The Board

Overlining is putting “ +1 or +2 higher lines on the same rod”. The reason I don’t like it for fishing purposes is that the heavier line spooks the fish. The answer to the spooking is to put on a longer leader and the casting limitations become apparent again. Learning to cast has saved me a ton of money compared to buying kit to do it for me.

The TFM site started as a group of enthusiasts who built and cast rods of boutique blank manufacturers like the Steffan Brothers,Tom Morgan, Kabuto and McFarland before the big boys muscled in on the action.

I mentioned my Orvis Supafine as being an example of a slow action carbon rod, my 6’ #2 Wychwood Drift is another complete noodle. Both have similar actions to my Steffan e-glass 7’ #3 but the carbon rods are lighter in the hand but I will fish places with my glass rod that carbon angels fear to tread.

Regards

Vince

VGB wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:42 am Overlining is putting “ +1 or +2 higher lines on the same rod”. The reason I don’t like it for fishing purposes is that the heavier line spooks the fish.

You can always under-rod then. You won’t spook any fish that way.

I try not to throw the rod in

I think we are reinventing the wheel, this topic has likely been discussed many times. Rod design is obviously depending on material characteristics (I disagree with Lasse on this point, if we are speaking of the same thing).

Scott have been making (small) glass rods for years, I own two of them, built at different times (30 years in between or something). One is a 5 piece, the other one is a 3 piece supposed to be made of a different glass grade. It is sanded, not like the 5p one. However they have exactly the same characteristics (including dynamic ones). One is a #4, the other a #3. Line rating is a variable thing among different series of rods (with objective data references), and building a rod scale is possible as long as you are not disturbed by overlaps in stiffness.

I used to be a glass fan as I waded rivers covered by branches along the banks, a long time ago. I put aside my cherished CF rod at that time since I did not want to break it when hitting a branch. Glass rods can withstand that kind of torture test. They did perfectly the job.

You can use glass to copy some cane rods, both in stiffness and mass (not easy on the mandrel side), but it is impossible to match CF rods dynamic characteristics with glass, you are quickly limited by weight and wall thickness. The boundary is 8 foot IMHO.

In the case of a "butt action" rod, the interesting characteristic in terms of feel is the fact that the spring of the rod is not so much "non linear". It means that you do not need a lot of extra torque to bend the butt. You get more feedback from the rod. Modern CF design are on the other side, very non linear with stiff butts, and little feel.

Merlin

I’ve misplaced my tinfoil hat so help me understand. Only expert casters (the ones who can tell you how many twists there are in your clinch knot after a single test cast of your rod) truly understand what the difference is in the feel of two totally different rods because only expert casters with several decades of daily practice in rain and shine in the shadows of Mt. Shasta understand what feel really is. But once you reach that level of casting enlightenment you no longer care about the difference. Everyone else is being drawn to the dark side by nefarious marketers promising that if you spend more money than your average college tuition you can bypass the trips to Mt. Shasta and become not only 20 times more accurate in your casting but can rely on the force to cast for you. Did I leave anything out besides the flying fly lines that will guarantee your fly will never again land on water (or anywhere else)?

Graeme H wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:40 pm

VGB wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:42 am Overlining is putting “ +1 or +2 higher lines on the same rod”. The reason I don’t like it for fishing purposes is that the heavier line spooks the fish.

You can always under-rod then. You won’t spook any fish that way.

Hi Everyone-

This is what I take away so far from this thread: Gary (Mangrove Cookoo)" wrote_".One of the more insightful ideas I picked up here on SL was that the rod transfers energy into the line through three mechanisms: swing, spring, and whip. (Damn I sure hope I got that right!) I interpret "swing" to be like leverage, while "spring" is unloading, and "whip" comes from the mass near the top. (Again, ask the experts for more on this as I am almost making this up as I go!) I have not tried to put it into my words as of yet.What I think I find in modern "fast" CF rods is an emphasis on "swing" or leverage. What I like about FG rods (and a few unpopular CF rods) is a much larger emphasis on "spring" and "whip". I think FG rods, being of a heavier material, get even more into the "whip" zone.So, yes, generally, FG rods will bend more. It is probably how and what they were designed to do.I think that is what I feel anyway?"[*] [/color]and

Paul wrote-"Hi Gary, I think of “whip” as being a wave that travels up the rod from the butt. It helps explain quite a lot of what we see. And,

Merlin wrote-In the case of a "butt action" rod, the interesting characteristic in terms of feel is the fact that the spring of the rod is not so much "non linear". It means that you do not need a lot of extra torque to bend the butt. You get more feedback from the rod. Modern CF design are on the other side, very non linear with stiff butts, and little feel.


