I came to the United States in 1985 armed with two f ly rods, a cheap suit, and zits. Three-plus decades later, the suit is history, and I got rid of the zits. But somehow I have acquired a few more fly rods. Some of these rods see regular action and are racked up in the garage. Recently, while checking the rack, I realized that one rod had caught a heck of a lot of fish. The lucky rod is a 7-weight, though luck (while certainly not insignificant in my fishing) isn’t what made it so successful. This stick has caught a lot of fish because it goes on a lot of fishing trips. At first, that surprised me, but it really shouldn’t have.
The fly-fishing media cover 5-weights, 6-weights, and 8-weights a lot, but for some reason, the 7-weight is often overlooked. It’s certainly not because it’s a niche rod. Most folks probably equate a 7-weight with fishing for larger trout or smaller bonefish. There are even a few who still use them for steelhead, instead of swinging the now seemingly ubiquitous double-hander. However, the rod is also great for carp, surfperch, smallmouth bass, corbinas, shad, stripers, crappies, halibut, largemouth bass, and no doubt many other species. I purchased my first 7-weight for the California surf, but it quickly became my favorite streamer rod for trout and smallmouth bass. It’s also done a great job extracting largemouths from ponds and lakes. And the 7-weight isn’t just a West Coast stick. I’ve also taken it to the Everglades and the Keys, both of which are typically considered 8-weight or 9-weight territory.
You may already own a 7-weight. If it does everything you want, that’s great. But if it’s over ten years old, I’d like to suggest you consider checking out some of the newer models. I’m not the kind of person who has to have the latest gear, but advances in fly-rod design and to a lesser extent in materials make today’s rods noticeably better casting and fishing tools.
Rod Selection
Instead of contacting rod makers and requesting a specific rod, I asked them to make the choice for me. This is a bit like the old days, when you’d visit a local fly shop and the staff would suggest some sticks. This worked out quite well. I got to try out some rods that I probably wouldn’t have considered and in the process learned some interesting stuff. I tried to avoid reading any of the manufacturers’ promotional materials or independent rod reviews, so I could evaluate each rod from a blank slate.
Charts and Numbers
Anyone who has looked at enough rod reviews will have noticed that in addition to casting the rods, some reviewers include rod deflection charts. These charts show how rods bend when a few ounces of lead are added to the tip top. It is generally agreed this mimics how the rod bends during casting and, as such, will predict, to a certain extent, how it feels during casting. The thought that you could select a rod suited to your style of casting based on a chart is very appealing. But can a static test really predict how a rod feels when cast? With five state-of-the-art 7-weights at my disposal, it seemed like I was in a good position to find out.
It took a couple of hours to build a rig and test the rods. Instead of simply tracing the rod’s curve onto a wall or whiteboard, I measured the deflection at eight points, in one-foot increments from the tip. All measurements were made to the nearest sixteenth of an inch. The deflection data was entered into a spreadsheet. I spent a couple more hours crunching the numbers and generating a series of graphs.
One thing was obvious when looking at the basic deflection graph, the type you see in other rod reviews. The rod curves looked the same. Even at the tip, where you’d expect to see the most variation, the deflections differed by less than 8 percent. Anyone examining this type of graph would assume the rods were almost identical. Thankfully, you can do some cool things with a spreadsheet. By selecting a graph with a log scale, I discovered the rods had very different deflections (up to 400 percent) close to the butt section ferrule. I decided to identify this as the “critical point” and see if these deflection differences related in any way to variations in rod feel.
Most rod reviews consider the weight of the rod. While simply weighing a rod can be helpful, more in-depth reviews also measure their swing weight. Anyone who plays golf will be familiar with the term. Imagine squeezing a big lump of chewing gum onto the rod. The closer you place the gum to the tip, the slower the rod will feel during casting. So by logical extension, the heavier the top of the rod, the slower it should feel during casting. That’s swing weight. There are a variety of ways to assess swing weight: balance points, measuring the moment of inertia of each rod section, or simply measuring the weight of each section. For simplicity’s sake, I chose to measure the weight of the top half. It’s perhaps not the most sophisticated approach, but something anyone can do and good enough for this level of analysis.
Accuracy, Distance, and Sensitivity
Having run the deflection tests and weighed the rods, I took them to a local sports field, casting each one with a selection of 6-weight, 7-weight, and 8-weight weight-forward f floating fly lines. I assessed each rod for accuracy, distance, and sensitivity.
