IMPORTANT
SITE UPDATE:

Visit the relaunched
Fish & Fly at fishandfly.com

Choosing a new fly rod

Our February 2004 contribution from Peter Sutton and Terry Lawton

In a recent article, Fish & Fly rod tester and master-caster Pete Sutton wrote about how to choose a suitable fly rod for a range of different applications, from river fishing, to still waters to pike and saltwater fishing. In this article, he and Terry Lawton attempt to define what makes a good rod and how to tell a good rod from a bad one.

TL: Pete, I feel a sensible place to start this discussion is to think about some of the rods that we have both tested recently. We have tested quite a wide range and arrived a very different feelings and opinions of them. Some we have both liked and here I would name the Snowbee Zircon #5 and there have been others that we disagreed about. The Greys’ Missionary #5/6 five-piece is a good example. I just could not get on with this rod, however hard a tried. I am quite sure that it is not a bad rod because you and other people who tried it all liked it very much. Going back a bit further, there was a terrible, nameless travel rod that you rated as a complete disaster.

PS: The action and performance of any fly rod is determined by the characteristics of the carbon fibre tube (blank) on which it is built. This isn’t to say that all good rods will have the same action. A rod designed for casting dry flies on fine tippets may be designed with a different action from a rod designed for casting a fly to bonefish on saltwater flats. And a rod designed primarily with Spey casting in mind will have a different action again. A ‘good’ blank will be light, will flex progressively from tip to butt, be virtually vibration-free in use and have a fast recovery rate from flexed to straight. Also each section of the rod will be in ‘balance’ with each other part so that the tip and/or the butt is neither too weak nor too strong in relationship, one to the other.

On a ‘bad’ rod some or all of these characteristics will be missing. So on a rod described as ‘fast tip action’ the tip may be too weak in comparison to the middle and butt section, and a rod described as ‘full flex’ or ‘through action’ may have a tip too stiff and strong compared to the butt section which will seem to be weak. Also some rods have a tip which ‘bounces’ too much after the stop is made during casting which not only feels unpleasant but creates unwanted ‘waves’ or ‘wiggles’ in the line, reducing accuracy, control and distance. The travel rod you mentioned was weak in the butt, had a slow recovery rate and a lot of tip wobble – this made it, in my opinion, a ‘bad’ rod.

The question of why one angler likes or finds a particular rod OK, when another angler positively dislikes it or finds it wanting in some way is more difficult to answer and some of it comes down to the subjectivity of the whole question. The Grey’s Missionary #5/6 was not a bad rod. It was light, progressive, had a fast recovery rate and was free from excessive tip bounce and vibration. It did have a ‘full flex’ action and some anglers, more used to firmer, tip or middle-to-tip actions sometimes find this characteristic difficult to adjust to, or maybe it just doesn’t suit their style and personality.

The Snowbee Zircon #5 was also a good rod for the same reasons as the Missionary but had a fairly firm, middle-to-tip action that is much easier for most people to live with.

TL: Another question I would like to ask you is, when does a stiff, fast-action rod become a bad rod because there is not enough low-down bend? Or if not exactly a bad rod, one that could be nicer to use if it had a more progressive action.

PS: I have touched on this already and quite simply it is when the lower part of the rod is too strong or stiff compared to the tip section, which then seems weak and will collapse when pushed hard, rather than drive the curve further down the rod as would happen with a properly progressive action. Rods of this type are unpleasant to use, and the tip gives the impression of being ‘all over the place’. They are also inaccurate and prone to throw tailing loops.

< To the top

TL: One of the reasons that I liked the Snowbee Zircon so much was that it had a lovely progressive action that you could really feel load and work. And even though the action is progressive, there was still enough power available to cast a much longer line. As you said in your article, this was a rod that “spoke to you”. What are thoughts on this?

PS: You’ve hit the nail right on the head here, Terry, ‘A lovely progressive action that you could really feel load and work’. Rods that ‘speak to you’ are rods that have that almost indefinable feel. The caster will be aware of the rod working, flexing and un-flexing during casting, which is a pleasing sensation and makes the timing and execution of the cast much easier. Generally rods with a fuller flex action have more feel than tip flex action rods although the very best of the latter do minimise this characteristic.

