set (stay “squished”, to use a technical term), if left compressed. Jack Charlton’s overbuilt (and yes, the original Charltons were pretty heavy) reels used carbon fiber. Jack used to build brake components for Boeing, and chose carbon for the reel drags because of its stability under any conditions (including heat buildup – – – see F1 cars, along with jets). The surface area of the drag can be important in dealing with heat (and with being smooth, or not so smooth).
About 25 years ago, I did some calcs on reel volumes, as well as the volumes of backing and line. Best I recall, my number for 20# Dacron was about the same as the author’s (one cu in per 100 yards). 30# was about 1.5 cu in per 100 yards, if I recall correctly. The gel spuns were just being developed, and I didn’t include them, but those of course can be had in terrifically small (too small?) diameters, and commensurately high lengths for a given volume. That said, it’s the fly line that takes up the far larger portion of a reel’s volume, and thus the effective arbor diameter becomes much smaller, much faster, as the fly line is stripped off compared to the backing. Fat floating lines require close to an order of magnitude greater volume for a 100-ft length than 100 yards of backing. So the diameter reduction and drag increase is much greater as the fly line is stripped compared to the backing being stripped.
And, in practical use, the rod position (from pointing straight at the fish, effectively giving the drag off the reel, to a 90 degree angle, greatly increasing drag by the added friction) can change the effective drag enough to break, or not, the line.
Still, with all those other variables, when you’re fishing for a fish that requires a good drag (think tunas, not so much bonefish), it’s nice to have a really good reel, to eliminate that as a possible source of error.
Nice review. Now all we need is one just like it on 9′ #5 weight rods. Then 9′ #8 weight rods… Then… ;D
C’mon Zach, you know you want to…
Best Regards,
Beechy
Good review. I like that it was more objective than subjective, as we see in so many gear reviews…..er, tests. Well done. While it would have been nice to see some other reels in the lineup also, I can see why some manufacturers may not want to send their stuff. Maybe after they see what sort of test it was, they might be more inclined next time.
Those subjective tests/reviews/comparisons (whatever you want to call them) just turn me off. It turns me off of the website that does them, as well as anything they might be peddling.
Too many times I’ve been gathered with fellow fly fishers and have someone say this rod/reel/whatever was rated No. 1/’the best’ by so-and-so. Often times people rely too much on praise of others for whatever reasons.
Enough rant. I plead the First.
Well written review. I like the inclusion of the test data along with the 1-10 rating.
Brian
Zach,
With all due respect, I don’t know that I quite agree that you would want a heavier reel to counterbalance the rod. Gary Borger addressed it on his blog: http://www.garyborger.com/2010/09/26/rod-balance/. The reel is a weight that has momentum during the cast, the more mass the harder it is to stop and the wider the resulting loops from the cast. This is why casting tournaments require reels that hold all the line. Try casting without a reel sometime and you will find that you are able to throw tighter loops. There was also some discussion about this in the Spring 2010 FFF Loop for casting instructors starting on page 26. I don’t think they make the publication publicly available any more so I can’t link to it. Besides, the amount of line outside the rod tip dramatically alters the balance point of the rod against the resistance of the line while casting, so the “balance” point is always changing.
Zach-
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I agree with everything you said except, “But I would argue that the perceived weight to the caster is lessened when there is a counterweight in the form of a heavier reel on the butt end.”
The reason I disagree with this is that the extra weight of a reel on the rod increases the energy needed to accelerate and decelerate the rod during the casting stroke. In Gary Borger’s blog he noted that a mechanical casting machine could cast further without the reel attached than with it on and the rod held at the balance point. The reel requires more energy due to Newton’s second law. Additionally, the slower deceleration due to the reel attached causes wider loops which decreases loop (and energy) efficiency.
I do realize that you are talking about perceived weight. However, I think for the reasons stated above that a lighter reel will cause less fatigue. Try pulling the reel off the rod and casting for awhile and compare that to having the reel on the rod.
Many times I’ve heard and read the arguments for and against lighter reels versus heavier reels that may balance a rod better.
Scott –
I have thrown a rod (for distance) without a reel; I find it to be harder actually. It feels like I am bearing the full load out on the end of a stick; a ball and chain effect, if you will.
I am not sure how Gary Borger’s personal style of casting looks but from the butt of the rod, the motion would be more rotational, as the rod rotates downwards, versus lateral, i.e. forward and back. Just pantomiming casting here in my office I can’t see how the reel really moves more than a couple inches back and forth, at least with my stroke. Thus I am not sure the “forward momentum” of the reel really would contribute much resistance to stopping.
Zach
Zach,
If you are just moving your hand back and forth a few inches and rotating the rod, then, with all due respect, youre not doing it right, your rod hand should follow a level path of a minimum of eighteen inches or so, even with a light trout rod, and that involves accelerating the weight of the reel.
I believe that there is a consensus among the cognoscenti that the whole notion of balance is flawed and outdated, and, in addition, I believe that we’re used to the weight of a reel on the bottom of a rod, so, therefore that’s what feels good and natural.
JC
It is definitely different casting without a reel. By the way, Gary was just explaining research done with a casting machine by others, not by his own casting.
I’m guessing you are pantomiming a short cast if you’re only moving a couple of inches. If that’s the case, then yes the reel probably would not have much momentum. Then again, there would not be much mass of line outside the rod tip thereby minimizing the benefits of a “balanced” outfit. The first casting movement should be translational and the rotational phase only comes end at the very end of the cast. While distance casting, the translational phase is in feet (at least for me) and the rotation is probably nearing 170 degrees. There is some significant momentum there. Look at Tim Rajeff’s delivery stroke on his distance cast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCwu6u2jBA. It is quite long and has a lot of speed. I definitely wouldn’t want to be in the path of the reel during that stroke.
I know that most fishing casts aren’t for extreme distances, but the same physics should be in play. They are just better highlighted in the casting extremes.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6JqCOtDLu0[/media]
Scott –
You’re probably right about the overall distance traveled being more than a few inches, but I would stand by my belief that the reel counterweights the rod until someone showed me some hard data that says otherwise.
Zach,
That experiment has been done, as was referenced by Gary Borger. Peter Schwab did the experiment with Crompton’s casting machine and showed that the reel was a detriment to the cast. Here is a link saying that in Gordy Hill’s master study group http://www.wildoutfitting.com/mci/emailarchive/mlistarchive/msg00026.html. Both Gordy and Tom White in that link have been FFF Governers for the casting program. I believe Jason Borger also references Schwab’s study in his “Nature of Fly Flycasting,” but I do not have that book in front of me right now.
I’d be happy to send along the Loop piece, but that part is just a discussion from Gordy Hill’s group and doesn’t add anything more than the above link.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.