New Loomis NRX rod series
- This topic has 29 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated Aug 23, 2010 at 5:20 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
What’s this all about the new ‘worked on 16 years’ Loomis NRX rod series? 🙂
I’ve only seen a picture of the grip on the Loomis site and, man, what an ugly color combination!
The price is $700+Let’s get serious.
If their new rods are so exceptional, why didn’t anybody tell their boss(?) that the color combo is butt ugly? Why not put the best marketing gig on earth to promote it at the very best way?
The owner Shimano surely has some marketing budget for such a high end fly rod company’s high end rods?
Makes me think back about Fenwick’s Ironfeather rod series. Fenwick & Ironfeather went down the drains…
Im kinda pumped to see GLX’s on clearance. I’ve been eying a crosscurrent pro 1 piece 7 weight but prices haven’t fallen yet
If I am not mistaking the new rods are not replaceing the GlX rods so you probably not see a price reduction.
they maybe butt ugly but the old glx didn’t win any beauty contest but how great were they, i here they are a cats memow to cast, so i just ordered a 9′ 5 wt. yesterday. all the beauty queens are old know sage ll and tcr’s . just might get a can of black paint cover those ugly wraps.
I still think all these advances in fly-rod technology is just a marketing ploy, as technology has surpassed any usable benefit for a fly rod.
I can’t tell the casting difference between my $300.00 and $600.00 fly rod. Granted my top-of-the-line rod looks better.
My two cents.
Randy
Here’s the skinny; you take this for what it’s worth and make your own judgment.
Loomis is debuting this rod with a new resin enhancement provided by 3M, called ‘nano silica.’ In many ways this is reminiscent of the “Nano-Titanium” craze of the early 2000s. Basically, the idea is you put an additional component in the resin which holds the graphite (the longitudinal fibers) and the scrim (the lateral fibers, sometimes graphite, sometimes fiberglass) in the rod together.
Here’s the skinny; you take this for what it’s worth and make your own judgment.
Loomis is debuting this rod with a new resin enhancement provided by 3M, called ‘nano silica.’ In many ways this is reminiscent of the “Nano-Titanium” craze of the early 2000s.
…..
Lighter rods are more responsive when flexed and ultimately become higher-performance casting tools. (This is how Rajeff explained it to me a while back and he would certainly know).I think it’s the way how Loomis advertised it.
Rather than ‘Hey guys we got a new rod out soon and it’s great‘ Loomis advertised as ‘We have been working on a new rod that took us 16 years to make it‘.The expectation (or communication) created by the way of advertising is different I think.
The way Loomis did sounds like the best thing since sliced bread.Hardy is also using this same additive in their new rods.
Here’s the kicker: Sage and Scott both passed.
Hmm… wonder why?..
So when evaluating this rod, what you need to do is weigh the rod subjectively first, against all other rods. Loomis has always made excellent fly rods. Then you need to factor in the strength of having Steve Rajeff, uncontestably the world’s best caster, as the designer, against the knowledge that two of the *other* best fly rod companies tested this stuff and passed on it.
I have only seen Rajeff on YouTube and although he is obviously an excellent caster his casting style is not very elegant/smooth/fluid/etc. As far as I can see his style is very powerful and strength-based.
The casting style of Rajeff will probably influence what kind of action the rods he designs will have.
About rod cosmetics:
I think when you pay $600+ for a rod, the cosmetics & hardware used needs to be top notch.
Loomis has never appeared to me as being a very nice looking rod. One Loomis I once owned (IMX) was very neat (rod wasn’t varnished giving a very stealthy look), but the Loomis rods generally look very much like a production rod rather than a more ‘hand made look’ like Winston and maybe Sage.Jay –
The man is built like a brick shithouse. Most of the best distance casters have a fireplug physique: Brian O’Keefe, Rick Hartman, both Rajeffs, Jerry Siem, several of the Europeans — all of them clearly either spend time in the gym or are genetically gifted. I would seriously expect Steve to bench around 300 lbs.; he is a very big guy.
And you’re right; their casting styles take advantage of those physical abilities. Steve, Brian, etc., all cast straight over their shoulders, facing square to the target. That’s a really difficult style to get great at because you have a very limited arc of travel for your rod tip in the back cast. To generate lots of linespeed without throwing a tailing loop, you must seriously accelerate and then radically stop within only a few inches in the air behind your head. That’s tough.
As a much more lightly built guy myself (I weigh 165 lbs.), I have to generate my linespeed over a lot longer arc of travel; thus I cast sidearmed like other lightly built distance casters (i.e. Lefty Kreh, Joan Wulff, etc.) Mechanically if you attach sensors to the rod, it bends and unbends in the same way, though not in the same plane, whether Steve Rajeff or Joan Wulff is casting. But if you plug in the front-to-back distance the tip of the rod travels you will see serious differences: smaller casters move the tip much further. I would guesstimate my rod tip’s total distance of travel on a 110′ cast at about 18-22′ (which on a nine foot rod is close to full extension of the arm in both directions plus the nine foot length of the rod itself and some distance gained from pivoting at the hips). Rajeff’s is probably like 12-14 feet, because it doesn’t come back as far in his backcast primarily and there’s no hip pivoting (all distance casters tend to jab forward in the final forward cast to full extension). Watch on YouTube and I bet you’ll pick this up.
So with respect to how this affects rod design, I think Rajeff-style casters prefer much stiffer, tip-flex rods, sometimes to a real extreme. People who cast like Lefty (me) oftentimes like a more flexible rod that may not be quite as high performance when it comes to recovery (i.e. “snap back”) speeds especially.
