Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A lighter outfit


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Steve Walker

Steve Walker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wiltshire
  • Interests:Coarse, game and sea angling. Cars, gardening, cooking, lousy guitar playing. Stuff.

Posted 25 March 2009 - 06:04 PM

Anderoo has very kindly offered to show me some small stream fishing for brownies. I'm really looking forward to this, but I think my current 9'6 #6/7 Wychwood Trueflex is going to be too heavy and cumbersome. Anderoo uses a 6'6 #2 outfit, which sounds lovely, but I think I need something a little bit more versatile to complement my heavier rod.

I've had a mooch online, and found these, from #2/3 to #3/4:


Greys GRXi						7'  #2/3 (3 pieces) 79-99

Lefty Kreh Series One / Signature 7'6 #3   (2 pieces) 73.35

Wychwood Truefly				  7'  #3/4 (3 pieces) 54-00

Greys GRXi						7'6 #3/4 (3 pieces) 79-99

Airflo Streamtec				  7'6 #3/4 (4 pieces) 58.71 

Airflo Streamtec XT			   7'6 #3/4 (4 pieces) 88-08
A four piece rod has suitcase appeal. A more delicate #2/3 or #3 appeals, but perhaps a #3/4 will better fill the gap to the #6/7 and prove more useful elsewhere? The GRXi gets good reviews. The Wychwood and the Streamtec are cheaper.

Any general thoughts on this, specific experiences of those rods, recommended alternatives?

#2 Alan Roe

Alan Roe

    Moderator

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Englishman by Birth Lancastrian by the Grace of God
  • Interests:Angling photography cooking good wine preferably red

Posted 25 March 2009 - 06:34 PM

The sonic 3/4 weight rods are superb the SK3 has the mellower action the SK4 series are superb dry fly rods with very fast tips but are not for the inexperienced.I use an SK4 3/4 weight rod for most of my river fishing and it is a very rewarding tool Highly recommended both rods are less than 100 absolutely top value
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end"
Cheers
Alan

#3 Steve Walker

Steve Walker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wiltshire
  • Interests:Coarse, game and sea angling. Cars, gardening, cooking, lousy guitar playing. Stuff.

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:24 PM

Sounds good, and the SK3 is currently only 65 directly from Sonik, too. SK4 is 99, though it sounds as if I'd be better with the cheaper rod. Shortest they do is 8', though, I was thinking more 7' or 7'6. Possibly a better general purpose rod, but further away from the ideal for little streams?

#4 Alan Roe

Alan Roe

    Moderator

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Englishman by Birth Lancastrian by the Grace of God
  • Interests:Angling photography cooking good wine preferably red

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:52 PM

If the stream is that small you could always do what I do and just use the top two sections and put the reel in your pocket.
However that would have to be one very small stream. I fish the upper reaches of the Aire and it gets very small up there and have no problem with an 8'rod.
If you ar really looking for very small rods consider something in split cane as in very short lengths it is often superior in use. The top length for cane in my opinion is between 6' and 7 1/2' feet long above that carbon takes over.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end"
Cheers
Alan

#5 OwdTrout

OwdTrout

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Back breathing the free air of Lancashire
  • Interests:My first love is wild trout in small wild streams. Though I will fish any river I can.<br />I can tie a fly, just about, and have a bit of a grasp of how the process works.

Posted 25 March 2009 - 08:29 PM

Here's a thought for you.

On small streams your average cast is much shorter than normal. Probably less in feet than your average cast on a still water is in yards. AFTMA ratings are based on a 10 yard cast. So if you are going to be casting less than 10 yards you are under lining your rod. Stress builds up a lot in modern highly tuned carbon rods. This is not helped by a lot of fancy roll casting, snake rolls etc. Torsion (twisting force) is the load a tube copes with worst of all.

Now you have been fishing with your shiny new 7' 3 wt carbon rod all morning. In order to make the shorter casts needed you have put a 5 wt line on it. Or you have built up more stress by using a 3 weight and forcing the rod to bend with insufficient load on it. As you make your way upstream the river opens out into a good size pool. Over by the riffle towards the head of the pool a good fish rises. You unhook your dry fly from the keeper ring open your shoulders and start to false cast. Its a fair way so you put a double haul in, and shoot the line. Not enough, so you make one more false cast. What happens next?

There is a sickening noise and your rod has an extra section to it. One without a joint, where it shouldn't be!

The solution is to choose a rod that can cope with the shorter casts yet can make the longer casts as well. Without needing to use a heavier line. Carbon isn't good for shorter rods. This is where cane rods come into their own. They are not tubes; unless you spend very silly money on a Winston (the price usually has a "K" suffix). Therefore, can cope very well with roll casts of all kinds. They have weight of their own, so do not need the weight of the line to flex against. Also as an added bonus they "kill" fish faster (that's a very old fashioned term for playing fish). A shorter fight usually means that the fish can be returned with a higher chance of survival.

