Rod Length...Genuine Differences?

[ThrowingFlies]

Hey all,

Recently I feel like i've kind of been hogging this sub-forum. But you are all so knowledgable and eager to help! Cant say thank you enough.

So i'm ready to pull the trigger on a new rod which is a rather big deal to me. Havent bought a new one in almost 5 years. I've scoured the forums, read reviews and watched videos. And the one thing that strikes me is how much the length of the rod factors in. To be honest i'm thinking about getting a Sage X in a 5' 9 weight. I finally had the chance to cast it at one of my local shops and...wow. By no means am I an expert caster. But I found myself able to 1) create incredibly tight loops and 2) cast incredibly accurately from 20' to 50'. Easily 2x more accurate than my current rod.

But I digress. My only question now is 9' or 8'6''. I'm a curious person by nature and find myself genuinely wondering how much of a difference there could possibly be with only a 6'' difference. More importantly - what are those differences? Im speaking more in terms of how the rod casts. Obviously an 8'6'' with be a little bit more maneuverable and easier to physically cast in certain situations. But the way some people speak about a 8'6'' rods vs 9' (especially in 4 and 5 weight) its like theyre talking about completely different rods. Is this actually the case? What kind of differences do you notice when casting?

Thanks again all! Hopefully my new rod with be on its way Monday and ready for next weekend!

 

[TristianSutton]

They do have a noticeable impact on the casting performance, an 8'6" 5wt has a fell that is best suited to dry flies and a 9' 5wt is a great all around taper, personally i hate rods under 10' as i much prefer the long reach of a 10' rod and the extra finesse they give

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[strmanglr scott]

I choose my rod length according to size of the water I'm on.

Got 7ft 5wt for small stuff and 9ft 5wt for the bigger water.

 

[mike_r]

It will vary from model and make very noticeably. The 8’6” rods often may flex a touch deeper or more uniformly than most 9’ models of same rod series. The shorter rod often will “feel” better and may be a touch more controllable inside of 50’ casts when using typical dry flies. I can speak for the X in the 590 config but not the 586. If I was throwing dries 75% of the time, I would lean towards the 586. My experience with sages again is the 9’ 5 wt rods in the series tend to be stiffer overall with the flex towards the rod tip, whilst the 8.5’ rods more lively and generally softer overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThrowingFlies]

It will vary from model and make very noticeably. The 8’6” rods often may flex a touch deeper or more uniformly than most 9’ models of same rod series. The shorter rod often will “feel” better and may be a touch more controllable inside of 50’ casts when using typical dry flies. I can speak for the X in the 590 config but not the 586. If I was throwing dries 75% of the time, I would lean towards the 586. My experience with sages again is the 9’ 5 wt rods in the series tend to be stiffer overall with the flex towards the rod tip, whilst the 8.5’ rods more lively and generally softer overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh. So whats the benefit of the 9' model then? I mean probably 90% of our fish are caught inside 50'. And if the only benefit is a liiitle extra distance with the tradeoff of less 'feel' overall...why dont more people go with the 8'6''? Or are the other benefits to the 9' besides distance?

 

[silver creek]

Hey all,

Recently I feel like i've kind of been hogging this sub-forum. But you are all so knowledgable and eager to help! Cant say thank you enough.

So i'm ready to pull the trigger on a new rod which is a rather big deal to me. Havent bought a new one in almost 5 years. I've scoured the forums, read reviews and watched videos. And the one thing that strikes me is how much the length of the rod factors in. To be honest i'm thinking about getting a Sage X in a 5' 9 weight. I finally had the chance to cast it at one of my local shops and...wow. By no means am I an expert caster. But I found myself able to 1) create incredibly tight loops and 2) cast incredibly accurately from 20' to 50'. Easily 2x more accurate than my current rod.

But I digress. My only question now is 9' or 8'6''. I'm a curious person by nature and find myself genuinely wondering how much of a difference there could possibly be with only a 6'' difference. More importantly - what are those differences? Im speaking more in terms of how the rod casts. Obviously an 8'6'' with be a little bit more maneuverable and easier to physically cast in certain situations. But the way some people speak about a 8'6'' rods vs 9' (especially in 4 and 5 weight) its like theyre talking about completely different rods. Is this actually the case? What kind of differences do you notice when casting?

