Fly Rod Advice

[Sheldon McElhiney]

Fellow Fly Fishing Enthusiasts,

Looking to buy my first premium fly rod. I am contemplating the following
rods:

G. Loomis GLX 9' 6wt 4 piece (GLX scheduled to be replaced in 2004)
Sage SLT 9' 6wt 5 piece
Orvis T3 9' 6wt 4 piece
Scott S3 9' 6wt 4 piece
R.L. Winston XTR 9' 6wt 3 piece
St. Croix Legend Elite 9' 6wt 5 piece

I would greatly appreciate any insight and opinions you can provide to help
me make my decision.

Thanks in advance,
Sheldon

[Ken Fortenberry]

Sheldon McElhiney wrote:

> Fellow Fly Fishing Enthusiasts,
>
> Looking to buy my first premium fly rod. I am contemplating the following
> rods:
>
> G. Loomis GLX 9' 6wt 4 piece (GLX scheduled to be replaced in 2004)
> Sage SLT 9' 6wt 5 piece
> Orvis T3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> Scott S3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> R.L. Winston XTR 9' 6wt 3 piece
> St. Croix Legend Elite 9' 6wt 5 piece
>
> I would greatly appreciate any insight and opinions you can provide to help
> me make my decision.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Sheldon
>
>
The only advice that makes any sense is to cast all 6 yourself
and decide which one YOU like best. Take 100 anglers, let them
cast all 6 rods and 99 of them will like the Winston, but who
knows, you could be that one in a hundred. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Jarmo Hurri]

>> G. Loomis GLX 9' 6wt 4 piece (GLX scheduled to be replaced in 2004)
>> Sage SLT 9' 6wt 5 piece
>> Orvis T3 9' 6wt 4 piece
>> Scott S3 9' 6wt 4 piece
>> R.L. Winston XTR 9' 6wt 3 piece
>> St. Croix Legend Elite 9' 6wt 5 piece

Ken> The only advice that makes any sense is to cast all 6 yourself
Ken> and decide which one YOU like best. Take 100 anglers, let them
Ken> cast all 6 rods and 99 of them will like the Winston, but who
Ken> knows, you could be that one in a hundred. ;-)

As a related note, please observe that Winston will be introducing a
new rod series in 2004. See

http://www.winstonrods.com/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=5&Topic=236

for more information. And heck no, I have no relationship with the
company whatsoever, except that I own one nice 2wt rod of theirs. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Use as email
address or apply rot13 to header email address.

[George Adams]

>From: "Sheldon McElhiney"

>Looking to buy my first premium fly rod. I am contemplating the following
>rods:

<list snipped>

Any of these rods would would be a good choice. You need to cast all, (or as
many as possible), to determine which you prefer. One suggestion...multi piece
rods are all the rage these days, but if you don't do a lot of travelling or
backpacking, consider a two piece....could save you a few bucks.



George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

[bruiser]

Sheldon,

I'd be happy with any of those regardless of my lack of casting style.

Temple Fork rods are pretty excellent and cheap.... maybe you should
consider one as a backup, but if you can try one you'll probably find they
are similar to the faster Winstons (maybe that's an oxymoron). My next 5
weight will absolutely be Temple Fork.

http://www.templeforkflyrods.com

Of course I broke my TFO 3 weight Saturday..... and it's guaranteed! I
really really like their rods.

[Svend Tang-Petersen]

Sheldon,

Ken et al already gave you the best advice: YOU have to go try each rod. Just
beware that
some of these (at least the T3) are fast action rods, and you should probably
overline it.

Wrt multipiece (>2) rods, then personally I prefer them even though I dont
travel that much
except by car. They are easier to put in the back of my car and store in a
corner of my closet at
home. And typically they come in a pretty sturdy tube instead of a sock. So
they are less likely
to et damaged.

