BASS BARN banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anyone fished the 9'6" rods or longer---even a sprey rod? If so, what are your thoughts, does the extra length have any benefit besides having one bigger than your buddies? ;)

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
I'm definately in the neonate stages of flyrodding, but what I noticed is that I wish I had a 10 footer for when I am wading and have high dunes or high grass close at my back. It helps to be able to get your backcast higher than the structure behind you. ;) I fish a 9/9 so I couldn't tell you the "real" advantages of a longer rod - sometimes I just wish mine was bigger!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,203 Posts
Exactly as Matt said..The extra foot is helpfull in that situation. Jettys and brteaking surf pose similar problems.
They are a bit tougher on the arm to cast all day due to increased wind resistance and a bit more weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I agree with bassvamp, and I think that's the major advantage. I switched to a 10' temple fork about a year ago, and have no complaints. (Thanks to Frank!) I find it easier but only a little more tiring to cast. That's probably because it was a big step up in quality from my old entry level rod which had action like a wet noodle. I've also heard that the longer rod helps the caster deal with wind a little better. If you think about it that extra foot should give you a little more line speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,273 Posts
I like my 10'6 St Croix better than the rest of the rods I own. I totally agree what is mentioned above - the foot and a half makes a difference in the surf, kayaking, even wading.

This past weekend I had a guided trip up in Cape Cod wade flats fishing. The guide gave my brother (hadn't casted a rod in a long time) a 14' Orvis Spey. Within 5 mins he was casting (on the backcast) around 80 or 90 ft in 25mph winds! I am not sheetin ya.

I stuck with my 10'6 most of the day and was casting well. The last hour I used a 12' Orvis 2 hander and after a bout a 5 min learning curve I was launching the line.

Yes - I am gonna pick up a 2 hander - probably a 14 footer. I NOW believe the hype.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
I have a 10' 9wt that works great with a heavy sinking line (only because it's a slow action rod).

Think about physics (ahhhhhh, bad high school memories!!!):
A longer rod means a longer arc with which you are propelling the line. The larger the arc, the farther you are able to force the line into moving forward. That is why casting far with a 2-handed 16' spey rod is easier than a 9' single-handed rod, though a little heavier.

Here are a few numbers to completely scare everyone :D !!:
With a 9-ft rod (taking your body out of the equation), if you were to swing the rod in a cast of 360 degrees, the length of the circumference of the circle the rod tip travels would be approximately
(9x2x3.1415926...)= 56.54ft.

With a 16-ft rod, the rod tip would travel (16x2x3.1415926)= 100.53ft.

But, we don't cast in circles (unless you want to look like me and be an idiot out there
), so we have to divide that number by about 4 (as a typical cast moves the rod tip about 1/4 the length of the entire circumference). So, a 9ft rod propels the line at the rod tip
(56.54/4) = 14.13 ft with each cast,

while the 16ft rod propels the line at the rod tip (100.53/4) = 25.13ft with each cast.

You are getting almost twice as much force (distance) with each cast of a 16ft rod as you are with a 9ft rod. Simple math!!


For fun, let's do the difference between a Lefty's 9ft Temple Forks rod and a Bob Pop's 10.5ft St Croix rod.

Lefty's rod = 14.13ft per cast (as we found before)

Bob's rod = ((10.5x2x3.1415926)/4) = 16.49ft per cast

You would think that the 1.5ft added length of Bob's rod would equal 1.5ft of added length to the casting stroke. But, look at the numbers:

16.49ft-14.13ft = 2.3ft, not 1.5ft.

The difference between the rods in the first example is
25.13ft-14.13ft = 11ft, not 7ft.

However, the difference between the actual rod lengths and the casting arcs is not directly proportional. In a nutshell, the longer the rod, the more proportional casting arc you will get. Each added foot of length to the rod will give you more than one foot of arc to the cast, and that "more than one foot" variable increases with each increase in the rod length, if that makes any sense at all. So, in theory, we should all be casting 100ft rods (if they could make them light enough)
.

Pretty cool whacky stuff!

