http://www.willowford.net/0822101402.jpg Dorber's new Ultrawave Blank
Printable View
http://www.willowford.net/0822101402.jpg Dorber's new Ultrawave Blank
The Ladyfisher and I had the great pleasure of having one of these rods sent to us last summer. We used it on the spring creek and my nephew fished the Yellowstone and some of the waters in Yellowstone National Park with it. It's an interesting concept. Great power. It will be interesting to see how anglers react to the radical design.
The Chronicler
I cast a prototype along with a good friend and rod-builder at the dorber shop in flippin a few years ago. We were pretty amazed with the shooting power of the rod. And we put it through some accuracy tests and didn't see anything missing there.
Last year when Kenny & I were down to the Sow bug we went over to Dorber to visit Ray & Jeff. I had been told of the new Wave rod. Ray had one of the new prototypes that we took out and lawn cast. Kenny purchased a blank. It arrived shortly after we got back to the Ranch. Kenny has fished his several times and it is a cannon. He allowed all the contestants of the distance casting down at Lowell ID FI to cast it this past Sept, after the competition was over. Everyone cast it at least 25' farther than they had cast during the competition. I have a new blank on my bench at this time. Is not completed yet.
The reason nothing has been written about it yet is because Ray just recently completed the patent on it. It is now complete.
The only place you can get them is from Dorber who are Sponsors here on FAOL. We will be writing more on this new rod shortly.
http://www.dorber.com/UltraWave.html
The extra 25' was consistent with both of our experience, too, Denny. Casting greater distance isn't really a big deal to me. But having one of these in an 8wt and 10wt for the windy days on the saltwater would probably be cool just because of the extra energy transfer from the double rod load action. I'm also wondering of they're going to make them in 10+ wt models for tarpon, etc. and the possibility of 2-handed rods. An 11-12' Wave switch rod with a shooting head could make an awesome surf combo for overhead 2-handed casting!
One of the comments nephew Tom Travis made after casting the rod extensively was that it should be a very effective tool in teaching the Wounded Warriors to cast - less effort, more power. That gets my attention!
Actually, LF, that's sort of how I got peripherally involved in the R&D of the rod. Ray actually came to me about another distance casting rod he designed with the goal of creating a line shooting machine that would not require you to aerialize/carry much line. He thought it might be good for folks in wheelchairs and such. That was a straight stick with a bunch of guides on it to take the bellies out of the fly line during shooting. It was effective, but not anything earth-shaking. Several months later, he hands me this wavy rod with a ton of guides taped on it. LOL That was the UltraWave prototype. If you keep the reel lined up with your target and your forearm, it is a rocket launcher that will increase your shooting distance by about 20% (give or take a bit) with no more energy expended.
I have personally seen good distance casters launch 150 ft casts with it. In fact, someone you and I both know hit me in the back of the head with the leader butt/line tip doing just that at an event awhile back.
"I have personally seen good distance casters launch 150 ft casts with it. In fact, someone you and I both know hit me in the back of the head with the leader butt/line tip doing just that at an event awhile back.[/QUOTE]
Wow!!.... 150ft. with what kind of fly line design? Normal WF or DT. Sorry, I'm a little skeptical.
I was able to cast the one Denny had and it was definitely amusing. I would be interested in putting one through the ringers.
Being a little skeptical is healthy and to be expected. But I'm talking about GOOD distance casters - guys who can cast 110-120' or more. To the best of my knowledge, the lines have generally been WF's of various make and model. And when I got hit in the hat by my friend, I was pretty shocked myself!
Most distance caster are using SA's Mastery ED, it is not a WF line at all but an extended body.
I find that the UltraWave also sets the hook quicker and stronger. When fighting a fish, it reacts quicker to absorb line slack, like when a fish makes a sudden movement toward you. It also roll cast extremely well.
The past couple of years, Fox, a lot of what's been cast at the shows on demo rods has been the Sharkskin lines. And they are WF lines. Also, I would argue that the long belly distance lines like the Mastery Expert Distance and XXD are WF lines. They are just long bellied WF lines. They certainly are not DT lines or level lines. And in the standardized terminology of fly lines there are 3 basic types of floating lines: WF, DT, and level.
As a matter of fact, SA's website uses the standardized nomenclature WF#F on all of their Mastery Series Expert Distance lines, as you can see here: http://buy.scientificanglers.com/lin...-distance.html
But, there is a growing trend among some to return to DT lines. In my observation, this is mostly among folks who follow the "carry all the line in the air and lay it down" approach. And I don't know many of them who can cast more than 100'...especially since most DT lines are only 90' long.
Thank you for correcting me. I thought I had read that SA and Rio were calling them Extend Body lines. But I agree, no matter what they call them, to me they are Weighted Forward.
I'm not too sure I get how the design could increase casting distance and/or ease of casting.
