Zach Matthews
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think most of the animosity comes from the grip-n-grin mentality a lot of people who incidentally happen to use boga grips possess.
Thanks Don.
Sorry it took me so long to get to this. I have been looking around shops trying to find a WT to refresh my memory but I haven’t been able to locate any. (Not a big seller, I think).
Going from memory, the WT should be a somewhat heavier stick than the G2, which is within a gnat’s eyelash of the BIIx (of “lightest rod in the whatever” fame). The action on the G2 is also definitely going to favor a caster who can generate a little deeper load for accuracy purposes.
On older IM6 rods like the WT, some additional mass was kept in the tip to help load the rod, a la bamboo (mostly because that’s what people were used to). As line manufacturers began releasing slightly heavier lines (such as the SA GPX and Rio Grand), rod manufacturers adjusted the see-saw to favor a lighter tip, which generally makes the rod feel lighter in hand (and that sensation is a little bit out of proportion since a small tip weight adjustment can seem to make a rod much lighter when casting). Sage’s Xi2 is the best example I can think of this ultra-light-tip feeling.
So, getting back around to the point, the G2 may be a slightly more demanding rod for very accurate casting since the aiming component must come from a little deeper in the blank, meaning more of the tip section needs to track a straighter line. (You could cheat a bit with the heavier tips since they tended to impart a little more control on the final direction of the line.)
On the balance I would rather have the G2 in 5 weight and 6 weight, while in 4 weight and smaller it would be extremely close to call. Maybe too close to decide on anything but cosmetic preference. Winston made some very light fairy-wand style small WTs which more or less wipe out the preceding discussion. I particularly like the 7’6″ 4wt. WT. I would need to cast the G2 head to head with a WT to make a personal decision.
As for the G2 versus the G versus the WT, I think you are completely right. The old G had a LOT of tip mass and was purposefully made to imitate older cane rods, whereas I believe but cannot aver that Winston tweaked the WT series as it developed to adapt to a somewhat more modern action.
(Incidentally the names for the two styles of rods I am describing are “progressive,” the currently-in-favor style of a pyramid-shaped blank layup with a proportionally light tip, and “parabolic,” which relied on a slightly flattening pyramid structure as the rod taper hit the tip section, meaning it quit decreasing at the same rate and the tip was left with added mass. The most parabolic rod I have cast recently is the St. Croix Legend Ultra in its pre-IPC incarnation. Since the new IPC rod relies on the same (exact same) PROGRESSIVE taper as the Legend Elite series, if you can get an old and a new SCLU and do a head to head you can really see the difference).
Hope this has helped,
ZachHey Jared-
Thanks again and incidentally there are a few pictures I held back in order to let my editor see them first.
Those are very nice and that bamboo and silk shot is solid.
Drop me an email, please:
A fast 50mm on a film SLR or a fast 35 mm on the DSLR, for an equivalently “nomal” field of view and the ability to creatively control depth of field.
Second: a wide angle for crisp landscapes.
Zach
Hey Brandon-
Castmaster sounds an awful lot like ‘Castwell’ and that is one title I won’t be claiming.
Here’s the deal: DT lines have no rear taper and thus no loss of mass as the caster extends out line.
Look directly under the rotating picture frame, where it says “Hey, Steve154, You have 2 Messages!”
I think it should say that, anyway.
Zach