This is how I see it; other casters probably vary, but bottom line I do think you’re right that the Rajeff school has a particular rod they like to design and that rod is currently represented by many companies’ top, most expensive, rods.
Zach
they maybe butt ugly but the old glx didn’t win any beauty contest but how great were they,
The original GLX was a special rod for its time . . . . . still fishes great today.
Who designed the original GLX’s?
Very interesting insight on physique vs casting style Zach.
I also know a guy here who is also like a box and with fore arms as thick as my thighs. 😀Your last sentence is really striking:
Rajeff school has a particular rod they like to design and that rod is currently represented by many companies’ top, most expensive, rods.
I wonder how many fly fishers (men & women) are built like these powerhouses?
How many people are able (or even LIKE to) to cast like them? Their casting style is pretty hard on the elbow/fore arm muscles as well as wrist (sudden stop). Not very nice to do it all day I guess…What’s your idea on the way Loomis markets its new top rod series?
How effective is it to use ‘rocket science’ as marketing rather than the more common use of emotions that’s close to fly fishing (mountains streams, friendship, being outdoors, etc.)?i have been lookin for a long time for a rod in 4piece design with that type of action ( original glx) i hope this is better . i have to agree it has butt ugly wraps [ must be from tournament bass anglers ] i know so little of loomis sales come from flyfishing i heard, one time they were considering droppin fly rods all together.
Jay –
The truth is, a science angle is more accurate for the level of design expertise and the process that goes into making these rods than any attempt to harken back to the nostalgia of hand-built wood fly rods. I’ve recently written for Fly Rod & Reel about how rods are made (not yet published). It’s a very engineer-driven, sciency thing these days. So I have no problem with Loomis’ angle.
You raise another good point regarding the physique of rod designers. It seems to me that being physically large is an advantage in casting as in many sports. Large people also seem to be disproportionately represented among rod designers.
Loomis = Steve Rajeff
Echo = Tim Rajeff
Sage = Jerry SiemThose three gentlemen are large individuals, physically strong people.
Scott Rods = Jim Bartschi
Winston = formerly Sam Drukman, currently Annette McLean (the only lady rod designer right now)
Orvis = Jim LePageNot to cast aspersions on anyone’s physicality, but those three are noticeably more lightly built in stature and/or upper body strength. LePage and Bartschi are both athletic but on the shorter side compared to the top three.
What does this mean? Maybe nothing. But it seems to me that the casting characteristics of those companies’ products in many ways match up with the build of their designers. The top three companies tend to make stiff, tip-flex rods. The bottom three somewhat tend to make more flexible, mid-flex rods.
There are caveats, of course: Orvis offers a rod for about everyone with their flex index system. The Scott S4 and STS rods are notably stiff and tippy (as opposed to the old HeliPly, which is a mid-flex rod). Winston’s BIIMX is one of the stiffest they’ve ever made (but still kinda-sorta mid-flex). TFO’s owner is Rick Pope, a large individual, but its rods are mostly designed by Lefty, who is smaller of stature. Lefty apparently pushed Rick to make the very tip-flex TiCr series, which goes against my theory.
So my analogy may not hold up across the board, but I do think there’s a grain of truth to it.
Zach
PS I’ll ask some of my rod designer friends what they think about this and add it in later.
…
Loomis = Steve Rajeff
Echo = Tim Rajeff
Sage = Jerry SiemThose three gentlemen are large individuals, physically strong people.
Scott Rods = Jim Bartschi
Winston = formerly Sam Drukman, currently Annette McLean (the only lady rod designer right now)
Orvis = Jim LePageNot to cast aspersions on anyone’s physicality, but those three are noticeably more lightly built in stature and/or upper body strength. LePage and Bartschi are both athletic but on the shorter side compared to the top three.
…
I have often thought about this… and do I want a rod that’s designed by a distance casting champ, or by a top fisherman???I think I would rather want a fishing rod and not a casting rod…
I love my Z-Axis and hate the TCX, LPS over Horizon, G2 over S4… if you know where I am going.
Well, all of those guys are also top fishermen, of course. But I do think you see the influence of the casting competitions the most with the high end, flagship rods.
This is kind of analogous to flagship cameras. Nikon’s most expensive cameras have every conceivable bell and whistle, but they are also heavy and large, because they’re offered only in the most robust, pro-required bodies. You can’t get the exact performance specifications of a D3 in a light, compact body. There’s no market for that – people who want lighter built cameras just get a consumer model and lose a few features (but save many dollars).
With rods, every bell and whistle goes into the flagship rod, which naturally needs to exceed all the other rods in casting potential in order to justify the extreme expense. If you’re not looking to use the rod for a maxed out purpose, you’d be wise to just buy an older, less expensive rod that will do fine as a fishing stick.
Much of this is about restraint on the part of the angler, and restraint comes from honesty. You show me a fisherman who tells me he can honestly wring every performance capability out of any $700+ rod and I will show you a liar… or Steve Rajeff (etc.).
Zach
Well maybe the GLX will come down to the mid price rod level.
Agreed, Like the IMX did years ago.
Im sure the bass world will be shaken up by the new model, they have rightfully earned an iconic status.
I loved the recoil guides on some of the GLX models, surely they will stay in the lineup
Bill, I agree that I am not sold on a full price matte finish rod with blue wraps. not near as pretty as a scott or winston
i really like the looks of the scott g2 wish they were a little faster, my favorite rod of late has been 490 sage xp(someone stoll it from my car) and sage is bringing it back in 2011 with gen 5 tech. will be vxp in $500. price. loomis says they will have trout rods in the shops next week,warrenty one time break $50.repair after that replacement for each section will be $100.00 or more, i guess no more lifetime.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.