The desing is not unlike a recurve bow. The curve of the limbs on a recurve bow is designed to accelerate the arrow forward. The design of the blank on this rod is much the same, except in fly casting, the line also needs to be propelled backward as well as forward. Maybe it has power on the forward stroke, but on the back cast, it seems it the design would rob all the power and ability to lift much line off the water to recast. Simple physics seem to say this design would not perform as a traditional design rod where flex and power is loaded to the fly line in both directions to generate line speed, and distance.
Just simple observations without casting the rod personally.
I'm old fashioned and set in my ways, though I have no doubt that it represents good innovation and thought. My immediate question is, how do you turn that puppy when wrapping the guides?
It gets its extra energy transfer using the same principles of physics as a recurve bow. That much is true. But this is applied to a fishing rod instead of a bow. The bow designer uses the sine curve (wave) principle to propel an arrow using a bowstring drawn back between two perpindicularly arrayed sine curved limbs. But the fly rod is designed to do the work of a fly rod.
In my opinion, the rod only has an "x factor" on a forward cast that with the rod properly aligned. That means the reel must be aimed at the target throughout the forward stroke. But in any other axis of motion, the thing acts just like a normal fly rod. The curvature is very slight. It really doesn't seem to impact anything else you do with a fly rod negatively. I didn't design the thing. And I don't have any stake in it. I've just cast it a couple of times and found it pretty amazing. And I'm just sharing with y'all what I DO know about it.
I'm new to FAOL and these strings. I tried to chat about this rod a few weeks ago but those guys are too fast for me. Thought I'd try here to glean a little more info. If I were to cast 150', which I certainly can't, I'd be in the pasture on the other side of the river. Can anyone tell me how it does at 30-40'? That's about the extent of my range. Would this thing help get me any closer to 50' I'm getting old and just don't have enough power to get it there anymore. Bad shoulder, bum fingers, the whole bit. In short, is it any good at short distances?
FlyFisherman did have a product review on the UltraWave and one of the major problems they stated was, if you rotated the UltraWave even slightly during the stroke and take the rod out of plane you will notice major problems. Also they go on to say if you have rotational cast poor choice. So what I get out of this review is you need to be dead on with your forward and back cast every-time or else http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/frown.gif
The emperor has no clothes!
See the review for this rod in the latest issue (Feb/Mar 2011) of Fly Fisherman Magazine, page 20. The tester (Ross Purnell) noted several deficiencies including off axis casts such as spey casts. He also noted a sweet spot where there is a gain in forward power but only for a certain distance. There is a loss in back cast power and the rod is a 2 piece but heavier than comparable 4 piece rods.
"fly casting isn't merely the perfection of sending a fly hurling forward toward its target. Fly casting is doubly difficult due to the mirror image backcast we sometimes ignore, but is the prerequisite to the great forward cast and delivery. This is the major problem with the reverse-s-curved UltraWave rod. While a specific curve in the rod shaft gives you an extra "oomph!" on the forward cast, it also gives you and equal. "ugh!" on the backcast. Whatever advantages you gain from this shape on the forward cast is a hindrance on your backcast. ..Under actual fishing conditions, most of the time the distances are too short to take advantage of the curve in the but section. Another problem with the forward oriented rod is that if you rotate the UltraWave even slightly during the stroke, and take the rod out of plane, you immediately notice an array of awkward problems. (The rod is) definitely on the heavy side considering that the rod is a 2 piece (at 3.7 ounces) and several competitive brands have similar 4 piece rods under 3 ounces."
Folks, there is no free lunch in physics. Basically, this rod is stiffer when bent backward than when bent forward which means that it bends less on the forward cast than the back cast. Newtons third law of motion states that for every action or force there on a mass there is an equal and opposite force by the mass.
When we cast, we apply force to a fly line (mass) through a flexible lever which is the fly rod. The fly line has inertia/momentum and air resistance that resists motion. The fly rod bends in response to this resistance of the fly line (the opposite and equal force) This bend in the fly rod is potential energy that is stored in the fly rod. The stiffer the fly rod, the less it bends. But make no mistake - whether the fly rod is stiffer or softer, it cannot store any more or less energy than the fly line's resistance to motion. The energy stored is the same, but the amount of bend is different. So regardless of whether you are using this Dorber rod or a straight fly rod, neither rod can store more or less energy than the resistance of the fly line to motion.
What can differ is the rate at which we move the fly rod, which then changes the resistance of the fly line, which changes the energy stored in the rod. So if the timing of a stiffer rod allows us to move it faster than a softer rod, we can store more energy. What a stiffer fly rod also does is to release (straighten) the energy faster than a less stiff rod. It may seem more powerful because it releases the energy faster but in reality it cannot store more energy. The question is then is if you like the feel of the Dorber fly rod on the forward cast, why not just get a fly rod that matches the forward stiffness?
Now on the backcast, the Dorber fly rod is softer so it bends deeper. But it stores the same energy that is equal to the resistance of the fly line. It just has to bend deeper to do it. It takes longer to straighten and release that energy.
