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..