Why 17ft?

[fishplate42]

I am planning on buying myself a decent float rod this coming year, and I think I am going to buy a 13ft Acolyte Float. I have been using a couple of old float rods (that I am reasonably happy with) of the same length. I want to see for myself what differences a decent rod will make.

Just out of interest, while I have been doing a bit of research on the subject I realised that these rods come in a verity of lengths the longest being 17ft - That is huge. Even split into three sections, each piece must be getting on for 6ft long! Part of the Drennan description of the rod says:

"The 17ft Acolyte Float is super slim, lightweight, and superbly balanced. The extra length of this remarkable rod provides best possible line management and float control with stick floats, wagglers and bolo floats." Why?


Can somebody please tell me what the real advantage of a 17 ft rod over a shorter rod is?

Thanks,
Ralph

 

[john step]

1. trotting. Gives extra reach and makes keeping a decent line of trot further out than a 13 ft can, especially if its breezy. Good line pick up.

2. Deep water on still waters. Absolute magic to fish with a pin and pole float at 17 feet, just as you would a pole (under the rod tip) but with running line for lumps.

If I was in the market for a better float rod a 17 ft would not be my first choice as I feel the standard 13ft would have more applications.

 

[Keith M]

Although 90% of the time I use much shorter 12ft, 13ft and 14 ft float rods; If I am fishing deeper waters of around 12ft to 17ft deep then I’ve found that a 17ft or 20ft rod can be a boon and can save me having to use the sliding float; which I find a lot more limiting as far as presentation is concerned.

I also very occasionally trot a narrow stream where the swim I’m fishing has a deeper run tight up to the far bank, and a 17 (or even 20ft) rod can enable me to trot my float down tight to the far bank directly under the rod tip whereas a shorter rod has line bowing on the surface and dragging the float away from the far bank as the float travels downstream and when I try to mend the line.

I use 13ft to 15ft float rods 90% of the time and my 17ft/20ft float rods usually only see daylight two or three times per year at most.

Keith

 

[103841]

Don't rule out the Drennan Ultralight rods Ralph, approx £50 cheaper than the corresponding Acolyte but still an exceptionally nice rod. Some Acolytes have suffered from broken tips (mine included), however Drennan diid replace it gratis.

What will determine your choice to a certain degree is where you intend using it and what sort of fishing you intend doing, e.g. trotting for silvers.

If you do go for the Acolyte you'll then be faced with the choice of the ultra or plus versions.

 

[108831]

This subject has been talked about before,but IMO rods longer than 14ft are great for control and line pick up,but they are really sh*te for playing decent fish,in fact every foot longer they are the sh*ttier they are,the best lengths for playing IMO are between 10-12ft as leverage is better,the good fish tend to be harder to get up to the surface on the longer rods.

 

[sam vimes]

Can somebody please tell me what the real advantage of a 17 ft rod over a shorter rod is?

Everything or nothing whatsoever. It all depends on the water you are fishing and the method being employed. I'll make no bones about it, I really like (good) long rods. However, my rule of thumb is to use as long a rod as I can for trotting, but as short a rod as is possible when stillwater float fishing.

When trotting/Bolo fishing, the extra control a longer rod gives can be invaluable, regardless of how shallow the water may be. However, there's little point if bankside vegetation makes the use of a long rod difficult when it comes to casting and playing fish.

When it comes to a stillwater, it usually comes down to depth of water and the size of the float being used. Once the water in front of you exceeds 10', then it can be advantageous to use a rod in excess of 13' unless you are prepared to use a slider. If the water is 10' or less, then there's really no point in a longer rod. If the water is particularly shallow, and/or the casting distance is short, then an even shorter rod may be a good idea, especially if encroaching vegetation might hinder casting.

The only other use I've seen long rods put to is commie margin fishing, just off the rod tip, often with pole floats. It's basically pole fishing with the extra security of having a reel.

Until the 17' Acolyte came along, I'd probably have suggested that 15' was as long as anyone would really want for a rod that would be in hand all day. Very few 17' rods are much use unless they can sit in rests for most of the time.

In my opinion, the best stab at an all round length for a float rod is 13'. However, for those that do little but fish commercials, 11 or 12' might be more appropriate. As much as I love long rods, I've seen little in the OPs posts/blog to suggest that he'd have any great use for a rod much longer than 13'. In the pantheon of float rods available, I'd suggest that a 17'er should be well down the list of priorities of most anglers. The exceptions may be those fishing deep venues or river enthusiasts.

If you do go for the Acolyte you'll then be faced with the choice of the ultra or plus versions.

Only in the 13,14 and 15' models. There's only one version of the 17'er. It's arguably closer in action to an Ultra than a Plus.

 

[binka]

In addition to the reasons already listed there are a handful of situations where I prefer to use a longer rod, the maximum I own is 15' but the same would apply to a 17'.

Has anyone ever considered how close they sit to the water on stillwaters and slower moving rivers, and how that equates to their rod length?

I suspect there is a lot of room for manoeuvre.

I find a longer rod is especially useful for poking a float rig deep under bankside vegetation, where an underarm swing would be risky to say the least.

On stillwaters I really don't mind using slider floats and I see little if any disadvantage, in fact they offer some benefit in that you're striking through a running float but a long rod is especially useful for fishing beyond the marginal shelf whilst maintaining pole like control with my own preference for a running line.

If the marginal growth extends several feet out into the water a long rod is also useful for holding a fighting fish out and preventing it from boring into the bankside vegetation when bringing it to the net, the same can be said when fishing from greater heights above the water.

I think much of it is down to your own fishing and how you adapt things to your own situation, if you can't see the point of a long rod then it's odds on that you're not doing the type of fishing which requires one and the day you get caught short will be the day you find the answer for yourself.

In short, do you need the application?

 

[nottskev]

Pretty well everything has been said, but I'd just add one thing.

One of my favourite long rods, best suited to light lines, stick floats and roach, is an old Tri-cast Finesse 4 piece 17'.

But I only use it at 17' if the wind is bad; with a short butt, 2' or so with 19" handle, adapted from another old float rod - a DAM, I think - it makes a beautiful 15' rod. Two for the price of one, effectively.

 

[maurice walsh]

i payed alot of money some years back ( 15 ish yrs ago) for a 17ft rod to be built for me thinking that it would be an asset on some of the waters in my area, as said above several times it can be like a pole/whip but with a reel if you hook a lump, but in all honesty, ive used it to its full potential maybe 6 outings in that time(i have used it other times on a regular basis just for the heck of it), i would have a long hard think on where/when/how/why if your of a mind to get a long rod and if it really is what you need, if its just a want, or a , am i missing something? , go to a shop n have a waggle with a reel on and see, or if you know someone with a long un':wh ask for a go if you think after all that , that you have room in your fishing for a 17/17plus rod go n get one, in saying all that i wouldnt be without mine as i know i have it and it will get an outing now n again:w

 

[fishplate42]

Thanks for all the replies. I have no intention of buying a 17ft rod. As I said in my original post, I intend to buy a better quality 13ft rod in the new year. It was only seeing the 17ft option that made me wonder what a 17ft rod would be used for, I now know .

In the three years I have been fishing, none of my rods have purchased new cost more then £35-£40, most of them a lot less. I want to see for myself what a more expensive rod feels like. I am not expecting it to help me catch more fish, that is down to watercraft and experience, but it may help me land a few more.

Ralph.

 

[Molehill]

I think you are spot on with a 13ft rod. It is only after some years with a 13ft that I felt experienced and competent enough to justify going up to my 15ft acolyte, which I love and feel capable of handling correctly, now.

There is little point in buying any rod if the angler cannot utilise it's performance, whether a £800 fly rod or distance casting carp rod (or long float rod), unless you have learned the techniques required for a performance rod, it is most probably the wrong rod and waste of money.

 

[steve2]

Ralph,
About 15 years I bought a Shakespeare Annex XL, which if I remember right is between 15’, and 20’ in length depending on what sections you used. I used it for commercial match lake carp fishing. I only remember using it a few times at its full length because it made netting the fish difficult.
So if you fancy trying out a long rod there is one in my shed.

 

[103841]

Thanks for all the replies. I have no intention of buying a 17ft rod. As I said in my original post, I intend to buy a better quality 13ft rod in the new year. It was only seeing the 17ft option that made me wonder what a 17ft rod would be used for, I now know .

In the three years I have been fishing, none of my rods have purchased new cost more then £35-£40, most of them a lot less. I want to see for myself what a more expensive rod feels like. I am not expecting it to help me catch more fish, that is down to watercraft and experience, but it may help me land a few more.

Ralph.

It goes without saying Ralph that with a nice new high quality rod you'll want to match that to a nice new high quality reel, it would be rude not to.

 

[fishplate42]

Ralph,
About 15 years I bought a Shakespeare Annex XL, which if I remember right is between 15’, and 20’ in length depending on what sections you used. I used it for commercial match lake carp fishing. I only remember using it a few times at its full length because it made netting the fish difficult.
So if you fancy trying out a long rod there is one in my shed.

Thanks! I would like to give it a go, if we can get together some time.

Ralph.

 

[fishplate42]

It goes without saying Ralph that with a nice new high quality rod you'll want to match that to a nice new high quality reel, it would be rude not to.

I suppose it would be, I will have to tell Sue what you have said. It will be fine then...

Ralph

 

[sam vimes]

Ralph,
I'm not convinced that 13' is the rod you should be looking to upgrade first. However, that's based on the type of fishing you seem to do and fisheries I've seen you frequent in posts and blog. If you intend to try out a higher quality rod, I'd suggest it be a replacement for whichever type of float rod you use most. If that's a 13'er, so be it. If not, I'd suggest that you'd be crackers to splash out on a rod that may end up not being as useful as you might like.

 

[greenie62]

Hi Ralph,
There's a whole pile of difference between a 13ft rod and a 17footer - depending on what kind of fishing you're doing.

I went for a 15ft Accy for long-trotting a river for grayling and chub - on the grounds that I'd have it in the hand all day and would need to mend the line less with the extra couple of foot - and never knew what I could pick-up on the next cast!
IF the 17'Accy had been available at the time I probably would have gone for that! - for exactly the same reasons

The only thing that would make me hesitate even now - is the cost - and the river has a lot of overhanging branches which I only just manage to avoid cracking the tip on

The lack of weight of the Accy wouldn't apply if I was using it for fishing off-the-rest in a stillwater where a heavier long rod would probably suit OK.

Have fun with your evaluation:thumbs:

 

[fishplate42]

Ralph,
I'm not convinced that 13' is the rod you should be looking to upgrade first. However, that's based on the type of fishing you seem to do and fisheries I've seen you frequent in posts and blog. If you intend to try out a higher quality rod, I'd suggest it be a replacement for whichever type of float rod you use most. If that's a 13'er, so be it. If not, I'd suggest that you'd be crackers to splash out on a rod that may end up not being as useful as you might like.

Thanks for the advice, Chris. For the past three years most of my fishing has been on commercials using mainly feeder rods with a bit of pole/float sessions thrown in. Recently I had done a bit more float fishing Using an older 13ft Silstar Mach rod (I was given) that I like using and I am confident with it. This year I have used it on several occasions on commercials (See HERE).

I am now moving towards fishing rivers more this coming year with the float rod and that is why I want to try a better 13ft rod, once I have had a few more river sessions using my existing rod.

Ralph.

 

[sam vimes]

Thanks for the advice, Chris. For the past three years most of my fishing has been on commercials using mainly feeder rods with a bit of pole/float sessions thrown in. Recently I had done a bit more float fishing Using an older 13ft Silstar Mach rod (I was given) that I like using and I am confident with it. This year I have used it on several occasions on commercials (See HERE).

I am now moving towards fishing rivers more this coming year with the float rod and that is why I want to try a better 13ft rod, once I have had a few more river sessions using my existing rod.

Ralph.

Fair enough. In that case I'd suggest you just need to be wary of getting a 13' rod that's a bit too light in action for it to be much use to you on the commies. For example, I'd not take my Matchpro Ultralight or Acolyte Ultra to the average commie outside the depths of winter. Some rods are intended for light lines and smaller fish. The saving grace is there aren't too many, so they are relatively easy to avoid.

 

[fishplate42]

Fair enough. In that case I'd suggest you just need to be wary of getting a 13' rod that's a bit too light in action for it to be much use to you on the commies. For example, I'd not take my Matchpro Ultralight or Acolyte Ultra to the average commie outside the depths of winter. Some rods are intended for light lines and smaller fish. The saving grace is there aren't too many, so they are relatively easy to avoid.

I understand what you are saying. My Silstar is a great rod and I am not intending to replace it. I want a rod for fishing light line (under 4lb) and still be sensitive. I think my Silstar is fine for commercials that have bigger fish (like Beaver and Oakley Road) but it is not that sensitive. I am beginning to understand and enjoy fishing for the little guys on canals and rivers - even targeting them.

Ralph.