What this means is that when casting this rod, the timing differs for the forward and the backward cast. You need to wait longer after the backcast than you do on the forward cast when false casting. It seems to me that this is problematic, since we are used to the same delay on the forward and backward cast which depends only on the amount of line out and not on the differential flex profile of a rod between forward and backward flex.
It addition to the problem with off axis casts such as spey cast type motions, I would have with this rod is any other off axis torsional casts such as curve casts. On a straight fly rod, there is a smooth parabolic flex. When an overhead curve cast is performed, the fly rod tip is made to hook right or left just before the stop. This places a twisting force or torsion on the axis of the rod which along the smooth parabolic flex. So the resistance of the twist is along a single axis. With rod that had a straight axis, you can begin your cast with the rod canted at any angle since the rod begins with a straight axis.
The Dorber rod seems to have a sine wave pattern with the rod path displace to both sides of its midline axis. I would think that it would twist much differently than a rod that starts with a straight axis. And that twist would vary depending on how far off the true axis one begins the cast.
I would think that it would be harder to get a consistent amount of curve from cast to cast.
My question is what need does this rod fill? If I want a stiffer quicker rod for the forward cast, why not just get a stiffer rod that does not have the problem of differential timing on the forward and backward casts and the problems with off axis casts? Why get a rod that has 2 pieces and yet is heavier than a 4 piece rod?
If anyone can explain to me how this rod provides me free lunch in the physics of a cast, then I can see how it would offer me an advantage. I am certain that it does not.
Silver,
Based on my tests, most everything you said is true, but over-stated. And most of the "deficiencies" you note are what I would call idiosycracies that you do have to adjust to in order to get the most out of the rod. It is a radically different fishing rod. It cannot be cast exactly the same way as the straight rods we've cast for hundreds of years. Personally, I'm not calling it "better" or "worse" than anything. I'm saying it is a radical new approach...and that this is noteworthy and commendable from a rodmaker. I fish with and sell Hexagraph rods and fish with Tenkara rods. So I'm somewhat of a "quirky" guy anyway. The variety in life and human innovation and creativity are things I celebrate. But I also love tradition and classic beauty. I think that combination is why I like Hexagraphs so much.
So I'm not going to "argue" with you about the UltraWave. But I don't see the need to "knock" the rod just because it is different. It wasn't made to do a bunch of false casting and carry a bunch of line with. It was made to shoot a bunch of line on a forward cast. If you understand people with disabilities and their fly casting needs, this is a pretty attractive benefit. That fella above who asked about making a 50' cast could take one of these and lift 15' of line and leader off the water, make 1-2 easy backcasts, and gently launch a forward presentation cast 50'. And given what I have seen a few good distance casters do with it, who knows what a really serious tournament distance caster could do with one! But personally I don't give 2 hoots about distance casting.
I don't think I have "overstated" anything.
What I have done is to describe what happens during a cast related to differential stiffness or flex characteristics of the rod during the cast. The presumed advantage of this rod is the "power" on the forward cast because of the fixed curve of the rod. The deleterious effects of the an unbalanced rod is directly related to the degree it is unbalanced. So I neither under or overstate the effects. Any perceived addition of power to the forward cast will be felt as an equal loss of power on the backcast.
You cannot fool the laws of physics. It is what it is, and to get a perceived "advantage" on the forward cast is to cause a perceived "disadvantage" on the backcast.
Secondly, the mass or weight of a fly rod is a detriment to the cast. The heavier the fly rod, the greater the proportion of the work put into the cast goes to simple moving the rod and not moving the line. Secondly, when one is not casting but fishing, you need to support the weight of the fly rod. Both cause more difficulty in fishing for someone with a disability. That person has to work harder while both casting and fishing. I see no advantage to giving a wounded warrior a rod that is almost a third heavier than a comparable rod.
What is unknown to me is whether this rod is the distribution of mass along the fly rod, ie., whether this rod is tip light or tip heavy. Tip heavy rods are more difficult to fish.
Thank you flyguy66. I think you've told me that I can conceivably get a little more distance up close. I've now read the above replies to this string and they have raised another question for me. Some of you have cast this rod and some of you have not. I have not obviously. As a matter of fact I've not cast as many different rods as most of you. I've been involved in fly fishing for some time but don't get a chance to do it very often so I'm interested in what you all have to say about such things. I'm also interested in trying things that make my life simpler. Question. Do many people do such things as rotational movements and curve casts? Question 2. If a guy can learn to do these movements if necessary with most any rod? I'm not trying to make trouble here, I'm just trying to understand about some of these things. If this rod can shoot more line than most rods (I believe back there somewhere one guy called it amazing) how can it lose power on the backcast? Isn't this where the power to shoot line comes from? The two statements seem like a bit of an oxymoron to me. I assume from this talk that the rod is curved in the vertical plane so that it transfers the most power in that plane. Hence the tip to keep the reel pointed at the target. Is it possible that the rod transfers way more power in this plane than any other so that when one gets off plane it acts more like anormal rod instead of this power rod? Last questions. Can anyone tell me what 4 piece rod weighs less than three ounces. I've never seen one. 3.7 ounces seems pretty light to me. What should an average 2 piece rod weigh? If someone makes a 4 piece that is less than 3 ounces wouild that mean their 2 piece is like closer to 2 ounces? I didin't think that was possible. Sorry for all the questions.