Sheldon McElhiney wrote:

> Fellow Fly Fishing Enthusiasts,
>
> Looking to buy my first premium fly rod. I am contemplating the following
> rods:
>
> G. Loomis GLX 9' 6wt 4 piece (GLX scheduled to be replaced in 2004)
> Sage SLT 9' 6wt 5 piece
> Orvis T3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> Scott S3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> R.L. Winston XTR 9' 6wt 3 piece
> St. Croix Legend Elite 9' 6wt 5 piece
>
> I would greatly appreciate any insight and opinions you can provide to help
> me make my decision.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Sheldon

--

Svend

************************************************** *****************
Svend Tang-Petersen, MSc Email:
SGI Pager:
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Phone: (+1) 650 933 3618
Mountain View
California 94043
USA
************************************************** *****************

[Cornmuse]

From: "Svend Tang-Petersen" > wrote > "beware that some of
these (at least the T3) are fast action rods, and you should probably
> overline it"

Okay, someone needs to sell me on this concept. If a 4 weight rod is so
"fast" that it really needs to be overlined, then shouldn't it be considered
a 5 (or even 6) weight rod? I understand the concept of various rod actions
and accept that a rod with a fast taper can provide faster line speeds and,
hence, longer distances when casting. Further a "fast" rod will load better
with more line out allowing one to aerialise a longer line - false casting
50' of line and shooting 10' to fish a drift 60' away makes perfect sense.
A slow action rod will simply collapse under such circumstances and cause a
loss of accuracy, etc.. Still, to be properly rated a rod should load and
cast effectively with 30' of line of the appropriate weight in grains.

But in my mind there is a limitation here. If you choose a fast rod for
long distance or windy conditions then you will likely set it up as such.
If you choose a fast rod, then overline it to get it to load and fish
effectively at 30', haven't you in fact purchased a rod one size higher?
Why a "fast" 4 overlined and not a "moderate action" five (think St. Croix
Avid for my idea of a moderate action rod) if most fishing is going to be
40' and under (as an example)? And to that point, is there a significant
difference in performance if you "underline" a moderate action rod with one
line weight lighter. Since I have never actually done this my question is
sincere. Anyone out there fish a four weight line on their five weight rods
when they need a "faster" action for longer distance work?

I know that fly rods will ALL cast a variety of line weights. I have used
an 8wt. line on my 6wt. rod for up close and personal bass fishing under
certain circumstances to great affect. The rod didn't seem to mind and it
loaded like a dream at 20'. Made dropping deer hair bugs in pockets of
weeds an easy chore (keeping in mind that on that particular trip I didn't -
and couldn't- effectively fish more than 25' or so away because of dense
cover).

Looking forward to the responses.

Joe C.

[Dave Martel]

Well....you've already gotten some excellent advice; but I'll chip in anyway
<G>. Of the rods you've listed I've cast most of them--and can tell you
*unequivically* that for MY casting stroke the Scott S3 blew them all away.

Now--that doesn't mean *squat* for YOUR casting stroke; but what the
hell....you asked. And, Forty, for the record--I'm the one in a hundred that
think Winston's are maybe the prettiest rod out there--but the actions suck.
<G>

Dave M
"Sheldon McElhiney" > wrote in message
...
> Fellow Fly Fishing Enthusiasts,
>
> Looking to buy my first premium fly rod. I am contemplating the following
> rods:
>
> G. Loomis GLX 9' 6wt 4 piece (GLX scheduled to be replaced in 2004)
> Sage SLT 9' 6wt 5 piece
> Orvis T3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> Scott S3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> R.L. Winston XTR 9' 6wt 3 piece
> St. Croix Legend Elite 9' 6wt 5 piece
>
> I would greatly appreciate any insight and opinions you can provide to
help
> me make my decision.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Sheldon
>
>

[CB]

Personally, I do not believe that a fast rod will give you more distance
than a rod with a slow action. I think that the key to making long casts is
the timing on the back cast and, more importantly, the rod stop on the fore
cast, not the rod's action. However, I do think that a fast rod lets you
take more line off the water than a slower rod thereby allowing you to get
your fly back to rising fish more quickly. I prefer a slow rod for most dry
fly fishing as most of my casts with dries are 30' or less. I find that it
is easier to load a slower rod and get a better presentation at this
distance than a fast action. I find that, with a fast rod, I tend to pile
drive the fly on to the water, or dump the cast all together at 30' and
less.