Thanks again all! Hopefully my new rod with be on its way Monday and ready for next weekend!

There is no problem with you asking questions. None at all,

To make a comparison based on length alone, there has to be an assumption that the rods will perform identically EXCEPT for differences related to their respective lengths. So to make an actual "real life" comparison of a Sage X 5 wt in 8.5 ft vs 9.0 ft length, the actual rods have to be otherwise equal except for their length. Otherwise the behavior differences unrelated to length will color the behavior of the two rods.

A longer rod is a longer lever. Therefore the differences will be mainly due to the lever effects of the rod.

Positives of a longer rod.

1. A longer rod will cast further both overhead AND roll casting.

2. A longer rod will be better in nymphing. It will able to keep more line off of the water for nymphing. It get longer drifts when nymphing

3. A longer rod will be more effective in mending.

4. For fighting big fish, a longer rod can put more pressure on the fish as long as the tippet is strong enough. We cast with the upper section of the fly rod and fight fish with the rod butt.

A longer rod has a stronger butt section than a shorter rod. The rod taper means the longer the rod, the thicker and stronger the butt section. So a longer rod allows you to put more pressure on a fish without danger of breaking the rod.

Cons of a longer rod and pros of a shorter rod.

1. A longer rod will be heavier - it will generally have a higher moment of inertia (swing weight)

2. In general within the optimum casting distances of the two rods, a shorter rod will be more accurate.

3. A shorter rod is better in tight spaces.


Landing fish.

Pros and cons of longer and shorter rods vary and depend on whether your net is long enough to reach the fish when you have a longer rod and whether you are limited in manipulating the fish to shore, for example, in a float tube. With an 8.5 vs a 9 ft rod, they are pretty very close in these two qualities.

In summary, a longer rod is better for nymphing and for fishing in a lake, long distance casting (for example, wading a lake, mending line in the air and on the water. A shorter rod is more accurate, lighter, and better in tight spaces. I like shorter rods for spring creeks where accuracy is at a premium.

So with a longer rod you gain increased reach, mending, and casting length ability at the loss of casting accuracy. BUT this is ONLY true if the rods are not unequal in design.

 

[TristianSutton]

Huh. So whats the benefit of the 9' model then? I mean probably 90% of our fish are caught inside 50'. And if the only benefit is a liiitle extra distance with the tradeoff of less 'feel' overall...why dont more people go with the 8'6''? Or are the other benefits to the 9' besides distance?

The 9' rod mends better and gives you more high sticking reach

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[okaloosa]

Huh. So whats the benefit of the 9' model then? I mean probably 90% of our fish are caught inside 50'. And if the only benefit is a liiitle extra distance with the tradeoff of less 'feel' overall...why dont more people go with the 8'6''? Or are the other benefits to the 9' besides distance?

you can mend line easier with a longer rod as well as have more line control in general. more control for nymphing and streamer fishing on wider streams.

 

[dillon]

If you first wanted a 4 wt and are now thinking a 5wt a 586 makes a lot of sense. S&S loves his 586 Sage x. He uses it on mid size rivers and a 590 is more of his big river rod. So, the 586 would be a good rod for where you otherwise might use a 490. I don't have a 586, but if I were to had another trout rod that would be it.

BTW, I love my 490 One and I see they can still be found at the close out price. That rod is SeattleSetter's,( a Sage aficionado) favorite dry fly rod and its fast becoming mine.

 

[cooutlaw]

It will vary from model and make very noticeably. The 8’6” rods often may flex a touch deeper or more uniformly than most 9’ models of same rod series. The shorter rod often will “feel” better and may be a touch more controllable inside of 50’ casts when using typical dry flies. I can speak for the X in the 590 config but not the 586. If I was throwing dries 75% of the time, I would lean towards the 586. My experience with sages again is the 9’ 5 wt rods in the series tend to be stiffer overall with the flex towards the rod tip, whilst the 8.5’ rods more lively and generally softer overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a really accurate statement 99% of the time. But the Sage X series may be one of the very few series that the adverse is true....the 8'6" 5wt is distinctly faster than the 9' 5wt. The 9' 5wt has a nice moderate flex profile and a solid stability and recovery, a really nice all arounder. The 8'6" 5wt X is almost "One" like in that it is a distinctly stiffer, faster, lower grunted powerful reserve taper with an even faster tip than 9' 5wt. It is a super high line speed mid size water dry rocket launcher. I own both and am still learning the broad nuances of each rods capabilities but I can assure you that the two models have very distinct taper differences. The 8' 6" 4wt X however, is, imo, a miniature 9' 5wt and they feel much more similar than the 8'6" 5wt does in the mix. S&S maybe will chime in, he prefers the 8' 6" 5wt for his specialized, high line speed, dry duties on mid size water. Conversely, I think the 9' 5wt X may be a touch slow for his particular preferences. I like the 8' 6" 5wt X, and am still exploring it's skill sets, but for me, it easily is one of, if not the, fastest rods in my quiver. I really like the 9' 5wt X as a do it all 5wt.