Here is an answer to your question on what rod weighs less than 3 ounces: These are the TFO BVK fly rods and I own the 5 weight and the 7 weight and really enjoy using them and would recommend them. BTW, TFO is a sponsor here.....
TFO 9 foot 4 piece 5 weight weighs - 2.9 ounces
TFO 9 foot 4 piece 6 weight weighs - 3.0 ounces
TFO 9 foot 4 piece 7 weight weighs - 3.1 ounces
TFO 9 Foot 4 piece 8 weight weighs - 3.2 ounces
The TFO BVK rods that are less than 9 foot long weigh even less. You need to check them out......
Look. Using your own argument (which I don't argue with, btw), if you take 2 identical backcasts; but 1 is made with a straight fly rod and 1 is made with an Ultrawave (let's leave everything else equal in this hypothetical example), and then both are followed with identical forward casts, you will get a longer cast out of the UltraWave. I realize that you are saying that to get two identical backcasts in this example the UltraWave would require more energy input into the backcast. I do not believe this is true - after making maybe 100 casts with 2 different prototypes and comparing notes with a couple of other rod-builders and casting instructors who have done the same. The curve is a VERY shallow sine wave.
I said that you were over-stating things because the lower the amplitude of the sine log, the less pronounced all of this stuff we're discussing becomes. Conversely, the greater the amplitude, the more pronounced the advantages/disadvantages. This too is an immutable reality. But what becomes significant is WHERE the Y value crosses the X axis along the 9' of the blank and the mandrel taper of the blank. It is this mix that gives the rod its performance properties. It is this mix that allows you to "tune" your instrument to the laws of physics we've been discussing in order to try and achieve your desired outcome. This is the "magic" of all fly rod design, whether along a flat X axis taper or one with amplitude. I'm sure this is the key to the UltraWave's performance. I don't know the specifics.
I can tell you that when I and a good friend who builds very fine rods and is a great casting instructor cast that first prototype a couple of years ago we both got an extra 10-30' of shooting distance out of it on our best distance casts. For each of us, that represented a 10-20% improvement in distance. Both of us noted that it was slower on the backcast. That is true. But neither of us felt that it required more effort.
That's all I can say.
TFO BVK's? I own 8 of them! That's my favorite round rod. You cannot beat them for the price.
Now, to try and answer the other questions...
Spey casts - spey is a different style of fly casting typically done with a two-handed rod and used for fishing large rivers with large flies. However, it is far more versatile than that. It can be done one-handed with regular single-handed fly rods and you can catch just about any sort of fish casting just about any type of flies. Spey casts all use a water anchor for the forward cast, much like a roll cast does. Thus, it is not uncommon to rotate the reel out of line with the intended target and/or to use curved paths of the rod tip during casts.
Curve casts - these are considered advanced presentation casts. Frankly, not many fly anglers can use them effectively when fishing. In fact, not many of the people who can demonstrate them can actually use them effectively when fishing (in my experience). But they are just like any other fly cast: if you practice them correctly and often enough, anyone can use them when they are called for. They're actually quite handy!
I think I answered your question about the backcast and the UltraWave above.
There are plenty of 5wt 9' fly rods out there that weigh in around 3 oz...give or take a tenth or two of an oz. Can you feel a tenth of an oz? Not even after casting all day! Furthermore, there are far more important factors than the scale weight of a fly rod. The balance between rod and loaded reel is going to play a much bigger role in the FELT or SWING weight of your tackle. And that is what will wear you out or let you fish all day in comfort. You also need to understand that the more line you have in the air beyond the rod tip the heavier your swing weight is. Another way to say this is that the weight of the fly line beyond the rod tip plus the load it puts on the rod during the starts and stops gets added to your motionless swing weight. So the more line you try to carry in the air, and the more false casting you do, the more "heavy" any rod is going to feel. The best way to reduce the workload to your casting arm is to make far fewer false casts, learn to shoot line more efficiently, and never aerialize more line during false casting than absolutely necessary.
