I received the April 2006 issue of American Angler yesterday and noticed in the News and Newsworthy section they had a small listing/review of the new Albright XX Fly Rods with an action supposedly designed to better handle heavy patterns and sinking lines.

What I found unusual is the double foregrip on one of the rods pictured. The first grip that abutts the recessed hood reelseat is a reverse full wells and then it is seperated with about 3" at the top (like a solit grip inverted) and another grip resembling a small diameter cigar is positioned above it.

I am wondering what this setup accomplishes? Why they chose this unusual format? And what effect it has on the fighting capability of the rod?

It was my understanding that having a grip positioned higher up the blank reduces the fighting "authority" of the blank and couple possibly lead to blank failure. I've seen others (in the float rod community) use this setup with a small wood accent in place of the upper grip, but purely for asethetics and not function.

I'd like to hear from the pros on this one.

Domenic

Domenic,

Difficult without actually seing the pic to answer you fully. Normal type fighting fore grips as seen say on Sage G.Loomis etc are usually fitted to 12 weights and above which are pretty tough brutes of rods. They may have some effect in terms of blank safety but it's down to the Angler to use the rod correctly in a serious fight with a big fish to. If you were to just grab that fore grip and heave then you could well expect problems. But that is not how you fight big fish on a fly rod. Any chance you can post a pic?

I would not get too carried away by the claims of the rod coping better with heavy flies and sinking lines. Most modern carbon rods in the heavier line weights will do the job. Sounds like a bit of a marketing ploy to me. Yes I am a cynic. Helps getting turned over by dubious claims.

Looks like the fighting grip is on the "10" and "12" wts. [www.albrighttackle.com]

Steve,

Thanks for posting the pic and blank details. I just looked it up and read the blurb witha small smile. The cynic comes out again. Ok the fighting fore grip is just like most of the major players designs. Nothing new at all Dominic.

As to the claims that modern rod designs are disconnected from the need to cast heavy flies and sinking lines is questionable in my view. Some FT fly rods may well be thin walled and not up to it in terms of coping with a collision with a fast moving Clouser but can cast Ok. both heavy flies and sinking lines.. But I know of a few blanks which are not FT and not thin walled and are new that do the job very well. Interesting that the blurb talks about grain rating which is something very dear to my heart when trying to get some sense for two hander fly rods for overhead casting in the surf but they dont give the grain ratings for the rods but actual line weights. Am I missing something? The rods look well priced and may be very good performers.

Mike O.

I think this an example of the "marketing pendulum" swinging back. Rather than go directly against the current marketing trend of "faster and lighter is always better" and saying their rods are slower, heavier and more durable, Albright seems to be focusing the conversation on the outcome - "taking the chunking out of chunking and dunking". I think this is similiar to the trend of back to fiberglass or graphite/glass composites or slow action all graphite rods designed for "small stream relaxed and slow rhythm fishing" (i.e., faster is not always better).

imo, the XX series is a classic example that a market one time left behind can become the next "new" market. It also interests me that Tarbory's advice for design for Albrights is somewhat counter to Kreh's design advise for Temple Fork. btw, I find nothing wrong with this "ploy". If the manufacturers actually see market needs that are being unmet (even those they abandoned) and use clever marketing to satisfy these needs and as a result stay financially healthy, that's a good thing imo. As long as they are not flat out lying. In this case I don't think they are. They may be stretching the technical aspects, and yes there is no total disconnect between x-fast rods and line, but I do agree that their points have some validity. imo, we and our customers benefit from the wider range of blank choices that comes from this marketing competition and can even piggy back the marketing dollars being spent by the manufacturers. It has always been difficult for me to contradict the "factory authorities" in conversations that go something like: "If your concept is so good, why doesn't S___ or L_____, or W_____, etc build their "best" rods this way".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2006 01:36PM by Steve Rushing.

Steve,

Excellent post. I have to say I can't argue with your very sound logic. Very well put. I believe you are correct on every aspect . Thanks

Mike O.