[wooky114]

As per title, what's the advantage of using a 14' rod over a 13' rod - with a multiplier and the rod would be a multiplier rod.

 

[Big_Jay]

To b ohnest i dunt think you get any more distance whilst casting using a 14ft over a 13ft ?

i think its more to do with needing a longer rod to help fish easyer! for example fishing over rocky sea beds on the retrive the rod is higher up that helping lift the lead higher in the water preventing less snags ? i could be talking bollax tho lol but thats my theory!

the 16ft rod's make me laff seen a guy trying to use one off mumbles few weeks bk he was'nt having much luck it was well to big...aww well il stick to my 13 footers

 

[Haggis Tosser]

Longer rods offer greater tip speed (in right hands).
Change your question to - whats advantage of a 4ft rod versus a 14ft rod?, and it makes sense as you would struggle to get any real distance with a 4ft rod as you cannot gain the same tip speed. That said as the rod gets longer the point of pivot/fulcrum (your top hand) stays the same and it is harder to apply power to the cast; imagine you now had a 24ft rod and you would hardly be able to control a powerful cast. It all depends on your build/strength/technique etc so its realy a matter of personal choice; what suits one person may not suit the next.

 

[marcus1975]

Longer rods offer greater tip speed (in right hands).
Change your question to - whats advantage of a 4ft rod versus a 14ft rod?, and it makes sense as you would struggle to get any real distance with a 4ft rod as you cannot gain the same tip speed. That said as the rod gets longer the point of pivot/fulcrum (your top hand) stays the same and it is harder to apply power to the cast; imagine you now had a 24ft rod and you would hardly be able to control a powerful cast. It all depends on your build/strength/technique etc so its realy a matter of personal choice; what suits one person may not suit the next.

i agree with you m8 ,i think its all down to leverage .


Mark

 

[skipperboy]

the same as 1' more would do for your own rod??? :idea:

sorry being cheeky :uhuh: :uhuh:

 

[Haggis Tosser]

I would like an extra foot, or two, to my rods; but there already at the maximum possible. My casting rods have the reels mounted on reducer also, so no room for any more extension.

 

[blankerman]

a 14 ft would give you a bit more clearance over close in weed and breaking waves

 

[wooky114]

the same as 1' more would do for your own rod??? :idea:

sorry being cheeky :uhuh: :uhuh:

I like your style

 

[DAVE H]

why phil hyde
when haggis has told you facts
long rod = more tip speed = faster lead=yds
like IAN i run 2 TT-Rs at 15ft+ reels mounted on the reducer

 

[philtherod]

All depends on your build and strength. Some have asked, they may not like the answers I can give.
1) Big man, big rod = distinct possibilities, a la Danny Moeskops.
2) Little man, smaller rod = similar answer to (1).
3) Little man, big rod = hopeless.
4) Big man, little rod = broken rod.

Tongue in cheek, these answers sum up mr. averages possibilites, discounting those with exceptional skills and capabilities, which do count for a lot. The percentage of casters with these exceptional skills can be counted on the fingers of 1 hand at any one time; In the late 60's & early 70's there was Nigel Forrest, then mid 70's the Coull brothers and Dave Turner, late 70's to early 80's, Paul kerry, then Neil Mackellow, from that point casting and fishing rods parted company, and have remained divorced. There are moves afoot, which I heartily approve of, to reintroduce rods with some sort of classification not weight capability, but "Castability", something that I have discussed with the major blank mfrs for many years, as, I suspect, John Holden, and some others have done for some time now.
I hope this comes into fruition, as it will make choice so much easier for the angler coming in to our sport, without affecting those casters who rightly regard themselves at the top of the tree.

Hope this makes sense, and doesn't offend anyone, it is not intended to.

philtherod

 

[bluejt2000]

Here's a link to a page with a downloadable interview with Terry carroll who is saying much the same things as Phil Hyde.

http://johnholden.podshowcreator.com/podcasts.aspx?feedid=1196

Some other tackle manufacturers ought to listen to it too.