These three quotes match very well what I was trying to convey. I love to practice and to fish. I borrow from my golf experiences in my fly casting practice time and "feedback" is a huge component of that practice time.

Walter wrote-I’ve misplaced my tinfoil hat so help me understand. Only expert casters (the ones who can tell you how many twists there are in your clinch knot after a single test cast of your rod) truly understand what the difference is in the feel of two totally different rods because only expert casters with several decades of daily practice in rain and shine in the shadows of Mt. Shasta understand what feel really is. But once you reach that level of casting enlightenment you no longer care about the difference. Everyone else is being drawn to the dark side by nefarious marketers promising that if you spend more money than your average college tuition you can bypass the trips to Mt. Shasta and become not only 20 times more accurate in your casting but can rely on the force to cast for you. Did I leave anything out besides the flying fly lines that will guarantee your fly will never again land on water (or anywhere else)?. -I'm not an expert caster but I'm decent. I can feel the difference and the fact that very few spend any appreciable time practicing doesn't make me want to practice less. I also don't and won't be in fly fishing or casting retail so what the marketers do to the general public is on them. With that said, Walter, I do understand where you are coming from and it reminds me of golf where the same story is unfolding. thank you.

Reinhard-thank you for the comments. I don't have hundreds of fly rods, reels or lines. I used to have a bunch of golf clubs, but I gave two truck beds full of clubs to the local junior golf program and now I have very few.

There are so many combinations of rods and lines that it becomes mind numbing. I cast the CTS 8 wt tonight with a Rio bonefish 7 wt line. Loved it and could still feel the flex in the butt of the rod which helped me with timing such as that Gary and Paul were referencing. I then put on a 5 MED line and again made very nice and long casts. I look forward to getting out the tape and going it a whirl if the wind ever stops blowing this spring, Again, I was able to feel the bend deep in the rod and time the progression of the wave to the end of the fly rod.

Everyone has different feels, cue's, styles, tendencies etc. I just find it interesting the way my style and tendencies responds to FG fly rods...

Good night all
thank you for indulging me. You're very kind

Phil

Stoatstail50 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:40 pm

Graeme H wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:40 pm

VGB wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:42 am Overlining is putting “ +1 or +2 higher lines on the same rod”. The reason I don’t like it for fishing purposes is that the heavier line spooks the fish.

You can always under-rod then. You won’t spook any fish that way.

Mark, you fish an 18ft leader most of the time, do you teach students to cast with them. If not, why not? We are supposed to be teaching representative scenarios.

I don’t Vince, you’re quite right. Perhaps I should

My glee was at the concept of over and under rodding as the natural corollary to over and under lining. Tickled me no end…not laughing at your comment.

No worries, I had a couple of discussions in the margins about it. I recognise that we are all fishing in different environments with wide ranging constraints, I’m less concerned with line mass and where it is relative to the fish in pocket water because it’s a noisy environment. My comments were more aimed at the shallower water sight fishing environments where we can see how the fish react to line noise.

That said, I think that we should be honest that going up the line weights masks casting shortfalls and is as much a sticking plaster fix as putting the rod butt up your sleeves. Blaming the rod manufacturers for starting an arms war is shifting the blame away from ourselves because anglers think that one lesson or the right tackle will get them casting like god and it’s not true. In some fishing environments, the sticking plaster is not a free lunch and the lines hitting the water must sound like the 1812 overture to the fish. Casting becomes easier but catching becomes harder, so we lengthen the leader and casting becomes harder……