Accuracy is primarily a function of the caster, so I wasn’t expecting the rods to differ too much. This turned out to be the case. All of them dropped a yarn fly onto 12-inch targets at 30, 40, and 50 feet. In general, rods with more deflection at the critical point were slightly easier to cast to 30 feet. But by 40 feet, all of the rods were performing nicely.
When it comes to distance, a stiffer stick will usually throw more line, but there’s a limit to how stiff you can make a rod that can still be considered fishable. While the rod having the lowest critical point deflection seemed more distance oriented, all of them were able to throw every line all the way to the backing knot. That’s more than enough distance for 99.9 percent of all fishing situations.
For me, the X factor in rod design is “sensitivity.” I use this term to describe how well a rod transmits changes in line tension during the cast. Having watched countless fly casters, the one area where most seem to struggle is knowing when the line has fully straightened on the back cast. If you want to drop a fly on a fish’s nose or throw a very long line, you have to know almost the exact instant this happens. If you are off by as little as a tenth of a second, accuracy and distance are both affected.
With a tight casting loop, this change in tension is felt as a short, sharp tug. More open loops, such as you’ll use for high-density lines or weighted flies, usually produce a soft pull, which can be much harder to feel. The more sensitive the rod, the better it is at signaling this critical moment.
Having completed the initial round of land-based tests, it was time to get the rods wet. While I have ready access to a river and a couple of lakes, I elected to take the rods to the surf. The combination of wind, waves, sluicing currents, and shifting sand creates an unstable casting environment that can easily swamp rod sensitivity. If a rod works in the surf, it’ll likely work anywhere.
Echo Ion XL
Prior to these tests I had never cast an Echo rod. I’m not entirely sure why, but based on the Ion XL, it is clear that I have probably missed out on some really good sticks. With Tim Rajeff at the helm of Echo, I guess that should have been obvious. Echo is now firmly on my rod radar.
As one might expect from the $170 price tag, the Ion doesn’t come with super-high-end fittings. The full Wells cork grip had some filler, though not enough to worry about. The reel seat didn’t have an overly machined feel, but it held all of the reels securely. The blank is dark gray, nicely matched by slightly lighter-gray thread that holds two strippers (16 and 12) and a set of single-foot guides terminating in a small tip top.
At the critical point, the Ion flexed by five-eighths of an inch, five times more than the stiffest sticks (Sage and Scott). The top half weighed 15 grams, placing it in the middle of the pack. I had elected to cast the rods in order of their critical-point value. Since the Ion had the most flex, it went first.
On grass, the Ion had what most folks would likely describe as a medium-fast action. It was easy to load for the close-up accuracy shots, but had plenty of strength to throw each line all the way to the backing knot. Sensitivity was very good, allowing me to cast accurately or far without too much thought.
It was in the surf where the Ion really shone. As waves and currents tried to turn me upside down, the rod’s sensitivity kept me in touch with the line, providing consistently clean casts. Clearly, price wasn’t indicative of performance. I asked Echo to give me some details about the blank. This is what Tim Rajeff had to say.
The new ION XL rods were designed from scratch to make them lighter in the hand. We changed the tapers on the rods, and in most cases, they are slightly faster action than the original Ion rods. We stuck with Intermediate Modulus graphite, which is a great balance between lightweight and toughness. The handle uses a small composite edge to lessen the overall weight of the rod. The new ION XL rods took an evolutionary step to improve their performance and are a better blend of performance and toughness than the old gray original ION rods.
Orvis Helios 3D
Originally, Orvis suggested I try one of their redesigned Clearwater rods. Unfortunately, the rod’s release date didn’t work with the publishing deadline, so they sent me an $898 Helios 3D instead. The Helios comes in two flavors. The F is a finesse version, while the D that I tested is for distance. I asked Tom Rosenbauer at Orvis if the two shared blank sections. He replied “ It’s not a mix-and-match deal. Each rod is designed with a unique taper.”
One thing I noticed right away was the color scheme. The blank is matte black, but just above the grip it is “accented” with five inches of bright white decal. I can’t recall seeing a rod that was so subdued and bold at the same time. In terms of fittings, Orvis has clearly used the best stuff on the Helios. The cork is flor grade, and the reel seat is a well-machined piece of high-quality aluminum. Two large strippers (20 and 16), which many saltwater folks consider essential, dominate the bottom half of the blank. The rest of the rod uses small snakes all the way to a normal size tip top.
