REALTIME FLOWS    U. Kern: n/a cfs    L. Kern: 1341 cfs    E.W: 312 cfs    U. Owens: 108 cfs    L. Owens: 496 cfs   09/02/19 1:15 PM PST

Standard vs Large Arbor

For topics that don't seem to have a home elsewhere.

Re: Standard vs Large Arbor

Postby Papasequoia » May 22nd, 2011, 11:44 am

Mike and Curtis are both wrong and both should be bashed about the head with a soggy clown's wig. I mean, sheesh, everybody knows that you should just use a medium arbor reel. :evil:
Nature always wins.
> miles = < people
Camp in the mountains, not the left lane!
Image
User avatar
Papasequoia
 
Posts: 4655
Joined: July 5th, 2008, 10:14 pm
Location: East Side of the Sierra Nevada

Re: Standard vs Large Arbor

Postby beachbum » May 22nd, 2011, 1:35 pm

Papasequoia wrote:Mike and Curtis are both wrong and both should be bashed about the head with a soggy clown's wig. I mean, sheesh, everybody knows that you should just use a medium arbor reel. :evil:

Bashed with a soggy clown's wig...Is that like being drummed out of the clown corps?
Set the hook!
Image
User avatar
beachbum
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: December 3rd, 2008, 2:54 pm
Location: Camarillo, CA

Re: Standard vs Large Arbor

Postby WanderingBlues » May 22nd, 2011, 2:02 pm

Tenkara..............
"We're a cross between our parents and hippies in a tent...."
180 Degrees South
User avatar
WanderingBlues
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: December 2nd, 2009, 10:49 am
Location: Living in a Tin Can

Re: Standard vs Large Arbor

Postby briansII » May 23rd, 2011, 10:50 am

That's some interesting information. If true, we can start another thread about it. :bananadance: :bananadance: :bananadance:

Ok. Nevermind. :oops:

briansII

Sasha wrote:I guess all of the rods classed as sub 1wt should be called gimmicks as well. What does he mean you ask. Well here is a post from another forum I frequent. Personally I like my 8' sage SPL "1wt" and I like the "$250" LA reels that I only paid "100" ea. for the. Then again one should not worry about what others think and fish what they like.

Enjoy:

I've been waiting for over two weeks now for Sage to respond to another of my emails. I had a brief email exchange with someone at Sage--no idea who since they don't sign their names--regarding the 0, 00, and 000 weight lines.
One of our forum members, emailed Sage a few weeks back asking about the actual weight of the ought weight lines. Sage replied that they are as follows:
Here is the following grain ratings.

000 = 57gr
00 = 60gr
0 = 65gr

Best regards,
Team Sage

Since these are not the weights as initially announced by Jerry Siem in discussions with Bill Byrd:

"Jerry Siem of Sage produced the three-piece, seven foot ten inch, SPL “Ought Weight” with its 54 grain line. In 2005 he designed and engineered the TXL “Double Ought” with is 43 grain line and in 2007 the “Triple Ought” for a 32 grain line."
So the original reported weights were:----------------------000 - 32 grains00 - 43 grains0 - 54 grains

I emailed Sage to get the story. It would seem that the original Sage Quiet Taper WF lines were much lighter than the current lines and were as Jerry Siem described them. Those lines have all been discontinued now and having weighed a couple of the latest generation and 2nd generation lines I've verified that the heavier weights now reported by Sage appear to be accurate.
So what does all this mean?? In my book it means that all three Sage ought weight lines fall within the AFTMA standard for a 1 wt line. Add Sage's own 1 wt lines to the mix and you have Sage selling 4 fractionally different 1 wt lines and marketing them as 0, 00, 000, and a 1 wt.
The entire ought weight range as defined and marketed by Sage has morphed from lines that were once noticeably lighter than 1 wt lines to what we have now--a bunch of minutely different 1 wt lines.
When I pushed Sage on this point I received this somewhat bizarre reply:

"The differences between a 0-00-000 wt lines are 1/100th of a inch. That may not seem like much and only equate to 5-3gr each... but if you put a standard 1wt line on our 000 or 00 and even the 0 rod, the line would absolutely crush the action of the TXL and TXL-F"
I have no idea what the "1/100th of an inch" has to do with the question since we're talking line weights and not diameters and the claim that "if you put a standard 1wt line on our 000 or 00 and even the 0 rod, the line would absolutely crush the action of the TXL and TXL-F" is equally nonsensical. When I pointed out in my reply that the ought weight lines, on average, weigh 2 grains per foot of line so lengthening your cast by 2-1/2 feet would add 5 grains--the same as swapping to a 1 wt line, they went silent. No more responses despite followup emails on my part.
I've known all along that the weight differences between the ought weights and a standard 1 wt weren't huge, but I had no idea they had become almost infinitesimal. It's interesting that Sage doesn't publicize this information more openly but I can guess why they don't.
Where does this leave us? Well, I have a TXL-F 00, and a TXL 1 wt and I still love both rods and think they're among the best casting UL rods I've tried. At the same time I'm a little disappointed in Sage for quietly taking what was once a range of true sub-1 wt lines and pushing them all back up to the 1 wt range.
And... I apologize for giving a good natured hard-time to all you guys who have been "overlining" your ought weight TXLs with a 1 wt line! It turns out I've been doing the same thing and just didn't know it.
Jerry
BTW, if anyone from Sage reads this and would like to respond we'd love to hear from you. I have saved all my email correspondence with your customer service department in order to document the quotes which I provided here.
User avatar
briansII
 
