Originally Posted by
hugefish_80
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?
Reply With Quote