It seems to me that if you need to drive a fly into a strong wind or plop a
big bug in from of a bass, use a bigger rod. A faster action may allow you
to cheat in this regard a little, but not significantly. Again, I base this
on my casting ability.

In any event, I prefer rods with an even number of sections as I like to use
soft rod bags that allow me to keep a rod strung with a fly at the end.
Rods with an even number of sections fit these bags while 3 and 5 piece rods
do not. As has been said, cast them all and buy the one you like the best.

Chris Brown



"Cornmuse" > wrote in message
...
> From: "Svend Tang-Petersen" > wrote > "beware that some of
> these (at least the T3) are fast action rods, and you should probably
> > overline it"
>
> Okay, someone needs to sell me on this concept. If a 4 weight rod is so
> "fast" that it really needs to be overlined, then shouldn't it be
considered
> a 5 (or even 6) weight rod? I understand the concept of various rod
actions
> and accept that a rod with a fast taper can provide faster line speeds
and,
> hence, longer distances when casting. Further a "fast" rod will load
better
> with more line out allowing one to aerialise a longer line - false casting
> 50' of line and shooting 10' to fish a drift 60' away makes perfect sense.
> A slow action rod will simply collapse under such circumstances and cause
a
> loss of accuracy, etc.. Still, to be properly rated a rod should load and
> cast effectively with 30' of line of the appropriate weight in grains.
>
> But in my mind there is a limitation here. If you choose a fast rod for
> long distance or windy conditions then you will likely set it up as such.
> If you choose a fast rod, then overline it to get it to load and fish
> effectively at 30', haven't you in fact purchased a rod one size higher?
> Why a "fast" 4 overlined and not a "moderate action" five (think St. Croix
> Avid for my idea of a moderate action rod) if most fishing is going to be
> 40' and under (as an example)? And to that point, is there a significant
> difference in performance if you "underline" a moderate action rod with
one
> line weight lighter. Since I have never actually done this my question is
> sincere. Anyone out there fish a four weight line on their five weight
rods
> when they need a "faster" action for longer distance work?
>
> I know that fly rods will ALL cast a variety of line weights. I have used
> an 8wt. line on my 6wt. rod for up close and personal bass fishing under
> certain circumstances to great affect. The rod didn't seem to mind and it
> loaded like a dream at 20'. Made dropping deer hair bugs in pockets of
> weeds an easy chore (keeping in mind that on that particular trip I
didn't -
> and couldn't- effectively fish more than 25' or so away because of dense
> cover).
>
> Looking forward to the responses.
>
> Joe C.
>
>
>

[Sierra fisher]

I love fast rods, and I can come up with a similar list of reasons why fast
rods are better...for me that is. I beleive tht most of reasons you gave
are true... for you. That's the reason there are so many rod
manufacturerers.

However I would like to challenge your statement about fast rods not being
good for distance casting. To me distance casting is 60 feet plus, and
about the olny time you can do it is in a park or while sal****er fishing.
The rest of the time there is just too much junk in the way. I believe that
if you check out the competitive long distance casters, you will find that
most use fast rods like the Sage RPLxi. If you check out what the rod
manufacturer's sell you for sal****er fishing, you will find it is mostly
fast. For years Winston tried to promote their slow rods as being good for
distance casting, and they finally had to come out with the faster XTR in
order to get any business. If you're going to go after bonefish or tarpon,
you had better be prepared to cast distances up to 80' in some kind of wind.
Few people try it with slow rods. Also, most can't cast 80' without a good
backcast, and knowing how to load the rod


