15' 8Wt
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Joined
·
5,475 Posts
They have their place but as technology has progressed, they are not as needed as they once were. Even so, for the right application, they are fun.
Rob,
Are you saying that the old Sage 8150 and the current Scott ARC 1509 are ten weights? I would agree the Sage is more of a nine and would argue the Scott to be more of an 8.
Rob,
Are you saying that the old Sage 8150 and the current Scott ARC 1509 are ten weights? I would agree the Sage is more of a nine and would argue the Scott to be more of an 8.
Brian, I don't think I have ever cast the Scott before...
Maybe i should also clarify a little. It's my belief that a spey rod should do the same job as the corresponding single handed rod.
For instance
a 7wt spey rod should be for summer steelhead fishing predominantly with a floating line
an 8wt should be a good all aorund rod for steelhead good with a floating line as well as moderatly heavy sink tips on any size river
a 9wt is for chucking heavy tips in winter or areas known for big fish in big rivers with neatlt any size fly.
a 10 wt has virtually no use for steelheading other than maybe heavy tips and metal tubes
This is of coure all just my BS opinion..
I agree with you on your comments about new rod development and the lack of a need for long ( 15 ft) rods in light line weights.. There are shorter rods that are lighter and that can do all the work of a longer rod.. However some people just like long rods. OK I now have two things i want to accomplish at the spey clave.
cast the 15 for an 8 scott and cast the 13'8?" sage
Maybe i should also clarify a little. It's my belief that a spey rod should do the same job as the corresponding single handed rod.
For instance
a 7wt spey rod should be for summer steelhead fishing predominantly with a floating line
an 8wt should be a good all aorund rod for steelhead good with a floating line as well as moderatly heavy sink tips on any size river
a 9wt is for chucking heavy tips in winter or areas known for big fish in big rivers with neatlt any size fly.
a 10 wt has virtually no use for steelheading other than maybe heavy tips and metal tubes
This is of coure all just my BS opinion..
I agree with you on your comments about new rod development and the lack of a need for long ( 15 ft) rods in light line weights.. There are shorter rods that are lighter and that can do all the work of a longer rod.. However some people just like long rods. OK I now have two things i want to accomplish at the spey clave.
cast the 15 for an 8 scott and cast the 13'8?" sage
Joined
·
338 Posts
roballen2 said:Maybe i should also clarify a little. It's my belief that a spey rod should do the same job as the corresponding single handed rod.
This is of coure all just my BS opinion..
Rob,
Maybe it is just my sucking two handed casting, but my BS opinion is a little different. By going up one to two line sizes in a two hander, I can make the same thing as a single hander. For instance:
Casting large, wind resistant flys, and getting them to turn over with consistancy: I can do this quite well with either a 6 or 7 weight single hander, yet I struggle to do this with my 7 weight spey rod
Casting weighted flies, same as above.
Now I am a MUCH better single handed caster than spey caster so that probably has a lot to do with my observations, but I have noticed enough while fishing to put some faith in it. Yes, I know this is off topic.
So to get on topic, any large open river with a run of 5-10 pound fish would be super for a 15' 8wt. I fish such a river a fair amount. Now could a 13 footer do the same job? Well, probably in my case, as I am not launching casts into the middle of this ditch, but for someone who doesn't suck at casting, there are a few runs that I know where a 100-120 foot cast would actualy fish pretty well, and the 15 footer would give some darn good line control.
As always just my .02
Dr Swing
large wind resistant flies such as say a bomber or waller waker can be turned over better with a shorter stiffer leader.
I used to have a 15 ft 10 wt.. I now cover the same water and fish the same flies and tips with a 13ft 9" 8wt. I don't think a 15 foot rod is that much of an advantage unless you are pursueing extreme distances 130 ft +.
That said I have a friend who fishes the Cowlitz and he just loves 15ft rods. So there is a great deal of personal preference involved here..
large wind resistant flies such as say a bomber or waller waker can be turned over better with a shorter stiffer leader.
