Cadence rods....

[markcw]

you can order off the website, and if you are not happy with your purchase you can return it, that does not mean taking it down to your local water and spending a few hours trying to catch your chosen species, At the moment if you buy a rod you get a free cadence reel, the price is deducted at pay in, I think the promo code is BOXINGDAY,

 

[tigger]

you can order off the website, and if you are not happy with your purchase you can return it, that does not mean taking it down to your local water and spending a few hours trying to catch your chosen species, At the moment if you buy a rod you get a free cadence reel, the price is deducted at pay in, I think the promo code is BOXINGDAY,

I've noticed that people have mentioned the fact that you can send them back elsewhere but people should be aware that they have to pay the postage to do so.

 

[markcw]

I have no idea what the postage would be to return the rod, But the offer of if you don't like it you can return it seems good, I have only bought "blind" on two occasions, one was a Shimano Aernos pole when they were being discontinued, priced from £1300 down to £550, I managed to get one from Oakwood Angling for £570 which included elastication and postage, the second time was a Daiwa G50 pole when they came out, I managed to get one local after a 4 week wait for delivery, demand outstripped supply, I was happy with both purchases, I took a chance on the Shimano because I knew there was no "change of mind" return on it, So if you are unsure of getting the rod, go for it , you have nothing to lose apart from return postage if you don't like it, and with the free reel offer it is worth a punt if you fancy a new rod.

 

[mikench]

Out of interest anything bought on the internet can be returned for a full refund if you have changed your mind and it is unused! All goods purchased in this way are subject to the distance selling regulations and can be returned within 14 days for a full refund if you have changed your mind. You have to pay postage back but the refund must cover the cost of any postage paid!

 

[markcw]

Mike I didn't buy the shimano over the internet, it took many phone calls to find a shimano stockist who had one left, I started local and worked my way down the country, hence Oakwood Angling, I got one of the last two he had in stock, I couldn't have returned it anyway due to having it elasticated to my specification,

 

[Philip]

Impossible question to answer I suppose but I wonder how many fish a Cadence rod would catch compared to a rod that was twice the price if they were both given to the same angler.

 

[108831]

Almost certainly the same,unless the cadence is very poor,I'm afraid its the ease and pleasure in use that make a rod,plus the quality of action for line strengths and target weights of fish,an extreme example is you can catch fish on a bamboo stick,not as good as a rod though...

 

[steve2]

The simple answer to how many fish does a rod catch is none the angler does the catching. Rods and reels are just tools used in the catching of fish.

 

[108831]

That is why I beat myself up over it sometimes,its not the fact I didn't catch enough,its because I naffed it up....plonker..

 

[Philip]

Almost certainly the same,unless the cadence is very poor,I'm afraid its the ease and pleasure in use that make a rod,plus the quality of action for line strengths and target weights of fish,an extreme example is you can catch fish on a bamboo stick,not as good as a rod though...

This is very true although that is a very extreme example. In this case we are not comparing a bit of bamboo with a quality fishing rod. We are comparing two bits of carbon designed to be fishing rods.

The additional pleasure the more expensive rod supposedly gives is always a tricky one as its so subjective.

I have not looked but I suspect the spec of the Cadence compared to say an equivalent Acolyte is probably pretty close so I am wondering if additional pleasure might just be down to the label ? ….like the way one might gain pleasure from wearing a designer label rather than from any discernable difference in the item itself.

 

[tigger]

This is very true although that is a very extreme example. In this case we are not comparing a bit of bamboo with a quality fishing rod. We are comparing two bits of carbon designed to be fishing rods.

The additional pleasure the more expensive rod supposedly gives is always a tricky one as its so subjective.

I have not looked but I suspect the spec of the Cadence compared to say an equivalent Acolyte is probably pretty close so I am wondering if additional pleasure might just be down to the label ? ….like the way one might gain pleasure from wearing a designer label rather than from any discernable difference in the item itself.