"CB" > wrote in message
...
> Personally, I do not believe that a fast rod will give you more distance
> than a rod with a slow action. I think that the key to making long casts
is
> the timing on the back cast and, more importantly, the rod stop on the
fore
> cast, not the rod's action. However, I do think that a fast rod lets you
> take more line off the water than a slower rod thereby allowing you to get
> your fly back to rising fish more quickly. I prefer a slow rod for most
dry
> fly fishing as most of my casts with dries are 30' or less. I find that
it
> is easier to load a slower rod and get a better presentation at this
> distance than a fast action. I find that, with a fast rod, I tend to pile
> drive the fly on to the water, or dump the cast all together at 30' and
> less.
>
> It seems to me that if you need to drive a fly into a strong wind or plop
a
> big bug in from of a bass, use a bigger rod. A faster action may allow
you
> to cheat in this regard a little, but not significantly. Again, I base
this
> on my casting ability.
>
> In any event, I prefer rods with an even number of sections as I like to
use
> soft rod bags that allow me to keep a rod strung with a fly at the end.
> Rods with an even number of sections fit these bags while 3 and 5 piece
rods
> do not. As has been said, cast them all and buy the one you like the
best.
>
> Chris Brown
>
>
>
> "Cornmuse" > wrote in message
> ...
> > From: "Svend Tang-Petersen" > wrote > "beware that some of
> > these (at least the T3) are fast action rods, and you should probably
> > > overline it"
> >
> > Okay, someone needs to sell me on this concept. If a 4 weight rod is so
> > "fast" that it really needs to be overlined, then shouldn't it be
> considered
> > a 5 (or even 6) weight rod? I understand the concept of various rod
> actions
> > and accept that a rod with a fast taper can provide faster line speeds
> and,
> > hence, longer distances when casting. Further a "fast" rod will load
> better
> > with more line out allowing one to aerialise a longer line - false
casting
> > 50' of line and shooting 10' to fish a drift 60' away makes perfect
sense.
> > A slow action rod will simply collapse under such circumstances and
cause
> a
> > loss of accuracy, etc.. Still, to be properly rated a rod should load
and
> > cast effectively with 30' of line of the appropriate weight in grains.
> >
> > But in my mind there is a limitation here. If you choose a fast rod for
> > long distance or windy conditions then you will likely set it up as
such.
> > If you choose a fast rod, then overline it to get it to load and fish
> > effectively at 30', haven't you in fact purchased a rod one size higher?
> > Why a "fast" 4 overlined and not a "moderate action" five (think St.
Croix
> > Avid for my idea of a moderate action rod) if most fishing is going to
be
> > 40' and under (as an example)? And to that point, is there a
significant
> > difference in performance if you "underline" a moderate action rod with
> one
> > line weight lighter. Since I have never actually done this my question
is
> > sincere. Anyone out there fish a four weight line on their five weight
> rods
> > when they need a "faster" action for longer distance work?
> >
> > I know that fly rods will ALL cast a variety of line weights. I have
used
> > an 8wt. line on my 6wt. rod for up close and personal bass fishing under
> > certain circumstances to great affect. The rod didn't seem to mind and
it
> > loaded like a dream at 20'. Made dropping deer hair bugs in pockets of
> > weeds an easy chore (keeping in mind that on that particular trip I
> didn't -
> > and couldn't- effectively fish more than 25' or so away because of dense
> > cover).
> >
> > Looking forward to the responses.
> >
> > Joe C.
> >
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003

[Willi]

Dave Martel wrote:

>
> Now--that doesn't mean *squat* for YOUR casting stroke; but what the
> hell....you asked. And, Forty, for the record--I'm the one in a hundred that
> think Winston's are maybe the prettiest rod out there--but the actions suck.


They are pretty.

Willi

[Jarmo Hurri]

Chris> However, I do think that a fast rod lets you take more line off
Chris> the water than a slower rod thereby allowing you to get your
Chris> fly back to rising fish more quickly.

I am lousy in roll-casting with fast rods. To me this is the biggest
downside of fast rods, as far as casting properties are concerned.

First, in some cases, when there are a lot of bushes and the river has
deep banks, roll cast seems to be the only reasonable cast there is.

Second, in addition to making roll casting difficult, this deficiency
also affects the way one can pick up line. At some point I learned
that a good way to pick up the line - or, to be more precise, to
prepare the line for the cast - is to roll cast the line on top of the
water surface. This way you make very little commotion in the part of
water that you're fishing. I can't do this with short rods, so I have
to resort to underhand cast, which, I think, is more noisy.

