Balance

I've read many references to the desirability of having a rod and reel that balance, especially for lure fishing when moving around a lot (as I intend to.).

How is this balance best tested please?

Thanks!

It's down to the individual as to what feels right

Example: Think of a big chunky sea reel.. you wouldn't put that on a light leger rod for roach and skimmers for example, even if it would fit the set up would feel bottom heavy, in that the majority of the weight of the set up would all be centred around the reel, if that makes sense!

So your lure set up follows the same principle, if you're using a very light set up chucking small lures for perch or small jacks then a light lure rod and small-ish fixed spool will do, then the other end of the scale if you imagine lure fishing on a large loch with really big lures then a heavier rod, with a heavier reel, possibly a multiplier, would be more suitable.

Essentially it's down to what feels balanced to you, but if you have a specific question regards whether rods and reels might be well balanced, if ordering by mail order for example, then post your questions and am sure there will be some members here who can answer any specific queries!

My own interpretation is that the rod and reel that are balanced when...

1 - The rod (lure fishing) will have a casting weight eg 25 - 50g the 'sweet spot' of lure weight to cast will be in this range.

2 - The weight of the reel will balance the length of the rod and the package will not feel top or bottom heavy - this reduces fatigue when in use.

I wouldn't really consider 'balance' to be a metric that is measured as it varies from angler to angler.

A woolly answer really - hope it helps.

And now the truth.

The weight of a reel fitted to a rod has a detrimental effect on the rod's casting performance, and here I am talking about rods that are used for casting, not poles or very long rods.

Starting off with single handed fly rods; it was thought for many years that the reel had to balance a fly rod at the point of grip, or at some other hypothetical point above the handle. In fact a fly rod casts a line much better without a reel attached.

This fact can be replicated in coarse and spinning tackle. Reels should be as light as possible. Any reel has mass which when attached to a rod will add to the whole outfit which means that more energy is needed to move it in order that a cast can be executed, and more fatigue for the angler.

In the old days, they made what were termed: "balance handles", these were handles made heavy enough to counteract the weight of the rod. This may have had some benefit in the days of heavy wood and cane rods. In today's world, to compliment carbon fibre, it's best to keep the reel as light as possible. This becomes even more important in fly tackle.

Ron The Hat Clay said:

And now the truth.

The weight of a reel fitted to a rod has a detrimental effect on the reels casting performance, and here I am talking about rods that are used for casting, not poles or very long rods.

Starting off with single handed fly rods; it was thought for many years that the reel had to balance a fly rod at the point of grip, or at some other hypothetical point above the handle. In fact a fly rod casts a line much better without a reel attached.

This fact can be replicated in coarse and spinning tackle. Reels should be as light as possible. Any reel has mass which when attached to a rod will add to the whole outfit which means that more energy is needed to move it in order that a cast can be made, and more fatigue for the angler.

In the old days, they made what were termed: "balance handles", these were handles made heavy enough to counteract the weight of the rod. This may have had some benefit in the days of heavy wood and cane rods. In today's world, to compliment carbon fibre, it's best to keep the reel as light as possible. This becomes even more important in fly tackle.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up Ron - the mixing of hypothetical points stated as fact being especially useful.

When casting the rod is held high and brought forward all but for a brief moment. This process will be repeated many times when lure fishing but in all honesty I don't think balance really enters into the casting equation, much more important it feels comfortable for you when retrieving with the rod tip pointed downwards as this will account for how it will be held for most of the time anyway.

If your in the market for a new rod and reel, no endorsements here, but I would suggest holding the assembled tackle in the position you would normally retrieve line rather than casting, try it out in the shop and get proper feel for it.

I made an error. I said "reel's casting performance". I should have said "rods casting performance".

It is the rod, manipulated by the anglers hands and arms that imparts movement to the rod, which in turn propels the bait, lead or lure forward to the point of aim by imparting velocity to the said lure, lead or bait.

Balance certainly does not enter the casting equation. Skilled anglers can cast a concentrated or an elongated (fly line) weight by moving the rod overhead, sideways or even by using an upward flick.

I thought this was going to be about good ale!

Ron The Hat Clay said:

And now the truth.

The weight of a reel fitted to a rod has a detrimental effect on the rod's casting performance, and here I am talking about rods that are used for casting, not poles or very long rods.

Starting off with single handed fly rods; it was thought for many years that the reel had to balance a fly rod at the point of grip, or at some other hypothetical point above the handle. In fact a fly rod casts a line much better without a reel attached.

This fact can be replicated in coarse and spinning tackle. Reels should be as light as possible. Any reel has mass which when attached to a rod will add to the whole outfit which means that more energy is needed to move it in order that a cast can be executed, and more fatigue for the angler.

In the old days, they made what were termed: "balance handles", these were handles made heavy enough to counteract the weight of the rod. This may have had some benefit in the days of heavy wood and cane rods. In today's world, to compliment carbon fibre, it's best to keep the reel as light as possible. This becomes even more important in fly tackle.

Click to expand...

Should have said now the real(reel) truth

Coat, taxi

I very rarely do any lure fishing so cant comment on that, but i would take the balance of a rod with a reel on it to be about literally the point of balance - ideally as near to the reel as possible or a little way in front - and also about using an appropriate rod or reel combination for the task you are putting them too.

I have seen the odd float or ledger rod on ebay where the fuji reel seat is half way along the handle which would make for a highly imbalanced set up unless you were using a customised cast iron Mitchell or Big Pit reel.