At the critical point, the Helios f lexed by f ive-sixteenths of an inch, which was two and a half times more than the stiffest rod. The top half of the rod weighed just 13.4 grams, the lightest by 1.5 grams. Since the Ion had a medium-fast action, I guessed the Helios, with less critical-point deflection and a lighter tip, might have a fast action.
At the field, the rod did indeed have a fast action, though it was by no means stiff. In terms of sensitivity, the Helios was good at signaling when the line had straightened. When it came to accuracy, the rod was also good. However, the Helios turned out to have a secret accuracy enhancer. The white butt proved to be a great visual aid. I found I could focus on the distant target, but still clearly see the rod. This helped me know when the rod wasn’t quite on track without taking my focus off the target. I liked this so much I painted the butt section of several other rods.
I left the field, however, feeling that there was something else going on with the rod. It just felt different from any rod I’d handled before, but I could not figure out why. The source of the mystery became clear when I got into the surf. Even when I made a bum cast, which would normally result in a lot of tip bounce, the rod tip barely twitched. On good casts, the rod ended the casting stroke almost laser straight.
Most rods have some tip bounce (aka rebound), which you feel at the end of the cast. It was missing this tip-bounce sensation that had confused me at the field. Excessive tip bounce robs distance and can compromise accuracy, so this is something most manufacturers work hard to reduce. Clearly, Orvis had done something interesting with the Helios. I wondered if the rod’s tip lightness was what made the difference. I questioned Tom Rosenbauer about this wobble-free tip. It turns out, the tip’s mass had little to do with it. Here’s Tom’s response. “I doubt if the lightness of the tip section has anything to do with the damping. That comes from the taper of the blank and its construction, especially from the way we have been able to increase hoop strength without adding weight. The lightness of the tip just comes along with the way the taper came out.”
Winston Boron III Plus
Winston works very hard to ensure their rods provide the “Winston feel.” I’ll be honest and say I don’t have words to describe that. I guess we’ll have to chalk that up to my lack of a decent liberal arts education. What I can say is that the $895 Boron III Plus is one heck of a rod. The blank is pleasingly green and fitted with top-quality components. The full Wells f lor-grade grip was smooth, and the reel seat easily accommodated all of my reels. The regular-sized stripping guides (16 and 12) are followed by a set of lightweight snakes and a large tip top.
The critical-point deflection on the Winston was one-quarter of an inch, just one-sixteenth less than the Helios. The top half weighed in at 14.9 grams, one and a half grams heavier than the Helios. Based on these similarities, I assumed the Winston would have a fast action and might even feel like the Helios.
The Winston comported itself very well on grass, with an action I’d suggest is indeed fast, but not aggressively so. If it wasn’t for the bounce-free tip on the Helios, I suspect I’d have a hard time telling these two rods apart. In the surf, the Winston exhibited really good sensitivity, which allowed me to concentrate on dissecting the water instead of worrying about the cast. I shared my thoughts and findings with Adam Hutchinson at Winston. This is what he had to say.
Really, the overall design of a Winston rod is unique. We call it the “Winston Progressive Action,” and it can be found in all of our rods, both slow and fast action. As you can see through your research, our tips are generally lighter and our butts stronger/ heavier. This allows us to keep an overall lighter swing weight where it’s important (tip) and allows us to put “reserve” power in the lower half of a rod when an angler needs it the most. We recognize that anglers don’t always need heaps of “power” for every situation. Many times, feel is important, and our rod’s tapers gives anglers the choice between power and finesse.
Under standard situations and conditions, the rod will give an angler the most feel and prevent the rod from feeling like a 2×4. When the wind kicks up, you need more distance on the cast, or are fighting a larger fish, that’s when you engage the boron in the butt section. This is the beauty of boron tech — it allows for ultimate versatility in any fishing application.
Scott Meridian
I must admit, I was a little concerned about reviewing the Meridian. I have smart friends with strong loyalty to Scott rods. If I didn’t like it, I assumed I’d get a real earful. Thankfully, I really liked the Meridian. Phew!
It’ll likely come as no surprise that the $865 Meridian is exceptionally well built and fitted with top-quality components. The full Wells grip is flor quality, and the seat will smoothly lock down any reel. Scott, like Orvis, has fitted the Meridian with large stripping guides (20 and 16). Large, but lightweight snake guides take the line to a large tip top. The blank itself is dark gray, with lighter gray wraps and Scott’s characteristic unsanded blank ridges.