Cheers,

John

 

[oldchukka]

saw a chap using a 19ft rod on sunday. his steady o/h thump was putting his bait out further than most, and he was a fair old age and partially disabled.

 

[Ravelling Tangler]

saw a chap using a 19ft rod on sunday. his steady o/h thump was putting his bait out further than most, and he was a fair old age and partially disabled.

But it could be that that rod was particularly easy to bend , so the "effective length" applying leverage against him in the most forceful part of this thump was only about 12 feet
( imagine the rod at thispoint was a big semi-circle, like a letter "C" - the circumference of that half-circle would be 19ft, so the diameter would be 38*7/22 feet) which is probably only a foot or two more than a stiff 13 foot rod.
And he could move more slowly.
And the rod recover more slowly while still reaching an eventual lead speed that is not "too far" below that of a tourney-pole ("too far" below for fishing, that is .......way too much slower for tournament casting)

If, however, that was a particularly stiff 19ft rod he was stonger than you presumed !

 

[Ajohn]

I found a 16ft k2 titanium would give decent easy overhead thumps but couldn't match the overhead I use on a 13ft rod. I tried that on the k2 and it was really hard work and didn't give much gain. The hard work came about for 2 reasons. Leverage and the weight of the rod itself. The lack of gain comes down to the action of the rod.
I didn't really appreciate how much difference rod weight can make before I bought a supro. I just liked the look of the taper and a muscle trembling loading against the floor one hand going down and another pulling up showed that it had nothing lacking in the strength department. Less rod weight means more tip speed. I had already had a simular experience with an anyfish anywhere beach which is fairly light for a rod that's easily capable of casting 6plus ozs. It's the only rod I have ever cracked off with.

John

 

[BIGPETE]

Ashamed at 150 metres, I'd be over the bloody moon !! LOL. got myself a k2 extreme and okuma axeon. really dont think there is anything wrong with the rod its just my technique that is pants. Found the longer rod great for bite detection and also very good for keeping the line high and clear of obstructions and the breakers.

 

[Ajohn]

Persevere Bigpete most of the problem with k2 type rods is trying to hard. Having said that though I have great difficulty believing that an ordinary bloke or woman can cast a bait 150mtrs with any of the long rods using a straight overhead thump and the usual sort of tackle. It just isn't on. A well set up multiplier on the rod might get well over the 100 mark in good conditions.
The line detracts from distance which is why a multiplier can out distance fixed spool.
The energy stored early in the cast as the lead is released continues to feed out line where as it is dragged out of a fixed spool.
The thing that actually sets distance is the speed of the lead. Phil's technique helps ordinary casters as that builds up more slowly than other methods. Larger or flatter arcs have the same effect. There is more time available to accelerate the lead.

John

 

[DAVE H]

Here's a link to a page with a downloadable interview with Terry carroll who is saying much the same things as Phil Hyde.

http://johnholden.podshowcreator.com/podcasts.aspx?feedid=1196

Some other tackle manufacturers ought to listen to it too.

Cheers,

John

FUNNY how they have changed .
i think terry c is a good rod builder but has run out of ideas and is now reiventing the wheel
and john h is living in the past
its time to move on with the times.

 

[philtherod]

Prhaps U.K. rodbuilders could also come up-to-date, like the rest of the world, by using rings 'n things from the 21st century, rather than from two-thirds of the way through the last century!!

philtherod

 

[marcus1975]

size isnt everything its what you do with it that counts !! or so all my ex partners tell me :g: still waiting for the one that says (in a vietnamese accent )YOU TO BIG ,YOU TO BIG !!!!!! LOL



Mark

 

[WR300]

Prhaps U.K. rodbuilders could also come up-to-date, like the rest of the world, by using rings 'n things from the 21st century, rather than from two-thirds of the way through the last century!!

philtherod

You wouldnt be refering to BHNG rings at all Phil?, personally cant stand them :yucky: ,all my rods fitted with Zircons,altho do like the new Alconites on my mates Zzipy...