Now if you do those things and add to this a well-balanced rod/reel combo you should be able to fish as long as you want to without too much fatigue. Do I think you would find an UltraWave rod useful? Only if you have a very fundamentally sound casting stroke. That's the drawback of the rod to me. It isn't very forgiving of casting flaws and you MUST teach a novice/intermediate caster to watch their backcast when they're casting it. As Silver said: the timing of the backcast and forward cast are not the same. It's not an intuitive rhythm. You have to feel it and/or watch it. And I'm a firm believer in using as many senses as possible during the learning process. So the bottom line is that I think you can learn to make that 50' cast without spending $400 on an UltraWave. For one thing you said something about "muscling it out there" when you first mentioned that. Well, you NEVER "muscle" a fly cast. It's all technique. It's pure finesse. The second you try to apply force to the problem you are screwing up. You'd be far better off spending $100 with a good casting instructor than spending $400 on a fly rod. And don't feel bad. That's true for almost everyone who owns a fly rod and isn't getting the desired results out of their casting.
Hey Guys, thanks, I think. Lots of food for thought. I found their site and since they have a toll free number I may give them a call tomorrow and try to get some information from them. Hopefully they'll be wiling to share their view of all this.
As I posted in #4 of this thread http://www.dorber.com/UltraWave.html which is dorbers web site, info on the new Wave rod.
They are a Sponsor and can be found on the Sponsors page which will also give you a phone # should you like to talk with Jeff or Ray.
In response to some of the above comments above which I note were made by casters having never had hands on this fine rod. Personally, I have no problem on the backcast. I almost always double haul and on my back cast the rod loads very fast. In fact I always slip some line out on the back cast. Some have told me I should Never?? do this. I do. Then when I stop on the front cast and complete my double, the line shoots as if I had a shooting line on it. I should care less about distance casting for myself. I can and do cast any of my rods out to 65 to 85 feet with no problems. This rod does handle the wind nicely and easily. Any caster can more easily cast farther than they could expect with most other rods.
Not talked about by others is how easily one can do a roll cast. I can easily pick up 60 feet of line and drop my fly gently where ever I desire. I do not need to reel in to 35 feet. Today I mostly fish from my toon. It does well sitting close to the water and it does not wear me out and I am getting old.
Some may not understand the curve thing of this rod. On a 2 pc rod, the butt section curves down over the guides. From the ferrule it curves up to the tip. These two curves along with the placement of the multiple guides (& 2 strippers) do help the line shoot nicely out the over sized tip top. We have Kenny's Wave rod he built a year ago. We manage to fish at least one day per week and more often a couple. My new Wave rod will be completed for our opening day. Sure wish Winter was over. I have had my fill.
Ray has put a lot of thought, effort, testing into this Rod. I do feel he has hit on something. So do a lot of other manuf. cuz he had to put a patent on it. That alone might tell you something.
to denny and others who have used the rod, how does it feel with a fish on? to me, one of the most satisfying things about this sport is the "feel" of a fish on. i'll steal this line from a book, but i "just love those beautiful vibrations".
I have not fished it as much as Kenny, I have seen him put several larger fish into his net, easily. I would say it is one of the better fish handling rods I have seen. Yes, I also love those beautiful vibrations.
I have had my wave rod and fished it for about a year. I do not know or really understand all the technical stuff in the design of this rod.
But I do know how it casts and handles fish. As to the casting it has increased my distance by around 25' with no increase in effort.
You can pick a lot more line up off the water and put it right back out with out false casting. It is great for rivers, but I really like it
for fishing from a belly bout or pontoon boat. As for feeling strikes and fighting fish it is about as sensitive as any rod of the same
weight and length. I have caught fish 8" to 23" and enjoyed every one of them. My wave is a 5wt but casts a 6wt wf line best.
It is a real good rod on windy days. Like I said I don't know or really care about the technical stuff, I just know what I like and
I really like the rod. Yea, It gives my good vibrations.( the beach boys)
If you load a long bow and a recurve bow both with 100 pounds of force, the recurve bow will shoot the arrow faster and farther. Now what does this prove? It proves that the recurve bow is more efficient ... but efficient in What?? The recurve bow is more efficient at releasing the kinetic power stored in the limbs of the bow to the string (fly line) and then the arrow (fly). The resistance to your fingers, arm and shoulders is the same when loading both bows. Just as the recurve bow does not wimp out when loading the bow in the backwards direction (back cast), neither does the UltraWave.
Remember the back bone of any blank is stiffer when bent in one direction when compared to another, even if this difference in very small. Most good rod builders put the guides on the stiffest side of the blank to enhance the forward cast.
What cast, other than those of spey, requires the caster to turn the rod sideways, out of the plane of the back bone and guides?? Quality fly rods are built with two things in alignment, the back bone of the rod and the guides. Quality fly rods are not built to cast in any other plane. The caster, that does cast sideways, is abusing the guides and the blank at the same time. Just as a straight blank tries to twist itself to the plane of the back bone and guides, so does the UltraWave. However, the UltraWave tries a little harder to make a good caster out of the sideways caster than the straight rod. Also remember that the UtraWave has two curves, one in the opposite direction of the other, thus one is offsetting the other. If the problem of twisting is so prevalent as Fly Fisherman Magazine say it is, then why didn't just one of these individuals and others, that have testified to its quality, discover this. As I have said before, "An editors evaluation of a fly rod can be influenced by more than just the performance of the rod."
