Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

steve sullivan wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Mike Connor) wrote:

( Wolgang was right by the way, it does not matter much which reel you
use).

Are you sure about that? Really Really sure? I was sold a sth im c2
6-8 weight for stealhead and salmon fishing on the feather. A salmon
took my glo bug, and went for a run. The cassette came off and fell
into the water. I lost the fish, had to wait till all the line was out
so I could pull up the cassette from the bottom of the river.

It seems that when you are fishing for the salmon some 8 weight reels
will hold up like a champ (even my 5 weight hardy lrc lightweight help
up like a champ) while some bigger reels will just literally fall apart/

The quality, or suitability of any given reel for any specific
purpose, is not at issue here. The weight of the reel, although it
may have some bearing on the quality, ( more robust, therefore
heavier, for instance), is for most intents and purposes, and within
"normal" limits, completely irrelevant.

If you wish, you may fish a "#8" reel on a "#4" rod. The numbers are
basically meaningless.

TL
MC

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

Mike Connor wrote:

All these numbers just confuse people anyway.

Unlike the various bits of advise offered on ROFF. g

Dan, a lot of what has been written is true and good. But for your
particular case (as I understand it, a JLH Golden #7 that you'd like to
fish on a five wt rod), whether "balance" is or isn't important is
largely moot, which is what Bill Kiene was getting at. Consider this:

If you fish the JLH on your seven weight rod, using a weight-forward
seven weight line, you can put more or less 160 yards of backing on the
reel--about right for the kinds of fish you might most likely fish for
with a seven weight. If you replace the WF7 line with a double taper 5
(many people, including myself, fish WFs in heavier line weights and DTs
in lighter weights), you will still have a good "fit" to the reel, i.e.,
not "too much" space between the outer wraps of the line and the edge of
the reel spool. Even this consideration, though, is largely unimportant
in practice. More importantly, in terms of weight, the JLH 7 weighs (at
3 7/8 oz) LESS than many top-of-the-line modern "5 wt" reels considered
the bee's knees by those who get off on such stuff. Heck, it weighs
considerably less than the Abel "Super 2" reel (at 4.4 oz)! So relax.
You can easily fish your JLH 7 on a 7 weight rod, a 5 weight rod, and
(eventually) a 3 wt rod, and be way ahead of the game.

Good lookin' reel, too.

JR
(BTW, if you want simply to switch 7 and 5 weight lines, rather than
buying a second reel spool, put a small loop-to-loop connector on the
backing end of the fly line and a big (7-9 inch) loop in the end of your
backing). This will allow you to attach the loops with the line you're
putting on still in a coil or on a storage spool. Doesn't make all that
much difference if you're making the switch in your living room, but if
you switch rods (and reels) in the field, it's much easier.

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

"JR" wrote in message
...
Mike Connor wrote:

All these numbers just confuse people anyway.

Unlike the various bits of advise offered on ROFF. g

Dan, a lot of what has been written is true and good. But for your
particular case (as I understand it, a JLH Golden #7 that you'd like
to
fish on a five wt rod), whether "balance" is or isn't important is
largely moot, which is what Bill Kiene was getting at. Consider
this:

If you fish the JLH on your seven weight rod, using a weight-forward
seven weight line, you can put more or less 160 yards of backing on
the
reel--about right for the kinds of fish you might most likely fish
for
with a seven weight. If you replace the WF7 line with a double
taper 5
(many people, including myself, fish WFs in heavier line weights and
DTs
in lighter weights), you will still have a good "fit" to the reel,
i.e.,
not "too much" space between the outer wraps of the line and the
edge of
the reel spool. Even this consideration, though, is largely
unimportant
in practice. More importantly, in terms of weight, the JLH 7 weighs
(at
3 7/8 oz) LESS than many top-of-the-line modern "5 wt" reels
considered
the bee's knees by those who get off on such stuff. Heck, it weighs
considerably less than the Abel "Super 2" reel (at 4.4 oz)! So
relax.
You can easily fish your JLH 7 on a 7 weight rod, a 5 weight rod,
and
(eventually) a 3 wt rod, and be way ahead of the game.

Good lookin' reel, too.

JR
(BTW, if you want simply to switch 7 and 5 weight lines, rather than
buying a second reel spool, put a small loop-to-loop connector on
the
backing end of the fly line and a big (7-9 inch) loop in the end of
your
backing). This will allow you to attach the loops with the line
you're
putting on still in a coil or on a storage spool. Doesn't make all
that
much difference if you're making the switch in your living room, but
if
you switch rods (and reels) in the field, it's much easier.

Well, there!......THAT simplifies matters considerably.

Wolfgang

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

JR wrote:

...... Doesn't make all that
much difference if you're making the switch in your living room, but if
you switch rods (and reels) in the field, it's much easier.

Dan, that last bit should read (perhaps obviously) "....but if you switch
rods (and lines) in the field, it's much easier."

JR
--often confused

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

Mike Connor wrote:


Most problems with reels, at least in regard to the perceived weight,
arise because they are incorrectly attached to the rod, and thus
farther away from the rod hand than they should be.

