it seems our quest for the lightest possible rod has brought some thoughts and questions. i was thinking of some things while driving.

1. why make the lightest rod possible then place 14oz reel on it? are the reel companies really working on lighter reels? what are the lightest reels(US reels claims to have the lightest spinning, but don't know about it)?

2. what about the line? is mono or braid lighter? if braid is lighter, but so much more is used to fill a reel then isn't it heavier overall?

just wondered if i am the only one that ponders these things.

John,
We are already working on these things. Most manufacturers are coming out with baitcasters under 8oz. this season. A few are the Shimano Citica/Curado, Abu Revo series, most of the Diawa offerings, and the three new Quantums. In my mind it is well worth the money for these reels especially when you consider what goes into the rods.

As for line, I am more concerned with using the correct line for the technique, than how much it weights. That being said all of my spools are filled halfway with 17lb. mono and then the line I intent to use is tied on with a blood knot. I don't do this for weight savings, but to save money on changing line. I do no some of the performance guys that do this so the weight on the spool is less, so there is less inertia required to cast finesse baits. The Tackle Tour forums are a good source of that information.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Steez bait casters 5.5 oz.

Steez 2508 Spinning Reel 6.9 oz

Stella spinning reels 1000FD 6.0 oz.

I'm not in a position where I can go out and buy a new fleet of the casting reels that are being made so much lighter than those just a few years ago. I wish I was. All the more reason to make rods that are as light as possible to offset the weight of the reels I have. As I replace reels I'll go with lighter models. I have done some experimenting with reducing the weight of the reels I own. With a little grinding here-a little drilling there I've succeeded in taking an ounce off of some reels that weighed 9 oz. I can tell the difference as soon as I pick one up. Very time consuming, though. Spools and handles can be replaced on some models to reduce weight.
Casting reels are usually lighter than spinning reels that can handle the same lb. test lines. With the move to balance rotors on spinning reels to reduce wobble they have become even heavier line test for line test.
A spinning reel's weight being below the rod seems to offset their heavier feeling to some degree. I won't use one unless I have to.

There are a lot of reels under 6oz, most are not made for the US Market because we are about 5 years behind the rest of the world technology wise, and as a whole we are too cheap to spend the money on high ticket items.

JP, the point you brought up has been brought up for quite some time, it usually gets ignored because it makes too much sense.

Iighter is generally better, however weight savings in terms of bettering rod performance has a great deal to do with where along the rod you save that weight. Reducing even a little weight on the rod tip results in immediate and easily realized performance gains in a number of areas. A lighter reel, or reel seat, grip, etc., also pays dividends, but not as huge owing to the location where the weight is located.

On the subjecct of reels, there are market trends that determine a good deal of this. A few years ago nearly all reels had composite bodies. Then, the "in" thing became "hard body" reels. So the reel makers cashed in selling "stronger" metal bodied reels to all the anglers they had convinced to replace their composite bodied reels. The pendulum will swing back the other way at some point and lightweight composite bodied reels will be in vogue once again.

.............

The weight of many of the reels is coming down. Many bait casting reels now are in the 5.9 - 7.0 oz range.

Some may have not really recognized the true value of the lighter builds for rods. A large number of the techniques used by bass as well as other fishermen involves palming the reel during bait presentation. In the case of a spinning reel the hand position is holding the reel primarily. Please consider that the reel is not being raised and lowered, normally it is rotated or pivitoted by wrist motion, which means that there is minimum work expended while the reel is simply being held/rotated in position. The true weight that is being "felt" is the tip weight of the rod and the attached lure during the lifting process. The repetetive motion, can be in the thousands of cycles in a day, of raising and lowering the tip of a rod and the attached lure weight requires the input of work by the angler. The lighter the tip weight of the rod that will perform the required tasks will prove to be benficial - and the added value of the "S" word is additional benefit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2008 11:45AM by Bill Stevens.

