13ft vs 11ft Float Rod

Andy Pet · May 27, 2016

Quickie for you all. I've been losing the plot with feeder/bomb fishing and it's ruined my fishing experience.

I have since found favour with the float after trying various float rods, of which Tigger now has ownership.

As I only fish still waters, which is the better length for float fishing from the margins up to around 3-4 rod length out? Does 13ft give me and advantage over 11ft at this distance? Note depths are no greater than 6ft.

Cheers

greenie62 · May 27, 2016

Any trees where you fish?

I recently stopped using longer rods as the foliage developed on the trees and the branchlets started drooping and threatening tip contact - not the way to be the (once-)proud owner of a 15' Acolyte!

Sticking to the 11' Maver for now!

robtherake · May 27, 2016

Short rods are great fun. The fight seems more direct and fish are played out faster, plus they pop up much closer for netting. My 11ft Middy rod is first out of the bag for small venues/ close range work and the distances you're talking about are no problem.

tigger · May 27, 2016

The only time i'd use a rod less than 13ft would be when I was fishing a very small water, and/or there wan't enough head room to allow me to use one, or I just fancied it.
I dissagree that you can get fish in quicker using a short rod, i've used a 11ft, 11ft 9inch, 12ft, 13ft and 14ft rod in the exact swim in the same conditions when targetting barbel and if i'm honest the time it took to get them in was pretty much the same ut co trolling the float etc was much easier with the longer rods.
Imo the venue and of course your preference dictates the rod length and I find 13ft to be the best all round length...as I say jmo gent's

.

greenie62 · May 27, 2016

tigger said:
... i've used a 11ft, 11ft 9inch, 12ft, 13ft and 14ft rod in the exact swim in the same conditions when targetting barbel ....

Hi Tigger - was the 11'9" rod a 12' before a stray branch tipped it for you?

BTW - Andy was asking about still-waters rather than Barbel trotting - Generally I'd agree about using the longest rod available with the headroom permitting - but this time of year you suddenly find the headroom disappearing since last time you fished the swim - so "same rod again" doesn't always apply and you just need to do a re-check before a 13' rod becomes a 12'3" bean-stick!

Keith M · May 27, 2016

tigger said:
The only time i'd use a rod less than 13ft would be when I was fishing a very small water, and/or there wan't enough head room to allow me to use one, or I just fancied it.
I dissagree that you can get fish in quicker using a short rod, i've used a 11ft, 11ft 9inch, 12ft, 13ft and 14ft rod in the exact swim in the same conditions when targetting barbel and if i'm honest the time it took to get them in was pretty much the same ut co trolling the float etc was much easier with the longer rods.
Imo the venue and of course your preference dictates the rod length and I find 13ft to be the best all round length...as I say jmo gent's .

I'm with tigger on this one.

Yes I would probably use a short rod if I were fishing under my nose; unless the depth was deeper or if the bankside obstructions were forcing me to use a very short float rod but any water where I have to cast a light float (waggler or stick) on a canal width venue or larger then I would much prefer to use a longer rod of around 12ft or 13ft (or even longer if I am float fishing in a deep swim as I'm not a great fan of sliding floats).

I find a 12 or 13ft rod makes it easier to both cast a very light float and play and control a fish without having to use excessive force and chance hook pulls.

Plus a longer rod of around 12 or 13ft enables me to be able to pick up the line better and transmit the strike through the float down to the hook (which is at right angles to the strike) a lot easier.

As I've already said; the only times I would consider using a very short rod for float fishing is if I were forced to because of bankside obstructions and overhead branches or I were fishing under my nose.

Keith.

tigger · May 27, 2016

greenie62 said:
Hi Tigger - was the 11'9" rod a 12' before a stray branch tipped it for you?

BTW - Andy was asking about still-waters rather than Barbel trotting - Generally I'd agree about using the longest rod available with the headroom permitting - but this time of year you suddenly find the headroom disappearing since last time you fished the swim - so "same rod again" doesn't always apply and you just need to do a re-check before a 13' rod becomes a 12'3" bean-stick!

Lol Mike, no the rod was a drennan was a drennan im8 apecimen float rod that is meant to be 12ft 9inches long

. Why on earth they made it that odd numer i've no idea :w.

sam vimes · May 27, 2016

If you are fishing at a limited range, the water isn't unduly deep (or you are fishing shallow in deeper water) or the swim is tight, short rods are just fine.

In the circumstances described in the op, I see no advantage in the 13 foot rod. 13 foot is the best all round float rod length, if you fish a variety of waters. For those that don't venture anywhere but the local commies, 10/11 foot is likely to be better.

greenie62 · May 27, 2016

tigger said:
Lol Mike, no the rod was a drennan was a drennan im8 apecimen float rod that is meant to be 12ft 9inches long . Why on earth they made it that odd numer i've no idea :w.

I suspect someone gave the prototype a 'waggle' in the factory and caught a light-fitting - the subsequent blanks were made 'as per prototype'

mg:

Jim Crosskey 2 · May 27, 2016

Andy

I agree with everything Sam says above, however I'm going to say go for the 13 footer.

Not because you need it now - in the situation you've described, I think an 11 footer will do the job just as well - but more because as you've already seen in your journey from bomb/ feeder to float, our interests in the types of fishing we do change and develop with our experiences, and the 13 footer would keep more options open to you for other styles of angling in the future.

(So that's the sensible answer. The non-sensible answer - the one that at least half of the forum users here will secretly be screaming out - is that you need to buy them both!! You can never have too many rods!!!! So although my advice is given on the basis of being the most sensible course of action, it doesn't really reflect the fact that I own a 10', 11', 2 x 13' and a 14' float rods!! And I still keep looking at that 15' drennan acolyte and thinking "maybe.....")

greenie62 · May 27, 2016

Jim Crosskey 2 said:
..... And I still keep looking at that 15' drennan acolyte and thinking "maybe.....")

You might find yourself thinking - like me - those trees look very low today - I'm not sure I want to risk my Acolyte - 'just in case'!

mg:

Jim Crosskey 2 · May 27, 2016

Yeah you make a good point there Greenie, I've had the same issue with reels as well... I want the nice expensive shiny ones, but something tells me that if I did buy them then I wouldn't want them anywhere near a muddy bank!

robtherake · May 27, 2016

tigger said:
The only time i'd use a rod less than 13ft would be when I was fishing a very small water, and/or there wan't enough head room to allow me to use one, or I just fancied it.
I dissagree that you can get fish in quicker using a short rod, i've used a 11ft, 11ft 9inch, 12ft, 13ft and 14ft rod in the exact swim in the same conditions when targetting barbel and if i'm honest the time it took to get them in was pretty much the same ut co trolling the float etc was much easier with the longer rods.
Imo the venue and of course your preference dictates the rod length and I find 13ft to be the best all round length...as I say jmo gent's .

Bit different on puddles, me old mate.

I read an article by John Bailey a few years ago, in which he extolled the virtue of short rods for all kinds of fishing (including legering for barbel on fast rivers.) The physics of it - dealing with the application of leverage - was explained along with the report of his own findings. Basically, he was saying that the shortest rod you can get away with is always the best option.

My own experiences with a 6ft carp rod versus a standard 12 footer bears out what he was saying: in short (no pun intended

,) the little rod plays fish out in half the time and with far less arm ache. I thought I would run into bother with nearside vegetation and snags, but so far it hasn't been an issue because the short rod piles on the pressure faster and harder and turns the fish before it reaches trouble. The only issue - if you can call it that - is that the ESP Raptor hooks I used were opening up with the extra pressure, so I've had to step up to a stronger pattern.

Short rods are lighter and generally better-balanced than their longer counterparts and TBH I find them far easier to play fish on. It seems simpler to follow sudden changes of direction and there's far better feedback of the fishes intentions to your hand. Whether it's a function of all the above, I don't know, but I also seem to lose fewer fish when using them.

The mini-rod thing may be another clever marketing gimmick, but it's much more than just the latest fad, I'm certain.

tigger · May 27, 2016

robtherake said:
Bit different on puddles, me old mate. I read an article by John Bailey a few years ago, in which he extolled the virtue of short rods for all kinds of fishing (including legering for barbel on fast rivers.) The physics of it - dealing with the application of leverage - was explained along with the report of his own findings. Basically, he was saying that the shortest rod you can get away with is always the best option.