[ 06-02-2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Fly Ty R ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Dave,
Take it a couple of steps further, think moment arms, forces, etc.(Engineering mechanics: Statics & Dynamics blah, blah, blah) and because the rod is not a ridgid member (nice) it's action or change of action brought on by the additional length will also have an impact on line speed, distance, etc. I'm leaving a lot out but this is somehow related to fishing right?
I guess size does really matter.
Rocco
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
Rocco,
Oh, I didn't want to scare everyone away! I could have went A LOT further. I really simplified everything. I left out actual force equations, rod loading, wind dynamics, loop control, rod actions, etc... Do you REALLY want me to start referring to the other 90% of my brain that I never use??


BTW, you are going to grow up to be a dirty old man
.

[ 06-02-2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Fly Ty R ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,858 Posts
Dave and Paul, What you don't know can,t hurt you, you are taking the fun out of it. Keep it simple Cast the line, strip the fly, reel in the fish. That's all you need to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Originally posted by Fly Ty R:
I have a 10' 9wt that works great with a heavy sinking line (only because it's a slow action rod).

Think about physics (ahhhhhh, bad high school memories!!!):
A longer rod means a longer arc with which you are propelling the line. The larger the arc, the farther you are able to force the line into moving forward. That is why casting far with a 2-handed 16' spey rod is easier than a 9' single-handed rod, though a little heavier.

Here are a few numbers to completely scare everyone :D !!:
With a 9-ft rod (taking your body out of the equation), if you were to swing the rod in a cast of 360 degrees, the length of the circumference of the circle the rod tip travels would be approximately
(9x2x3.1415926...)= 56.54ft.

With a 16-ft rod, the rod tip would travel (16x2x3.1415926)= 100.53ft.

But, we don't cast in circles (unless you want to look like me and be an idiot out there
), so we have to divide that number by about 4 (as a typical cast moves the rod tip about 1/4 the length of the entire circumference). So, a 9ft rod propels the line at the rod tip
(56.54/4) = 14.13 ft with each cast,

while the 16ft rod propels the line at the rod tip (100.53/4) = 25.13ft with each cast.

You are getting almost twice as much force (distance) with each cast of a 16ft rod as you are with a 9ft rod. Simple math!!


For fun, let's do the difference between a Lefty's 9ft Temple Forks rod and a Bob Pop's 10.5ft St Croix rod.

Lefty's rod = 14.13ft per cast (as we found before)

Bob's rod = ((10.5x2x3.1415926)/4) = 16.49ft per cast

You would think that the 1.5ft added length of Bob's rod would equal 1.5ft of added length to the casting stroke. But, look at the numbers:

16.49ft-14.13ft = 2.3ft, not 1.5ft.

The difference between the rods in the first example is
25.13ft-14.13ft = 11ft, not 7ft.

However, the difference between the actual rod lengths and the casting arcs is not directly proportional. In a nutshell, the longer the rod, the more proportional casting arc you will get. Each added foot of length to the rod will give you more than one foot of arc to the cast, and that "more than one foot" variable increases with each increase in the rod length, if that makes any sense at all. So, in theory, we should all be casting 100ft rods (if they could make them light enough)
.

Pretty cool whacky stuff!
Or it just keeps you out of the grass! :D
Physics :rolleyes: cant we talk politics instead!

Actually I kinda enjoyed that-it actually made sense to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,649 Posts
Physics??? I SLEPT through Physics classes, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH.

Between this stuff and all the computatations about grains, kitchen scales and rigid moments to calculate the optimum shooting head, I think I'm just going to buy a boat, get some bucktail jigs and squid and start drifting for flounder (um, that's fluke up here) and trout (or are they weakies?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Great stuff, looks like a longer rod is in order, I like the Physics----now I remember why I was forced to cheat to get through it in college:)

Anyone have a 10' 6 wght for sale????

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
Check eBay
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,198 Posts
JohnnyG To answer your original question-yes. Also what Ray said. Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I stopped by the Cabella's store in PA ---- that place is HUGE ---- and got a Redington Coolwater 9'6" 6/7 Weight rod for $59.00! I have no idea if this is a good rod, but the price can't be beat and it carries the lifetime warranty.

Time will tell if the extra 6" makes me a better fisherman.

John
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,198 Posts
Johnny G. Sounds good to me. Use it well. Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
Redington makes good rods. They are owned by Orvis now, but they have always made good products. The 6/7 will be good for the backwaters.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top