I used to have a 15 ft 10 wt.. I now cover the same water and fish the same flies and tips with a 13ft 9" 8wt. I don't think a 15 foot rod is that much of an advantage unless you are pursueing extreme distances 130 ft +.
That said I have a friend who fishes the Cowlitz and he just loves 15ft rods. So there is a great deal of personal preference involved here..
Joined
·
338 Posts
Yes, It really is a matter of personal preferance, and our own BS opinions.
As far as the shorter stiffer leaders, I guess I find it easier to cast them with single handers, as getting them to anchor well can be a problem with a two hander, for me. I have plenty to work on, and as my casting improves (its trying, though slowly) maybe I will find less of a difference in utility between like sized single and doublehanded rods. We'll see, I hope.
As far as the shorter stiffer leaders, I guess I find it easier to cast them with single handers, as getting them to anchor well can be a problem with a two hander, for me. I have plenty to work on, and as my casting improves (its trying, though slowly) maybe I will find less of a difference in utility between like sized single and doublehanded rods. We'll see, I hope.
Joined
·
3,609 Posts
15 foot 8 weights
My BS opinion is that it is damn hard to mend 80 feet of line with a 13 foot rod. Yes, the shorter rods are lighter in the hand but there are times when that extra length is nice to have.
It used to be that 8 feet was the standard length for single hand rods. And they ranged from 5 (maybe 4) wt up to about 9 wt. Today the standard length is 9 feet and you can get them (9 footers) from 3wt to 12 wt. And there are quite a few 10 footers out there as well.
Again, my BS opinion, never could see much use for a 9 foot 3 wt. But hey, somebody must be wanting them.
With modern technology and materials, a 15 foot rod for a 7/8 long belly line is do-able. Maybe even a 6/7 weight. Three piece? Cork reel seat insert? Thin wall blank? Whatever it takes,,,,excluding an $800 price tag. :whoa: Gimme a break here. Just how much more does two feet of graphite and a couple more guides cost?
Again, just my BS opinion.
My BS opinion is that it is damn hard to mend 80 feet of line with a 13 foot rod. Yes, the shorter rods are lighter in the hand but there are times when that extra length is nice to have.
It used to be that 8 feet was the standard length for single hand rods. And they ranged from 5 (maybe 4) wt up to about 9 wt. Today the standard length is 9 feet and you can get them (9 footers) from 3wt to 12 wt. And there are quite a few 10 footers out there as well.
Again, my BS opinion, never could see much use for a 9 foot 3 wt. But hey, somebody must be wanting them.
With modern technology and materials, a 15 foot rod for a 7/8 long belly line is do-able. Maybe even a 6/7 weight. Three piece? Cork reel seat insert? Thin wall blank? Whatever it takes,,,,excluding an $800 price tag. :whoa: Gimme a break here. Just how much more does two feet of graphite and a couple more guides cost?
Again, just my BS opinion.
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
15'8wt
I have a 8150 sage.A lot of people really like it. I dont like that long of a rod.I can do anything I want with my 13ftr.that includes big wide rivers,which I prefer, fish up to low 30's, and dry flies thru to big intruders.Beau
I have a 8150 sage.A lot of people really like it. I dont like that long of a rod.I can do anything I want with my 13ftr.that includes big wide rivers,which I prefer, fish up to low 30's, and dry flies thru to big intruders.Beau
Joined
·
3,052 Posts
For comparison, assume you've got a 13' rod mending 80' of line. Using the same lift angle, a 14' rod can mend 86' of line, and a 15' rod can mend 92' of line.
by these simple calculations (A^squared+B^squared=C^squared), each foot for rod length buys six feet of mending ability.
Someone can probably develop a more sophisticated and general set of calculations, but that's a start.
by these simple calculations (A^squared+B^squared=C^squared), each foot for rod length buys six feet of mending ability.
Someone can probably develop a more sophisticated and general set of calculations, but that's a start.
