Short Rods

I've been hearing about some advantages to short rods, and I'm
wondering if anyone has experience with 6 to 7 foot rods rated for 8 to
10 wt lines. I'm thinking about fishing from a boat for pike, bass,
snook, and the like. The flies will mostly be large, and the retrieve
will often be fast, and will seldom involve any kind of mending.

I'm considering buying a 4 piece blank and using the top three pieces
to build the short rod. What weight 9 foot rod would become an 8 wt 7
foot 3 piece rod? How would I go about calculating that sort of thing?

Anybody know a manufacturer that makes short strong rods?

Thanks in advance,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Chas Wade" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dYZlc.24025$Ia6.3598054@attbi_s03...
SNIP
I'm considering buying a 4 piece blank and using the top three pieces
to build the short rod. What weight 9 foot rod would become an 8 wt 7
foot 3 piece rod? How would I go about calculating that sort of thing?

SNIP

If you want an #8 wt rod, you must buy an #8 wt rod, shortening a rod from
the butt end will not change its rating. Shortening it from the tip end will
do so, but there is no way of knowing by how much, except trial and error.
This is not advisable.

If you want a short #8 wt rod, then buy a nine foot #8 wt, and shorten the
butt. Actually, I can see little point in this. A nine foot rod is
generally more advantageous than a shorter rod.

TL
MC

"Mike Connor" wrote:

If you want an #8 wt rod, you must buy an #8 wt rod, shortening a rod
from
the butt end will not change its rating.

You're quick with this answer, and I suspect it's based on experience,
but it seems a bit counter intuitive to me. I can see that only
shortening a little would make little difference, but I wonder how
losing the strongest fourth of a rod would leave it's rating unchanged.
I also think it would make quite a difference if the rod was fast
action or slow action.

Do you have any links to sites that explain how to calculate the rating
for a rod? I'm expecting there should be some formula based on the
static flex caused by a standard weight for a given length.

Shortening it from the tip end will
do so, but there is no way of knowing by how much, except trial and
error.
This is not advisable.

I'm with you there. We have an 8wt Sage RPLX rod that lost about a
foot off the end. It casts a 10wt fairly well, and my son Andy uses
that tip when casting a float and a couple heavy split shots for
steelhead with his 8wt line.


If you want a short #8 wt rod, then buy a nine foot #8 wt, and shorten
the
butt. Actually, I can see little point in this. A nine foot rod is
generally more advantageous than a shorter rod.

Let me ask for a bit more of your experience here if I may. If the 9
foot rod is "generally" more advantageous, when do you think it might
not be advantageous?

Thanks for your help,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

Greg Pavlov wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2004 06:27:41 GMT, Chas Wade
wrote:


Let me ask for a bit more of your experience here if I may. If the 9
foot rod is "generally" more advantageous, when do you think it might
not be advantageous?


Hey, Charles, I'll be happy to send you a 9 pc 9 ft
to play around with, if you can get it back to me
by early June.


That's an interesting offer Greg. I'm trying to imagine a collection
of ferules with little chunks of rod between. On the one hand it
sounds silly, but on the other hand, having 8 ferules spreads the
weight evenly through the rod, and might feel more like a one piece
rod. It sure would be fun to cast such a rod. I wouldn't trust myself
to get it back quick enough, but who made the rod? Maybe I can find
one locally to try.

If you're in Washington or Oregon, maybe I could drop in to try it?

Thanks,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Chas Wade" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xP%lc.25508$TD4.3716090@attbi_s01...
"Mike Connor" wrote:

If you want an #8 wt rod, you must buy an #8 wt rod, shortening a rod
from
the butt end will not change its rating.

You're quick with this answer, and I suspect it's based on experience,
but it seems a bit counter intuitive to me. I can see that only
shortening a little would make little difference, but I wonder how
losing the strongest fourth of a rod would leave it's rating unchanged.
I also think it would make quite a difference if the rod was fast
action or slow action.

Do you have any links to sites that explain how to calculate the rating
for a rod? I'm expecting there should be some formula based on the
static flex caused by a standard weight for a given length.

Shortening it from the tip end will
do so, but there is no way of knowing by how much, except trial and
error.
This is not advisable.

I'm with you there. We have an 8wt Sage RPLX rod that lost about a
foot off the end. It casts a 10wt fairly well, and my son Andy uses
that tip when casting a float and a couple heavy split shots for
steelhead with his 8wt line.


If you want a short #8 wt rod, then buy a nine foot #8 wt, and shorten
the
butt. Actually, I can see little point in this. A nine foot rod is
generally more advantageous than a shorter rod.

Let me ask for a bit more of your experience here if I may. If the 9
foot rod is "generally" more advantageous, when do you think it might
not be advantageous?

Thanks for your help,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html



If you want it for boat fishing, then you will generally be casting from a
sitting position. The shorter the rod, the more difficult this is. Also,
when boating a fish, a longer rod has considerable advantages. Many people I
know use rods of 10 ft and longer from a boat, for this precise reason.

The butt of a fly rod, especially an #8 weight, is rarely used to cast under
normal circumstances. At its stated rating, such a rod will never be
loaded very deeply by a normal caster.

