Over lining a rod...

[salmonoid]

Hook_Jaw wrote:

A old friend always told me it depends on the quality of the rod if you could over or under line it.

Probably has more to do with the quality of the angler holding the rod than the rod itself...

 

[Swattie87]

I regularly overline 6lb mono on my ultralight spincasting rods rated for 2-4lb test line. :-o

Edit: Errr, wait. Mods how do I delete this. ;-)

 

[MarkC]

I overlined by mistake earlier this year on my antique (and favorite) 9’ 5 wt. GLX. It was a long walk back to the car so I went with it.

I liked the results up close, the rod loaded wonderfully under 60’, then the wind started and I had to reach out and touch some fish. I felt like it took forever for the line to unloop allowing the wind to take the cast sideways. Technic had to be perfect.

Mark C

 

[franklin]

A few years ago I saw a video where a guy took two identical high end rods and hung an identical weight from each rod tip. The each deflected a different amount. Not a lot different but a difference.

I don't any reason not to fine tune the feel of a rod by changing line sizes. Do it all the time. There are times I want a slightly softer action. Other times I want the speed back.

As to stress on the rod: any rod that will fail with a size or two different line is going to fail sooner or later with the rated line size. Maybe the only exception is the very low sizes like a 1 or a 2.

What puts more stress on a rod, a fish or casting? Well depends on how large of a fish you catch and how you play it. I suspect with a larger fish in a tight area, especially with current, that the rod sees much more stress than with casting. Lot's of fish playing puts more torsional stress on the rod along with simple bends.

 

[tomitrout]

What puts more stress on a rod, a fish or casting?

Over the life of a rod, unless you're catching a fish on every cast, casting.

 

[troutbert]

Why do you need new fly rods? Everyone knows fly rods achieved perfection in the1990s. It's a scientific fact.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Why do you need new fly rods? Everyone knows fly rods achieved perfection in the1990s. It's a scientific fact.

You might be joking or serious, I'm not sure which but I'm curious to what you use.
When talking glass or graphite, I believe the 1970's achieved perfection. Boo could be a different story.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Come on Dwight why you holding out? I saw you read this earlier today, why won't you just say what kind of rod you fish with? I'm genuinely curious

 

[troutbert]

It was a joke based on:

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

-- Homer, "Homerpalooza"

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ah ok. Nice ;-)

I'm still curious though to what you personally like in a fly fishing rod.

IMO, while Iam a slow caster, I think you can't beat a Vince Cummings fiberglass, an old Hardy, a Fenwick, a phillipson or even the original line of 1st generation Orvis graphites.
Now if you go bamboo, as I said, it open a whole nother beast in quality precision fishing tools. The 60's/70's had a wonderful era of slow casting rods that I believe isn't matched today.

 

[tomitrout]

Now if you go bamboo, as I said, it open a whole nother beast in quality precision fishing tools. The 60's/70's had a wonderful era of slow casting rods that I believe isn't matched today.

Curious why you say that? I've got some wonderful rods from modern builders that are built on classic tapers and are probably a step above in quality over what those '60's & '70's era rods are. And I imagine a lot of those tapers probably go back much further.

That's the beauty of bamboo, there really aren't any restrictions in building a rod to a specific feel or action and it's pretty simple to replicate a classic from years gone by.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

The 60's/70's had a wonderful era of slow casting rods that I believe isn't matched today.

This area of my post was intended to reference graphite and fiberglass. My wires got crossed and attached it to the bamboo paragraph.

Edit: to add to that, Iam speaking of high volume manufacturer production rods not customs.

 

[moon1284]

I have some glass new and old. At the end of the day for 6wt and under I'm partial to older graphite i.e. Scott Gs, spigot ferruled TNTs I'd guess these are from the 80s. I have a couple Sage SPs in 5 and 6 weights that are nice rods, but I like the Scotts and TNTs better. 7 Weight and up I like faster rods, i.e. Sage SP, XP, original loomis GLX, etc.

I've cast plenty of newer rods and to be honest they are all nice rods - even the lower priced ones. One newer rod I was not a big fan of (although it still casted and fished well enough) was the Sage VXP.

I think there have been more breakthroughs in marketing than rodbuilding the past 30-40 years, but that's my opinion. I like slower rods because they protect light tippet better and I break off less fish. The only time i nymph is if I grab someone else's nymph rig on the boat so even though an 11' 4 wt is a breakthrough for many, its not for me.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Moon,

I will admit the cabelas prime 7'1" 4 wt is about as fun as any trout weight glass I own.

 

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Ah ok. Nice ;-)

I'm still curious though to what you personally like in a fly fishing rod.

I'm not a gearhead, so haven't owned or even tried all that many fly rods.

I prefer graphite rods with a fast action, but with enough flexion to allow smooth casting and good "feel" on short casts. With the rated line! You should not have to carry extra lines on spare spools.

I like to keep things simple, and carry a minimum of stuff. You should be able to use the same line for dry flies and conehead streamers, just making a leader adjustment.

Making rods that versatile is a challenge for rod designers & makers to achieve, but some have done a good job of it.

Rods that I've really liked:

Sage RPL+

Loomis Trilogy

St. Croix Imperial

There are probably many fly rods with similar casting characteristics that I haven't tried.

I have cast rods that I thought were far too stiff when cast with their rated lines. And these were expensive rods. I don't remember the models, but one was an Orvis and another was a Loomis.

But individual casting style and preference play such a big role. Someone in the thread said they hated the Sage RPL rods, while I loved them.

And the Winston rod fanatics are very devoted. While I think they cast like spaghetti.

And there are many devotees of Fenwick fiberglass rods. That's the first rod I fished with and when graphite rods came out I never fished a fiberglass rod again. I thought graphite was a huge improvement, and still do think so. For my casting style/preference.

For me, switching from fiberglass to a graphite rod made casting easier, more enjoyable.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Fair enough. It is a preference thing for sure.
I'm not too surprised though I always pictured you as a older 70's graphite guy. Anyways thanks!

I did have a fullflex G-Loomis I did like. I cant remember the rod model but it was nice.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Salmonoid very well could be

 

[franklin]

troutbert wrote:

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Ah ok. Nice ;-)

I'm still curious though to what you personally like in a fly fishing rod.

I'm not a gearhead, so haven't owned or even tried all that many fly rods.

I prefer graphite rods with a fast action, but with enough flexion to allow smooth casting and good "feel" on short casts. With the rated line! You should not have to carry extra lines on spare spools.

I like to keep things simple, and carry a minimum of stuff. You should be able to use the same line for dry flies and conehead streamers, just making a leader adjustment.

Making rods that versatile is a challenge for rod designers & makers to achieve, but some have done a good job of it.

Rods that I've really liked:

Sage RPL+

Loomis Trilogy

St. Croix Imperial

There are probably many fly rods with similar casting characteristics that I haven't tried.

I have cast rods that I thought were far too stiff when cast with their rated lines. And these were expensive rods. I don't remember the models, but one was an Orvis and another was a Loomis.

But individual casting style and preference play such a big role. Someone in the thread said they hated the Sage RPL rods, while I loved them.

And the Winston rod fanatics are very devoted. While I think they cast like spaghetti.

And there are many devotees of Fenwick fiberglass rods. That's the first rod I fished with and when graphite rods came out I never fished a fiberglass rod again. I thought graphite was a huge improvement, and still do think so. For my casting style/preference.

For me, switching from fiberglass to a graphite rod made casting easier, more enjoyable.

Why does over/under lining require you to carry extra equipment? I have a couple rods that I like the feel better going up or down a line size. I simply keep that line on the rod and take it out. No need to carry extra spools.

 

[afishinado]

Why does over/under lining require you to carry extra equipment? I have a couple rods that I like the feel better going up or down a line size. I simply keep that line on the rod and take it out. No need to carry extra spools.

Agreed ^

Everyone has a different preference for rods.

When anyone is looking to buy a rod, I always tell them to cast it before you buy.

But if you do have a rod that doesn't cast for you the way you would like, by all means, try casting a higher or lower line weight with the rod. It may change a noodle to an al dente noodle or from casting a rod with the action of a 2x4 to a 2x3. You may actually begin to like casting the rod and fish it more often.

And again, the same rod, even though it casts well under certain conditions can be more versatile if you tailor the line weight you cast to the fishing you plan to do.

If you get into saltwater fishing, it's never as simple as matching the line weight with the number stamped on the rod. You will learn to change up your lines and rigs all the time, depending on where you're fishing, how you're fishing, the fish themselves, the wind, the rip, the flies, yada yada....or just go home.

The same for freshwater, really. Mess around and tinker and not just with the line weights. You may be surprised with the results. Besides, it's fun!