Posts: 4902
Joined: September 3rd, 2008, 12:39 pm
Location: Central Ca.

Re: Standard vs Large Arbor

Postby Sasha » May 23rd, 2011, 6:36 pm

It is true, so I guess you will be starting a new thread then :bananadance:



briansII wrote:That's some interesting information. If true, we can start another thread about it. :bananadance: :bananadance: :bananadance:

Ok. Nevermind. :oops:

briansII

Sasha wrote:I guess all of the rods classed as sub 1wt should be called gimmicks as well. What does he mean you ask. Well here is a post from another forum I frequent. Personally I like my 8' sage SPL "1wt" and I like the "$250" LA reels that I only paid "100" ea. for the. Then again one should not worry about what others think and fish what they like.

Enjoy:

I've been waiting for over two weeks now for Sage to respond to another of my emails. I had a brief email exchange with someone at Sage--no idea who since they don't sign their names--regarding the 0, 00, and 000 weight lines.
One of our forum members, emailed Sage a few weeks back asking about the actual weight of the ought weight lines. Sage replied that they are as follows:
Here is the following grain ratings.

000 = 57gr
00 = 60gr
0 = 65gr

Best regards,
Team Sage

Since these are not the weights as initially announced by Jerry Siem in discussions with Bill Byrd:

"Jerry Siem of Sage produced the three-piece, seven foot ten inch, SPL “Ought Weight” with its 54 grain line. In 2005 he designed and engineered the TXL “Double Ought” with is 43 grain line and in 2007 the “Triple Ought” for a 32 grain line."
So the original reported weights were:----------------------000 - 32 grains00 - 43 grains0 - 54 grains

I emailed Sage to get the story. It would seem that the original Sage Quiet Taper WF lines were much lighter than the current lines and were as Jerry Siem described them. Those lines have all been discontinued now and having weighed a couple of the latest generation and 2nd generation lines I've verified that the heavier weights now reported by Sage appear to be accurate.
So what does all this mean?? In my book it means that all three Sage ought weight lines fall within the AFTMA standard for a 1 wt line. Add Sage's own 1 wt lines to the mix and you have Sage selling 4 fractionally different 1 wt lines and marketing them as 0, 00, 000, and a 1 wt.
The entire ought weight range as defined and marketed by Sage has morphed from lines that were once noticeably lighter than 1 wt lines to what we have now--a bunch of minutely different 1 wt lines.
When I pushed Sage on this point I received this somewhat bizarre reply:

"The differences between a 0-00-000 wt lines are 1/100th of a inch. That may not seem like much and only equate to 5-3gr each... but if you put a standard 1wt line on our 000 or 00 and even the 0 rod, the line would absolutely crush the action of the TXL and TXL-F"
I have no idea what the "1/100th of an inch" has to do with the question since we're talking line weights and not diameters and the claim that "if you put a standard 1wt line on our 000 or 00 and even the 0 rod, the line would absolutely crush the action of the TXL and TXL-F" is equally nonsensical. When I pointed out in my reply that the ought weight lines, on average, weigh 2 grains per foot of line so lengthening your cast by 2-1/2 feet would add 5 grains--the same as swapping to a 1 wt line, they went silent. No more responses despite followup emails on my part.
I've known all along that the weight differences between the ought weights and a standard 1 wt weren't huge, but I had no idea they had become almost infinitesimal. It's interesting that Sage doesn't publicize this information more openly but I can guess why they don't.
Where does this leave us? Well, I have a TXL-F 00, and a TXL 1 wt and I still love both rods and think they're among the best casting UL rods I've tried. At the same time I'm a little disappointed in Sage for quietly taking what was once a range of true sub-1 wt lines and pushing them all back up to the 1 wt range.
And... I apologize for giving a good natured hard-time to all you guys who have been "overlining" your ought weight TXLs with a 1 wt line! It turns out I've been doing the same thing and just didn't know it.
Jerry
BTW, if anyone from Sage reads this and would like to respond we'd love to hear from you. I have saved all my email correspondence with your customer service department in order to document the quotes which I provided here.
User avatar
Sasha
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 10:42 pm
Location: The 208

Previous

Return to General Fly Fishing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests