 Cheers you lot, it's nice to chat about something before you blow the hard earned stuff. Thanks for the offer Peter, as usual your a gent. Must come down your way soon.
|
 |
 Jeff,
Anytime, you are always welcome.
Come over and give the Bolo' a waggle and see how it might work for you. I also have a 20' MAP English style rod that might fit the bill.
|
|
 Jeff I think you should try fishing for 4 or 5 hours using one because they do make your arms ache, you need to ask yourself, will an extra 4 feet make that much difference? You are restricted to using swims that have plenty of room and when that wind blows they make control even more difficult. The main advantage is that they allow you to fish 10 - 12 foot swims quite easily so if that is the type of venue you favour then yes they may be worth it but try watching a Belmont match with 40 good anglers float fishing and you won't see many, if any 20ft rods being used. Like most anglers whether match or pleasure orientated I think I can control a float well enough with a 13/14ft rod (and you probably) not to need that extra footage and if its 12ft plus swims there is always the slider which is quite easy to set up and use. I think it was Billy Lane that always used a slider on swims deeper than 6ft and there weren't many better than him when it came to catching fish.
|
|
Graham,
The problem that Billy Lane had, at the time when he was fishing, was that his choices of rods were very limited.
I often wonder how some of the 'greats' Lane, Dean, Ashurst Snr. et al, might go about their 'trade' with today's modern equipment?
It is alot easier to trot at 20 feet from the bank, directly off of the end of the rod, with a longer rod, believe me. Yes, they are heavier than a 13 feet model, but then that is a given disadvantage.
I used the Bolo' rods extensively on the deep rivers in Norway and Sweden; where the fish were not interested in a static bait, which was more often than not, otherwise I'd have been on the lead or the feeder.
|
|
Peter. I'm not saying they don't have their place I'm saying is it worth the expense when you can also control a float 20ft from the bank with a 13/14ft rod almost as efficiently. I, like you and thousands of other anglers, do it as a matter of course when fishing rivers but without the discomfort of a heavier rod that restricts your choice of swims. Great if you can afford a rod for all occasions yes, but is it value for money I wonder.
|
|
Graham,
As value for money, and considering the relatively low number of times one might use it, then the answer is, No, it is not.
They are pretty expensive when compared to 'normal' rods, but then so are long poles.
That said there are a couple of my local swims where it has been an absolute boon to have in the holdall.
|
|
Good points on both side's. I have a 15' which is always my first choice now as there are a couple of place's that I fish that are 10'/12' deep, the other reason is that it is so easy to fish off the tip, even on smaller river's. I can definitely see your point Graham about just how many place's, though I've had no problem's with the 15' being to big. Peter going to be nice to see you at the Itchen this year.
|
|
 Jeff how much line have you got on your Abu? The bedding in problem goes away if you only use about 30 yards. Nothing like being late on to a thread!
|
|
 I'm with Graham on this one in that the advantages of ultra long rods are overstated. Perhaps it's the waters I fish but I have no problem fishing well beyond the rod tip, indeed I prefer not to fish off the rod tip. As for depth then it's only where there is over about 14' that I start to struggle which is where I'd switch to a 15' rod (using 2' extension). I've got a Shakespeare 18/20 gathering dust in the attic; lovely rod but distinctly hard work.
|
|
 I'm thinking of buying a longer rod for next season. I currently use a 13ft job, which I have no problem in using for 10 hours or so, with minimal breaks. I fish a lot of swims that are 10-14 foot deep, I feel a longer rod would make casting that bit easier. The swims I fish are fairly open, no trees, but sometime the bank or vegetation behind me can be an issue. I'm wondering whether to go for a 15 foot rod, which should hopefully give me enough extra 'clearance', compared to my existing rod. Actually I've never handled a 15 foot rod. Compared to my 13 foot rod, would it be much more tiring in use? Or could I perhaps go a foot longer without spoiling my enjoyment too much?
|
|
Ric,
I don't think a 15' rod is particularly different (once you have got used to it) than a 13' model.
I regularly use a 15' Tri Cast John Allerton which is still very light for its' extra length. I found that by adding a little lead strip inside the (rod) butt I can achieve a very good balance that is, admitedly, lacking on most 15' rods.
Thus balanced I find it easy to use for relatively long sessions, but not as long as your 10 hour stints I have to admit.
|
| Edited: 09/12/08 15:01 |
 I can say that I went from using a 13ft to a 15ft Map Ultra 2 and have found no real difference with usings a rod with this extra length, I do find the extra 2 ft really help if its windy and picking the line up off the surface on the strike. I've been debating getting a 17ft/18ft for the wider & deeper parts of the Avon but am pretty skint at present and dont want into the habit of buying rods just for the sake of it. I think 15ft is a great all round length and have found no negatives and only positives so far using mine. Simon
|
|
Ric I always take my 15' now, hardly notice anything different, just an extra bit of reach, even on smaller river's. That reminded me Sean, "take some line of that real" I just like to have a bit spare (100m), I'll will before I go out with again  . I was fishing with a mate's rod the weekend, a 18/20 Abu, fished it at the full 20', a bit heavy but I was trotting a float at 16'-17' deep, with ease, going to try it at the 18' next. Simon not sure how much advantage over the 15' there is though, apart from on very deep river's, will let you know when I've used it at 18'.
|
|