You might also want to remember that many people like slower rods
better when landing fish, because the slower rods are more responsive
and keep the fish hooked better.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Use as email
address or apply rot13 to header email address.

[CB]

I didn't say that fast rods are not good for distance casting. I said that
I do not believe that a fast rod will necessarily get you more distance than
a slow rod. My point was, technique gets you distance. For example, I have
two 6wt's, a first generation sage discovery and a sage xp. The xp has a
fast action, the discovery is slow. I can get 60' plus out of both of them
and do not notice a significant difference in the distance I can get from
these two rods. I have fished with people that can get 90' plus out of
fiberglass rods.

I think that the trend towards faster rods if a function of the new
materials that are being used and that a faster rod makes it easier for an
inexperienced caster to get good casts. When I started fly fishing, I had a
hard time waiting for the rod to load resulting is a lot of bad casts. I do
not think this was/is an uncommon problem for new casters. A faster rod
requires less waiting for the rod to load and, IMHO, results in the
inexperienced caster to get consistently good casts in a shorter time. My
son is a great example of this. He was having a tough time with the rod I
got for him to start with. The rod is a first generation graphite that was
slower than my discovery. He did not have the patience to wait for the rod
to load and got frustrated quickly with his inability to get off good casts.
I got a TFO for him to use and, while it is not a super fast rod, it was
faster than the rod I originally got for him. The difference was pretty
dramatic. He quickly started getting good casts out to 35' to 40'
consistently and his frustration level dropped to nil.

Personally, I like fast rods for some situations and slow ones for others.

Chris Brown

[Spencer Phipps]

You're thinking right, a four weight is a four weight and fast simply means
that the rod bending goes on further up the tip. You can have a fast rod
made from any material from bamboo the the best graphite, they will bend the
same but not fish the same. Many rods people classify as fast are underrated
by the manufacturer so you can keep more line in the air, in other words a 5
in a 4's clothing. but can't you and don't you do the same thing? Short
casting line up, long casts line down, the manufactureshave lied so long
that the line manufacturers are not using the line rating system anymore so
they don't lose revenue, soon we'll be back where they were many years ago
when no specs were written and the public had a hell of a time selecting
equipment.
Not convinced? Go to superbob.org and you will see a data base that rod
builders have put together where the true character of rods and blanks have
been measured accurately.
Any rod with a AA (action angle) rating less than 67 degrees is not a fast
action blank. A blank rated for 7 wt that is rated 7.2 to 7.8 is a true 7
wt, same for other weight classes.
The numbers aren't used to decide which rod is better, like I said you can
get a rating with any material but it can help if your looking for the right
line design for your rod or if it's as advertised.
I have some Sage rods and none are rated correctly, my Lamiglas and Loomis
GLX are spot on, but my GL3 9'9" 8 wt is really a 10 wt, same with my Sage
TCR 8 wt. and the Sage line is also a 10 wt in a 8 wt box. The TCR 5 wt is a
6wt with a 6 wt line in the box.
"Cornmuse" > wrote in message
...
> From: "Svend Tang-Petersen" > wrote > "beware that some of
> these (at least the T3) are fast action rods, and you should probably
> > overline it"
>
> Okay, someone needs to sell me on this concept. If a 4 weight rod is so
> "fast" that it really needs to be overlined, then shouldn't it be
considered
> a 5 (or even 6) weight rod? I understand the concept of various rod
actions
> and accept that a rod with a fast taper can provide faster line speeds
and,
> hence, longer distances when casting. Further a "fast" rod will load
better
> with more line out allowing one to aerialise a longer line - false casting
> 50' of line and shooting 10' to fish a drift 60' away makes perfect sense.
> A slow action rod will simply collapse under such circumstances and cause
a
> loss of accuracy, etc.. Still, to be properly rated a rod should load and
> cast effectively with 30' of line of the appropriate weight in grains.
>
> But in my mind there is a limitation here. If you choose a fast rod for
> long distance or windy conditions then you will likely set it up as such.
> If you choose a fast rod, then overline it to get it to load and fish
> effectively at 30', haven't you in fact purchased a rod one size higher?
> Why a "fast" 4 overlined and not a "moderate action" five (think St. Croix
> Avid for my idea of a moderate action rod) if most fishing is going to be
> 40' and under (as an example)? And to that point, is there a significant
> difference in performance if you "underline" a moderate action rod with
one
> line weight lighter. Since I have never actually done this my question is
> sincere. Anyone out there fish a four weight line on their five weight
rods
> when they need a "faster" action for longer distance work?
>
> I know that fly rods will ALL cast a variety of line weights. I have used
> an 8wt. line on my 6wt. rod for up close and personal bass fishing under
> certain circumstances to great affect. The rod didn't seem to mind and it
> loaded like a dream at 20'. Made dropping deer hair bugs in pockets of
> weeds an easy chore (keeping in mind that on that particular trip I
didn't -
> and couldn't- effectively fish more than 25' or so away because of dense
> cover).
>
> Looking forward to the responses.
>
> Joe C.
>
>
>