This struck home to me when I replaced the handle and an uplocking reel
seat on a rod with a new handle and a down locking reel seat. The rod
just didn't feel "right" after this. I reshaped the new grip so it was
the same as the old one. This helped a little but it just didn't feel
the way it should. Well, recently I drove off with this rod laying on
the roof of my truck resulting in a lost rod. So I built another one on
the same blank, this time with an up locking seat. Much more comfortable.



In the majority of cases, the lightest reel suitable for the task at
hand is the best choice.

At least for a trout outfit, I agree.

Willi

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:45:05 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:56:07 -0500, Peter Charles
wrote:


Here's a thought experiment for the both of you. Gather a group of
anglers with varying degrees of experience and ask them to participate
in a blindfold test of five 9' - 4 wt. rods of different brands. All
rods will be cast with 30' of the same line. However, we actually
give them the same rod and line only equipped with reels of different
weights and sizes. Do you think that would be sufficient difference
to make at least some of them believe they are actually casting
different rods? I do.


I see your point, but given the substantial weight differences
among reels marketed for the same wt lines, it's just as easy
to find a 4 wt and a 6 wt reel that are close in actual weight
as you are to find two 4 wt reels that do so. What may be a
bigger weight factor in many cases is the amount of
backing that each reel will hold.


Ya, I'm just throwing this stuff around as there were a few absolute
statements floating about in this thread on balance and such, that are
simply not true once you push the envelope a bit and try to use
mismatched rods and reels. So everyone has a tipping point where the
mismatch goes from "it doesn't matter" to "it matters". Get a bunch
of anglers together, such as we have on this thread, and the tipping
point varies from person to person. That ain't exactly helpful to the
one posing the question, especially when the answers are couched in
absolute terms. The responders, of course, are excluding obvious bad
mismatches when they present their absolute responses. Unfortunately,
this exclusion and their tipping point isn't exactly evident to the
neophyte, nor their rational for the comment. I understand that their
comment isn't meant to be absolute, so do you and the rest of the
regulars, but will the newcomer asking the question realize this?

As a JLH owner, I know this reel is very light and from a weight
perspective, a #7 could be used on rods as low as a 3 wt. before the
weight became an issue. However, there is the matter of the amount of
backing needed to fill it when using smaller diameter lines and the
esthetics of using a big reel on a small rod (if that is important to
our newcomer - we haven't ascertained this).

By throwing out an obviously extreme example, I hoped it would
generate some useful explanations for the prior absolute comments --
it apparently has.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...


Ya, I'm just throwing this stuff around as there were a few absolute
statements floating about in this thread on balance and such, that are
simply not true once you push the envelope a bit and try to use
mismatched rods and reels. So everyone has a tipping point where the
mismatch goes from "it doesn't matter" to "it matters". Get a bunch
of anglers together, such as we have on this thread, and the tipping
point varies from person to person. That ain't exactly helpful to the
one posing the question, especially when the answers are couched in
absolute terms. The responders, of course, are excluding obvious bad
mismatches when they present their absolute responses. Unfortunately,
this exclusion and their tipping point isn't exactly evident to the
neophyte, nor their rational for the comment. I understand that their
comment isn't meant to be absolute, so do you and the rest of the
regulars, but will the newcomer asking the question realize this?

As a JLH owner, I know this reel is very light and from a weight
perspective, a #7 could be used on rods as low as a 3 wt. before the
weight became an issue. However, there is the matter of the amount of
backing needed to fill it when using smaller diameter lines and the
esthetics of using a big reel on a small rod (if that is important to
our newcomer - we haven't ascertained this).

By throwing out an obviously extreme example, I hoped it would
generate some useful explanations for the prior absolute comments --
it apparently has.

I count five uses of the word "absolute" in the above. I just went back and
reviewed the entire thread....or at least such as appears on my server at
the time I write this, 4:25 CST, excluding the above quoted material, and
found these absolute statements:

"Simple answer to a simple question -- it'll be suitable for a 9' - 6
wt. no problem"
"Damn, I blew it again."

"...this combination would have at least
doubled your net worth -- which, of course, would result in an
automatic and emphatic "Yes" from your quarter."

...."but then you
knew that already and was jus pulling my leg."

If you can point me to some others, I'd appreciate it.

Wolfgang

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
Don't know who Babel is......little help?

Wolfgang

He built a very famous tower.

HTH

Op

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:02 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


Wolfgang
the sun is settin' like molasses in the sky.


You haven't been reading Babel lately, have you ?
Not that he ever mentioned molasses.

Nah, just finished a book about mosquitoes a couple of days ago and am
currently plodding through one inspired by the travels of John Mandeville.
Don't know who Babel is......little help?

Wolfgang

Matching reel and line/rod weights. What can one get away with?
 

"Guyz-N-Flyz" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
Don't know who Babel is......little help?

Wolfgang

He built a very famous tower.

HTH

Op

Ah, THAT Babel......the architect. Tried to read one of his works
once......couldn't understand a word of it.

Wolfgang
sure, put 'em on campus for a couple of days and right away they go all
****in' classical on ya. :(