Lightest 5 weight rod ya can think of

[sixfootfenwick]

Homer: Why do you need new bands? Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.

It's similar with fly rods, except that the year is a little later. Early 1990s maybe?

I'd say that's close, though some of the early graphite were very good too.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Making fishing rods thin-walled makes them lighter. But it also makes them more likely to break.

Twice I was fishing with guys who got hooked on a branch, and they jerked on it and snapped the rod tip.

A guy who guides in Alaska told me that the clients get into big fish there and so many rods are popping that it sounds like popcorn. (He might have been exaggerating a little.)

Some of the modern rods are very light, but also very fragile. It's not a good trade-off, IMHO.

I disagree entirely. Your argument for less material being less structurally sound is only valid when comparing exact materials. There are several different strains of graphite compounds (not sure if that is the right word) (I hate technical speak haha) that are used in rods and some of these strains offer a higher level of structural integrity than a rod made with a different strain using more material. To offer an example, my friend has a Ruger six shooter, I have a Colt. The Ruger is cast and has more metal on the gun. The Colt is forged and uses less metal. Both have similar structural integrity.

As far as your friends who broke their rods, that can't be used as validation for saying modern rods with thinner walls are inherently weaker, as we have to account for the human variable here in the situation they encountered, which can't be quantified. I'd like to know specific details on what caused the rods to break as in the diameter of the tippet they were using and how hard they were yanking on the rod. As for myself, I NEVER use a rod to break a snag. I sit the rod down and rip the line/leader out of said snag by hand. This avoids a rod break entirely. You can also lock your drag, point the tip of the rod at said snag, and pull to break it off. I would chalk the scenario of the rod breakages up to being user error but can't say for sure because I wasn't there.

Having owned a bunch of modern "thin walled" rods so to speak, I have never experienced any breakage. I stopped a kayak with one such rod, had the tip of another ripped off by another friend's fly line, and had said friend also use one of my rods who repeatedly smacked the tip on the bridge when he went to hookset, and even had a rod get stepped on and not break, though I think in that particular incident the good Lord was just watching out for me.

I don't feel like I am fishing something fragile when fishing one of these modern high tech rods more so than any other rod. I won't say that I am so much better than everybody else because I have never broken a nice rod (lost one, yes!). Perhaps I just have good spatial awareness. What I do feel from these rods is a decrease in swing weight, overall weight (not as important as swing weight, but still nice), responsiveness, accuracy, and sensitivity, and to me that far outweighs the notion that my rod will break simply because it uses less material.

These modern rods are the way of the future, and I'm glad companies are developing new ways to use less resin to lighten things up so to speak.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I disagree entirely. Your argument for less material being less structurally sound is only valid when comparing exact materials. There are several different strains of graphite compounds (not sure if that is the right word) (I hate technical speak haha) that are used in rods and some of these strains offer a higher level of structural integrity than a rod made with a different strain using more material. To offer an example, my friend has a Ruger six shooter, I have a Colt. The Ruger is cast and has more metal on the gun. The Colt is forged and uses less metal. Both have similar structural integrity.

As far as your friends who broke their rods, that can't be used as validation for saying modern rods with thinner walls are inherently weaker, as we have to account for the human variable here in the situation they encountered, which can't be quantified. I'd like to know specific details on what caused the rods to break as in the diameter of the tippet they were using and how hard they were yanking on the rod. As for myself, I NEVER use a rod to break a snag. I sit the rod down and rip the line/leader out of said snag by hand. This avoids a rod break entirely. You can also lock your drag, point the tip of the rod at said snag, and pull to break it off. I would chalk the scenario of the rod breakages up to being user error but can't say for sure because I wasn't there.

Having owned a bunch of modern "thin walled" rods so to speak, I have never experienced any breakage. I stopped a kayak with one such rod, had the tip of another ripped off by another friend's fly line, and had said friend also use one of my rods who repeatedly smacked the tip on the bridge when he went to hookset, and even had a rod get stepped on and not break, though I think in that particular incident the good Lord was just watching out for me.