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
I dont lift when I mend. I put an upstream small cast almost with a bottom hand tip filck upstream with rod held relatively low at end of the cast, the instant the tip lands on the water. absolutely no effort expended and no rotator wear. only mend I use. after that if need any adjustment usually can be done with placement of tip.I.E., raise it up or hold it back or lead the line. virtualy never do any thing ,even on first mend that moves my fly unless it is just the rare dumped, bad cast.Therfore the lenght of the rod means nothing for mending for me unless maybe if I am chucking a bigboy 200 120ft, cast after cast ,trying to reach a seam of fish holding in fast water on the Skeena. even then a 13ft8" was fine.Beau
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
let me clarify that first mend. the sink tip lands 90 degrees in front of me. my floatig body is still in the air. a combintion of upper hand with lower hand flips the body of my line upstream without disturbing the fly and sinktip anchor. so then my line body lands and starts to float on an angle that is say 60-70 degrees to the current. my shooting line is going upstream from my rod tip. I hold my tip upstream. as my line floats down it gets a chance to settle. when the body of line catches up to be lined up with the tip of my rod, I start to move my tip down stream at the same speed as the line so that they stay inline all the way thru the swing. therfore, I never disturb the natural movement of my fly thruout the entire drift once it hits the water.I believe in the natural water currents to give my fly movement. I dont want the fish to only see the backend of my fly. I believe in as much side view as I can get thruout the swing.I also want some speedups and slow downs, but from natural current differences. I see a lot of people use really long flies these days. however, due to the angle of the start of thier cast and the mending , the fish only see the backend. may as well be using a one inch fly!With the usual caveat of this is IMHO, so someone wont see this as an arrogant know it all post rather than trying to pass on something that works effortlessly for me. Beau
Joined
·
572 Posts
Beau,
I agree with you. I do one mend while line is in the air. I usually cast 90 deg. then I let it sink and follow with the tip of my rod. I do hold 2' to 3' loop so I can let line out to slow down my swing if needed. I am talking winter fish\sink tips.
Thats whats great about fishing, many different tactics same result.
Kevin
I agree with you. I do one mend while line is in the air. I usually cast 90 deg. then I let it sink and follow with the tip of my rod. I do hold 2' to 3' loop so I can let line out to slow down my swing if needed. I am talking winter fish\sink tips.
Thats whats great about fishing, many different tactics same result.
Kevin
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Longer is better
I agree that longer rods can mend more line; in fact, that's rather self-evident, isn't it? And since line mending capability is one of the major advantages of spey rods, what's the point in minimizing this advantage with shorter spey rods?
But there's another, and I believe, more important advantage to longer spey rods: the ability to lift and place longer lengths of line as the initial movement of a spey cast. Recently, I've been paying more attention to this; I suspect that line lift and placement hasn't received the attention and analysis it deserves as a subset of spey casting skills. Early on, I found that there's a dramatic difference in the amount of line that, say, a 15-foot rod could bring back upstream compared to my 12.5' and 13.5' rods. (I should qualify this by adding that I prefer extended belly lines; probably the advantage is less when using, and stripping in, short-belly lines.)
About 109 years ago, George Kelson expressed it in one pithy sentence. Quoting from memory, he wrote something like this: "What line a spey rod can lift, it can cast."
I agree that longer rods can mend more line; in fact, that's rather self-evident, isn't it? And since line mending capability is one of the major advantages of spey rods, what's the point in minimizing this advantage with shorter spey rods?
But there's another, and I believe, more important advantage to longer spey rods: the ability to lift and place longer lengths of line as the initial movement of a spey cast. Recently, I've been paying more attention to this; I suspect that line lift and placement hasn't received the attention and analysis it deserves as a subset of spey casting skills. Early on, I found that there's a dramatic difference in the amount of line that, say, a 15-foot rod could bring back upstream compared to my 12.5' and 13.5' rods. (I should qualify this by adding that I prefer extended belly lines; probably the advantage is less when using, and stripping in, short-belly lines.)
About 109 years ago, George Kelson expressed it in one pithy sentence. Quoting from memory, he wrote something like this: "What line a spey rod can lift, it can cast."