Mr. Purnell is entitled to his opinion ... But, if he is proven wrong, by anglers who have cast and fished the UltraWave, how will this reflect on his evaluation and his magazine. I have no doubt the UltraWave will prove itself to anglers, whose evaluation I prize greatly. I can't say the same for editors.
It's All Fly Fishin',
Fox Statler
Here are two videos casting the UltraWave fly rod. The first one I am casting a 6 weight Rio Shark Skin line, Casting thae Ultrawave using a six weight line.
In the second one I am casting the same rod but with an 8 weight Wulf Triangle Taper Floating, Casting the UltraWave using an eight weight line.
It's All Flyfishing,
Fox Statler
This blank reminds me of the "Balanced Ride Saddle" that was popular a few years back. There was all kinds of data about how moving a rider's weight forward on the horse made it easier for the horse to carry you and therefore it was a much better saddle. Well, it was a better saddle for barrel racing on most horses, but for a full day in the saddle it would near beat you to death! They were trying to place the weight of the rider at the horse's center of gravity which is just a wee bit behind where the front leg joins the body when the horse is standing still. Problem is, that when a horse starts moving, the center of gravity is shifted back over the much more powerful rear legs. This "Balanced Ride" was all engineered around static weight placement rather than dynamic weight movement. It was a horse and rider crippler. But it was well hyped. I even built a few early in my saddle making career. Thank God there aren't any floating around with my name on them.
This logic and that logic was shown that this was the next best thing in saddles and that tried and true principles in saddle making developed over the last 300 years here in North America were all wet. These folks have managed to carve out a niche and sell enough saddles to somehow stay in business, but they have moved all over the country. Fact of the matter is that these saddles are not the next greatest thing. The theory makes sense until you get the horse moving. If you want a saddle that you and the horse can live with all day, 6 days a week, look at what the Mexican vaqueros and Texan cowboys were using. Those guys lived in the saddle. It HAD to be comfortable.
My point is that "new and improved" usually isn't. Improvements come a wee bit at a time. A new kind of drag, a better fly line covering, or lighter materials. Dramatic changes are rarely good ones.
Since I am not a distance caster, I really do not care if I get another 25 feet on a cast. I fish Colorado waters that an extra 25' would put me ten feet up the opposite bank! I catch more fish within 20 feet of the bank at Tahosa than at any other distance. I want a rod that I can cast sidearm from left or right, mend my line with, and once I learn how, curve cast with. What I am seeing here is that this rod does not fit that bill. The theory sounds great, but I think I'll stick with the tried and true. I've been bit before.
I watched the videos , looks like the rod works fine, in both weights. I have problems believing there is a problem with the rod itself, maybe the problem was with the rod tester.
This rod is better than anything you have ever fished. This rod has a titanium UP (Ultimate Performance rods with more than 15 guides on a 9 foot rod) guide setup. UP rods have better line handling characteristics than other rods because they were developed for dead-drift nymphing, which requires extraordinary line handling tactics and finesses. The tip of this rod sets the hook faster and stronger than a straight rod of the same line weight, not because it is stiff but because it loads quickly. Because of the quick loading tip sections, the rod mends better than straight rods. I am the developer and creator of the Arkansas Dead-Drift, I taught the choir on nymphing. I consulted on this rod from its conception to production. I made extra sure that it was and is a great nymphing rod, that is also why it is a great shooting rod. It does everything better than a Plastic Bamboo Traditional rod except wimp out, line sag, and breakdown. I have been working with Dorber on building this rod for over four years ..... We did not build it last weekend, last month, or last year. Ray built blanks, built blanks, and built blanks. We tried blanks with less curve and blanks with more. This is the first production fly fishing rod in two centuries that is an advance in fishing and not aesthetics. It is the future. It is the best performing production fly rod ever, and I a damned glad I was a part of its development.
Strange, that not one person on this forum that has cast or fished the UtraWave have had anything bad to say about it .... only the individuals that have not had any experience with it, think they can find fault with it. And, What do they actually know????
It's All Fly Fishin'
Fox Statler
flybugpa,
You are exactly right. Dorber got a raw deal from Ross P. of FFM.
I've heard all that stuff in the first part from other folks concerning other "next best things." "In depth research," "years of work," I don't buy it anymore. What's that old saying? If it sounds too good to be true..... ? I can think of a few others. "If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...."
Now a question for your testers... Did any of you PAY for this rod? My guess, and I could be wrong, is no.
I may get banned for this next part but it needs to be said.
