Standard vs Large Arbor

[WanderingBlues]

Less line coil during the opening salvo's?

The Sage was all about the weight at 2.4oz for a 2.91 diameter reel (the Orivs BBS was 3.2 oz for a 2.5 diameter) and and the sexy bronze finish. Mostly, I stripped in the line to bring in the fish, though I intentionally reeled one to see how it reacted (very well).

[briansII]

Newer, faster, lighter, and better. The sport moves forward.............

In reality at a much slower pace than the advertising leads you to believe.

I gots no problem with that. It's capitalism.

I really like LA reels. I'm the laziest fisherman you'll find. If I can have a reel that requires less cranks to reel up and move to the next spot, I gotta have it. Larger lines coils is just a side benefit. Doesn't hurt that some weight next to nothing. In the context of "ultralight" rods, there is no real performance advantage with one over the other.......other than for a lazy putz like me.

I also like tradition. I use SA reels because it just feels, and looks right with certain rods. I have been jonesing for a English Hardy, CFO, SA, and even Cortland for quite a while. For my older rods, give me a non ported, clicker over a LA anytime.

briansII

[Sasha]

I am a big believer in the "to each, their own" approach. If ya love the traditional SA reel, go for it. If you like a LA reel go for it. From a UL perspective it typically doesn't matter anyways as the reel is basically the line holder.

Now with all of that being said, I happen to like LA reels a bit better. The reasons I like them better are as follows: Line coiling issues; I own SA reels and that * DT 0wt line coils like no other on them, especially when the air temp is below 32F. Another reason I end up using a reel with drag; is that I have been known to use my UL rods in "ways they were not intended"

[1mocast]

As to "Size", whatever floats your boat....I worry more about balance.

I sure wouldn't want a lighter SA reel with a 10ft 3wt Nymph stick. Conversely, A heavier LA reel on a 0wt?

Neutral balance or slightly butt heavy is what I like.

[flyster]

I also try to balance my set up. As for large abors I try to use them in places where I know that I might get smoked by larger fish. I do find myself using more old school reels more and more these days. Here are a few reels I use in 3" or less sizes (ya, ya I know silly head I bought to many reels). As you all know I am an ADDICT!!!!

[209er]

Nice collection! The one on the far right should be familiar( but in older model) to most oldsters in the US. Now go fish them. The Hardy's are awesome btw. 209

[John Harper]

I've been using my dad's Martin "tuna can." It's actually in like new condition, not sure how old it is.

Does anyone know if they still make these reels? It's a Martin 63SS. Nice and simple for the creeks.

John

[beachbum]

Sweet reel collection, John! I use large arbor reels for fish that run hard. It really comes in handy trying to keep up with them when they run right back at you. For little fish a reel is basically a line holder, but for big fish they really come in handy.

[briansII]

I've been using my dad's Martin "tuna can." It's actually in like new condition, not sure how old it is.

Does anyone know if they still make these reels? It's a Martin 63SS. Nice and simple for the creeks.

John

If looking for a new, or "vintage" Martins, Ebay will be your friend.







Just a few cheapies from that horrid auction site.


briansII

[lucfish]

Good topic. As for myself, most of the rods and reels I possess are 20 or so years and large arbor reels weren't an option then at least where I was purchasing my equipment they weren't an option and I didn't know any better. They work fine. Like the good doctor I do a little stretching before each session on my line to get the kinks out. I let the fish tell me whether I reel him up or just pull him in. If he's not big enough or is just flopping around, I pull him in, if he pulls all of the line out of my fingers, I reel him up. Yea it takes a little longer but so what. That said, all the newer reels I have are large arbor. They work great especially for saltwater fish.

[anacrime]

Like most things in fly fishing, a LA on an ultralight is more of a gimmick. Sure it will slightly reduce memory, but no one here could argue that it's a necessity. 90% of the crap we buy in this sport are fundamentally unnecessary.

Another gimmick... those of us who have $250 "line holders" on our 0wts

[Barrie Mann]

Doc, after reading the posts I just had to chime in. I agree with most that in light rods 3wts or less the LA reel is not practical and in my opinion this goes up to 6wts as well. Balance is critical but whether a SA or LA reel is used does not contribute to balance.Material of construction and physical size defines the choice of reel for balance. However, when larger weight rods are used, then the use of a LA reel is more practical. I use LA reels for my 8 and 10 wt rods now that I'm fishing the salt and targeting much bigger fish such as Reds and Tarpon. The LA in this case helps because they are constructed differently and sized to balance these larger rods and you typically do get the fish on the reel quicker. The LA reel in this case is more practical because you can recover more line quickly when battling a large fish. So my point? Both SA and LA reels have their place in this sport we love. Just my 2 cents worth.

[1mocast]

I gotta admit though, some of the LA reels like the Sage Click Series, sure does have the BLING factor!

[WanderingBlues]

Thank you Barrie. Good to see your post, my friend.

As a side note, I rec'd a PM from someone that felt I was "bashing" Curtis for his choice in purchasing a large arbor reel for his 1wt rod.

I'm a communicative person and I've always worried about 'context' when writing, particularly in a forum post. I can assure everyone that Mike has been very helpful in my decision process.

"Dr. Creek" as a forum personality is, well, Dr. Creek. He speaks his mind and can push the occasional button with a comment. Mike, the passionate flyfisherman, is very amiable, committed, and enjoyable. We probably spoke via telephone for an hour or more on the intricacies of UL flyfishing and I found that Mike is someone with whom I very much look forward to sharing some water.

As to my LA purchase, the Click series was designed specifically for the TXL and it felt 'right' once seated. It balances to perfection and finishes off, with the Sage Quiet Taper DT line, what I believe is a well designed and integrated UL system. I could have saved some money with a SA selection that would have done the same job, but I had a little extra $$ and decided to go with the Click with no regrets.

Whoever PM'd Mike- thanks for watching my back . That makes me feel good to know there's love on the board. But, you guys know it takes a whole lot to get me going. And now, in the fine words of the philospher Anonymous, "Shut up and fish..."

[Sasha]

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.