 

[redietz]

Im speaking more in terms of how the rod casts....

Casting isn't the only consideration when choosing a rod. You want to think about line handling once the fly is on the water, for instance. The longer rod will keep more line off the water, as well as making mending easier. Even is you're fishing dries and don't like to mend with the line on the water, the longer rod will make better reach mends when casting.

Also consider the type of stream side vegetation where you usually fish. If it's mostly tall grass/weeds, the longer rod will help keep your backcast out of them (if you have a tendency to occasionally drop your backcast.) It may help in the same manner if you like to wade up to your arm pits deep. And if you're fishing from the bank with weeds between you and the stream (not an uncommon situation in spring creeks), it will help you maneuver along the bank with your line in the water.

Conversely, as you noted, the shorter rod may handle better under trees. It's also lighter, but with modern materials, that may not be much of a benefit.

And of course, when it comes to casting, you get an extra 6 inches of mechanical advantage in the form of a lever with the longer rod.

 

[LukeNZ]

The longest rod you are able to use in your fishing situation is best.

Long rods are simply more efficient and versatile, in every aspect.

Modern quality branded long rods are not heavy at all - who really notices 1/2 an ounce in difference in the real world between say a 9ft. and 10ft. rod?

On smaller streams you would barely need to cast, let alone false cast.

But for simplicity, if you only ever intend to predominantly fish really small narrow and shallow streams, then you will only need a short light line weight rod - a twig, as they are sometimes called.

But, if you intend fishing streams and rivers or lakes beyond 10ft. wide with a depth above 2ft., and the majority of fish 2lb. or less, then consider as a minimum a 9ft. 5wt. to start with perhaps, or even a 10ft. 4wt. for the more experienced fisherman.

If the average fish is over 2lb. go with a 9ft. 6wt. or a 10ft. 5wt.

You can’t go wrong within those bounds for my 2 cents.

I personally would be happy in most situations with an 11’6” double hand spey weighted 3wt. troutspey rod, which has similar energy to a 5wt. single handed rod. I can make that rod work anywhere for trout of any size, but my techniques are not for everyone. I am just a spey junkie from wayback! Lol.

Cheers and beers,
Luke.

 

[triggw]

I have both of those rods. I like the 590. I'm one of those who notice a slight heaviness when casting it. It may be the slightly greater swing weight--which it does have--or I just may be feeling the deeper flex. But it cast *very* well. The line just leaps out there and lands pretty much where I'm looking. On the other hand I'm developing a serious love affair with my 586 X.

I prefer an 8 1/2 ft rod for dries because the swing weight is less and it's a little more accurate (with me at the wheel at least). So I use the 9 footer if I think I'll mostly be nymph fishing (unless I'm using my 905 BIIIX, which I also like for that) and the 8 1/2 footer for dries. I agree with the comment that the 586 X feel faster and livelier than the 590 X. "One-like" perhaps, but to me much smoother and more moderate than the 586 One, which I also owned for a while.

 

[ia_trouter]

This will sound like I am contradicting LukeNZ, but not really. I fish the shortest rod that will still get it done on my small water. The others have already listed the pros and cons of rod length. From there you only need to rank them. I often fish a 7-0 rod because of stream obstacles. I spend way too much time sticking flies in the walnut trees with a long rod, or heaven forbid rapping my tip section on a low hanging branch if I'm not paying quite enough attention for a minute. The rod really stinks at mending but that is farther down the priority list. As already mentioned, tall grass typically enters the equation later in the season.

After you own a few rods, you can pick the correct enough length for any given day. It pays off to have different lengths in your quiver. You don't need to pick one magic length. That's good because it doesn't exist in the real world.

