Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hope rod builders adjust the balance point
> of a rod by moving the reel seat up or down, but
> not by adding weight to the blank.

Phil, the reason weight is added at the end of the blank is for maximal leverage with minimal added weight. While you can move the reelseat to accomplish the same goal, you will have to move it a great (often impractical) distance to do this. Sometimes that will leave a ridiculously long butt section which impedes use of the rod. Reels are heavy, but it's their typical position when holding the rod (under your hand) kind of negates much effect when moving it. Even when moving reels, it's still more of the added butt weight behind the reel doing the balancing.

Wanna see? Take the reel and tape it to various locations to get different fulcrum locations. Then, place the reel where you want it to be while fishing and try adding butt weight to get those same fulcrum points in the first experiment. This is why most choose to add weight at the very end of the butt as oppose to accomplishing this with reel location alone. Way more practical and effective for most blanks.

In reality, I use both reelseat position and weight to get what I want, but the wiggle room with reel position is pretty limited and of minor effect. I'm a guy with long arms and can deal with longer butts on rods, most folks are not in this category of angler and prefer more compact handle assemblies to avoid gut poking.

Do any of the folks who add weight to the butt have pictures of how they do this?

Nate ...... if I took a picture of the rods I've balanced, all you would see is a rod that looks completely normal.

Everything is epoxied inside the blank in the butt of the rod, then the butt grip and butt cap are added. I've used a foam reel seat arbor sanded down to fit inside the butt of the blank, and then ream the inside of the foam arbor to allow the weight I use to fit inside. I've done all three rods the same way in that regard.

I don't ever plan on using different reels on these rods, so for me personally, needing to change the amount of weight to compensate for using a different reel, is a non issue. And besides .... if I ever do need to change the weight all I have to do is remove the butt cap, remove as much material from the foam arbor as I need to get it out, and then reinstall with a different amount of weight, and replace the butt cap. It sounds more involved that it actually will be.

But as I said ...... I don't plan on ever needing to do that.

I fish most with a fly rod - which never "balances". Fish take and reject flies quickly and frequently quite gently. Indication of a hit is usually visual, not tactile sensitivity. Fly rod fishers make lots and lots of casts. Anyone who added weight to a fly rod for "balance" would draw wide grins. I dabble in bass fishing with a casting outfit and rubber worms but still rely chiefly on visual cues to set the hook. The concept of rod balance is confusing to many anglers, from fly fishers to still fishers.

Yeah, Phil...flyrods are a bit different situation and I never met one that didn't "balance" wonderfully due to the reel being at the butt end. Never added and weight to change the fulcrum of any fly rod, it was where it needed to be all along.

Now, take that reel off and try to d-haul to 80' with the rod and line alone. You'll conclude this experiment with a perfect understanding of just how well flyrods and fulcrums function for flycasting. That butt weight is there, it's simply in the form of an exorbitantly priced machined wonder as opposed to lead or tungsten sinkers.

Honestly, I never bothered with feel type of bite detection much with flytackle, the lines and characteristics are simply not there to bother with thus my reliance on visual. Same blank built for spinning tackle works wonderfully for tactile detection.

I honestly don't understand the aversion that some builders have to adding weight at the butt of a rod in order to achieve a balanced rod and reel combination. Either they don't believe that there are actual advantages of using a balanced rod and reel combination for some types of fishing techniques ...... which there clearly are, and those advantages are quantifiable. Or ... they believe that the need to add weight to a blank to achieve the spoken of balance, can be negated through thoughtful planning.

The latter may be true in some cases, but it certainly isn't true in all cases.

Can a builder move the reel seat and change the rod and reels balancing point? They most certainly can. But as Joseph has pointed out, to achieve the same effect as weight added at the very butt of the rod, one may need to move the reel seat distances that could adversely affect the usability of the rod and reel in question. What good is a rod and reel if it's difficult to use, or can't be used at all?

Could a builder choose to use a heavier reel seat, or a different type of rear grip (full verses split) or a heavier grip material (cork verses EVA foam) in conjunction with moving the reel seat to avoid the need to add additional weight at the butt, in order to achieve a balanced rod and reel combination? Once again, they most certainly can. But why would a builder that is so averse to adding weight at the very butt of a rod, want to add at least as much, and because of the added weights position, most likely, more weight, as what would need added at the very butt of the rod?

Add a heavier amount of weight which will rob the rod of even more sensitivity by not only its added mass, but by its position? Seems counter productive to me.

As has been mentioned in this thread, and in past threads where the topic of rod and reel balance has come up, or has been the topic ...... the use of light weight blanks and guide trains have made achieving a balanced feel to a rod and reel much easier than it was in the past. What that also means, is that if a balance issue still persists, it will take a lesser amount of weight added at the very butt, to cure the balance issue.

If a builder or an angler doesn't feel or find that a balanced rod and reel combination is beneficial to them, or that it's something they don't place a high priority on .... that's fine. We all have our preferences. But just because something is a personal preference of an angler, doesn't mean it's not important to another angler. Nor does it mean that it doesn't offer any advantages, or that it's simply hype, or marketing.

Personally I'm not a big fan of braided fishing line ...... but that doesn't mean I don't know that it has its advantages in certain fishing situations. Just like braided line has undeniable advantages in certain situations ...... so does using a balanced rod and reel.

Work = Force X Distance. A longer rod requires more work to cast since you must move that rod a greater distance, and a heavier rod requires more work to cast for you must accelerate that weight to cast. A heavy fly reel, like any other reel, requires more effort/work to cast than a light fly reel. Same goes for a heavier rod. The difference between heavier and lighter becomes clearer at the end of a long day of casting & false casting.

Phil ...... if you've read and paid attention to the responses in this thread, and other threads where the topic of a balanced rod and reel has come up, you'd have noticed that none of the advocates of that balanced package, have mentioned balancing a rod for its use in conventional casting.

In an earlier post in this thread, Joseph speculated that balancing a rod and reel combo with casting in mind, may have some use. And it just might. I for one think such a task would be nearly, if not completely impossible to perform, since the variables involved in casting are much more numerous and much harder to define than they are when simply balancing a rod and reel when it is basically at an at rest position.

You may actually want to look at your most recent response more closely. You just gave some of the main reasons why I, and others,purposefully balance our rods and reels. Or why some purposefully unbalance them, as do those that prefer a tip light rod. We do it because it not only requires more effort to move the tip on a tip heavy rod, it also takes more effort to hold that rod in any plane, other than vertical.

And while I completely agree that a heavier rod and reel requires more effort to cast and hold ... where that weight is placed can actually aid in some types of casting. As a bass angler, flipping and pitching instantly come to mind. A balanced, or tip light rod and reel, make those two casting techniques much more efficient from both a mechanical, and physical point of view. Mechanically because the lighter tip is more easily accelerated. And physically because the effort in one muscle group is reduced, and distributed to a larger muscle group, thereby lessening the fatigue of each muscle group.

BTW .... flipping and pitching casting techniques aren't germane to only bass anglers. I've seen many anglers use the same tactics when pursuing other species of fish.

And finally ... you're absolutely right when you say that the difference between heavier and lighter becomes clearer at the end of a long day of casting. Try making between 600 and 800 flips or pitches in one day with a tip heavy rod. Then try the same with a balanced, or tip light rod.

The difference is as clear as a bell.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2015 01:03PM by David Baylor.

Once again, well said.