TL: You also wrote: “The only way to assess whether or not a rod has this ‘feel’ is to try it out and cast with it.”. Can you suggest a routine that a rod buyer should use when test casting a rod? Is there one particular cast, for example, that will tell you more about a rod than another?

PS: The first thing before testing any rod is to ask yourself what the rod will be used for and if the answer is that it will be used for catching small brown trout on small rivers and streams then test the rod with that purpose in mind – so don’t expect it to cast out of site and have realistic expectations of both the rod’s performance and your own ability.

Try the rod with your favourite, correct weight line: the one you intend to use for fishing with it. Set the line up with a leader and a fly without a hook or a piece of yarn and begin by doing some simple pick up and lay down casts using about 30’ of line, which should load the rod correctly according to the AFTM system.

Having done this for a while and observed how the rod behaves and feels I would then do a number of false casts, with this same length of line, using a short compact casting stroke and a minimum amount of power. During this part of the test I would observe the size and shape of the loops and I would try to see how tight and narrow I could make them. I would also look to see if there were any ‘wiggles’ in the line (particularly at the end) and if the line turned over properly or if it collapsed a foot or two from the end. The very best rods will turn the line over pretty well, even with this minimum power casting stroke, but I would not dismiss a rod because it failed to turn over the last foot or two of line during this part of the test. Instead I would add a little more power on each stroke until I got a smooth turnover and good delivery of the leader and fly, noting how much power was required.

Next I would extend the amount of line beyond the rod tip, to test the amount the rod was capable of carrying in the air, looking for any sign of weakness in the rod as it became more heavily loaded. I would also continue to observe the size and shape of the casting loop and I would experiment with throwing, wide, narrow and tailing loops. I would cast the rod in different planes; straight overhead, angled and horizontal, off the ‘wrong’ shoulder and backhand just to see if any of these prove more difficult than they should. If the rod is going to be used on rivers I would also perform some slack line and curve casts. Whatever rod I am looking at, and in spite of what I said earlier, I would now push the rod as hard as possible using a double haul technique just to see what happens and to find, if I can, the rod’s limits.

Lastly I would check to see how the rod performed on roll, switch and Spey casts. If the testing is only on grass as opposed to water then it will not be possible to perform proper roll and Spey casts but the rod should at least be able to complete a decent switch cast. If the rod is to be used exclusively on stillwaters then it may not matter very much if the rod cannot perform a decent roll cast but for any rod destined for fly fishing on rivers, I consider the ability to roll, Spey and switch cast essential. Fortunately almost any modern, progressive action fly rod that is not too ‘tippy’ in action will perform these casts well, so don’t worry too much if you’re not able to test the rod on water.

All the time during testing I am getting the feel of the rod, if I like the feel of it and it casts the way I like then I can be fairly sure that I will be happy with it and enjoy using it. This ‘feel’ is important and I would recommend that everyone be guided by it – even a novice, given two or more rods, will usually pick one out, saying that they like the ‘feel’ of it best, so let that be your main guide and have confidence in your choice. Above all don’t buy a rod, however strongly recommended, if you don’t like it.

< To the top

TL: One of the pleasures of fly fishing is owning and using quality tackle. Some rods really do look cheap and nasty with over-large graphite reel seats that are too big for the rod and don’t work very well, poor cork and badly shaped handles and the wrong type of rings, or guides, and probably not enough of them. Do you think that there are fewer of these cheap and nasty rods on the market today?

PS: Yes, as a rule I think that the finish on all rods including the budget priced ones is getting better. Beauty is, however, largely in the eye of the beholder and as long as the person buying the rod likes the look of it then that is good enough. On the question of rings or guides I would suggest that the first or the first two butt rings nearest the reel should be fully lined stand-off bridge rings and the rest can be either single leg or traditional snakes or single-leg lined rings. I don’t think it really makes much difference which, except on the lightest rods where lined rings throughout would, in my opinion, be too heavy and clumsy looking. The wrappings that secure the rings on rods for use in saltwater must be fully sealed with epoxy to stop the ingress of salt water. Choose whichever reel fitting you like the look of, just make sure that it will hold your reel, some reels with thicker ‘feet’ will not fit very well on some reel fittings. Again if the rod is to be used in the salt then the reel fitting must be corrosion-resistant.