[Jarmo Hurri]

Chris> I think that the trend towards faster rods if a function of the
Chris> new materials that are being used and that a faster rod makes
Chris> it easier for an inexperienced caster to get good casts. ... A
Chris> faster rod requires less waiting for the rod to load and, IMHO,
Chris> results in the inexperienced caster to get consistently good
Chris> casts in a shorter time.

If I simply count the frequency of different opinions I've heard on
this issue, in general the opposite view seems to prevail over
here. Slow or medium fast rods are generally considered to be "more
forgiving", that is, do not require as exact timing as fast rods. Of
course this does not apply if you aim for record distances, but with
short and medium distances it _might_ be true. Personally I think
that the idea applies especially to the timing of the haul: with fast
rods the timing has to be very precise to produce extra distance, and
if timing is off even a little, the result is typically a tailing
loop.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Use as email
address or apply rot13 to header email address.

[Sierra fisher]

There is an excellent video on casting by George Roberts (Sal****er
Flycasting, www.whitemouseflyfishing.com). In the video, George makes the
point that with modern equipment, people can easily make 50' casts with with
poor casting techniques. A corollary to this is that if you can make 50'
casts, you are not necessarily a good caster. My suggestion is that if you
are having trouble with a rod, that you you review the basics. There is
very little difference in casting fast and slow rods. If you know how to
load the rod, stop it, and keep your loops small, the rod doesn't make much
difference.
I highly recommend his video

"Greg Pavlov" > wrote in message
...
> On 09 Oct 2003 09:46:02 +0300, Jarmo Hurri > wrote:
>
> >... Personally I think
> >that the idea applies especially to the timing of the haul: with fast
> >rods the timing has to be very precise to produce extra distance, and
> >if timing is off even a little, the result is typically a tailing
> >loop.
>
> Except that wouldn't the timing *between* the forward/backcast
> and the haul have to be precise regardless of the rod ? Other-
> wise, wouldn't the haul counter the cast rather than enhance it ?
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003

[AhkimsRazor]

You'd be better off with a Cabela's introductory rod than the crap made by TFO.

[Jarmo Hurri]

>> ... Personally I think that the idea applies especially to the
>> timing of the haul: with fast rods the timing has to be very
>> precise to produce extra distance, and if timing is off even a
>> little, the result is typically a tailing loop.

Greg> Except that wouldn't the timing *between* the forward/backcast
Greg> and the haul have to be precise regardless of the rod? Other-
Greg> wise, wouldn't the haul counter the cast rather than enhance it?

I think I understand what you mean, but that's not what I mean. Let me
elaborate.

I have a medium fast 6wt Scott which I find relatively easy to
cast. With this rod, when I need some extra distance, a haul will
usually produce good results. In particular, I find that the timing of
the start of the haul is not a big issue. I can start the haul late or
early during the casting stroke - the results in terms of added
distance differ, but the cast looks ok and the loop remains fine.