Most rods ( excepting extremely soft ones), will not change ratings much at
all below the top third of the rod. It is easy to try this, just cast with
the top three sections, or even just the top two. Apart from the length, you
will not notice any difference.

Rod ratings are done by testers etc, who cast the rods and then pronounce
the rating quite subjectively. There is no "standard" way to calculate the
rating of a rod.

This system "Common Cents" ( You will find more info if you do a search)
is pretty good;

QUOTE

Measure the total length of the assembled rod or blank to be tested.

Set up the rod or blank so that the first 12" is EXACTLY horizontal.
{1}

Fix a short pointer at the tip pointing back along the rod/blank and on
your
side of it (about 4" uncooked spaghetti is good)

Attach a small plastic bag by a paperclip to the tip.

Then add weights {2} (cents) until the tip has deflected (drooped) a
vertical distance -( MEASURED FROM THE HORIZONTAL {1} )
- equal to one third of the rod/blank total length.

Whilst in this position check the Action Angle against a protractor.
THE
PROTRACTOR BASE LINE MUST BE HORIZONTAL.

NOTES

{1} The best way ti do this is to draw a horizontal line on a wall and
then
fix a 12" shelf to that line.
Put the butt on the shelf and gently clamp it.

Measure the deflection (droop) from the line.

{2} The system was designed so that the std weight is a US 1 cent coin.
I use a set of accurate gram weights ex, a chemical pan balance. The
conversions are as follows:

38.61 grains per. penny X .0648 grams per. grain = 2.5019 grams per.
penny
(work to 4 places)
Or you can say grams X 15.4324 = Grains

EASIEST IS TO DIVIDE GRAMS BY 2.5019 = CENTS (but you must work to
at
least four decimal places)

So that's your data, now -

For line weights up to #8 (less than 62 cents - 155.12 Grams) use the
equation :-

( No. of Cents divided by 6.55) minus 1.2 = ERN ( The actual Line
Wt. )
.....................................

For line weights #8 and over (more than 62 cents - 155.12 Grams) use
the
equation :-
(3.33 x number of cents) - 10 = No. of grains (compare with AFTMA
tables
for line weight)
....................................

If you look in the photo section of RodBuilding.org , you will find the
latest table (The Rosetta Stone). I have asked Tom K. to prepare a
better
version of this which will work from whole cents and give fractional
line
weights. (This will be published soon.)

Remember that a perfect line weight will be on the .5 mark
i.e. A perfect #7 would measure ERN = 7.5 and a perfect #3 would
have
ERN = 3.5 etc.

Also in the photo's you can find a copy of a protractor (use the two
degree
division one)


Action Angle.

Less than 59* = Slow
59* - 66* = Medium (moderate) action
Above 66 = Fast

So that's it. It takes a few minutes to measure a rod or blank and you
get
an accurate figure for the line wt. and good idea of the action.

UNQUOTE

I don´t know the original author. The text was sent to me a fair while ago,
without attributions.

TL
MC


TL
MC

You can find all the relevant data here;
http://www.rodbuilding.org/search.ph...0&fldsubject=1

TL
MC

"Mike Connor" wrote:

Thanks for that Mike, I'll play with the rods I have and use this to
learn from. The boat fishing I'm thinking of is all standing in a
stable boat, either a flats boat in Florida, or a similar boat up north
when I fish for Pike. The long rod I used to have, a 10 foot rod, was
a bit harder to deal wiuth without over bending the rod while landing
the fish. I was thinking the shorter rod would be easier at that
point. You've got me rethinking that part too.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Mike Connor" wrote:
You can find all the relevant data here;
http://www.rodbuilding.org/search.ph...0&fldsubject=1

A nice collection of info here, thanks for your help.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

On Wed, 05 May 2004 04:20:25 GMT, Chas Wade
wrote:

Anybody know a manufacturer that makes short strong rods?

Scott used to make 8'8" HeliPly rods for sal****er. I have an 8wt and
really like it. Here's some ad copy describing them:
http://www.avidangler.com/Goods/Rods...liply_rods.htm
--
Charlie...

"Chas Wade" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:QM1mc.34854$0H1.2945862@attbi_s54...
SNIP
The long rod I used to have, a 10 foot rod, was
a bit harder to deal wiuth without over bending the rod while landing
the fish. I was thinking the shorter rod would be easier at that
point. You've got me rethinking that part too.

Chas

If you are standing, then the rod length is not a problem as far as casting
goes, but it is then even more advantageous to have a longer rod for boating
the fish.

Mind you, in such a case, I would not normally go over 9´6" as longer rods
are much harder to wield. ( its not the weight, but the leverage!). Indeed,
I would normally stick with a nine footer.

The shorter the rod, the more problems you get with "over bending" etc,
although this is not at all obvious until you actually try it. I have seen
people with short rods having to lie down on the boat to land a fish. Also
the shorter the rod, the shorter the line to the fish in the final stages.
Pike especially will often lunge away, or under the boat with a final surge.
With a short rod you have no chance!

At one time I tried short ( bait tackle) rods for boat fishing for pike,
thinking mainly that it would be an advantage for various reasons. I gave
up very quickly indeed! But not before I lost a few fish!

What I would definitely advise, whatever else you do, is a long handled and
generously sized landing net!

TL
MC