My own experiences with a 6ft carp rod versus a standard 12 footer bears out what he was saying: in short (no pun intended,) the little rod plays fish out in half the time and with far less arm ache. I thought I would run into bother with nearside vegetation and snags, but so far it hasn't been an issue because the short rod piles on the pressure faster and harder and turns the fish before it reaches trouble. The only issue - if you can call it that - is that the ESP Raptor hooks I used were opening up with the extra pressure, so I've had to step up to a stronger pattern.

Short rods are lighter and generally better-balanced than their longer counterparts and TBH I find them far easier to play fish on. It seems simpler to follow sudden changes of direction and there's far better feedback of the fishes intentions to your hand. Whether it's a function of all the above, I don't know, but I also seem to lose fewer fish when using them.

The mini-rod thing may be another clever marketing gimmick, but it's much more than just the latest fad, I'm certain.

If you like 'em Rob that's great bud but having used both long (no longer than 15ft) and short (5ft) I haven't found a short rod gets the fish in any quicker. A lot /most of the stll waters I fish are lined with reeds and if you used a short rod you'd loose far too many fish in them as you just can't keep the fish out of them. Imo a longer rod gives far more control over a fish. Regarding the weight of shorter rods being lighter than a longer rod...obviously that depends on the rod. I have had a 11ft acolyte carp waggler and that was amazingly light but my 11ft hardy marksman specialist avon rods are heavier than my float rods that go up to 14ft.
One of my favourite short rods is a daiwa amorphous salmon spin of 8ft long.
I like all different sizes of rods in the right situation.

Lord Paul of Sheffield · May 27, 2016

For pure margin fishing I'd go short rod , but a longer rod naked casting further out easier I find

tigger · May 27, 2016

Lord Paul of Sheffield said:
For pure margin fishing I'd go short rod , but a longer rod naked casting further out easier I find

I haven't tried naked casting yet but it's getting warm enough now so i'll give it a go soon

.

robtherake · May 27, 2016

Lord Paul of Sheffield said:
For pure margin fishing I'd go short rod , but a longer rod naked casting further out easier I find

Naked casting, M'Lud? Do you get more distance without the impediment of clothing?

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------

tigger said:
If you like 'em Rob that's great bud but having used both long (no longer than 15ft) and short (5ft) I haven't found a short rod gets the fish in any quicker. A lot /most of the stll waters I fish are lined with reeds and if you used a short rod you'd loose far too many fish in them as you just can't keep the fish out of them. Imo a longer rod gives far more control over a fish. Regarding the weight of shorter rods being lighter than a longer rod...obviously that depends on the rod. I have had a 11ft acolyte carp waggler and that was amazingly light but my 11ft hardy marksman specialist avon rods are heavier than my float rods that go up to 14ft.
One of my favourite short rods is a daiwa amorphous salmon spin of 8ft long.
I like all different sizes of rods in the right situation.

As you say, the situation dictates the need. From a purely theoretical viewpoint - and assuming that your chosen lake (the OP's a stillwater guy) has hazard-free margins - I'd put money on the shorter rod being more efficient. Of course, the lakes we fish are real, but the sort of venue that these short float and leger rods are aimed at used to be a field in a previous life and lacks the sort of natural hazards you're talking about.

Lord Paul of Sheffield · May 27, 2016

Sorry
Longer rod making casting easier

13ft vs 11ft Float Rod

Andy Pet

Well-known member

greenie62

Well-known member

robtherake

Well-known member

tigger

Banned

greenie62

Well-known member

Keith M

Well-known member

tigger

Banned

sam vimes

Well-known member

greenie62

Well-known member

Jim Crosskey 2

Well-known member

greenie62

Well-known member

Jim Crosskey 2

Well-known member

robtherake

Well-known member

tigger

Banned

Lord Paul of Sheffield

Well-known member

tigger

Banned

robtherake

Well-known member

Lord Paul of Sheffield

Well-known member