I also have a very fast 4wt Sage which I've found more difficult to
cast. In particular, when I tried to add more distance to the casts
with a haul, I used to get horrible tailing loops. Then I had a
practice session in order to try to solve the problem. After some
trial and error -experimentation, I realized that the problem was
solved if I changed the timing of the beginning of the haul. The haul
has to be started late in the casting stroke, much later than with the
medium fast 6wt. If it is started early, the result is a tailing loop.

I'm not sure why this happens, but I have a theory which, to be
honest, is on a shaky basis. And probably also difficult to
follow. :-) The theory is that with the fast rod, the casting stroke
and the haul are not able to maintain the tension in the rod added by
the start of the haul. The extra tension created in the rod by the
haul is probably a very complicated function of time. I think that the
start of the haul creates the most tension, which might then be
released partially during the stroke if the stroke does not accelerate
fast enough. This is because the loading force created by the slower
movement of the line is decreased later in the haul because the haul
also accelerates the line. If this is true - that is, if part of the
tension is released - then we have a tailing loop.

The way the fast rod and the medium slow rod differ is that the fast
rod is stiffer. So in the case of the fast rod, the force created by
the added tension would tend to outweigh the force created by the
accelerating casting stroke and the and continuing haul. This would
then lead to partial release of the added tension during the stroke.

That's the theory, in all its ugliness. I'm very interested to hear
other opinions on this issue.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Use as email
address or apply rot13 to header email address.

[Blain Olbert]

Hi Sheldon,

Try before you buy!

That's the best advice anybody can give because all of these rods will
"feel" distinctly different & perform differently with your unique casting
stroke - this in spite of what the company literature and other anglers
might say.

For example, I recently purchased a Sage XP, 9' 6", 4pc 7 wt companion rod
for big water trouting. Sage literature says this fast-action rod is ideal
for people with a quick, fluid stroke. However, in my hands it gave
mediocre performance until I laid off my usual stroke power & slowed down
the tempo - the rod responded magnificently and cast the line to the backing
with just 3 double haul cycles. This was completely different behavior from
my old Sage RPL 9' 6" 4pc 7 wt which responds best with more powerful,
quicker strokes. Unless you want to use casting styles that are tailored to
the rod design, pick a rod that best fits with your natural casting style.

Any good fly shop will let you cast the rods of your choice, and you can
always purchase elsewhere.

Be aware of overall rod weight & rod warrantee. If you plan to cast a lot,
make sure the rod feels light in your hand. And don't go by the listed rod
weight alone - put on a properly balanced reel and cast it. It's the weight
levered at your wrist that causes fatigue. Also be aware of line distance &
control - each rod will respond differently to your particular casting
stroke. Some rods will wimp-out before your target casting distance is
reached while others will lace the line out to the backing in a few strokes.

Again, the different behavior is due to the combination of your unique
casting style &
the rod's particular design. Note I would very likely get a completely
different result than you from the same set of rods due to differences in
our casting styles.

Good luck - choosing a new rod is lots of fun.

"Sheldon McElhiney" > wrote in message
...
> Fellow Fly Fishing Enthusiasts,
>
> Looking to buy my first premium fly rod. I am contemplating the following
> rods:
>
> G. Loomis GLX 9' 6wt 4 piece (GLX scheduled to be replaced in 2004)
> Sage SLT 9' 6wt 5 piece
> Orvis T3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> Scott S3 9' 6wt 4 piece
> R.L. Winston XTR 9' 6wt 3 piece
> St. Croix Legend Elite 9' 6wt 5 piece
>
> I would greatly appreciate any insight and opinions you can provide to
help
> me make my decision.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Sheldon
>
>

[Sierra fisher]