The critical-point deflection for the Meridian was just one-eighth of an inch, making it (and the Sage) the stiffest rods tested. The top half weighed in at 15.2 grams, similar to the Ion and Winston. Based on this, it seemed reasonable to assume the Meridian would be a fast or even a very fast rod. There was only one way to find out.
On grass, the Meridian felt like a fast-action rod with a nice blend of power and sensitivity. I must admit that if I were blindfolded, I’d have a hard time telling this rod apart from the Winston and even the Helios, if it wasn’t for the no-bounce tip. In the surf, the Meridian clearly communicated when the back cast had straightened out, which helped keep my casts well controlled. I asked Jim Bartschi at Scott what he felt had contributed to the evolution of Scott rods over the last ten years. This is what he said.
I think the great story in rod design over the past decade is nuance. There haven’t been significant materials changes like a whole new class of fibers or a completely new resin system that make it easy for everyone to benefit from new technology. That means the significant improvements in feel and performance have been squeezed out of a combination of incremental improvements in taper design, materials choices and their lay-ups, process improvements, and component choices.
Sage Igniter
As you’d expect from a $900 stick, the fit and finish of the Igniter are superb. The full Wells grip is f lor grade cork, and the reel seat has a precision feel. The blank is a chipotle color (dark red), nicely accented with red guide wraps. Interestingly, the Igniter has just one stripper (size 12). Some folks might worry that such a small stripping guide could hamper distance. I can assure you it did not. The rest of the guides are large snakes, ending with a large tip top.
The Igniter had a critical-point deflection of just one-eighth of an inch, the same as the Scott. The top half of the rod weighed 16.6 grams, making it the heaviest of the bunch by 1.4 grams. By this point, I was starting to think the critical-point–top-half-weight technique just might be a reasonable predictor of rod feel. Based on the numbers, I assumed the Igniter would feel similar to the Meridian.
Then I cast it.
It took only a couple of casts at the field for me to realize the Igniter is a quite different animal. This is a rod I would have no trouble describing as very fast. In many ways, it reminded me of the old Sage TCR 5-weight, an incredibly good distance-casting rod. With a really good stop, the Igniter produced very pointy loops. While it was OK with accuracy, distance was where the Igniter really shone. The rod sent all of the lines a long way, with the backing knot exiting the tip top on several occasions. My longest casts actually came with an 8-weight line, which shows just how much power and line speed this rod can generate.
Sensitivity was OK, but the Igniter was not as communicative as the other rods. I found I had to concentrate a bit harder to feel the line straighten out on the back cast. Sage’s website states that the Igniter “is not a rod for the everyday angler.” I tend to agree. In the surf, the Igniter was a bit like a high-performance car. When I got the timing right, the fly went far. But when I got jiggled by a wave or my footing got a bit loose, it was tougher to time the forward cast. I have a feeling that this is a rod that folks who don’t cast well or who fish in rough waters may find a bit demanding.
I asked Sage about the technology behind the Igniter. This is what Peter Knox, the rod’s designer had to say.
Both composite modulus and part strength are increased in the Igniter (and other rods using Konetic HD technology), which is a somewhat unusual win in the materials world. Very often, you have to trade modulus for strength or vice versa. I should point out that in this case “modulus” refers to the composite modulus, which takes into account the whole structure, not just the modulus of the graphite fibers.
We worked on fiber alignment both along the axis of the rod and within the cross-section.
In the Igniter we’re able to get our hoop a little more inboard, which further enhances the ability of axial fibers to do all the things that they need to. The new HD materials in the Igniter have allowed us to design great fiber alignment into rod sections. Both of these factors lead to a stiffer and stronger part.
Conclusions
So the Helios and the Igniter showed that the deflection test, even with the critical-point–top-half-weight technique, proved to be a less than perfect predictor of rod feel. I kind of thought it might be asking too much of a static test, but you never know until you try. Maybe someone will come up with a simple-to-use system to help us fly fishers more easily select the rod that best suits our needs and preferences. In the meantime, we’ll just have to keep casting rods before we buy them.
But it was abundantly clear from the tests that rod makers have made significant improvements in the last ten years. Based on this crop of 7-weights, I feel comfortable saying that at least one of them will be a very good rod that’s just right for you. If you have plans to chase bass, bonefish, carp, trout, and steelhead or even dip your toes into the surf, you should very seriously consider a new 7-weight.
One last thing. I may not have words to describe the “Winston feel,” but I have an equation. It’s y = -0.0004x5 + 0.0126x4 – 0.0922x3 + 0.6536x2 1.2412x + 0.6667.
Math rocks!
