![]() |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
In article , Peter Charles
wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke wrote: Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey" rods. The distinction seems daft to me. Lazarus Ahhh, well look at my first post about the three schools and the distinction is no longer daft. It's pretty hard to use shooting heads proficiently on a rod that was designed to lift and cast a long line. It can be done but it isn't half as much fun compared to using the right rod for the job. Sure. A shooting head is a shooting head. Which you can use with an overhead cast or a spey cast. And a spey cast is a spey cast. Which you can use with a shooting head (although I'd never do so) or a DT or whatever. What's one to do with the other? L -- Remover the rock from the email address |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:52:20 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote: In article , Peter Charles wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke wrote: Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey" rods. The distinction seems daft to me. Lazarus Ahhh, well look at my first post about the three schools and the distinction is no longer daft. It's pretty hard to use shooting heads proficiently on a rod that was designed to lift and cast a long line. It can be done but it isn't half as much fun compared to using the right rod for the job. Sure. A shooting head is a shooting head. Which you can use with an overhead cast or a spey cast. And a spey cast is a spey cast. Which you can use with a shooting head (although I'd never do so) or a DT or whatever. What's one to do with the other? L Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast? If you call all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty difficult to draw a distinction. You say you've never casted a shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the notion of different styles of rods and lines. Basically, long-line casting technique with DTs or long belly WF lines depends on a big D-Loop. A moderate, through action rod casts them very well. Now strap on a shooting head or a short belly WF line and try it. It'll cast, but not with the same proficiency. Try it again with what Sage calls their Euro rods (fast, tip-to-middle action) and watch them fly. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
Peter Charles wrote:
Basically, long-line casting technique with DTs or long belly WF lines depends on a big D-Loop. A moderate, through action rod casts them very well. Now strap on a shooting head or a short belly WF line and try it. It'll cast, but not with the same proficiency. Try it again with what Sage calls their Euro rods (fast, tip-to-middle action) and watch them fly. Peter, would you say Sage's 9141-4 "European" is a longer casting rod than the 9140-4 "Traditional"? Would the latter be a better (i.e., more forgiving) rod for a novice? JR |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote: In article , Lazarus Cooke wrote: I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for spey casting, or is just a gimmick? Lazarus Sorry I didn't explain well enough. I didn't say I didn't know what a spey cast is, or where it comes from. I know the Spey well ** indeed, if you want to learn about the early Spey flies you could do worse than to look at a book by a distant relative, "Autumns on the Spey". I live in Britain, where people have always used the long rod for salmon. So I have always used a fifteen rod for salmon fishing. (or most of the time. On some west country rivers I'll use a nine foot trout rod, which works very well, but for the bigger, rocky rivers in Scotland or Ireland I'll generally use a fifteen or twelve foot rod, as much to control the line in the water as for length of casting.) So, depending on the direction of the wind, the state of the bank and so on, I'll sometimes cast overhand, sometimes spey. I was taught to spey cast at the same time as I learnt to cast overhand. Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey" rods. The distinction seems daft to me. Lazarus Penny dropped. You're wondering why North Americans refer to "spey" rods when you would call it a "salmon" rod. Correct? It's just the name that's caught on over here, the rods are the same. There's always been a terminology problem over here as "two-hander" is too big a mouthful and "salmon" is pretty useless when we use them for chasing steelhead. There also basically two classes of two-handed rods which Sage has a addressed with it's "Euro" and "Traditional" models but these names haven't widely caught on. Despite these attempts, we tend to call any long fly rod with a two-handed grip a "spey" rod. As I mentioned earlier, the two classes of rods are based on shooting head vs. long line. In the UK, shooting head rods aren't that common yet so I'm not surprised that you find the distinction useless. Spend some time doing the Skagit or underhand casts with different rods and you might have a different appreciation. I spent a couple of days recently casting rods using short belly and medium belly lines as part of a group contributing to a magazine article on "spey" rods. We performed both Skagit and Spey casts with each rod, using both lines. There was an amazing difference in some rods when we switched from short to medium bellied lines. There is only 10' difference in the head so you'd think the difference would be negligible, but no, some rods were useless with the short heads and others were useless with the long ones. There were six of us casting and we were unanimous in our opinions about this. There's no doubt in my mind that some rods work well with DTs and traditional spey casting while others work much better with the short heads. We were also affected by the lack of a standardized rating system for lines and rods. None of us liked the new fast Hardy's on the short lines but loved them on the long. In retrospect, they weren't getting loaded on the short lines and we should have gone up a line weight. I think we'll see the so-called spey-action rods disappear from the market as the faster rods take over. I own a Lamiglas that was made to Mike Maxwell's "true spey rod" standards and it handles a DT very nicely. It will cast shooting heads but it isn't pleasant or efficient. The newer, faster rods seemed to do both jobs well so there doesn't seem to be a reason for maintaining a distinction. Given that Hardy has introduced two fast action cannons, the days of the slow rod have to be numbered. One of the Loomis reps in the group normally fishes with a GLX but on casting the Hardy Gem, he fell in love and said that were it not for his Loomis affiliation, he would toss his GLX for the Gem. Give it a few years Lazarus and, except for some UK diehards, we'll be back to only one type of rod. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