Jamo, I think that you would benefit greatly from this video. It spends a
lot of time on the basics of hauling, stopping the rod etc. By the way, I
have no interest in the video.. However there should be no connection
between the haul and tailing loops. Tailing loops usually form because you
are dipping the rod during the cast , or you are trying to cast too small of
loops. these should not be effected by the timing or your haul. However,
one possible connection is that hauling allows you to cast much tighter
loops. If they get too tight, you will get a tailing loop. However the
correction for this would be to open up your loop slightly by stopping your
cast a bit lower.
You might take this with a grain of salt since I am not a certified caster!!
good luck
"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> ... Personally I think that the idea applies especially to the
> >> timing of the haul: with fast rods the timing has to be very
> >> precise to produce extra distance, and if timing is off even a
> >> little, the result is typically a tailing loop.
>
> Greg> Except that wouldn't the timing *between* the forward/backcast
> Greg> and the haul have to be precise regardless of the rod? Other-
> Greg> wise, wouldn't the haul counter the cast rather than enhance it?
>
> I think I understand what you mean, but that's not what I mean. Let me
> elaborate.
>
> I have a medium fast 6wt Scott which I find relatively easy to
> cast. With this rod, when I need some extra distance, a haul will
> usually produce good results. In particular, I find that the timing of
> the start of the haul is not a big issue. I can start the haul late or
> early during the casting stroke - the results in terms of added
> distance differ, but the cast looks ok and the loop remains fine.
>
> I also have a very fast 4wt Sage which I've found more difficult to
> cast. In particular, when I tried to add more distance to the casts
> with a haul, I used to get horrible tailing loops. Then I had a
> practice session in order to try to solve the problem. After some
> trial and error -experimentation, I realized that the problem was
> solved if I changed the timing of the beginning of the haul. The haul
> has to be started late in the casting stroke, much later than with the
> medium fast 6wt. If it is started early, the result is a tailing loop.
>
> I'm not sure why this happens, but I have a theory which, to be
> honest, is on a shaky basis. And probably also difficult to
> follow. :-) The theory is that with the fast rod, the casting stroke
> and the haul are not able to maintain the tension in the rod added by
> the start of the haul. The extra tension created in the rod by the
> haul is probably a very complicated function of time. I think that the
> start of the haul creates the most tension, which might then be
> released partially during the stroke if the stroke does not accelerate
> fast enough. This is because the loading force created by the slower
> movement of the line is decreased later in the haul because the haul
> also accelerates the line. If this is true - that is, if part of the
> tension is released - then we have a tailing loop.
>
> The way the fast rod and the medium slow rod differ is that the fast
> rod is stiffer. So in the case of the fast rod, the force created by
> the added tension would tend to outweigh the force created by the
> accelerating casting stroke and the and continuing haul. This would
> then lead to partial release of the added tension during the stroke.
>
> That's the theory, in all its ugliness. I'm very interested to hear
> other opinions on this issue.
>
> --
> Jarmo Hurri
>
> Spam countermeasures included. Use as email
> address or apply rot13 to header email address.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 10/1/2003

[Jarmo Hurri]

Greg> I don't know what to say. I believe that a while ago someone
Greg> did some actual deflection tests to try to pin down exactly
Greg> what goes on during a cast and put up a description about it on
Greg> the web. I looked for it so that I could pass the url on to
Greg> you but I couldn't find it, so maybe I made it up after all :-)

You might mean this page:

http://space.mit.edu/%7Ekommers/fly.html

What would be really, really neat is a fly-casting simulation program,
which would produce a video as a result. I have no idea of how
realistic the idea is, but I'd like to see what a bright physics
student could do in his master's, for example.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Use as email
address or apply rot13 to header email address.

[Scott Seidman]

Jarmo Hurri > wrote in :

>
> Greg> I don't know what to say. I believe that a while ago someone
> Greg> did some actual deflection tests to try to pin down exactly
> Greg> what goes on during a cast and put up a description about it on
> Greg> the web. I looked for it so that I could pass the url on to
> Greg> you but I couldn't find it, so maybe I made it up after all :-)
>
> You might mean this page:
>
> http://space.mit.edu/%7Ekommers/fly.html
>
> What would be really, really neat is a fly-casting simulation program,
> which would produce a video as a result. I have no idea of how
> realistic the idea is, but I'd like to see what a bright physics
> student could do in his master's, for example.
>

http://space.mit.edu/~kommers/fly.html