Reels balancing rods?

Talking to several anglers new to fly fishing gives me the impression that some still think that the reel must "balance" the rod.

I thought this outdated thinking had disappeared years ago.

Certainly if one looks back at old books and articles, one is given the impression that the reel must make the rod balance at the point of grip. Some authorities have even stated that the rod must balance at some osbcure distance above the grip.

This, for many years, led to fly reels being made that were over heavy. And worse still, there was aperiod when the reel seat, on single handed fly rods, put the reel at the maximum extremity of the rod handle.

Right, here is the truth and nothing but the truth.

A fly rod casts better without a reel attached to the rod.

A fly rod with a reel attatched will cast better the lighter that reel is; and more important of all, the closer the reel is to your hand.

This is purely a matter of simple mechanics. A reel fixed to the rod is working against you by virtue of it's mass and the lever arm against the fulcrum of your hand.

Try casting a rod without a reel and you will see what I mean.

Modern single handed fly rods are now all constructed correctly with up locking reel seats.

I remember receiving a batch of rods years ago from England that had down locking reel seats. It took quite a bit of work to convert them.

Very true!

More on the subject: http://www.thenewflyfisher.com/files/articles/Balancing.pdf

Thanks for that Rasmus.

It's an article that every person new to fly fishing should read. I remember Jack Martin the very famous Yorkshire tournament caster telling fly fishers at an early game fair in Yorkshire that fly reels were too heavy and that fly rod handles, in many cases were constructed wrongy. It appeared that not many people listened to him and even Hardys made a lot of the rods at that time with badly designed handles.

**** Walker also took up on this point and wrote a number of articles against the concept of "balancing" a fly rod.

Eventually the truth does get through to some people even though it might take years.

It's the opposite with other rods that have the reel at the top of the handle of course.

A screw reel seat should be down locking, not up locking. There is nothing worse than grabbing a fist full of screw thread!

If anyone wants to prove to themsleves how much better a fly rod casts without a reel then do the following. Strip off all the line you need to cast, then remove the reel from the rod and put it in your pocket, down front of waders etc. Cast as normal and you'll feel the difference instantly.

agree entirely Ron. My favourite reel for my three weight is a shimano. Not for its silky drag etc but becuase it ways b*gger all.

Remember reading an article about this guy (from Austria or Schwitzerland?!) who instead of a reel stored the fly line on something that looked like a big pole winder, that he carried in his belt. With the small trout in his mountain streams there were no need for a reel with a brake and with a light rod casting and presentation was great.
I guess that most of us really don't need a heavy brake designed in the US and capable of stopping a big Permit or Tarpon. Fishing for salmon or pike may justify a good brake, but most trout are easily (and best?!) controlled with a gentle finger on the spool.

That was called a belly winder Rasmus. They used them in the USA but never really caught on.

You are right about what we call one way disc drags of course. However I do like them as sometimes an English overwintered reservoir rainbow decides to run half your backing off at a heck of a speed.

I've hooked species we called Springer and even lowly catfish that require the use of a good disc drag to bring them to a halt. If you put on finger pressure, there is the possibility that you might get a few burns or blisters.

But for average trout in average circumstances we really don't need the drag and a bit of weight could be saved by not having one.

Another aspect is the popularity of Large Arbor reels. They actually weigh more because of their size (with same material of course). I use one myself but are beginning to wonder, if the advantadges of using the LA aren't mostly theoretical (this particular discussion has just started in a danish forum). The prizes on conventional reels have dropped, because everybody wants LA's, so you can get a top product for the prize of a standard LA, and it will even WEIGH LESS!

Interesting about the belly winder. Apparantly the guy writing the article hadn't heard of it either, because he claimed that it was an invention made by the guy using it (or mayby it was invented twice - would not be the first time in the world of fishing).

I, of course, use Large Arbour fly reels. The biggest advantage of these reels is they avoid line memory. They also give you a rapid line recovery.

You are quite right Rasmus, some of them are too heavy.

However I have just bought a Shakespeare Pflueger Trion which is decribed as a "mid arbour" fly reel. It is very light indeed and is one of the finest designed fly reels I have ever seen. You can get small ones too. There is a review of these reels under product reviews on this website.

As regards the belly winder, there is little in this sport of ours that is new.

The Chinese have been using "large arbour reels" for hundreds of years.

Hi Ron,

Thats the reel I was using on our day at Rutland. on my eight weight (orange floating line). I also have one for my four weight.They are superb reels. Only time will tell how long they last but I rate them. Not dear either.

Iwouldn't recomend them in the smaller sizes though. They are a hell of a weight on a four weight rod, when really the reel is little more than a storage device.

Cheers
Rich

Rich I used to have a 3" dia Orvis CFO which I used on the Natal streams with a 4 weight line. It was the lightest fly reel I ever owned. I think it was made by Hardys for Orvis at the time, it had "Made in England" on it.

All it had was a click check.

I gave that reel away like an idiot.

I used to use 1/2 a double taper line on it spliced to braided backing. You didn't need a full double taper as the furthest cast was only about 12 yards.

I used it with a 8 foot Fibretube bank I made up. It was a perfect combination.

**** Walker loved these reels by the way. He caught his "record" Avington trout on a CFO.

By the way The Pfueger Trion is now sold as the Orvis Battenkill mid arbour reel for ?105.00!!!

It's the same reel make no mistake with just a few cosmetic differences.

I took te same reel into farlows the other day to have some line loaded on. The shop keeper had never seen a shakespeare Pfulger (of course they don't stock shakespeare!!!). He then proceeded to open the reel cabinet and show me the identical reel in a number of different colours and under a number of different brands which I won't mention for legal reasons. The price difference though in some case was ?200 more than the Pfluger for what was the exact same reel, just sprayed blackand under a different brand. We even took the reel aprt to check the insides were the same. No difference.

Unbeleivable!!

Unbelievable but so true Rich.

There is no doubt that tackle companies are making a fortune on the gullable - anglers who buy on the label.

Pflueger used to be a top USA name many years ago. They invented many firsts like a level wind for baitcasting (multipying) reels.

As you know this reel is made in South Korea. But the positive aspect is that some of the top name companies would not put their name to it if it was rubbish.

But it's not rubbish. I bought mine from Steve Parton who told me it was the best fly reel he has ever used, that's why he sells them.

I doubt if such a reel could ever be made in England and sold for this price.