It's definately not pleasure because of the label thing for me.
The acolyte is seriously light and has a super fast action! It's also very slim and gives very little wind resistance when cutting through the air on the strike.
I'd be interested in comparing the weights and thicknesess of the cadence rods against the acolytes....i'd wager the acolyte rods are lighter and slimmer by a country mile!

 

[Philip]

It's definately not pleasure because of the label thing for me.
The acolyte is seriously light and has a super fast action! It's also very slim and gives very little wind resistance when cutting through the air on the strike.
I'd be interested in comparing the weights and thicknesess of the cadence rods against the acolytes....i'd wager the acolyte rods are lighter and slimmer by a country mile!

The fast action of rods is something I have thought about quite a bit. I know its often quoted as a benefit ...but in real terms what does this actually mean ?

To me it means that as you sweep the rod back to strike the rod/blank will flex & bend and then attempt to return to the straight position. The faster the action the quicker it will return to straight.

Is that about right ?

If thats the case then surely a rod with no flex would actually start to pull a hook towards it quicker than a rod that flexes as the action of the rod itself flexing will dampen and slow down the pull to the hook.

Bit like when strike on braid rather than mono.

 

[108831]

Not really Philip,because what happens in many cases is the stick of rhubarb effect,all sloppy and horrible,rods like normark 2000's,acolytes etc have good fish playing actions,but responsive ones too,I've no doubt there are other good rods out there, but I haven't seen them...

 

[tigger]

Fast action rods have a stiffer bottom and mid section and don't flex so much when striking so the combination of a fast action, a slim and lightweight blank makes for a seriously fast strike which should result in more hooked fish. The acolytes have a progressive action so are perfect for playing fish....imo.

 

[sam vimes]

I have not looked but I suspect the spec of the Cadence compared to say an equivalent Acolyte is probably pretty close so I am wondering if additional pleasure might just be down to the label ? ….like the way one might gain pleasure from wearing a designer label rather than from any discernable difference in the item itself.

I believe your suspicions are quite incorrect. I don't believe the specs of the Cadence rods are anything near to pretty close to those of the Acolytes. It's the reason that I've not taken a chance on buying a Cadence rod after being initially keen to do so. Unlike some, I'm a latecomer to Drennan rods. Until the Acolytes appeared, I would have generally preferred Daiwa and Shimano. My liking for the Acolytes has nothing to do with the brand and everything to do with me being convinced that they are the thinnest, lightest, best balanced and best value for money rods currently on the market. It helps that the action also fits nicely with my river angling and preferences.

The following three are someone else's figures.
Cadence 15ft#1
Tip is 1.5mm
butt is 14.92mm
206g in weight

Shakespeare mach 3 15ft
tip is 1.25mm
butt is 14. 70mm

Greys tactical toreon 15ft
tip 1.5mm
butt 14.99mm

This lot are my own figures, bar the weights (where given, in brackets) which are manufacturers figures (I don't have scales big enough or accurate enough to weigh rods properly). Diameters are measured as close to the handle forend as possible without measuring varnished whipping.

15' Acolyte Ultra = 11.89mm, (163g)
15' Acolyte Plus = 12.70mm, (170g)
15' Tricast Allerton Premier = 15.42mm
15' Shimano Speedcast = 14.00mm
15'6" Browning Sphere = 13.5mm, (175g)
17' Acolyte Float = 14.14mm, (198g)

For a bit of perspective for those less familiar with 15'+ rods.
13' Acolyte Ultra = 10.80mm, (135g)
13' Tricast Allerton Premier = 13.30mm
13' Tricast Allerton Waggler = 13.10mm
13' Shimano Speedcast = 13.55mm
13' Daiwa Tom Pickering Matchwinner Stick = 14.60mm
13' Normark Microlite (early) Mk2 = 10.70mm
13' Normark Titan (early) Mk2 = 11.00mm
13' Normark Avenger (early) Mk2 = 11.58mm

Thin and light isn't the be all and end all of rod design. Just because a rod is heavier and thicker certainly doesn't make a rod bad. However, it does start to really tell when you start looking at longer rods. Naturally, the shorter the rod, the less of an issue a weight difference is, provided the rod is well balanced. I've found that it's invariably the case that the thinner the blank, the lighter the rod tends to feel. If a rod is going to spend most of its' time sat in a rest, it probably doesn't matter much. However, if it's going to be in hand all day, it really does make a difference.

