|
|
|
|
 #10 27 Jul 2020 at 6.46am | |   |
|
In reply to Post #8
The more I think about it the more I am inclined to agree! I used it at the time with 6lb Maxima and a 3/4 oz Arlesey bomb. It was a right faff because I had to retie a new hair each time I rebaited, threading the peanuts on with a needle "borrowed" from my mums sewing kit. Had to be really careful winding in as the nuts would spin like a propeller on the retrieve and kink the hell out of everything!
|
|
|
|
|
My hair rig exits the hook on the bend and I have 3/4 inch gap between bend and top of the baits, it works very well.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #7
I think it would still catch, especially if used with a supple hooklink.
In fact it would probably put more fish on the bank than some of the more complicated looking rigs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #6
I was using the hair when it first became common knowledge circa 1981/82 but I would not be overly confident with that original rig today, tbh! It was 2lb nylon tied to the bend with a gap of about 1/2 inch to two peanuts on a running rig...devastating on opening morning when I had half of my previous seasons total in about 6 hours!! Actually, thinking about it, it would still put fish on the bank today, with a tweak or two.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I prefer long hairs, I believe the separation allowing the hook to drop into the bottom of the mouth gives a much better chance of hooking the fish.
I was carp fishing when Lenny and Kevin came up with the original hair rig, we used them pretty long back then, certainly by today’s standards.
I also think we over complicate stuff nowadays, a lot of these fancy looking rigs are not needed, or are they really any more effective than a straightforward supple braid hair rig.
Look at Darrel Pecks results on the car park lake, seriously pressured fish, and he used very simple bottom bait rigs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
This is a subject that I am constantly trying to come to some conclusion; my understanding is that the main advantage is separation of bait and hook once in the fish's mouth and for that reason I try to use a really supple hair material...6lb braid works for me. I am not convinced that it is solely a big fish rig though, even a modest double has quite a large mouth and will be sucking a bait well into its gob. I am sure that the popularity of ronnie rigs and the like are because of peoples lack of confidence in a long hair. I would always include rig foam to avoid it tangling though.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
This could end up being one of those personal thing's lol. I have my hair held round the curve with silicon tube so it exits off the very bottom with about 2mm gap to the boilie. I've tried longer hairs but after pulling in a number that were tangled round the hook, (always used foam or stick down the hooklink) possibly caused by nuisance fish mouthing it decided on the change.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Are the spooking off when mouthing rigs or free baits?
I use fairly long hairs on short coated braid rigs and the hook holds are great for Carp, Bream & Roach, for me the longer hair allows the hook space & movement to catch hold.
|
|
|
|
|
#2 23 Jul 2020 at 10.47pm | | |
|
|
I usually make the hair length longer if the bait is bigger. I like to make the hair long enough for the hook to lie flat on the bottom. Long hairs are imho better suited to larger fish. Not for commercial / heavily stocked lakes. Also more suited to supple confidence type rigs. No point having a long hair on a short stiff rig or chod type rig.
|
|
|
|
Hi Chaps. Not posted for a while.
Can anyone explain hair length and the theory behind a short medium and long hair and what you trying to achieve. Also maybe when you would use such please? I've some difficult fish that have been caught many times and they seem to spook off quite often when mouthing a bait. Thanks all.
|
|
