Beachcaster Question

[Elton]

Posted on behalf of Bill. Please add all replies to this thread:

 

Anybody ever heard of a beachcaster that has NO rings on the Butt section , but only on the top one?

 

Bought a longbeam from a guy on Ebay who assures me that the fixed spool version does NOT have any rings below the top/butt joint ????

 

Dunno, but seem to smell something here !"!"!

 

Bill

[Norm B]

Posted on behalf of Bill. Please add all replies to this thread:

I think I have a couple that don't have a ring on the butt, some have 1 ring, others none, It's not really necessary to have a ring on the butt section.

[squibs]

Bill

I have a longbeam and the multiplier version hasn't any rings along the butt section I think that this is as it should be. All the fixed spool rods that I've got have one large ring on it and they are normally the folding type. This I believe is to check the line as it splays out under centrifugal force and therefore stopping tangles.

Hope this helps.

Tight lines.

squibs

[chesters1]

its fine

[glennk]

No, never heard of one of them. I remember a beachcaster with no eyes at all. The Daiwa interline. It was a nice rod, but difficult to use on piers etc. My mate had one and lost it in the drink 3 times before he lost it for good. The lack of eyes meant there was nothing to stop the rough seas dragging it into the water.

[Hooker]

My Daiwa Sandstorm's rings are all on the top half. Works fine..

[the outlaw]

Yep I have an old Moonraker with eyes on the top section only, usually for a small multiplyer.

 

Tony

[five bellies]

The rod will be built in a way that is symaphetic to the blank, (theorehticaly at least ) so if that is how it is designed so be it, a lot of rods put together for fixed spool rod are as Squibs described,

[Steve Walker]

My Daiwa Supercast is the same.

[Andy Macfarlane]

I'm sure my Shakespeare is the same also. I know it's not unusual.