Been using 2.75tc Grey's 3 piece rods through autumn and winter and thinking of getting some better carbon from Century (preference) or Harrison
What I'm wondering is in practice how does a 3.5tc on a 9ft blank compare in stiffness to 3.5tc on a 12ft blank?
Always preferred a playing action but do find sometimes being shorter can make it harder to turn fish around
So wondering if 3.5tc would still feel soft on a 9ft blank just with a bit more backbone or if it would become a short broomstick?
Cheers
What I'm wondering is in practice how does a 3.5tc on a 9ft blank compare in stiffness to 3.5tc on a 12ft blank?
Always preferred a playing action but do find sometimes being shorter can make it harder to turn fish around
So wondering if 3.5tc would still feel soft on a 9ft blank just with a bit more backbone or if it would become a short broomstick?
Cheers
In reply to Post #1
Broomstick. Cannot think of anything worse to play a fish on. My view is that a high tc short rod takes the pleasure out of playing a carp. If you have to cast big distances then you might have to put up with it but just for playing a fish no way would I entertain what you are proposing.
My 8 ft x 2 lb tc rod feels stiff and not particularly nice when playing a carp but never had a problem turning one when the need arises. Much easier to put more pressure on with it than my longer higher tc rods.
Broomstick. Cannot think of anything worse to play a fish on. My view is that a high tc short rod takes the pleasure out of playing a carp. If you have to cast big distances then you might have to put up with it but just for playing a fish no way would I entertain what you are proposing.
My 8 ft x 2 lb tc rod feels stiff and not particularly nice when playing a carp but never had a problem turning one when the need arises. Much easier to put more pressure on with it than my longer higher tc rods.
In reply to Post #1
Impossible to say.
A 3.5 rod that when bent to 90 degrees is bending at the handle can't be compared to one that does it in the first 18”
The shorter the rod, the harder physics allow you to pull. A 3.5 scope, for example, will probably out pull any 12ft rod in any TC. They bend petty deep and become short levers.
It's not right that some people assume a lower or higher test curve is automatically more powerful.
Whatever becomes the shortest under load will pull hardest because it negates the physical disadvantage of length.
Being high tc, like a 5lb through action 10ft cat rod, just means it's less likely to go pop
Impossible to say.
A 3.5 rod that when bent to 90 degrees is bending at the handle can't be compared to one that does it in the first 18”
The shorter the rod, the harder physics allow you to pull. A 3.5 scope, for example, will probably out pull any 12ft rod in any TC. They bend petty deep and become short levers.
It's not right that some people assume a lower or higher test curve is automatically more powerful.
Whatever becomes the shortest under load will pull hardest because it negates the physical disadvantage of length.
Being high tc, like a 5lb through action 10ft cat rod, just means it's less likely to go pop
In reply to Post #1
Shorter rods with 3.5 tc sounds to much but they are very popular you need to have a feel of one before you decide every blank is different
Shorter rods with 3.5 tc sounds to much but they are very popular you need to have a feel of one before you decide every blank is different
I beleive it's the same as any other "standard" length rod. Each rod has a different action.
See if your local store has one in and go and have a play about with it.
It's all personal preference as to what action you prefer.
See if your local store has one in and go and have a play about with it.
It's all personal preference as to what action you prefer.
A lot will also depend on what the user is used to using, I've got 2.25tc scopes that are battered and need replacing but also have 3lb tc scopes which feel brutal after using the lighter rods but are very nice it just takes a little bit of use to get familiar with them again.
Yeah, I've always preferred a through action to enjoy playing fish on but I was using 10ft 3.25's and had to get rid because they were too soft in the tip and too stiff in the bottom section almost like they were sections off different rods and unbalanced.
I never use a bag bigger than a golf ball and tend not to cast far so don't need the power for either of those scenarios, but would need to haul through weed and who knows maybe even catch a decent fish on one 🙂
What I'm finding with the CQ's is that tackle shops only seem to hold either the 2.75 or 3.5 option and not both so makes me wonder how popular they really are?
Had some smashing Century rods over the years in all sorts of t/c's with my favourite being green armalites, what a superb fish playing rod they were
I never use a bag bigger than a golf ball and tend not to cast far so don't need the power for either of those scenarios, but would need to haul through weed and who knows maybe even catch a decent fish on one 🙂
What I'm finding with the CQ's is that tackle shops only seem to hold either the 2.75 or 3.5 option and not both so makes me wonder how popular they really are?
Had some smashing Century rods over the years in all sorts of t/c's with my favourite being green armalites, what a superb fish playing rod they were
In reply to Post #7
I had a feel of a mates century CQ in 9ft 3.5lb . They have a fast taper . I really liked it. But sounds like you might not.
I had a feel of a mates century CQ in 9ft 3.5lb . They have a fast taper . I really liked it. But sounds like you might not.
In reply to Post #8
Right, thanks useful to know.
The science may not back my opinion up, but I always see fast taper rods as a waste of all that carbon in the mid and bottom section lol and more chance of bumping off a fish.
Much prefer a rod to 'arc' down to the reel seat and compromise with the perceived power lost
Right, thanks useful to know.
The science may not back my opinion up, but I always see fast taper rods as a waste of all that carbon in the mid and bottom section lol and more chance of bumping off a fish.
Much prefer a rod to 'arc' down to the reel seat and compromise with the perceived power lost
In reply to Post #9
Century do a C2 ten foot in 3 and 3.5 tc but don't know what the action is like.
Century do a C2 ten foot in 3 and 3.5 tc but don't know what the action is like.
In reply to Post #10
Thank you, but keen on keeping in the boot of the car, but only a small is car so needs to be 9ft 3pc.
Been looking through their new range - those mkiii armalites do look like a very nice rod. Might have to start saving up 😂
Thank you, but keen on keeping in the boot of the car, but only a small is car so needs to be 9ft 3pc.
Been looking through their new range - those mkiii armalites do look like a very nice rod. Might have to start saving up 😂
In reply to Post #11
They do the mk3 armalite in 10ft as well but but only seen it in European tackle shops not UK.
They do the mk3 armalite in 10ft as well but but only seen it in European tackle shops not UK.
In reply to Post #12
I have Harrison torrix custom 10' corks and the test curve on them are 3.25lb for me ideal on the canal as I never really now what snags or fish are in there,on my free spirit ctx's I had pike to 14lb on a boilie and carp upto 30plus from the canals and as they can only go up and down the canal I need a strong rod
I have Harrison torrix custom 10' corks and the test curve on them are 3.25lb for me ideal on the canal as I never really now what snags or fish are in there,on my free spirit ctx's I had pike to 14lb on a boilie and carp upto 30plus from the canals and as they can only go up and down the canal I need a strong rod
In reply to Post #11
Is there anyone that uses 3.5 10 or 9 fts are they very stiff and horrible to use would like your feedback please
Is there anyone that uses 3.5 10 or 9 fts are they very stiff and horrible to use would like your feedback please
In reply to Post #14
I fancied a set of retractable rods at the beginning of last year, I wasn't sure so I only bought a set of Diawa Black Widow EXT in 10' 3.5lb tc for a small water syndicate I fish.
For the money they proved to be more than capable, could cast 80 yards with 5000T's loaded with 18lb XT. I ended up using them exclusively over a set of 12'6" Torrix, I'd say I landed 60 plus fish to upper twenties, and the lakes 2 catfish 65 and 80lb plus with no drama's.
They are stiff as you'd expect, but with some of the fishing "hit and hold" they proved themselves time and again. Going from the Torrix, casting I found much more accurate too.
Fittings wise they are okay for what's basically a £35 rod, could do with a anti frap tip, sic rings 40 mm butt, full shrink etc plain but understated .
I'd buy them again, but may look at the Crosscast version, if I could get over the horrible red fittings on the TFT exclusive version for the price of £45 they are a bargain with sea guides etc.
Maybe buy one and try it, very little lost monetary wise if you don't like etc..
I fancied a set of retractable rods at the beginning of last year, I wasn't sure so I only bought a set of Diawa Black Widow EXT in 10' 3.5lb tc for a small water syndicate I fish.
For the money they proved to be more than capable, could cast 80 yards with 5000T's loaded with 18lb XT. I ended up using them exclusively over a set of 12'6" Torrix, I'd say I landed 60 plus fish to upper twenties, and the lakes 2 catfish 65 and 80lb plus with no drama's.
They are stiff as you'd expect, but with some of the fishing "hit and hold" they proved themselves time and again. Going from the Torrix, casting I found much more accurate too.
Fittings wise they are okay for what's basically a £35 rod, could do with a anti frap tip, sic rings 40 mm butt, full shrink etc plain but understated .
I'd buy them again, but may look at the Crosscast version, if I could get over the horrible red fittings on the TFT exclusive version for the price of £45 they are a bargain with sea guides etc.
Maybe buy one and try it, very little lost monetary wise if you don't like etc..
In reply to Post #14
I was using CTX 10FT 3.25TC and found the top sections really floppy and stiff butt section. Tip would literally be pointed at the lake with mid/butt hardly moving.
Tbh even if 3.5 9ft TC had a ballista/armalite action I could handle that but not where only the tips are soft doesn't make sense to me
I was using CTX 10FT 3.25TC and found the top sections really floppy and stiff butt section. Tip would literally be pointed at the lake with mid/butt hardly moving.
Tbh even if 3.5 9ft TC had a ballista/armalite action I could handle that but not where only the tips are soft doesn't make sense to me
In reply to Post #15
I'm from an era where telescopics were quite cheap and therefore unreliable and can't get that put of my head seeing them split at the joint. My net is telescopic which is very good, but for me I'll stick with proper jointed rods 👍
I'm from an era where telescopics were quite cheap and therefore unreliable and can't get that put of my head seeing them split at the joint. My net is telescopic which is very good, but for me I'll stick with proper jointed rods 👍
In reply to Post #17
You want the harrison 3 piece 2.75t.c handle anything that swims in our waters.
You want the harrison 3 piece 2.75t.c handle anything that swims in our waters.
In reply to Post #18
Yes, they were on the list and a fair few quid cheaper than the Century's for sure, but something about the CQ that just look better and we spend so much time looking at this stuff it's nice for it to look nice 😂
Yes, they were on the list and a fair few quid cheaper than the Century's for sure, but something about the CQ that just look better and we spend so much time looking at this stuff it's nice for it to look nice 😂
In reply to Post #19
Depends who builds them 😉
Depends who builds them 😉
In reply to Post #18
I had the 3 piece yatley Harrison's with the extra sections must be 20 years ago when Steve fantussi first sold me them I found them a faff setting them up and packing away in case being Harrison where nice rods but not for me
Was looking at the 9 or 10/ft retractable in 3.5 I have 12ft 3.25 aircuves I've used twice was thinking of replacing them with retractables but don't know if doing the right thing
I had the 3 piece yatley Harrison's with the extra sections must be 20 years ago when Steve fantussi first sold me them I found them a faff setting them up and packing away in case being Harrison where nice rods but not for me
Was looking at the 9 or 10/ft retractable in 3.5 I have 12ft 3.25 aircuves I've used twice was thinking of replacing them with retractables but don't know if doing the right thing
In reply to Post #21
Rare as hen's teeth now. I believe Harrison don't do the colours now anymore either do they?
Rare as hen's teeth now. I believe Harrison don't do the colours now anymore either do they?
In reply to Post #20
Think I may have tried to buy a couple you had on the bay a few months back but it wasn't to be
Think I may have tried to buy a couple you had on the bay a few months back but it wasn't to be
Like rods of all lengths, the action of the blank is probably more important than the actual test curve.
Most of the waters that I have fished for the past 10 years or so have been overgrown and quite intimate, so although I will always have a set of 12's, most of my fishing has been done with 9 and 10 footers, and I have tried pretty much every short rod on the market!
My favourites have been Century C2's in 3lb. These are definitely not broomsticks and have a beautiful through action, so much so that sometimes I kind of wished for the 3.5lb's for the extra backbone. I also owned a set of Hi-S 10ft 3.25lb and these were definitely more broomstick like. Better for casting, as were more fast taper rather than a parabolic blank.
At the mo, I am using 3lb Scopes (I've had about 3 sets over the years) and they are very similar in action to the C2's. They feel lighter than 3lb if anything and have proven 100% reliable. Don't believe the bad press that scope rods get, I think they're spot on if you need a compact pack down to fit in your boot.
Most of the waters that I have fished for the past 10 years or so have been overgrown and quite intimate, so although I will always have a set of 12's, most of my fishing has been done with 9 and 10 footers, and I have tried pretty much every short rod on the market!
My favourites have been Century C2's in 3lb. These are definitely not broomsticks and have a beautiful through action, so much so that sometimes I kind of wished for the 3.5lb's for the extra backbone. I also owned a set of Hi-S 10ft 3.25lb and these were definitely more broomstick like. Better for casting, as were more fast taper rather than a parabolic blank.
At the mo, I am using 3lb Scopes (I've had about 3 sets over the years) and they are very similar in action to the C2's. They feel lighter than 3lb if anything and have proven 100% reliable. Don't believe the bad press that scope rods get, I think they're spot on if you need a compact pack down to fit in your boot.
In reply to Post #24
I have 3lb scopes and agree, no need to go any higher in the TC. They bend right through and no drama with heavy leads and weed. They have been chucked about and still all good.
I have 3lb scopes and agree, no need to go any higher in the TC. They bend right through and no drama with heavy leads and weed. They have been chucked about and still all good.
If the reason is purely packdown length and fitting them in the boot, Shimano do a range of 12ft four piece. I'm not sure why one or two of the other manufacturers haven't cottoned on to this, or 12ft three piece.
In reply to Post #25
They are very versatile aren't they mate. A few years back I used 10ft 3lb scopes as my main rods, fishing from under the tips and up to 100yds, catching doubles from park lakes and 50's in France. If I was told tomorrow that I could only use one set of rods for all of my fishing, it would 100% be 3lb scopes.
They are very versatile aren't they mate. A few years back I used 10ft 3lb scopes as my main rods, fishing from under the tips and up to 100yds, catching doubles from park lakes and 50's in France. If I was told tomorrow that I could only use one set of rods for all of my fishing, it would 100% be 3lb scopes.
In reply to Post #26
I have used 4 piece and 3 piece rods mate, and as someone has already mentioned, they are much more of a faff to set up and pack down than retractable butt rods. I yearned for a set of Dymags, and although they were beautiful rods, folding them down in poor conditions when in a rush ended up being a ball ache.
I have used 4 piece and 3 piece rods mate, and as someone has already mentioned, they are much more of a faff to set up and pack down than retractable butt rods. I yearned for a set of Dymags, and although they were beautiful rods, folding them down in poor conditions when in a rush ended up being a ball ache.
I have a set of the YAC Stalkers, find them no probs to wrap. Rod/lead bands and those little hook keepers help.
In reply to Post #29
In reply to Post #28
I've used 3 piece rods on and off for donkeys so have a method of breaking them down start at the top and consatina then band them - in and out of the bag and fishing in 5 mins tops.
I must be the only person in the world who didn't think much of the dymag stalkers, all that bling and varnish I'd be too worried about damaging them
YAC stalkers were great so maybe I shouldn't overlook the Harrison's, certainly cheaper, I did think they were quite stiff in the butt section though?
Anyone have CQ's and ST3's or know anywhere that have both in stock so I can have a wiggle and compare?
I've used 3 piece rods on and off for donkeys so have a method of breaking them down start at the top and consatina then band them - in and out of the bag and fishing in 5 mins tops.
I must be the only person in the world who didn't think much of the dymag stalkers, all that bling and varnish I'd be too worried about damaging them
YAC stalkers were great so maybe I shouldn't overlook the Harrison's, certainly cheaper, I did think they were quite stiff in the butt section though?
Anyone have CQ's and ST3's or know anywhere that have both in stock so I can have a wiggle and compare?
In reply to Post #26
Pretty much and speed of setup in any nook and cranny. Even I'll admit 4 piece rods were to much of a pain to pack up especially in tighter swims
Pretty much and speed of setup in any nook and cranny. Even I'll admit 4 piece rods were to much of a pain to pack up especially in tighter swims
In reply to Post #31
The dymag, yateley and Harrison stalkers are all basically the same ballista blank.
If you found them stiff I'd suggest something between and including a 2.5 bank creeper and a 1.5 avon.
The dymag, yateley and Harrison stalkers are all basically the same ballista blank.
If you found them stiff I'd suggest something between and including a 2.5 bank creeper and a 1.5 avon.
In reply to Post #33
Iirc Harrison used to do a 9ft 2.25 imagine in today's world they'd sell very few and why they stopped making them 🙂.
I'm happy with a higher TC it's more the action I'm bothered about. Seeing a rod in an arc just makes me smile a lot
Iirc Harrison used to do a 9ft 2.25 imagine in today's world they'd sell very few and why they stopped making them 🙂.
I'm happy with a higher TC it's more the action I'm bothered about. Seeing a rod in an arc just makes me smile a lot
In reply to Post #34
They still do a 9ft 3 piece 2lb t.c .
They still do a 9ft 3 piece 2lb t.c .
In reply to Post #35
I see there's a small group using 6ft retractable rods for standard short distance carp fishing they seem to be ok as they have had fish in the 30s thought people only used them to poke between trees ect means they can go very light and get in small swims anyone use 6fts
I see there's a small group using 6ft retractable rods for standard short distance carp fishing they seem to be ok as they have had fish in the 30s thought people only used them to poke between trees ect means they can go very light and get in small swims anyone use 6fts
In reply to Post #35
Casting small leads with 9ft 3.5lb rods is not the one.
Casting small leads with 9ft 3.5lb rods is not the one.
In reply to Post #36
Only with a big lure on .
Only with a big lure on .
In reply to Post #34
Most of my rods have a through action and I also enjoy the look of a rod in an arc. However on Saturday if I had a 3.5 lb rod and put a big arc in it I probably would have just pulled a small piece out of the carp's lip instead of putting it on the bank.
Most of my rods have a through action and I also enjoy the look of a rod in an arc. However on Saturday if I had a 3.5 lb rod and put a big arc in it I probably would have just pulled a small piece out of the carp's lip instead of putting it on the bank.
In reply to Post #39
Fair point 👍
Fair point 👍
In reply to Post #33
The yateley and harrison stalkers are identical the dymag are different blanks.I had a set of dymag and they were far to stiff for my liking the action on harrisons is far better and if you get them matt finish they are even better again.
The yateley and harrison stalkers are identical the dymag are different blanks.I had a set of dymag and they were far to stiff for my liking the action on harrisons is far better and if you get them matt finish they are even better again.
In reply to Post #41
Yes mine were matt carbon.
Is there a weave added to the dymag blank?
Yes mine were matt carbon.
Is there a weave added to the dymag blank?
In reply to Post #42
Yes similar to torrix .
Yes similar to torrix .
In reply to Post #43
I still think the 10ft 1.75 barbel stalker would make a brilliant carp rod. The 2lb 3pc is apparently a bit sloppy?
I still think the 10ft 1.75 barbel stalker would make a brilliant carp rod. The 2lb 3pc is apparently a bit sloppy?
In reply to Post #44
Done a few 3 piece 2lb and not heard any negatives ? As you know i love the ballista blanks .As for 10ft the ballista 2.75 is my go to .
Done a few 3 piece 2lb and not heard any negatives ? As you know i love the ballista blanks .As for 10ft the ballista 2.75 is my go to .
In reply to Post #45
2.75 is a little heavy for the rods I have in mind. I'm happy with a 1.5 or 1.75 if it's fast action and folds over to a butt section of reserve power
2.75 is a little heavy for the rods I have in mind. I'm happy with a 1.5 or 1.75 if it's fast action and folds over to a butt section of reserve power
In reply to Post #46
The 10ft 1.75 certainly bends and has ample power to turn a powerful barbel.
The 10ft 1.75 certainly bends and has ample power to turn a powerful barbel.
Managed to give a few a wiggle at Johnson Ross - after everything I posted and thought, the Harrison 2.75 were too soft for my liking, the CQ 3.5s too stiff and the CQ 2.75's just right.
The finish on the Century's (IMHO) was much nicer than the stock Harrison build too.
Goes to show the importance of getting carbon in your hand and seeing for yourself rather than just going of reviews and opinions - even though you are all very nice and helpful 🙂
The finish on the Century's (IMHO) was much nicer than the stock Harrison build too.
Goes to show the importance of getting carbon in your hand and seeing for yourself rather than just going of reviews and opinions - even though you are all very nice and helpful 🙂
In reply to Post #48
And a wiggle in a shop does not give much away either, putting a reel on and line through to put a bend in the rod would be better. The real proof is in use casting and playing a few.
And a wiggle in a shop does not give much away either, putting a reel on and line through to put a bend in the rod would be better. The real proof is in use casting and playing a few.
In reply to Post #48
A bit late now but it might have been interesting to set a rod or three up with reel and line and pull on a set of scales, to see what sort of grunt you'd get per model....
Edit: Just saw your post Goose.
A bit late now but it might have been interesting to set a rod or three up with reel and line and pull on a set of scales, to see what sort of grunt you'd get per model....
Edit: Just saw your post Goose.
In reply to Post #49
One of them bent lovely today pulling for a break 😂😂.
Hopefully next bend will be for a fish
One of them bent lovely today pulling for a break 😂😂.
Hopefully next bend will be for a fish
In reply to Post #51
Century certainly do seem to give there current rods a very nice finish, hope they keep their appearance and don't go milky over time. The cq's are too powerful for me, would like to have seen a 2.25tc in the range but been told by a few shops if it ain't 3lb+ tc with 50mm rings it don't sell well.
Century certainly do seem to give there current rods a very nice finish, hope they keep their appearance and don't go milky over time. The cq's are too powerful for me, would like to have seen a 2.25tc in the range but been told by a few shops if it ain't 3lb+ tc with 50mm rings it don't sell well.
Reading ALL pages