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
you are probably right about the lift for extended belly. with a 55-65ft belly I dont believe there is any advantage worth messing with the longer rod the rest of the day.Beau
Hello,
Another advantage with a 15 footer is that when you're playing a fish, you will get a better angel on the line towards the river (bottom) That means less probability of getting the line/leader caught or cut off in betveen stones, rocks and submerged branches. This from my own, sadly earned, personal experience...
G.J. Ryen
Another advantage with a 15 footer is that when you're playing a fish, you will get a better angel on the line towards the river (bottom) That means less probability of getting the line/leader caught or cut off in betveen stones, rocks and submerged branches. This from my own, sadly earned, personal experience...
G.J. Ryen
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
I never hold my rod high. usually hold it low and to the inside to build some belly so they wont take to the next hole or two!Beau
Leroy,
For the same reason I fish a 16 ft 11 wt for winter steelhead on all but small rivers (and wish someone would make a low swing weight, non tip-heavy, fast action 17' to 17'6" 12 wt that I could cast a 10/11 GrandSpey on without the line feeling heavy). The longer rod allows you to pick up and move more line, as Nooksack Mac poitned out.
And since I use long-belly lines for 95% of my 2-hand fishing, the 15 ft 8 wt would allow me to fish out to 90-95 ft without stripping line for the next cast. And the amount of line control it has compared with a 13 ft rod allows you to better skate a dry or a greased line presentation.
As Juro has pointed out, it would be very nice on larger rivers with light lines for summer runs. My 13' requires a lot more work with the longer-belly lines because it doesn't have the ability to pick up or move as much line for exactly the reason loco-alto mentioned in his post. I could mend 12' more with the same motion, and could move at least 20 ft more line when casting because the longer rod moves through a higher and larger arc.
JD,
There are places on Montana's Missouri, Yellowstone, Clark Fork, and Kootenee rivers where a 9' 3 wt would be ideal for fishing #24 tricos or paraleps 50-65 ft from where you can safely wade.
For the same reason I fish a 16 ft 11 wt for winter steelhead on all but small rivers (and wish someone would make a low swing weight, non tip-heavy, fast action 17' to 17'6" 12 wt that I could cast a 10/11 GrandSpey on without the line feeling heavy). The longer rod allows you to pick up and move more line, as Nooksack Mac poitned out.
And since I use long-belly lines for 95% of my 2-hand fishing, the 15 ft 8 wt would allow me to fish out to 90-95 ft without stripping line for the next cast. And the amount of line control it has compared with a 13 ft rod allows you to better skate a dry or a greased line presentation.
As Juro has pointed out, it would be very nice on larger rivers with light lines for summer runs. My 13' requires a lot more work with the longer-belly lines because it doesn't have the ability to pick up or move as much line for exactly the reason loco-alto mentioned in his post. I could mend 12' more with the same motion, and could move at least 20 ft more line when casting because the longer rod moves through a higher and larger arc.
JD,
There are places on Montana's Missouri, Yellowstone, Clark Fork, and Kootenee rivers where a 9' 3 wt would be ideal for fishing #24 tricos or paraleps 50-65 ft from where you can safely wade.
Joined
·
338 Posts
Flytyer,
I am surprised you would recomend a nine foot three weight for those rivers, given the large amounts of wind so common on them. Personally, I haven't seen much of a need for a rod lighter than a four, and normally fish a five wieght, even for the smallest flies. A long leader allows for delicacy, and plenty of slack in the drift, and the 5 wieght offers versitility to continue fishing once the Trike's are done. I don't see many positives in going to a lighter line than a 4, but of course, this is just my opinion.
I am surprised you would recomend a nine foot three weight for those rivers, given the large amounts of wind so common on them. Personally, I haven't seen much of a need for a rod lighter than a four, and normally fish a five wieght, even for the smallest flies. A long leader allows for delicacy, and plenty of slack in the drift, and the 5 wieght offers versitility to continue fishing once the Trike's are done. I don't see many positives in going to a lighter line than a 4, but of course, this is just my opinion.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!