The bottom line is that the Acolyte 17' Float is thinner and lighter than the Cadence 15' No.1. The 15' Acolyte Ultra is just over 3mm thinner and 43g (1.5oz) lighter. To my mind, that's nowhere near close.

 

[108831]

But if the action was better and the rod is a better balanced tool would you think differently?

 

[sam vimes]

But if the action was better and the rod is a better balanced tool would you think differently?

I'm pretty sure that I said exactly that in the previous post. For example, I don't use the Acolytes for stillwater waggler work. I'll always use the most appropriate tool for the job in hand, but I'll invariably use the thinner, lighter, better balanced rod where all else is equal. I can also state that one of my favourite range of rods isn't included on the lists due to it having an oval blank. Being thinner in one plane than the other, measuring those would be pretty pointless in a comparison to normal round blanks. Due to the oval blank also makes them pretty heavy compared to most comparable rods. Fortunately, I love the action of them and decent balance makes them feel better that their weights might suggest.

 

[Philip]

I believe your suspicions are quite incorrect. I don't believe the specs of the Cadence rods are anything near to pretty close to those of the Acolytes. It's the reason that I've not taken a chance on buying a Cadence rod after being initially keen to do so. Unlike some, I'm a latecomer to Drennan rods. Until the Acolytes appeared, I would have generally preferred Daiwa and Shimano. My liking for the Acolytes has nothing to do with the brand and everything to do with me being convinced that they are the thinnest, lightest, best balanced and best value for money rods currently on the market. It helps that the action also fits nicely with my river angling and preferences.

The following three are someone else's figures.
Cadence 15ft#1
Tip is 1.5mm
butt is 14.92mm
206g in weight

Shakespeare mach 3 15ft
tip is 1.25mm
butt is 14. 70mm

Greys tactical toreon 15ft
tip 1.5mm
butt 14.99mm

This lot are my own figures, bar the weights (where given, in brackets) which are manufacturers figures (I don't have scales big enough or accurate enough to weigh rods properly). Diameters are measured as close to the handle forend as possible without measuring varnished whipping.

15' Acolyte Ultra = 11.89mm, (163g)
15' Acolyte Plus = 12.70mm, (170g)
15' Tricast Allerton Premier = 15.42mm
15' Shimano Speedcast = 14.00mm
15'6" Browning Sphere = 13.5mm, (175g)
17' Acolyte Float = 14.14mm, (198g)

For a bit of perspective for those less familiar with 15'+ rods.
13' Acolyte Ultra = 10.80mm, (135g)
13' Tricast Allerton Premier = 13.30mm
13' Tricast Allerton Waggler = 13.10mm
13' Shimano Speedcast = 13.55mm
13' Daiwa Tom Pickering Matchwinner Stick = 14.60mm
13' Normark Microlite (early) Mk2 = 10.70mm
13' Normark Titan (early) Mk2 = 11.00mm
13' Normark Avenger (early) Mk2 = 11.58mm

Thin and light isn't the be all and end all of rod design. Just because a rod is heavier and thicker certainly doesn't make a rod bad. However, it does start to really tell when you start looking at longer rods. Naturally, the shorter the rod, the less of an issue a weight difference is, provided the rod is well balanced. I've found that it's invariably the case that the thinner the blank, the lighter the rod tends to feel. If a rod is going to spend most of its' time sat in a rest, it probably doesn't matter much. However, if it's going to be in hand all day, it really does make a difference.