Overall weight package, rod and reel, must be just as important. In Asia, we have used much lighter reels for a number of years, and further weight reduction from the rod can now be considered as opportunities to fine tune the package further. I like the statement that "Less is More" but to overdo that without due consideration to artistic values will be like buying a rod off the shelf. When I viewed Bill's post of his "naked" rods, I felt that such rods are suitable to the touring pros whose priority is winning. I will add a butt wrap, especially in the split grip area, use a sprayed Fuji ACS reel seat with carbon hood and recover that additional weight by choosing a lighter and more efficient reel to match. That's what my customers want anyway.

Anthony your point is well taken and I agree to the artistic values as well. At present the real artistic value to these rods is extreme functionality. At present there is nothing even close on the commercial market. People in your market even notice the number of inlays, odd or even number, and associate a "feeling" of the correct number to match the state of mind. We are attempting to introduce a functional side to custom building that will match up with the advanced "arts" used by many custom builders. The functionality side of the custom market that has not been taken advantage of by many custom builders. I want a fisherman to realize and admit in public that he can buy a better rod from a custom builder.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2008 12:09PM by Bill Stevens.

[www.stcroixrods.com]
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Bill, teh problem when you say there is nothing even close, and I can spend 3 minutes finding something which looks close, it makes a lot of people skeptical.

Billy I will edit my remarks to delete the "even".

Please note the listing of one heavy duty production rod (Frog) listing in a national magazine for several present state of the art rods for bass fishernen. These rods use conventional guide systems.

All but Kistler reported the weights so you will not be required to Put Em On The Scales Dewey -

[rodbuilding.org]

If you were to take any of the listed rods in hand and compare to a Micro Set Up I honestly believe you would at that point agree that even those rods listed could be improved by furthur weight reduction and the use of micro guide systems.

I suspect that the fine rods you linked would be greatly improved by the use of a micro guide system and furthur weight reductions which are quite easy to accomplish without detracting from any of the needed features of the existing rod.

Billy and Anthony,
I kind of agree with you guys on the artistic side of things. And definately agree with Bill on the minimalist approach. My personal rods are a mix of both ends of the spectrum. I am also building a mix for the rods I will be taking with me to shows this winter to demonstrate what is available. However, MOST of the tournament bass guys (which is the market I target) could care less about aesthetics. They simply want the most functional rod they can get for a technique. Even though St. Croix, Setyr, Diawa, Shimano, etc. etc. are making split grip rods, they do not tend to make rods that are entirely tuned in to a specific technique. Most of my customers come to me because they are not 100% satisfied with what they can get off of the shelf. I build them the most functionial rod I can, I do tend to give them a few visually appealing things such as inlays on the hook keeper, trim bands, painted reelseats (i have weighed one painted, it weighs no more than an unpainted one if you prep and paint properly, at least not on my scale). I also try to get them into flocked foam, or carbon grips. It is a balance, believe me, it amazes me that most bass guys dont want a wrap or marble even if you give it to them free, they are not interested at all. Most of them ask for all black everything.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

"A MICRO Rod on a blank of choice that only adds 0.75 - 1.0 oz of added weight "

Well, a Fuji MKSG 2.5 weighs .0007 of an ounce, and a CLAG size 6 weighs .007oz. So unless they are using 100 size 6's on the rod, a traditional set up with size 6's will also only add .75 - 1oz of added weight. I don't know what teh guide set ups are for those rods, but if tehy are using BLNAG 12, 10, 8 - those 3 guides only weigh .074oz, couipled with 10 size 6's that puts the entire guide set weight for the other rods at .144oz for the entire set.

I'm not disagreeing with the rods performance being better with smaller guides, but thre are a lot of things which make peopel scratch their heads when they read the claims you are making. Maybe I misunderstand what I read, but I can assure you I'm not alone in my confusion.