What do I actually know? I know hype when I hear it. I know that you registered on at least 4 forums not counting this one and the first post you make is to hype your new rod. I heard that there were more but I do not know that first hand. No previous contributions at all. I also know that the members of at least two of those boards landed on you pretty hard for not being a sponsor and spamming the board. I do know you are a sponsor here but two of your "testers" are directly connected with the owner of the board or sponsors/admins of the board. I do not doubt their honesty, but I expect them to say nice things about someone who has given them money and or merchandise. If I paid a sponsor fee, they better say nice things about me or they might not get my money the next time. It isn't really all that hard to see.
When you try to hype people, you have to expect someone is going to call you on it. If this isn't hype, prove it. Give us independent results from people who have no reason to say nice things about you and are not being given anything to say them, that have paid for the rod. Quit patronizing people that disagree with you in a condescending manner and answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner. Until then, it's all a used car sales job.
I'll stick with my XP. I don't see anything it doesn't do that your latest greatest does. Thanks anyway.
Kevin & anyone else that may be interested.
The owners of Dorber and Conranch Hackle are just friends. They have never paid me anything and have never purchased hackle. I do not know if either Ray or Jeff tie flys. Jeff told me last year when Kenny & I visited and cast a prototype that Fox was doing some testing for them. I do not know if he is in the employ of Dorber.
Kenny paid for his blank while we were down in Flippin. The blank was mailed in less than one month.
I'd have to dig out my billing to check the exact date as to when I paid (full price) for my blank. We told Dorber that if we liked the rod we would consider doing a product review after we had both fished the rods a bit. (I do not consider lawn testing enough to base a review on). I ordered my jewelry for the rod from Batson (another Sponsor but I always pay full price from them also). Started assembling my Wave rod but stopped when I needed to get a couple rods (paying rods) out for Christmas. Also Ray from Dorber had phoned me and said to not publish anything until he approved as he had to get his patent as several large name rod makers were wanting to copy. I also knew Dorber had sent a rod to Deanna & Niel. I think Travis has fished the rod? Not sure who will do a product review for FAOL, if anyone.
I heard about and read the review that was done by the magazine. I did not agree and thought is was more than a bit unfair. But as I do feel everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. In time many fly fishers will have this rod in their hands and we will see how they feel about it.
I have never accepted nor will I ever accept anything "For Free" or money for a review I might do. If I do a review I always first send it to the product owner for approval or disapproval.
I like Kenny's Wave rod. Am sure I will like and enjoy mine when I get off my lazy backside and complete it. Is this rod one for everyone? Nope. Do not think there is any one rod for everyone. I can see it as a rod that will fit into my rod collection and style of fishing nicely.
If anyone is interested in this rod I suggest you contact Dorber direct. I know they sell both blanks and finished rods. I do not sell custom assembled rods. I am a Rod Maker and make mostly Quad Bamboo rods. I have been known to do a custom Boo rod for a customer now and then.
Denny
While the Wave Rod may be the latest and the greatest, I've had a chance to test cast Kenny's rod at the Idaho Fish-In last year. I must admit, several folks who cast it loved it, me, I didn't like it all that much. I had a hard time adjusting my casting stroke to the rod, but then I'd been fishing a Taylor Quad 6 wgt Bamboo rod all day so my muscle memory was pretty well tuned to that. I also wanted to twist my wrist when casting the wave, which is something I try real hard not to do.
Can I form a really intelligent opinion in test casting a rod for maybe 5 minutes. Nope. Until I get my hands on one for a real work out the jury is still out.
Incidently, one of the rules that reviewers here at FAOL must obey, is to give an honest review. If a sponsor puts out a piece of junk, they expect us to tell them it's a piece of junk. We also owe it to the folks who read our reviews and spend their hard earned money to buy what we recommend to give an honest review. If we don't do that our personal word isn't worth much now is it.
REE
I have been following this thread and as such have a few thoughts and observations that I would like to offer. Please understand that I have no association with the rod manufacturer and have not cast the rod. I honestly doubt whether I will cast this rod anytime in the near future. The following statements are not meant as a statement of my expertise, nor are they intended to directly offend anyone. These are just my opinions.
1. The easiest way to discredit yourself on this type of forum is to start as a new member and aggressively post as a self-proclaimed expert on any particular product or service, especially if that product or service is in any way unconventional.
2. The second easiest way to discredit yourself on this type of forum is to register for a number of similar forum's and begin as a new member aggressively posting as a self-proclaimed expert on any particular product or service especially that product or services in any way unconventional. A fair percentage of members on this type of forum are members on other similar forums. Seeing the same stuff spammed across multiple forums makes you look like a shill. End of story.
3. A simple critique of the quote from the review of the rod from fly fishermen magazine follows. I have not read the entire article, this is taken from the quote only.
"fly casting isn't merely the perfection of sending a fly hurling forward toward its target. Fly casting is doubly difficult due to the mirror image backcast we sometimes ignore, but is the prerequisite to the great forward cast and delivery. This is the major problem with the reverse-s-curved UltraWave rod. While a specific curve in the rod shaft gives you an extra "oomph!" on the forward cast, it also gives you and equal. "ugh!" on the backcast. Whatever advantages you gain from this shape on the forward cast is a hindrance on your backcast.”