The bottom line is that the Acolyte 17' Float is thinner and lighter than the Cadence 15' No.1. The 15' Acolyte Ultra is just over 3mm thinner and 43g (1.5oz) lighter. To my mind, that's nowhere near close.

Yes I thought this may get the forum moving a bit.

Well looking at your figures there is clearly no doubt that the Acolyte is indeed thinner and lighter than the cadence.

However the question is how does this translate to angling pleasure.

Lets look at weight. You suggest that the 43g difference in weight is allot in rod terms. You may well be right but lets put this into perspective. The average suger lump weighs around 4g. So the difference between the Acoylte and the Cadence is @11 suger lumps & If we compare it to the Acolyte Plus then the difference is down to just 9 lumps.

As for the rod butt we are looking at a difference of 3.2mm. I just got a ruler and took a look at what 3.2mm looks like and it confirmed my suspicions that its really quite a tiny distance. If we compare it to the plus then the distance is just 2mm which is indeed even more tiny.

Now I realize that when on a days trotting your going to be holding the rod in your hand all day but I have trouble visualizing that the addition of 11 suger lumps in weight and 3.2mm of thickness at the butt will turn even the most weak wristed angler from a smiling heron like angling machine to a grim faced unhappy sweating heap cursing his rod.

Of course I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, but really, I doubt that these differences will be noticeable to the majority of anglers and I think rod weight and blank thickness can mislead and give the impression on paper there will be a much bigger impact than there actually is in real use.

The action and balance of the rod I think will play a bigger part in the overall pleasure a rod gives and the only way to really measure that is to pick one up and try it and even then its going to subjective so there is as much chance someone could prefer the Cadence to the Acolyte.

The one area that we can be absolutely sure everyone will notice the difference however is in their bank balance. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

 

[sam vimes]

There's no doubt whatsoever that thinner and lighter is likely to cost more. It also doesn't automatically translate into making for a better rod.
However, ask those that float fish rivers whether a mere ounce or so can make any difference and you'll invariably get a resounding yes. There's a reason why so many shy away from longer rods and weight is a huge factor. I'd also add that I made little mention of the costs involved. I was simply answering your statement that the specs of the Cadence rods were comparable to the Acolytes. They are demonstrably not particularly close. I'd actually be very surprised if any angler, average or not, would fail to notice the weight difference between broadly comparable (length/strength) Acolyte and Cadence rods. The reality is that the Cadence specs are broadly comparable to similarly priced current/recent rods from other brands. As I've yet to lay hands on one, I make no other comment with regards to the Cadence rods, they may be good rods for the money, and I suspect they probably will be.

The only comment I have is that I'm actually surprised that the Acolytes don't cost significantly more than they do. In the light and thin stakes, there's almost nothing else on the current market that comes close. Daiwa make at least a couple of ranges of rods that cost more yet are thicker and heavier. Tri-Casts also cost more yet are thicker and heavier. The only rods that I know of that come close to the bare specs of the Acolytes are Browning Spheres, but they also cost a fair bit more. It may seem unlikely to many that rods costing around the £200 mark could be good value, but I really believe they are, provided the actions suit the individual.

I compared the Cadence No1 to the Ultra for good reason, it's the lightest action that Cadence do, likewise the Ultra is the lighter action of the Acolytes, so I feel it's the fair comparison. I haven't seen the figures for the Cadence 15' No2, which should be a closer comparison to the 15' Acolyte Plus. I'd hazard a guess that it's correspondingly thicker and heavier than the No1.

As ever, you pay your money and make your choice.

 

[Philip]

There is another aspect that is rarely talked about and you have also missed, which is durability.

Its all very well making rods lighter and thinner but they also have to handle the rigors of everyday use.

I guess like many I can’t help but notice the number of breakages that appear to happen to Acolyte rods.

Now I am not suggesting for one moment the Cadence is going to be any better or less prone to breaking as I have not handled one, but I have to wonder if Drennan and perhaps some others have compromised on this in an effort to come in well on the lighter/thinner stakes.