My own choice on how rods are finished is to go low-key, non-flash, lightweight, and good quality. Otherwise I am not too bothered.

TL: As you said at the start of your recent article, buying a fly rod is a very personal thing, particularly as we don’t all like the same type of rod or rod action and feel. I guess that we are looking for honesty and integrity in the design and build of a rod. Would you agree with that sentiment?

PS: Yes, Terry, I do agree with that basic sentiment.

It seems to me that the rod industry is in a very strange state at the moment and the price of rods varies enormously, as anyone can see from picking up a tackle catalogue and looking through it. It is often difficult to decide if the very high prices charged for the top-end rods are fair or not, when many of the much cheaper rods perform quite well. I think this question is best answered by explaining that all the top-end manufacturers employ at least one full time rod designer and spend a huge amount of time in research, design and testing. As I understand it most, if not all, of the cheaper-end products are produced in China where costs are very much lower than in Europe and the USA, and the Chinese manufacturers do not do any research, design work or product testing but rely on copying the designs of others, hoping that the performance is also replicated in the process. In my opinion, the performance of these cheaper rods, although often quite good, is never quite the same as the top-end product.

When a top-end manufacturer decides to build a new line of rods the process begins with the designer setting out the performance characteristics he wants the new rod to have. He then designs a new mandrel on which the specially-cut carbon cloth will be rolled to make the new rod blank. When the first blanks are finished they will be thoroughly tested and adjustments may have to be made to the taper of the mandrel and to the way the carbon cloth is cut, perhaps several times before a satisfactory rod is produced.

< To the top

TL: When a budget-priced rod is produced the rod company will probably just contact the Chinese factory and order a 9’, #6 weight two-piece tip action rod which they may or may not test and request modifications to it before putting it on the market.

PS: I think that either is a perfectly legitimate way to produce a new fly rod, but if it weren’t for the top-end companies doing the research and design work the Far East factories would have nothing to copy and I doubt very much if they have the expertise to design good fly rods from scratch. An occasional problem arises, in my view, from the pricing policies of some companies which seem to assign a deliberately high retail price to a rod so that it can be ‘discounted’ later down to what the price probably should have been in the first place, so deceiving the buyer into thinking they have bought a genuine reduction and a bargain.

I am often asked if the top-end rods are really worth the price when adequate rods can be had for a fraction of the amount. In my opinion the best, of the best rods really are better than the cheaper alternatives, but this is not to say the cheaper rods are not also adequate or even very good. If I could liken it to motor cars for a moment, I think everyone would agree that a Rolls Royce, Mercedes or Lexus is a better car in terms of design, quality and performance than a Citroen, Renault or Fiat but we can’t all afford one of those and some of us who could afford it decide that, for what ever reason, we don’t wish to spend that amount of money on a car and so it is with fly rods – only you can decide and the decision has to be right for you.

TL: Would you agree that newcomers to fly fishing don’t spend too much money on a rod, but equally do not buy too cheap a rod? My reasoning is that a very cheap rod may be nasty enough to make learning to cast difficult and the performance bad enough to put-off a beginner. The reason for not spending too much money to begin with is that after a few months of fishing with a rod, you will start to realise its limitations as your casting and fishing improve (we hope!). When you feel that you know what is wrong with your existing rod, you can either go to a tackle shop and get advise on a rod without those faults, or talk to friends as well as read rod reviews.

PS: No, not necessarily. I can think of at least one rod that retails for around £60 that is very good and a few which cost considerably more which I would not recommend. The advice here has to be ‘Try before you buy’ and be guided by your own feelings, the size of your purse and how much you are willing to spend. In my experience most newcomers will not want to spend upwards of £400 on a rod but if they do buy a premium rod and later wish to change it, it will sell fairly easily and without dropping too much in price. In contrast a cheap rod will be worth practically nothing second hand.

TL: Yes, the second-hand value of a rod is a good point although most discarded rods will have some value as a spare. My final thoughts are that it is impossible to quantify the feel of a rod. Fly fishermen need to build-up a level of experience and knowledge of different types and makes of rods. So take every opportunity you can to try different rods at fishing shows and events or tackle shop demonstration days etc.

PS: Agreed, but take some casting lessons as well so that you can better assess the rods on offer.

< To the top