Above all else though they are simply so much more pleasurable to fish with. My carbon rods are just plastic tubes. Precision tools to do a job. My cane rod has soul. It's more like an old fishing friend than a tool.

My recommendation would be to go for a modern cane rod in about 3 or 4 weight, not longer than 7'. Stephen Woolly in Ashborne produces some excellent ones. At less money than you might think. Go on treat yourself.

Cheers,

OT

P.S. Good fly rods are made from Tonkin bamboo. Palacona has its uses, its best in the greenhouse for supporting tomatoes!
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious"

#6 Worms

Worms

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herefordshire
  • Interests:Coarse sea and game angling, mainly with vintage tackle, wildlife, especially otters, Vintage motorcycles, eating wild caught fish......the list goes on

Posted 25 March 2009 - 08:58 PM

The solution is to choose a rod that can cope with the shorter casts yet can make the longer casts as well. Without needing to use a heavier line. Carbon isn't good for shorter rods. This is where cane rods come into their own. They are not tubes; unless you spend very silly money on a Winston (the price usually has a "K" suffix). Therefore, can cope very well with roll casts of all kinds. They have weight of their own, so do not need the weight of the line to flex against. Also as an added bonus they "kill" fish faster (that's a very old fashioned term for playing fish). A shorter fight usually means that the fish can be returned with a higher chance of survival.

Above all else though they are simply so much more pleasurable to fish with. My carbon rods are just plastic tubes. Precision tools to do a job. My cane rod has soul. It's more like an old fishing friend than a tool.


Spot on, well put.

This is three posts in a row advocating a cane rod for modern day fly fishing. Either there are a lot of sad fools on here or some of us have got it right :)

Personally I couldn't live without my Ogden Smiths Royal Sovereigns and Warrior used with a silk line of course. I strongly urge you to get a cane rod you will never regret it and you will start to wear an odd little smile, going to, whilst there and returning from your fishing trips B)
Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

#7 Tony U

Tony U

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,994 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amble, Northumberland
  • Interests:Fishing, fishing and more fishing and oh yes Morris Dancing

Posted 25 March 2009 - 09:16 PM

After trying a number of cane rods, I am still to be convinced and believe that they are only useful for tying up runner beans; what about these from Hardy's: http://fly.hardyfish...ods/glass-rods/

Edited by Tony U, 25 March 2009 - 09:20 PM.

Tony

After a certain age, if you don't wake up aching in every joint, you are probably dead.


#8 Alan Roe

Alan Roe

    Moderator

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Englishman by Birth Lancastrian by the Grace of God
  • Interests:Angling photography cooking good wine preferably red

Posted 25 March 2009 - 09:30 PM

Essentially glass has the same issues as carbon as it is a tube. I still have a 6' glass fly rod but my cane out performs it for small stream work. I don't use cane out of sentiment I use it for this purpose as it is the best tool for this specific task. For anything larger I would advocate carbon.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end"
Cheers
Alan

#9 Anderoo

Anderoo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford

Posted 25 March 2009 - 10:04 PM

Steve, 8ft will be just fine, as will carbon :) My tiddly little rod is great fun (it's an Orvis Superfine somethingorother, apparently has a 'full flex' action which mimics cane, bought for half price from the Orvis shop in Burford), but I still use my cheapy 8ft Daiwa #4 outfit when the wind gets up or for fishing weighted nymphs.

I'd say anything between 6' 6" - 8' is ideal, and #2 - #4. A 7' 6" or 8' rod will be more versatile when it comes to other venues - I use my 8' rod for small stillwaters, for example.

It's a nice problem to have though, isn't it?
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

#10 Steve Walker

Steve Walker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wiltshire
  • Interests:Coarse, game and sea angling. Cars, gardening, cooking, lousy guitar playing. Stuff.

Posted 25 March 2009 - 10:09 PM

Crikey, I should have know better than to google that, nearly gave me a bloody heart attack; all a bit too rich for my budget - even the cheap ones (and even those Hardy fibreglass ones). I was thinking 50-100 quid, not 250-1000! I've fancied a nice modern cane rod for some time, but if I were going to splash out on one I fear it would have to be an Avon, not a fly rod, just for the amount of use it would get.

My thought process was simply that my 9'6 #6/7 is really too long and heavy for this kind of thing. Anderoo has a 6'6 #2 Orvis Superfine, which sounds like tremendous fun, but is really too limited in application to justify for a man with only two fly rods, one of which turns out to be a bit on the heavy side for a most of the fishing round here. Now, Anderoo says that he used to use an 8' #4 (and still does when conditions aren't right for his little rod), and my fear is that if I take that route I too will find myself wanting a dedicated little brook rod.

What I'm trying to do is to pick something which in conjunction with my heavier rod will cover as wide a range of conditions as possible, while being sufficiently biased towards the lighter and shorter end of things to stave off the desire to buy something really delicate. Could well be that the 8' SK3 #3/4 is that (reasonably priced!) compromise.