I am not an engineer or physicist but i am sure inertia also comes into play. If a rod is tip heavy, then on the strike the tip may tend more to bounce back forwards after a strike whereas if the balance is right this inertia is more effectively dampened?. Best thing of a balanced set up is that it feels lighter and more responsive on the strike.

chub_on_the_block said:

I am not an engineer or physicist but i am sure inertia also comes into play. If a rod is tip heavy, then on the strike the tip may tend more to bounce back forwards after a strike whereas if the balance is right this inertia is more effectively dampened?. Best thing of a balanced set up is that it feels lighter and more responsive on the strike.
__________________

Click to expand...

The only way to cut down on the effects of inertia is to cut down on weight. The position of the reel on the rod's handle can be important. In terms of coarse fishing, the ideal position would be equal to the distance between the angler's elbow and the start of his fingers. Many coarse fishing rod handles are much too long.

For lure fishing and spinning, a shorter handle would be desirable. I have a 9 foot "pistol grip" lure rod I had made for me on a Harrison blank. It works very well for bank fishing on fenland drains and canals. For boat fishing a 6 foot rod works better.

All coarse fishing rods, bait casting and spinning rods should have down locking reel seats. All single handed fly rods should have up locking reel seats, which positions the reel as close as possible to the hand gripping the rod.

In the 'good old days' (which were not really so good is some respects, but very good in others) the accepted 'lore' was that the point of balance was just past the handle, but of course, in those days the rods were quite heavy (fibre-glass, and cane) and the reels were very light, (in comparison to todays reels), and so the tipping point, (or pivot) was relatively constant.
Today, of course, this has been reverse, quite dramatically, with 'featherlight' carbon fibre rods, and heavy reels (even in the smaller sizes - basically, because there are mainly metal, whereas in the old days, most reels had plastic bodies) and so there is an imbalance with most rods & reels - not so important when carp and predator fishing when the rod (and reel) may be on rests for long periods (sometimes days!!).
There is a formula to calculate the actual point of balance, but the best method is for the actual user to hold the rod and reel, and determine if it is suitable, for him or her.
Casting is a technique which can be improved by practice, or by the aid of a tutor; but in reality is is also due to the ability of the caster to compress the rod to its maximum.
Ron is correct in that rods should be screw-down, rather than screw-up, which is a legacy from the 'not so good days', when the reel fittings were mainly originally designed for sea reels, and the taper of these dictated that, to fit properly on freshwater rods, they had to be placed screw-up.

Brian Hazard said:

Ron is correct in that rods should be screw-down, rather than screw-up, which is a legacy from the 'not so good days', when the reel fittings were mainly originally designed for sea reels, and the taper of these dictated that, to fit properly on freshwater rods, they had to be placed screw-up.

Click to expand...

But look at a lot of coarse fishing rods today and you will find that they are screw-ups. The main problem with screw ups is that you end up holding screw thread which is darned uncomfortable. Fortunately most float rods are screw-down.

Single handed fly rods are of course screw-up which makes it possible to cover a portion of the reel seat with cork, thus bringing the centre-of-gravity of the reel as close as possible to the hand.

Not all glass fibre rods were heavy. When spigot glass to glass joints appeared ca 1968, the elimination of brass ferrules made hollow glass rods extremely light, especially fly rods. In fact the most popular fly rod of the time was the Hardy RW Reservoir Superlite which was designed by **** Walker in conjunction with the Moncrieffe Rod Development Co. At 9 1/4 feet, this rod weighed slightly less than 4 oz. Most carbon rods of the same length and power today, are about the same weight.

I am not sure about your comment that reels today have become heavier. The old fixed spool reels of 50 years ago such as the Mitchell, the Altex and the Felton Crosswind were quite heavy made as they were of mazak, a zinc alloy. The bodies and spools of many of the Shimano and Daiwa reels I use today are aluminium. The old reels certainly did not have all have plastic bodies. The early Coxon Aerials had ebonite spools with wooden bodies and nickel silver spokes if my memory serves me right.

But by far the majority of old centre-pin reels were made from wood and brass.

I started my fishing with an old wooden starback, and then graduated to an Allcocks Aerialite which was made from bakelite I think.

When you talk about "The old days", what era do you mean Brian?

Ron,
I started, aged 5, in 1950, in Northern Ireland, using a bamboo pole with hempen cord, (no reel) and a length of 'gut', and then later progressed to cane rods - which bent - and stayed bent - if a sizeable fish was hooked.
Incidentally, in Ireland then, rudd were always called 'roach'; they, perch, eels, and pike were my winter fish; my mother came from Ardglass - a small fishing village about six miles from my home town of Downpatrick (which is famous for having the grave of St Patrick, but not many people, indeed not many Irish people, know that!), and we undertook sea fishing in the summer months, my favourite sea fish being wrasse.
I progressed through various bakelite reels, wooden reels for sea fishing, until the early 60s, when I was put on to the Angling Times by some soldiers from a Yorkshire regiment who were stationed at ballykinlar camp, again about 6 miles from Downpatrick. Through tem, I was put ont Don Baits, for maggots, and Bennetts of Sheffield, from whom i purchased some glass fibre rods and Mitchell reels (306).
Those days were, indeed, of an innocent age, and are missed for that.

Thanks for all the replies - very much appreciated!

Born in 1960 I started fishing in 1966 with a tank aerial and a wooden star-back (I doubt that set-up scored very highly on weight or balance) and I'd pretty much stopped again by the age of 13.

Now returning at the tender age of 52, I find myself with a new rod that weighs under a hundred grams and a reel that's barely more than twice that, which I'm not sure ought to be allowed!

1960?

A superb vintage!