I don't feel like I am fishing something fragile when fishing one of these modern high tech rods more so than any other rod. I won't say that I am so much better than everybody else because I have never broken a nice rod (lost one, yes!). Perhaps I just have good spatial awareness. What I do feel from these rods is a decrease in swing weight, overall weight (not as important as swing weight, but still nice), responsiveness, accuracy, and sensitivity, and to me that far outweighs the notion that my rod will break simply because it uses less material.

These modern rods are the way of the future, and I'm glad companies are developing new ways to use less resin to lighten things up so to speak.

I disagree.
Especially with the accuracy part. As an example, there is a reason competitive casters are buying up First Generation Graphite Fenwick's like gang busters. It's for the accuracy part of the competition.

The ironic part about that for this conversation is those rods also had a tendency to explode🤣 people were not used to the lighter, thinner diameter rods that were not as strong or forgiving as fiberglass and they took abuse and it's one reason they are hard to find today.
The 2nd generation was better but only in that regard. They lost a bit of soul and accuracy.

More to the point, while I tend to be an early IM6 fan, it had more to do with the designers tapers than material. The early Fenwick's are the "missing link" of Don Green rods that tie the glass Fenwicks to the early Sage rods.

With a designer like that, you can see why they are good rods.

IMO on a separate note, one would be hard pressed to find a better small stream 5wt graphite rod than the early Orvis Far n Fines.
What a wonderful taper.

 

[krayfish2]

You want light AND light swing weight? Hardy Ultralight. Can it move line? Yeppers. The X version is faster and hucks more line than most people can handle.

Taylor has nice stuff, sky-g has low swing weight and is highly rated. Sleeper..... sage sonic. Light, light swing weight and pretty fast. I have a 6 and love it

 

[troutbert]

What does "swing weight" mean?

 

[caddisflyer]

I think any of the high end newer Orvis rods are very light compared to my 1990s era and earlier rods. I do think there is a compromise with light weight and strength though. We have quite a few newer spinning rods that are very lightweight and our house is like grand central station with all the warranty rods constantly coming in the mail as replacements for broken ones. The things just snap about a foot from the tip. I looked at some of the material and it is super thin, like paper almost.

 

[troutbert]

I think any of the high end newer Orvis rods are very light compared to my 1990s era and earlier rods. I do think there is a compromise with light weight and strength though. We have quite a few newer spinning rods that are very lightweight and our house is like grand central station with all the warranty rods constantly coming in the mail as replacements for broken ones. The things just snap about a foot from the tip. I looked at some of the material and it is super thin, like paper almost.

These rods are:

1) Thinner

2) Made of higher modulus material which is

 

[riverwhy]

What does "swing weight" mean?

I looked it up. I think this explains it pretty well. Never heard the term until recently.

Measuring Swingweight

Swingweight

www.sexyloops.com

 

[Fly-Swatter]

What does "swing weight" mean?

Are you asking for the definition of swing weight or its relevance/importance? It seems to me the former is objective while the latter is subjective.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

What does "swing weight" mean?

FWIW, I think swing weight is not terribly important. I also think these measurables are a convenient way to justify the extremely high cost of rods. My "metrics" for a great fishing fly rod are (in no particular order) dampening, accuracy, and ability to cast well at all practical fishing distances. The last one will vary depending on the situation. For example, if I want a great saltwater 8-wt fly rod for fishing in Florida, do I want a cannon that can bomb out long, accurate casts to cruising bones? Or, do I want a rod that can pinpoint casts in and under mangroves and docks for snook? We've heard similar distinctions with trout fishing in PA: Headwaters streams, limestone creeks, or large tailwaters? I can do very well on most creeks with my old 8' 5-wt Sage LL. If I'm going to the Lehigh or Delaware, I love my 9' 5-wt Sky G. Neither of these is good for streamers or heavy indy rigs. Last point: I just bought a 7-wt Clearwater. That rod is a beast! Sure it's a bit heavy and the components are not museum quality, but it cast far and accurately as I want. I find casting fairly big flies is easy with this rod, but its swing weight is pretty high compared to my buddy's Loomis NRX. Does swing weight matter....to me? A little bit, but not 7 bills worth. It's something to think about.