Fishing The Fly Scotland Forum

Will Shaw

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #25 on: 23/11/2011 at 18:39 »
The Walker-effect on UK rod design is interesting, he definitely moved coarse rods out of the dark ages from the 50's onwards.  Apparently, though, he persuaded Hardy to limit the amount of graphite in their blanks, and made this specific in their patents, thus robbing them of a serious competitive advantage! Doh!

Ref: Ben's comments about cane lovers liking "whangy shit". WC Stewart was very specific about trying to get the stiffest rod he could - he hated wobbly rods. To be fair he was in the era of ash/willow etc.

Me? I'd nominate Loomis IMX and Sage RPL as game-changers of their time.

21st Century: Helios definitely stole a march. At the moment I think there are loads of fantastic rods out there, from Shakespeare's Odyssey (how do they do that?) to Zenith/Proaxis, NRX, ZXL, Guideline's stuff, etc, etc. They're all brilliant but I don't think anything jumps out from the pack.

I think we're in an era of tiny incremental improvements at the top end. The biggest change I think we're seeing right now is a step-change in quality of mid/lower end rods.

W.

Ben Dixon

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #26 on: 23/11/2011 at 23:00 »

Me? I'd nominate Loomis IMX and Sage RPL as game-changers of their time.

21st Century: Helios definitely stole a march. At the moment I think there are loads of fantastic rods out there, from Shakespeare's Odyssey (how do they do that?) to Zenith/Proaxis, NRX, ZXL, Guideline's stuff, etc, etc. They're all brilliant but I don't think anything jumps out from the pack.

W.

Yup, IMX for sure, also RPL.  Sintrix / NRX and Helios are definitely game changers and could be put down as serious break throughs.  Shakespeare rods are more than superb for the price, an interesting angling Will, I presume you are aware of the reasons behind the question  :z4

Ben

Hamish Young

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #27 on: 24/11/2011 at 11:25 »
My observation is every time someone has come out with a new method of construction or introduced a new material into fly rods (up to the end of the 20th century) they've generally failed to fully capitalise on it's benefits and it's been left to the competition to make the best use of it. Orvis vs Sage is a good example with graphite. Although Fenwick (arguably) were the first to bring graphite technology into rod construction their rods were weak and prone to failure. So it was Orvis who introduced it into fly rods in 1974, but the range of rods Orvis produced were designed to reflect the best properties of their previous (and concurrent) split cane (sorry, bamboo) rods and did not take full advantage of the properties of graphite. Although others did try to make full use of this material (notably Lamiglas), it was some eight years later that Sage (or the Winslow Rod Co. as it was originally) that took the material to new heights with the Reserve Power range - or RP as we know them now.
So I agree, the RP range were a leap forward, but some years from when graphite first came on the scene.

Within a decade, everyone seemed to be using the material - with different levels of performance, however :z7
There was boron at the same time.... but that's another story.

It seems to me that the introduction of a new material has generally been very expensive by the time the finished product is in the hands of the 'ordinary' angler. But as the use of the technology becomes cheaper, a few years down the line, the 'ordinary' angler can afford the newer materials. Neatly, that suggests to me that some older technology has reached the very pinnacle of what is achievable with it before it's 'retired' or re-branded somehow in a 'classic' range.

Today, I'm not so sure that as many years would go by (as arguably it did at the time of graphite introduction) without the new technologies quickly finding their way into far better mid and lower priced gear. The market potential is so significant that no manufacturer of fly rods (other than those who insist on making grass noodle things  :z7 :z4) can afford to ignore the potential in new material. That's good news for 'Joe Angler'.

For me, going back to the very beginning of this thread, the significant rods of a generation up to the end of the 20th century were:

1. Greenheart - has to be the Grant Vibration range.
2. Split cane/bamboo - tricky. Although others might disagree, I think the Palakona range are right up there.
3. Fibreglass - errrr....... undecided.
3. Graphite - Sage RP although arguably Lamiglas were the first to make it really 'work' as a material.
4. Boron - well, boron/graphite - Winston

Interesting stuff, will have to look into this a wee bit more I think.