The rod in question is a purpose built fly rod. As I understand it, the entire goal of this fly rod was to create a rod that could cast more line on the forward cast without having to carry more line on the back cast, almost like a built-in double haul. Using this rod to make a standard cast in which you pickup all of the forward cast and carry it in the back cast is not what the rod was designed for. The rod was designed to allow you to shoot more line with less back cast. This would make the rod and ideal tool for those of us who strip streamers on a regular basis. For instance, if I were stripping a streamer along a weed line, I might make a 70 foot cast, strip in 50 feet, and want to make the same 70 foot cast again. This rod, assuming it performs as advertised, would allow me to make that 70 foot cast without having to carry most of that line in my back cast. This could be a distinct advantage in some situations.
“Under actual fishing conditions, most of the time the distances are too short to take advantage of the curve in the but section.”
I had to shake my head of this point while reading the review. The statement “Under actual fishing conditions, most of the time” causes me to ask what exactly are you defining as actual fishing conditions? I think this point the author made grievous error of assuming that everyone fly fishes exactly like he does. This statement ignores the fact that our sport covers a broad range of fishing tactics, situations, and locations. I can almost guarantee you that the techniques and equipment of your average small stream enthusiast trout fishermen would be ineffective for fly fishermen who are used to fishing in the salt or those of us who throw large hair bugs and big streamers at bass all day, and vice versa. With that in mind this statement might have been more effectively written as “under actual fishing conditions when making 40 foot casts to rising trout with a size 14 Adams, the curve in the but section provided very little advantage." Such a statement was given as actual idea how the product was tested, and not required us to trust that the rod had been tested under circumstances similar to our own.
“ Another problem with the forward oriented rod is that if you rotate the UltraWave even slightly during the stroke, and take the rod out of plane, you immediately notice an array of awkward problems.”
Of course. The curvature of the rod is basically accentuated version of the spine of the rod. If you've ever cast a rod that does not have the spine properly aligned you've probably experienced this problem to a lesser degree. Want to try at home? Take a properly spined 4 piece rod and assemble it with each of the sections rotated a quarter turn. Your accuracy will go down significantly, as the rod is fighting itself to transfer energy effectively.
Also, this is another example of not using the rod in the way was intended. A similar example might be a review on the cornering capabilities of a truck that claims to have high towing capacity as compared to half a dozen high end sports cars. It is simply not what the truck was designed to do. This rod was designed to be cast in a way that utilizes its curvature to provide unidirectional power.
4. Mr. Statler should watch his own video. On the first video the wobble in the rod is detectable at the one minute mark, as well as at 1:12, and 1:17. These are merely the first occasions that I noticed in which the rod blank appeared to wobble on the forward cast. It would also appear that rotating the rod has had some negative effects on accuracy is he appears to hit the camera with the line unintentionally at least once. It also appears to me that he's double hauling nearly every cast. I'm not saying that I blame him. I live in Nebraska where the wind seems to blow a constant 30 miles an hour, I double haul a lot too. But if you're going to tell me how powerful the rod is on the forward cast, I would like to see you throw the line without the double haul. In the second video the “wiggle” is also easily visible, showing up at roughly 31 seconds and continuing as Mr. S Statler says “where's all that dam wiggle” . Let me be clear, I expect the rod blank to deflect abnormally during these tests. This is not how the rod was meant to be used.
5. “This rod is better than anything you have ever fished.” Bullshit. See #3 under the section “actual fishing conditions”. This rod might be the best rod for a specific application, but saying it's better than anything I've ever fished implies that you know everything about my fishing conditions. The only way that could be true is if you were with me on every fishing trip. In that case, you had better start pitching in for gas. Furthermore making a statement like that is pretty arrogant when you consider that your audience includes some very good custom rod builders. That type of arrogance tends to annoy people in the same way as No. 1 and No. 2.
6. I have little doubt that those people who claim to have cast the rod and happened to be associated with the site are doing their best to give an accurate review. One of the easiest ways to kill your credibility is to give a positive review of a bad product. It hurts in several ways. First, it effects your credibility with other products. Example: “ Mr. X said product Y was fantastic, but I remember when he reviewed product W. That guy will sell out for anything.” Secondly, that type of behavior will cause your entire web site to be viewed with the skepticism of an infomercial. People will know that your site exists simply to sell products and they will stop coming to you for information. Once again, nobody trusts the shill.
Alright, that’s it for me. I'll get down off the soapbox now. If you have made it this far, thanks for reading. Also, if you notice any oddities in the text please understand that I wrote this post with voice recognition software that I am playing with and probably missed something in the proof reading.
Fish
P.S.- what is “the Arkansas Dead-Drift”? If it’s a new name for dead drift nymphing, what makes it so special?