Anyone using the above rods as looking for something that could hit 150 yards if required so quite like the look of these, have Horizon XT in 10ft and can't fault them, have HI-S 3.5TC in 12ft but can't get near that sort of range just looking for feedback.
In reply to Post #1
Looks like it's a problem with your technique. Don't be offended, comment isnt personal. Your hi s rods should be able to hit 150 np.
Maybe watch some YouTube of Mark Hutchinson, he knows how to hit the horizon np.
Buying new rods won't solve an issue with technique.
Looks like it's a problem with your technique. Don't be offended, comment isnt personal. Your hi s rods should be able to hit 150 np.
Maybe watch some YouTube of Mark Hutchinson, he knows how to hit the horizon np.
Buying new rods won't solve an issue with technique.
In reply to Post #2
No offence taken! the rods feel as if they have gone soft?? if i Put a 4oz lead on they overload, I've just bought a load of 3s and I'm going to go out and give it a big un (try LOL)
No offence taken! the rods feel as if they have gone soft?? if i Put a 4oz lead on they overload, I've just bought a load of 3s and I'm going to go out and give it a big un (try LOL)
In reply to Post #3
150 yards with a baited rig is a superb cast in anyone's book mate , I can get that with my Hi S I've ERs without a rig but would struggle to reach that with a baited rig with no leader , you may just be asking a bit too much from the Hi S as I don't think it's an extreme range rod as you maybe will know .
People talk of huge distances they are casting but nearly all aren't measuring them out , just estimating , and in my experience there are a lot of exaggerators out their
150 yards with a baited rig is a superb cast in anyone's book mate , I can get that with my Hi S I've ERs without a rig but would struggle to reach that with a baited rig with no leader , you may just be asking a bit too much from the Hi S as I don't think it's an extreme range rod as you maybe will know .
People talk of huge distances they are casting but nearly all aren't measuring them out , just estimating , and in my experience there are a lot of exaggerators out their
Mr happy is right in the post below.. the hi S isn't a distance blank, it can however be built in such a way that the lower down power is more accessible and recovery/action is closer to that of a distance model.
Pretty sure they are built the same as the distance models, which gives the false impression of a heavy slow action blank... another good blank ruined by an inefficient and incorrect build.
Still needs a pretty tasty caster to hit 150 with any degree of accuracy or ease though
Pretty sure they are built the same as the distance models, which gives the false impression of a heavy slow action blank... another good blank ruined by an inefficient and incorrect build.
Still needs a pretty tasty caster to hit 150 with any degree of accuracy or ease though
Some good tips here.
In reply to Post #5
Well I have just been to my syndicate with the rod and 3oz lead attached direct to the mono and the best cast was 28 1/2 wraps with a big side wind I don't think the rod could hit 150 well not in my hands other anglers where there and we were discussing this an they all agreed it would be an exceptional cast to do it as the Hi-S isn't a distance rod, one of them had spoke to Mark Hutchinson at a show the other week and he told him the 13ft Hi-S Ive was the rod he should be using if wanting to fish at that range.
Well I have just been to my syndicate with the rod and 3oz lead attached direct to the mono and the best cast was 28 1/2 wraps with a big side wind I don't think the rod could hit 150 well not in my hands other anglers where there and we were discussing this an they all agreed it would be an exceptional cast to do it as the Hi-S isn't a distance rod, one of them had spoke to Mark Hutchinson at a show the other week and he told him the 13ft Hi-S Ive was the rod he should be using if wanting to fish at that range.
What I have found makes a big difference is to drop down line diameter and put on a braided leader, really helps compress the blank 
In reply to Post #7
Exactly what I said really although after doing the maths, because I talk in old money rather than bloody wraps, the factory hiS could do a touch more.
It needs lightening up to become crisper and another guide or 2 thrown on so as not to bypass the power lost in the huge ring spacings
Exactly what I said really although after doing the maths, because I talk in old money rather than bloody wraps, the factory hiS could do a touch more.
It needs lightening up to become crisper and another guide or 2 thrown on so as not to bypass the power lost in the huge ring spacings
In reply to Post #9
Jon, can you explain why the number/ size of rings changes the action of the rod?
Lots of credible people agree on this so I can take it on trust, but I don't understand why this would make a difference.
I can understand why heavier rings affect the action but not why (weight aside) the number or size of rings make a difference to the action or casting capability.
Is there an explanation that makes sense to a non-engineer?
Jon, can you explain why the number/ size of rings changes the action of the rod?
Lots of credible people agree on this so I can take it on trust, but I don't understand why this would make a difference.
I can understand why heavier rings affect the action but not why (weight aside) the number or size of rings make a difference to the action or casting capability.
Is there an explanation that makes sense to a non-engineer?
In reply to Post #10
I'm no expert but I would think that by having more rings you utilise more of the blank. If you look at modern carp rods they have large gaps between the rings that must create 'flat spots' in the blank where there is a lack of pressure or loading of the blank due to the angle of the line between the rings. More rings would more evenly load the blank by reducing the angle of line between the rings. I have no idea if I have wrote this in a way that makes sense but it makes sense to me lol.
I'm no expert but I would think that by having more rings you utilise more of the blank. If you look at modern carp rods they have large gaps between the rings that must create 'flat spots' in the blank where there is a lack of pressure or loading of the blank due to the angle of the line between the rings. More rings would more evenly load the blank by reducing the angle of line between the rings. I have no idea if I have wrote this in a way that makes sense but it makes sense to me lol.
In reply to Post #10
Not sure you could have one without the other. The lack of weight goes hand in hand with the frame height and spacings, which also resists twist better and tracks the blank's actual action. Hinders casting distances obviously, but the closer you can get the first guide the better in terms of applying pressure, the power of the middle of the rod doesn't just stretch and 50 pence the line.
Not sure you could have one without the other. The lack of weight goes hand in hand with the frame height and spacings, which also resists twist better and tracks the blank's actual action. Hinders casting distances obviously, but the closer you can get the first guide the better in terms of applying pressure, the power of the middle of the rod doesn't just stretch and 50 pence the line.
In reply to Post #3
I know of rods that were suspected of going soft, but on retest by the manufacturer they were as they should be, reckoned it was simply a case of the angler getting used to the rod.
I know of rods that were suspected of going soft, but on retest by the manufacturer they were as they should be, reckoned it was simply a case of the angler getting used to the rod.
In reply to Post #10
Put simply, they are load carriers. So long as they are not heavy enough to be counterproductive, then they allow each section of the blank to carry less load and thus extract more power from the blank.
I was told that the way to extract power from old glass rods back on the day was lots of rings up the blank. Casts of over 150 yards with light line were The norm with them too.
The transition from glass to carbon was literally overnight and the old way of ringing (lots of guides) made the rods far too brutal to use.
In order to soften them, the quick fix was to reduce the number of eyes which is the modern 6 ring guides of today.
Put simply, they are load carriers. So long as they are not heavy enough to be counterproductive, then they allow each section of the blank to carry less load and thus extract more power from the blank.
I was told that the way to extract power from old glass rods back on the day was lots of rings up the blank. Casts of over 150 yards with light line were The norm with them too.
The transition from glass to carbon was literally overnight and the old way of ringing (lots of guides) made the rods far too brutal to use.
In order to soften them, the quick fix was to reduce the number of eyes which is the modern 6 ring guides of today.
In reply to Post #14
Out of interest, does it make a difference in the way we overhead cast, so the pressure on the rings is on the side nearest the blank. Beachcaster style with a multiplier, the pressure is on the other side of the rings pulling away from the blank, if that makes sense?
Out of interest, does it make a difference in the way we overhead cast, so the pressure on the rings is on the side nearest the blank. Beachcaster style with a multiplier, the pressure is on the other side of the rings pulling away from the blank, if that makes sense?
In reply to Post #1
Either of them will do the trick, then a bit of practice to get the best from them.
I use the 3.5lb 12ft Horizon X and they are maxed out with my technique at about 130yds.... over grass with a rig.
I haven't used the Hi' s but by the sounds of things you may find it easier using a slightly more casting orientated rod as not all of us are Terry or Hutch.
Depending on how often you are after the distance would dictate how much I would spend, if it was every week I would go down the X5 or a set of Hi Sives/ Treb light/ aviators if I had the cash.
If its twice a season perhaps a look at the CTX 13ft SU or some of the Shimmy intensitys that I have heard good things about. I haven't played with the shimmys but the CTX's are bomb proof.
This is however, just my opinion, as as we all know everyone has one.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
Either of them will do the trick, then a bit of practice to get the best from them.
I use the 3.5lb 12ft Horizon X and they are maxed out with my technique at about 130yds.... over grass with a rig.
I haven't used the Hi' s but by the sounds of things you may find it easier using a slightly more casting orientated rod as not all of us are Terry or Hutch.