 

[silver creek]

This will sound like I am contradicting LukeNZ, but not really. I fish the shortest rod that will still get it done on my small water. The others have already listed the pros and cons of rod length. From there you only need to rank them. I often fish a 7-0 rod because of stream obstacles. I spend way too much time sticking flies in the walnut trees with a long rod, or heaven forbid rapping my tip section on a low hanging branch if I'm not paying quite enough attention for a minute. The rod really stinks at mending but that is farther down the priority list. As already mentioned, tall grass typically enters the equation later in the season.

After you own a few rods, you can pick the correct enough length for any given day. It pays off to have different lengths in your quiver. You don't need to pick one magic length. That's good because it doesn't exist in the real world.

I tend to go with shorter rods on tight streams also because I am terrible with bow and arrow casts.

Here is a contrary opinion to short fly rods for small streams.

There are two main strategies for fishing small streams. One strategy is to cast as one normally does. If you plan to fish small streams with normal fly casts, then a shorter fly rod is a must.

The other strategy is that of Joe Humphreys. Joe Humphreys is the very best fly fisher I know of at fishing small streams. His strategy is to use a longer rod but to adapt by NOT using traditional aerialized casts. Longer rods allow the angler to make longer bow and arrow casts, to make longer B&A roll casts, and to dap flies in extremely tight areas using the longer fly rod like a Tenkara rod.

Joe sez:

”Also, in any conditions you’re fishing, use as long a rod as possible. Joe prefers 9-foot rod, with 6-weight line so he can keep a lot of line off the water and have better line control. Hold your fly in the productive water as naturally and as long as you can so with a longer rod, you can hold it in those velocity changes, those pockets, those cuts where the fish hold, you’re holding it long enough for those fish to see it and time enough for it to come to them naturally and time enough for them to pick it up naturally.”

Nymph, Brush and Night Fishing for Trout | Joe Humphreys | Fly Fishing

Variations on the Bow and Arrow Cast including a Bow and Arrow Roll Cast (at 28 seconds in the video below), 30 foot Bow and Arrow, etc, by Joe Humphreys.

YouTube- Joe Humphreys

Here's a video of Joe Humphreys doing it on a stream and the result. Note the length of his fly rod and the size of the stream on the first part of the video. Note that he stays out of the water when using the B&A cast and how low he stays to keep out of the trout’s window. When you look at the video below, ask yourself this question. Even with 6 foot rod, could you fish the stream using standard cast?

YouTube - Joe Humphreys

So there are two options for small stream fishing. A shorter rod is allow you to use the techniques you are used to but learning the Humphreys’ method is probably the more effective. Like most of you, I just have not taken the time. It's hard to break old habits.

Here's a method from another fly fishing BB. "Bamboozle" posted a method to hold the fly during a bow and arrow cast using a thread looped around an "O" ring.

He puts the "O" ring around his small finger. He places the fly hook around the thread and holds the tread with his thumb and index finger. To release the fly, he just lets go of the tread.

If you wear a wedding ring, you can use that by looping thread around the ring.

To those who think a short rod is better for a Bow and Arrow Cast, watch the first part of the video and imagine that Joe has a 6 ft rod instead of a 9 ft rod. How much closer to the target must he be to be able to bow and arrow cast with a 6 ft rod. How much more likely is he to be detected.

There are two reasons a longer flexible lever can cast a B&A cast further than a shorter flexible lever.

The lever itself is longer and can store more energy. Unlike a standard overhead cast, with a B&A cast there is no double hauling, line shooting, or extending line to place velocity and energy into a moving fly line. All the energy for the cast starts as potential energy of the bent rod and a longer rod can store more potential energy than a shorter rod of identical rod action.

Secondly, with a longer rod, the distance from the rod tip to the target is closer to the target for an identical angler position, plus the amount of fly line from the angler to the rod tip is greater. The distance the rod tip can be pulled back is greater. So if you have a 9 ft rod and bend it back 2 feet back toward the angler, you will have 7 feet of line from the rod tip to the angler (you have 7 feet more adjustment potential). With a 6 ft rod, the identical bend places the line 4 feet from the angler (you have 4 feet more of adjustment potential).