Billy,
I can't speak for Bill, but I believe he uses PG for finish on his micro rods, so that reduces some weight. There are a lot of little things, in regards to reelseat fitup, trimming the seats, splitting seats, etc. that all add up to less weight. Let's face it, the factories do a good job of building rods, BUT they also use epoxy and shims pretty liberally. That is at least where I can find a weight savings on a similar rod. Also I think Bill is talking about total weight added, not just guides, I don't know how much the factory adds though.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Amazing how things just pop into your head while driving a buttload of steel down the highway....based on responses and 15 tons at 70 MPH...larger baitcasting ID spools and less backing or line???? And by the way (dot dot dot dot dot) comma Thread Art and Handle Decorative Embellishments are teh most rediculous things you can do to a custom fishing rod for performance reasons alone. Art on fishing rods will eventually die a horrible death. It'll come back in 45 years though.

Things to think about at 70 MPH.

NERB that types with a bar of Ivory soap in his mouth.

Ah. So I misunderstood what he wrote.

Billy, I hope I am not making claims that can be documented pertaining to the micro builds - can you speciffically list claims that seem to be out of whack to you - if they are false or exagerated I will glad to omit or edit them.

Since you are skeptical the only thing that will alter your position is a proof source that will satisfy you! I expect to have several of those proof sources in my possession the next time we meet - ICRBE - Parking lot High Noon Rod Pull and now a Throw Em is in the mix.
Until then I guess all we can do is try to communicate on a civil basis.

At this point truth seems to be centered in two primary areas for this type of rod: ( We understand that this is only one type of rod )

1. Will they perform all the tasks at hand?

2. Put Em On The Scales Dewey!

If the answer to question 1 is yes then the one with the lightest weight will produce a Better Rod!

Hopefully this can be cleared up when everyone gets on the same page with the weight reduction thing. It is not only the guides that are involved. Everyting that is added to a blank is weighed. If any portion of what is to be added for a particular build is not required for any valid reason it is omitted or altered without reducing functionality. Typical reel seat workovers can reduce up to 35% of their total weight. The use of one or unfilled two cork rings for butt ends and shortening of the front piece - tenon shortening or removal - reducing thread and finish can contribute significantly. All the production builders have been "hyping light weight and sensitivity" for a long while and now custom bilders are in a position to win over a potential fisherman with a lighter more responsive rod.

No commercials attached -

Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steez bait casters 5.5 oz.
>
> Steez 2508 Spinning Reel 6.9 oz
>
> Stella spinning reels 1000FD 6.0 oz.

Steez 2508 is over $500 (6.9 ounces)

Pflueger Supreme 8030MG (magnesium) is $99, weighs 7.4 ounces, and is a pretty nice reel. It hurts much less to replace a $100 reel every now and then. Most other size 25 or 30 reels are 9.5 ounces on up to 13.

I think Tom is right about the swing back to composite reels in the near future.

I've said this before... I really don't believe you can look at just the guides. They do attract attention, that's for sure.

It's a total package. John brings up another component. It's reel, line, guides, handle, reel seat, epoxy, tip top, hookkeeper, even butt cap. Go weigh a composite butt cap vs an eva butt cap.

Bass fishing professionals fill Pop Rs with epoxy to make them spit, not pop. Shave crankbait bills to make them dive deeper, etc. It's about getting that extra edge. These are highly pressured fish (in most situations) and a lot of money is on the line even at the local levels. I fished an open team Tournament this weekend with $2500 guaranteed first place. It's not marketing, it's a mentality.

Back to rods... let's look at just the micro guides - one thing folks seem to overlook is the smaller "footprint" on the rod - benefits - less impact on the natural action of the blank, less thread, less rod finish.

Your other guides may weigh what seems to not be that much, but when you package them up (guides, thread, epoxy), they weigh more than micros.

To make this thread relevant to the original post... consider John's point on smaller reels. We're not dealing with the same big spool, high framed baitcasters of 20 years ago... I feel the micros match up better to the low profile baitcasters of today.

There are also several other factors at play which give the custom built rod an advantage over mass produced rods. These are not being mentioned as of yet but will be revealed in future M&M Vols...

-----------------
AD

Art will die a horrible death...thanks Bill. Art adds weight. The BIG boys will borrow your brilliance temporarilly and go with it....then shove it in your face and put you out of business with $28 Mc Power Microd's next spring or thereafter
.

Spidey sense is tingling.

NERB that types with a bar of Ivory soap in his mouth.