Depending on how often you are after the distance would dictate how much I would spend, if it was every week I would go down the X5 or a set of Hi Sives/ Treb light/ aviators if I had the cash.
If its twice a season perhaps a look at the CTX 13ft SU or some of the Shimmy intensitys that I have heard good things about. I haven't played with the shimmys but the CTX's are bomb proof.
This is however, just my opinion, as as we all know everyone has one.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
In reply to Post #14
In reply to Post #15
It doesn't matter which way round, it massively alters the blank for casting and pulling. Obviously the clever bit is to get the eye to be in a good position for casting and for it then be able to offer a smooth transition of power as the rods loads up the other way.
I had an 9 ring set put on a set of 20 odd year old hammered blanks (3.5lb 7 ring factory build) and they were completely brutal. I couldn't cast them. 8 rings and they were still (just) too sharp with 7 rings (albeit smaller ones) they were transformed from a factory build.
They went from being softish through action 3.5s to really good at handling big loads 4 - 7 oz as the old carbon is a lot thicker walled with more elasticity. They blast 4 - 4.5oz now up to 190 yds and put out a respectable 6lb pressure (less than 4 in factory guise).
The factory ringing positions were appalling as well as there are loads of compound tapers up the rod that the eyes were positioned on the thinner side.....massive accident waiting to happen and they were £180+ new 20 odd years ago
The HIs when rebuilt with a sympathetic guide set is a monstrous rod. The blank with the eyes off is really steely and extremely crisp once the weight is off it..
It doesn't matter which way round, it massively alters the blank for casting and pulling. Obviously the clever bit is to get the eye to be in a good position for casting and for it then be able to offer a smooth transition of power as the rods loads up the other way.
I had an 9 ring set put on a set of 20 odd year old hammered blanks (3.5lb 7 ring factory build) and they were completely brutal. I couldn't cast them. 8 rings and they were still (just) too sharp with 7 rings (albeit smaller ones) they were transformed from a factory build.
They went from being softish through action 3.5s to really good at handling big loads 4 - 7 oz as the old carbon is a lot thicker walled with more elasticity. They blast 4 - 4.5oz now up to 190 yds and put out a respectable 6lb pressure (less than 4 in factory guise).
The factory ringing positions were appalling as well as there are loads of compound tapers up the rod that the eyes were positioned on the thinner side.....massive accident waiting to happen and they were £180+ new 20 odd years ago
The HIs when rebuilt with a sympathetic guide set is a monstrous rod. The blank with the eyes off is really steely and extremely crisp once the weight is off it..
In reply to Post #18
So are people saying if I rebuilt my Hi-S with different ringing they would be a capable of been a distance rod circa 150 yds ??
So are people saying if I rebuilt my Hi-S with different ringing they would be a capable of been a distance rod circa 150 yds ??
In reply to Post #19
I'm probably better keeping My HI-S and trying to source a second hand set that will hit circa 140/150 yds as can't really justify spending £1400+ on rods that I will probably only use a couple time of the year so if anyone has any recommendations in the £450-£600 bracket please feel free to share I have seen a set of Nash NXRD which I have seen on the bank and the lad raved about them!
I'm probably better keeping My HI-S and trying to source a second hand set that will hit circa 140/150 yds as can't really justify spending £1400+ on rods that I will probably only use a couple time of the year so if anyone has any recommendations in the £450-£600 bracket please feel free to share I have seen a set of Nash NXRD which I have seen on the bank and the lad raved about them!
In reply to Post #20
13ft 3.5tc shimano velocity meant to be really good for the money, Terry Edmonds recommends them above anything under £200
13ft 3.5tc shimano velocity meant to be really good for the money, Terry Edmonds recommends them above anything under £200
In reply to Post #21
Get some 13ft hi-s 200's I can do 160 with a bare lead and I'm not the best caster in the world!
Get some 13ft hi-s 200's I can do 160 with a bare lead and I'm not the best caster in the world!
In reply to Post #22
I had both of these rods and sent them back
the xtk's varnish cracked around the eyes and the varnish went milky in a month,the x5's had packing underneath the reel seat which broke down and the blank was moving inside the reel seat
I ended up with c2d's from century
I had both of these rods and sent them back
the xtk's varnish cracked around the eyes and the varnish went milky in a month,the x5's had packing underneath the reel seat which broke down and the blank was moving inside the reel seat
I ended up with c2d's from century
Reading ALL pages