What this means is that the 9 foot rod gives the angler greater latitude in adjusting the amount of rod load, and you can get closer to the target. Both are advantages in placing a fly with a B&A cast.

Of course, none of this matters if you are not going to use a B&A cast and as I said in my previous post, the rod length you choose will depend on how you intend to cast the fly.

 

[LukeNZ]

Been fishing with him. He’s a blast!

On the 2 days fishing, I out caught him by at least 10 to 1 each day, he is a constant loud talker - even when nobody is there!

He has the best fishing stories.

Cheers and beers,
Luke


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[LukeNZ]

This will sound like I am contradicting LukeNZ, but not really. I fish the shortest rod that will still get it done on my small water. The others have already listed the pros and cons of rod length. From there you only need to rank them. I often fish a 7-0 rod because of stream obstacles. I spend way too much time sticking flies in the walnut trees with a long rod, or heaven forbid rapping my tip section on a low hanging branch if I'm not paying quite enough attention for a minute. The rod really stinks at mending but that is farther down the priority list. As already mentioned, tall grass typically enters the equation later in the season.


After you own a few rods, you can pick the correct enough length for any given day. It pays off to have different lengths in your quiver. You don't need to pick one magic length. That's good because it doesn't exist in the real world.

Not that I want to contradict any other view; but, I would suggest that you at least consider my following rationale, as it computes and works for me at least-

Soooo, the thing to remember about short rods, is that they lack the authority, or water command, if you will - of a similar weight longer rod.

You can always lower your rod tip to avoid the shrubbery, but with a short rod, you do not have a step ladder when required, to create better angles, or angling possibilities!

Also, it is prudent to bear in mind, that if you wade, then by the time you get to your knees, your rod is effectively 18 inches shorter, and in up to your waist - you are essentially fishing a 4 ft. rod!

If you have a longer rod, you may not have to get into the water at all; but if you do - then you still have much better angles and control than a shorter rod, at any wading depth.

Modern graphite rods are unbelievably awesome; so light and fast, so go for the longest in your desired wt. range, and you will have the ultimate versatility around your target, or, average , expected fish size/fly size requirement - and the best fishing experience!

Longer rods can do anything a short rod can do of the same weight. A short rod cannot do easily, what a long rod can - it is really that simple

It is basic mechanics, ergonomics and physics - which I imagine for a lot of us, makes it sound not simple at all... LOL!

But you can trust me on it!

Cheers and beers,
Luke.

 

[slinginbugs]

If a sage X 5wt is What you want, I would choose between the 8’6 and the 9’6 models. 8’6 If dry flies on medium/smaller rivers. IMO the X in the 9’6 5wt is the all round rod to get. I like that much better than the 9’ version and it’s probably the best (IMO) X model along with the 790!

 

[ia_trouter]

Silver,

I've never B.A. cast before. It looks like an effective approach when required. I should give it some practice. I think you well enough know the water I fish most often in the southern D.A. Very diverse with an area of pasture land where a 9FT 5WT is perfect, then move 50 yards and you are in an Appalachian forest for a moment (OK, not really that bad) I have a number of favorite spots where I'll sneak up to a break in the streamside cover. Maybe stick one foot in the water and then sidearm cast, or rollcast a 7 to 7-6ft under the low hanging branches to a spot near a strong riffle. Just an attempt to fish some water that hasn't seen a guy sitting on a bucket armed with nightcrawlers. I doubt I need to explain this tactic to you. It's necessary on most of my closest water. A lot of water down here where I need to fish the inconvenient places. I know it works out and that's what matters.

Where is the O.P.? I don't want to steal his thread.

 

[Rip Tide]

A shorter rod is more accurate, lighter, and better in tight spaces.

Longer rods can do anything a short rod can do of the same weight. A short rod cannot do easily, what a long rod can - it is really that simple

It is basic mechanics, ergonomics and physics - which I imagine for a lot of us, makes it sound not simple at all... LOL!

But you can trust me on it!

Yeah it is simple and you can trust me on this
A shorter rod is more accurate due to the fact that there is a lesser margin of error
The longer the rod, the easier it is for your cast to be off

And "better in tight places" matters not only in the cast but also on the bank
The difficulty of manoeuvring through underbrush is compounded by longer lengths
If you're fishing "tight places" you're probably spending more time moving from pool to pool than you are casting and the shorter rod make that easier.