Yuku free message boards

Haven't had time to chime in on this site much since I joined, but I have been slowly reading some recent threads to get a sense of the knowledge base here. I found this thread and, against my better judgment, I am moved to respond. I apologize in advance for the "newbie" rant ahead.

I also feel that Blue Quill is spot on with his assessment of rods actions. I haven't made a rod yet, but when I do I will have very little interest in super fast actions. They are always inferior fishing tools to me. Their only sterling quality AFAIC is their ability to make faster presentations since they are, in effect, faster cycling actions. Making faster presentations means you end up with the fly spending "more time on the water more than in the air", but that is a poor fishing tactic anyway. I have always encouraged my sports to fish slower and more deliberately and the fast action rods that the industry tells them that they need only encourage a frenetic pace with no extra fish creeled. In fact, the fast tapers equate to more fish being broken off and extended fighting times for fish actually landed. Counter intuitive, yes, but the industry won't tell you this because they will have a hard time selling you that now their slow action rod is the best. Only Orvis continues with accurately described fly rod actions and provides them in several flavors.

I think that folks tend to analyze the rod in isolation, but that is not really effective since the hand, arm, shoulder, torso, hips, legs, feet and toes of the caster are the largest components of the casting system. The caster is supposed to adapt to the action of the rod, and he does so, ofter admirably, but how much better if the rod is designed to suit the ideal ergonomics of the caster instead?

We all know that in a perfect cast, the tip of the rod moves in a straight line. This is the primary reason for taper in the first place. A broom stick won't bend at all, and its tip will move in an arc during a regular casting stroke. An non-tapered thin wooden dowel will bend too far down and the the tip will dip as more power is applied and fail to turn over quickly to form a proper loop. An extremely fast taper allows the caster to load the rod deeper during the most ergonomically advantageous time of the stroke, as the shoulder and torso rotation start to dominate the power application, but this must be timed critically in order to avoid shock waves, tailing loops, etc. The plain fact is that very few casters have the ability to do this correctly, and those who can are usually distance casting champs like Steve Rajeff who practice this stuff all the time. His rods favor a tall and powerful guy like himself, who has perfected an explosive final delivery, but even he has trouble avoiding tailing loops on his backcast as can clearly be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...rBe0&feature=related


All that effort for 116 feet indoors.


True progressive actions are those that allow the rod to flex uniformly deeper as a steady force is applied. A much better option than a fast action, but it fails to take into account the changing ergodynamics as the caster progresses through his stroke. A taper whose rate of change increases slightly in the middle section allows the caster to push the rod harder during the short time he is best able to do it without causing the rod tip to dip as a result. By decreasing the rate of taper change further down from this point, the rod can now flex even further down into the stick, in effect, lengthening the casting stroke duration and therefore allowing more time for acceleration. This is the regressive action that Blue Quill speaks of, and I have found that the very rods he mentions cast farther and handle the wind better than the fast tapers like some of the higher ".000s/inch" Dickersons tapers I have tried.

My rod building buddy brought over a few 5/6 wt. rods for me to try, and included in the mix was a very fast Dickerson, a Powell and his trusty Martha Marie. He is a better distance caster than I am, particularly with cane, and he could get equal distance with all three, but it was clear that he was modifying his casting stroke to accommodate the different rods flexing profiles. When I tried them (it was a windy day and we deliberately cast into the wind) I felt an instantaneous dislike for the Dickerson (and I really was prepared to love it), fell in love with the Powell (a progressive taper) but the Martha Marie cast the farthest by a good ten feet for me. Comparing rods side by side is an essential part of a final taper evaluation IMHO. This test was very confirming for me as all three rods were made by the same makers with identical methods.

Later on, I tried to think of an analogy for what I was experiencing. The Dickerson felt very powerful, like a coiled spring, but I was unable to tap into its reserve power. The Powell felt more like a trampoline, predictably loading up and easily storing energy and releasing it in a power band that I could access during the brief casting stoke. The Martha Marie felt more like a catapult, allowing me enough time to store all the energy I could muster and releasing it in a smooth and constantly accelerating heave. For me, for big water/big wind, the Young taper was superb, but for everyday fishing, I would pick the Powell. And rather than big water, the Dickerson felt like an ideal close water rod, with a real snappy tip best suited for flicking dries under overhanging branches.


I don't see regressive actions as a "taper on a stick" because that implies that the lower portion of the rod doesn't flex. We all know that is not the case. It is the extremely thick butt sections that act like a stick with as taper at the end of it. Lefty Kreh is advocating rods that don't flex at all in the butt section, and I just don't get it. The only way to get high tip speed with a rod like that is to make it really long and to move it very fast through an extended arc. Lefty can do it to perfection, I can't. And I positively hate the way a rod like that plays a fish.

I took a guy out a few years ago who had just bought a ultra high modulus, fast action graphite rod from the shop I was guiding out of. I can clearly remember the shop owner claiming that if he bought this rod he would be able to "cast the whole line". This was, ironically, after he has just given a casting clinic were he categorically stated that you could catch any fish in the river (West Branch of the Ausable in NY) with a 20' cast. But the guy bought the stiff rod anyway. Once on the water, he let me try it and I was amazed at the tight loops I could toss with it. Some of them were so tight that it was hard to tell what was the top of the loop and what was the bottom. There wasn't room to test it for distance, but I was pretty impressed. Then the hatch came off and the guy started to hook fish after fish, but broke each one off at the hook set. I gave it a try and immediately got into a decent fish. I could tell by the stiffness of the rod that I couldn't put any wood to the fish because the big brown would have broken me off in a heartbeat. Over and over I had to let the fish run until he finally got close enough to see. He was only about 16" but the fast rod forced me to play him like a fool and I had to spend at least five minutes with his head in the current before I felt I could safely release him.

I know, this is graphite, not cane, and just about any cane rod out there is flexible enough to subdue a fish rather quickly, but the principles are the same, at least I thing they are. Fast action means a rod that primarily flexes in the tip, regardless of the material or method of construction. Many things can be done to a graphite rod to change its flexing profile, like altering wall thickness, hoop diameter, modulus, scrim, resin, etc., while with cane you can mostly just vary the taper. With the exception of hollow built rods, taper is primarily defined by the aforementioned ".000s/inch" ratio in cane rods, but some consideration must be given to the fact that a tip is primarily denser and with more power fiber compared to the butt. Also, to the best I've been able to follow, most hollow built guys don't hollow the last several inches leading up to the tip top. That's why I refuse to believe any claims about a specific taper's action until I see it in action, in a competent caster's hands.

Now I'm curious to see if makers and other casters here disagree or not. Glad to drop my old notions if a good argument can be made against them, so let it fly if you're so inclined.