H :z3

Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #28 on: 24/11/2011 at 17:57 »
H,

Can I presume all the contributors involved with this post will get a credit in the final draft of your thesis? :z7

"3. Fibreglass - errrr....... undecided."

Just remembered a name from the depths of my hard drive brain - Tom Morgan. Tom still makes fibreglass rods, some very good ones from what I read. Formerly the owner of RL Winston Ltd he did more with glass than anyone could be bothered to. Here's a link from Tom about his history
http://fiberglassflyrodders.yuku.com/topic/1320#.Ts6EjLJKN0M

John Gierach tells (another) lovely story in Fishing Bamboo about Tom meeting a carbon rod builder at a party.
So if you think glass is ass go and check out
http://www.troutrods.com/

Many did glass, none did it like Tom  :z16

 :z1

Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #29 on: 24/11/2011 at 18:05 »
"Many did glass, none did it like Tom"

Actually someone did, and it was this chap that the Gierach story was about.

JK Fisher - look him up under glass fly rod God.

These names are popping up in my heed tonight when I should be focused on work. This is way better than working  :z7

 :z1

Sieger Devries

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #30 on: 24/11/2011 at 18:22 »
My 2ct. on this subject (how subjective it may be...  :wink )..... Firstly: The discovery of flyfishing in the first place some 6 years ago... And boy did I have some catching up to do... Many rods further I think I discovered my Holy Grail(s) of rods... I tried Cane, Glass, Graphite and the Boron/Graphite combo...

Got a closet full with sticks but my go to rods are:

Splitcane: 7' 3# form Ids Schukken (Dutch Rod builder)
Glass: 7' 4# Hardy JET from 1973 (Think one off the best Glass-designed rods and affordable....)
Graphite: Winston IM6 (and for Double hand Meiser Highlander S S2H1307S-4)
Graph/Boron: Winston 8' 4# B2T

All in all I'm pretty addicted to it and Ooooh do I love it... :grin

(unfortunately Tom Morgen does not build rods anymore due to his illness (Parkinsons ??) as far as I know his wife learned the designing of tapers and rods from him and she builds them (or supervises the process)...)



Euan Innes

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #31 on: 25/11/2011 at 07:56 »
I've thought of a gap in the timeline.
For years fly rods came in a standard length / weight. For example 7' #4, 8.5' #5, 9' #6, 10' #7, 11' #8 and so on.
When did long and light start?

My only reference to long and light is Geoffrey Bucknall having his Brightwater rods made for him in one line weight (#3 I think) in 8', 9', 10' lengths. I had an 11' #5 Clan rod (wish I still had it :z19) but I hadn't come across anything lighter until more recently. I seem to remember that Bruce and Walker toyed with long and light but the angling press slated the rods and they disappeared pretty quick. Hexagraph went too but that's another story.... :z4

In my dealings with Greys (I got quite friendly when I had my bamboo made) they poo poo'd the idea of long and light saying no one would use them and they were a bitch to make. They now have an 11' #3 and a 10' #2 in their range!

So when did the technology catch up with anglers demands and give us long and light? To me that was one of the best things that tackle development gave birth to.

 :z1


Peter McCallum

Re: What do you consider......
« Reply #32 on: 25/11/2011 at 08:28 »
I had an early B&W Border 11' for a 3-5 advertised as a 'wet fly' rod which as always equated to sloppy spaghetti like action. Thankfully at that time I mainly fished with small floats and natural bait, worms, stick bait, gadgers so it was actually quite good for that. But fly fishing  :shock :shock :shock

 




Barrio Fly Lines - designed in Scotland - Cast with confidence all over the world

Barrio Fly Lines

Designed in Scotland

Manufactured in the UK

Cast with confidence all over the world

www.flylineshop.com