View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2013, 09:32 AM
sweetandsalt's Avatar
sweetandsalt sweetandsalt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: -
Posts: 2,552
sweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant futuresweetandsalt has a brilliant future
Default Re: Why oh why is the Hardy CLS so heavy? Ugh!

I agree that, though there is nothing wrong with light weight reels as long as they are adequately rigid and robust enough to survive use out in Nature, that manufacturers' line designations for them are often way off. Hardy and Orvis are among the worst offenders...like a CFO III will take up to #7 line or some such absurd rating. I have taken to ignoring reel's recommended line rating which are more about the size line that will fit on the reel with a specified amount of backing and nothing to do with how the reel will balance with a contemporary rod of that line size. I like Islander's numeric nomenclature; the number represents the diameter of the reel nothing else. Nearly all my contemporary rods are mounted with reels larger than intended for their line rating. My ONE#5 has an FWX 7/8, NRX#4 a Torque T-6 and they are carefully and perfectly balanced with those reels.

I fished with a well regarded, long time Biscayne Bay guide a couple of years ago and had a big, highly skeletonized, light weight reel on my #9 CrossCurrent. What do you think of this new, high-tech Florida-built reel I inquired. He hesitated for a moment, indicated his Tibor Gulfstream in the rod rack and said, "I could pound that thing flat with my Tibor and the Tibor would still work fine." Of course, I use reels to assist in bringing hard running fish to hand, not as hammers.
__________________
Reply With Quote