In reply to Post #45
Ok whatever you say
Ok whatever you say
In reply to Post #45
The drag created by the rig will slow the lead down and you actually want some friction from the guides to stop it spilling line off the spool, as the lead loses speed so must the line spill or you'll crack off
The drag created by the rig will slow the lead down and you actually want some friction from the guides to stop it spilling line off the spool, as the lead loses speed so must the line spill or you'll crack off
It's not what I say. It's what record holders say.
In reply to Post #45
Last time time I looked one man held the majority of world records for distance casting with both fixed spool and multiplier. Fixed spool 256.96 metres with 125g lead, further with 150g lead and multiplier.
Last time time I looked one man held the majority of world records for distance casting with both fixed spool and multiplier. Fixed spool 256.96 metres with 125g lead, further with 150g lead and multiplier.
In reply to Post #47
Need to be precise here. You will have problems if the line comes off the spool faster than it is pulled through the rings. It may well lead to a crack off, but not necessarily. On a multiplier you will get what was once called a birds nest and now appears to be called a blow up, tangled loops of line still on the spool. With a fixed spool a big mess of line tries to pass through the rod rings and sometimes does, but mostly catches on a ring. You are quite right these situations often lead to crack offs. They are not caused by the difference between a 40 or 50mm butt ring.
Leaving braid and multipliers out of this for now, if you load a good quality mono onto a good quality fixed spool reel as it comes from the manufacturer and leave a 2mm lip of spool above the line you will very rarely, if ever, have casting tangles and the ensuing crack offs.
If you are going to tune a reel for distance casting it stops being a reliable simple tool and becomes a twitchy, sensitive liability that needs lots of constant TLC. Thing I see most is heavily overloaded spools leading to line behind the spool and Crack offs for no benefit to the angler.
Need to be precise here. You will have problems if the line comes off the spool faster than it is pulled through the rings. It may well lead to a crack off, but not necessarily. On a multiplier you will get what was once called a birds nest and now appears to be called a blow up, tangled loops of line still on the spool. With a fixed spool a big mess of line tries to pass through the rod rings and sometimes does, but mostly catches on a ring. You are quite right these situations often lead to crack offs. They are not caused by the difference between a 40 or 50mm butt ring.
Leaving braid and multipliers out of this for now, if you load a good quality mono onto a good quality fixed spool reel as it comes from the manufacturer and leave a 2mm lip of spool above the line you will very rarely, if ever, have casting tangles and the ensuing crack offs.
If you are going to tune a reel for distance casting it stops being a reliable simple tool and becomes a twitchy, sensitive liability that needs lots of constant TLC. Thing I see most is heavily overloaded spools leading to line behind the spool and Crack offs for no benefit to the angler.
In reply to Post #50
Yes the friction created by the guides combined with under filling the spool slightly is compensation because the lead will be slowed by the drag of a baited rig. Multipliers have the luxury of a brake, which can overrun obviously, but fixed spools are just waiting to chuck their guts over the spool lip.
The original reason for the post is that people always compare casting records to fishing and they aren't the same thing. This is just my reason for 50s, or even 40s being unnecessary on a fishing rod
Yes the friction created by the guides combined with under filling the spool slightly is compensation because the lead will be slowed by the drag of a baited rig. Multipliers have the luxury of a brake, which can overrun obviously, but fixed spools are just waiting to chuck their guts over the spool lip.
The original reason for the post is that people always compare casting records to fishing and they aren't the same thing. This is just my reason for 50s, or even 40s being unnecessary on a fishing rod
In reply to Post #51
I think I read somewhere that TE reckons 50's might get him an extra yard or two with baited rigs, but not enough to be significant compared to 40's.
Personally I hate 50's. They look horrible and are so big i'd be bound to smash them all the time. 40's for me every time.
I think I read somewhere that TE reckons 50's might get him an extra yard or two with baited rigs, but not enough to be significant compared to 40's.
Personally I hate 50's. They look horrible and are so big i'd be bound to smash them all the time. 40's for me every time.
In reply to Post #51
It's interesting how many beach casters are moving towards a continental setup whereby the rods used are 13-15ft long with small eyes and setup for fixed spools. I have a pair that have 20mm buttrings to a 12mm tip. They will cast 7oz leads plus baits easily.
It's interesting how many beach casters are moving towards a continental setup whereby the rods used are 13-15ft long with small eyes and setup for fixed spools. I have a pair that have 20mm buttrings to a 12mm tip. They will cast 7oz leads plus baits easily.
50s are good for heavy flurocarbon.
In reply to Post #42
technic id guess. put me on same rod and reel as who ever broke any casting record then put them on my Terry hearns and tourneys they would still beat me. 50 mm butts in carping is just a fashion cause of all the big pit reels around now. ss3000s came over here yrs ago. (nashy hare field days} no 50 mm butts around then if I'm correct.
technic id guess. put me on same rod and reel as who ever broke any casting record then put them on my Terry hearns and tourneys they would still beat me. 50 mm butts in carping is just a fashion cause of all the big pit reels around now. ss3000s came over here yrs ago. (nashy hare field days} no 50 mm butts around then if I'm correct.
In reply to Post #53
I believe most of them use braid which is fine with smaller eyes on the rod.
I believe most of them use braid which is fine with smaller eyes on the rod.
In reply to Post #55
In reply to Post #56
Razorback, who hasn't posted for a while, has Kev Baines big snipers with 30s and can cast a lead 180+ with mono. So except for tournament casting or heavy fluoro as stated, big guides act only as a hindrance but do slow down the fast blanks they are fitted to and make them easier to handle, albeit heavier
Razorback, who hasn't posted for a while, has Kev Baines big snipers with 30s and can cast a lead 180+ with mono. So except for tournament casting or heavy fluoro as stated, big guides act only as a hindrance but do slow down the fast blanks they are fitted to and make them easier to handle, albeit heavier
In reply to Post #58
Wasting your breath mate, not a week goes by without me telling people how they will bugger up a blank with hooped earings !
Wasting your breath mate, not a week goes by without me telling people how they will bugger up a blank with hooped earings !
In reply to Post #59
It's bizarre. I get it that tournament casters want no friction etc. (Aren't these records done with spod rods?) But the detrimental effect of weight and torque is too much for a fishing rod. A properly built 2.5 or 2.75 would do pretty much everything people's 3.5s do and be lighter.
Pretty sure people were casting into the 180s years ago with old 2.75 amorphous rods, it isn't that the blanks were better than now. It's that rod building/understanding has gone backwards.
Maybe it's just me, but you see a thread where somebody wants a rod to fish within 100-120 yards of the bank and 90% or replies will suggest 3.5lb rods.
Don't bream anglers fish at 100 yards with Avon rods
It's bizarre. I get it that tournament casters want no friction etc. (Aren't these records done with spod rods?) But the detrimental effect of weight and torque is too much for a fishing rod. A properly built 2.5 or 2.75 would do pretty much everything people's 3.5s do and be lighter.
Pretty sure people were casting into the 180s years ago with old 2.75 amorphous rods, it isn't that the blanks were better than now. It's that rod building/understanding has gone backwards.
Maybe it's just me, but you see a thread where somebody wants a rod to fish within 100-120 yards of the bank and 90% or replies will suggest 3.5lb rods.
Don't bream anglers fish at 100 yards with Avon rods