In article , Peter Charles
wrote: Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast? I don't know what either a Perry Poke or a Skagit cast are If you call all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty difficult to draw a distinction. I'd call casts that depend on a D-loop a roll cast (some people here also call it a switch cast). For me fundamental to a Spey cast is a change of direction. You say you've never casted a shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the notion of different styles of rods and lines. No. Just with the distinction between a rod specially made for Spey casting. Partly, I suppose, because I may well end up doing both Spey and overhead casts on the same river on the same day. I don't really want to carry two rods around for which way the wind happens to be, and how awkward the bank is behind me. Lazarus -- Remover the rock from the email address |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:44 +0100, JR wrote:
Peter Charles wrote: Basically, long-line casting technique with DTs or long belly WF lines depends on a big D-Loop. A moderate, through action rod casts them very well. Now strap on a shooting head or a short belly WF line and try it. It'll cast, but not with the same proficiency. Try it again with what Sage calls their Euro rods (fast, tip-to-middle action) and watch them fly. Peter, would you say Sage's 9141-4 "European" is a longer casting rod than the 9140-4 "Traditional"? Would the latter be a better (i.e., more forgiving) rod for a novice? JR I've only cast the 9141 -- knowing the 9140 "brownie" by reputation only. The 9141 will enable the novice to cast further than a 9140 but both rods, in the hands of a proficient caster, would cast about the same distance. "Good for the novice" is a tough call as it depends on a number of factors. Slow rods, such as the Sage brownie, require a finesse touch to cast well. Very little power needs to be applied by the caster to cast these rods well so the novice tends to overpower them. The faster rods tend to tolerate this a bit better. IMHO, a good "novice" rod would be one that provides a lot of feedback to the caster -- the caster should be able to feel the load quite easily. That said, I wouldn't buy either rod. Out of the six testers, five thought the Scott SAS 1409 to be a fantastic rod (the one exception tended to prefer slower rods) and all consider it better than the 9141. It's a fast rod, like the 9141, but unlike the 9141, it casts very lightly. It's a very powerful rod yet it's tractable over a fairly broad range of casting conditions and it wasn't too fussy about what line we used as it casted both regular and long Delta Airflo 9/10s quite well. The Scott SAS 1409 would be my top recommendation to anyone starting off with a 14' 9 wt. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:26:15 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote: In article , Peter Charles wrote: Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast? I don't know what either a Perry Poke or a Skagit cast are If you call all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty difficult to draw a distinction. I'd call casts that depend on a D-loop a roll cast (some people here also call it a switch cast). For me fundamental to a Spey cast is a change of direction. OK, a D-Loop and a change of direction. You say you've never casted a shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the notion of different styles of rods and lines. No. Just with the distinction between a rod specially made for Spey casting. Partly, I suppose, because I may well end up doing both Spey and overhead casts on the same river on the same day. I don't really want to carry two rods around for which way the wind happens to be, and how awkward the bank is behind me. Lazarus Most of the spey rods I've casted can also overhead cast very well however they can need different lines to do both jobs well. I don't think that identifying a rod as a "spey" rod precludes it's use as an overhead rod. However, a good spey casting rod usually will have characteristics not found on "overhead only" rods. I have an 8'6" single hander that is a wonderful spey caster but not so some of the other rods I own. To execute a big change of direction, especially on the single, a stout upper section is needed. A lot of the rods on the market have wimpy tips that would collapse on such a cast. I think it's really a question of optimization of the design. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:26:15 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote: In article , Peter Charles wrote: Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast? I don't know what either a Perry Poke or a Skagit cast are If you call all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty difficult to draw a distinction. I'd call casts that depend on a D-loop a roll cast (some people here also call it a switch cast). For me fundamental to a Spey cast is a change of direction. You say you've never casted a shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the notion of different styles of rods and lines. No. Just with the distinction between a rod specially made for Spey casting. Partly, I suppose, because I may well end up doing both Spey and overhead casts on the same river on the same day. I don't really want to carry two rods around for which way the wind happens to be, and how awkward the bank is behind me. Lazarus I should reiterate my earlier point that the term "spey rod" is being used over here to describe any two handed rod regardless of its intended usage. Peter turn mailhot into hotmail to reply Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html |
Is there any advantage in a spey rod?
Peter Charles wrote in
: Most of the spey rods I've casted can also overhead cast very well however they can need different lines to do both jobs well. I don't think that identifying a rod as a "spey" rod precludes it's use as an overhead rod. Hmmm ... I had one of your countrymen (a transplanted guiding type from the BC area I believe) recommend a 15' spey rod for overhead casting in the surf. Apart from the all-to-apparent "guide-speak" I was a bit dubious about the weight of the rod having tried an 11 foot single hander some time back and feeling I was buggering my arm trying to heft it. More a technique problem amplified by the length and weight of the rod than anything and I suspect fixable with time in practice. Could one be used overhead for any length of time without undue tiredness? Steve |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter