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?