I didn’t know much of anything when I saw first saw it, now I’m not sure I know more, but I’ve certainly scratched my head enough.
Knowing that the only truism about “advances” in [insert angling gadget here] science, is that whatever the manufacturer claims can be discarded immediately. It’s up to all them other fellows who’ve laid hands on product to pick the proper tone for the superlatives … as that’s all we ever hear in any product testimonials.
But they’ve still been able to fling the SOB, and reading between the obvious gushing prose and the overtly favorable yields some small barometric differences.
Certainly an “S” shaped rod is a bit of an oddity, and knowing that the maker would have 17 reasons why it was twice as good as a straight rod, I was hoping I’d have that “ahah” moment before I read his line of speculative logic so I could follow that esoteric principle of physics which was being exploited.
I briefly entertained particle physics and quantum theory, but the fit seemed just a bit forced.
Seventeen guides on a five weight was easy enough to swallow, given the manufacturers belief that more friction resulted in the fly line touching the blank than anything or anywhere else in the cast. That’s plenty of epoxy and extra weight, but I could follow the scent of the physics – and could therefore nod sagely enough.
A couple of reviews suggested what most reviews do, it was great, mostly awesome, and everything else ever cast was now obsolete, landfill even.
Naturally the forums were quick to Pooh-Pooh everything – as forums are wont to do. Something about anonymity and someone else’s mother always breeds courage …
But having seen all this before, and not having one to fling to offer anything actually learned, I kept fixating on the unknowns and what it couldn’t do …
I’d love to see what the rod tube looked like. I wondered how I could toss it into a truck bed, or lash it to a pack frame, and mostly I wondered how all the scientific data suggested I needed a double recurve in the rod so I could fling enormous gouts of five weight, into a stiff wind, given that 95% of the time I’m fishing at 35 feet or less?
But that’s my fishing, which differs from the manufacturer, and all those stalwarts that fish polar ice caps, forest fires, and really arduous geography.
I figured those self same stalwarts insisted on the technology because all their aging bamboo fleet had kinks, sets, and curves rivaling women, and naturally they were homesick.
Asymmetric is a tough road to hoe, evidenced by the continued fervor over whether to match segment splines or no. Most of us have an elliptical casting stroke, because straight back brings the fly in line with them precious eyeballs. An asymmetric rod with an semi-oval casting motion and you’re going to have a rod release or jump where you’ve never had one before.
I’ll wait a bit and read more – it’s certain that it’ll foster additional forum based hot air, and perhaps we’ll all be enlightened.
Well it may indeed be “all that” as today’s youth are wont to say, but it’s still ugly as a hemorrhoid. Like the Hexagraph of yesteryear, I predict this thing will relegated to a footnote somewhere, keeping company with the double built cane rod, the “center axis” reel and other such oddities.
In the hands of a bikini-clad super model that rod would be hella awesome!
They finally found a way to empty the scrap bin.
Jesus H. Christ Almighty Damn! My Barbie Boron II hasn’t even arrived yet! Ok, imma invent garlic flavored spent uranium bead heads that no fly tyer can live without. Would this be an Uglystick by chance? Just askin.
I find it odd that on their website they don’t have a picture showing the entire rod. I’m also glad someone else thought, “how do you pack it?” That was the first thing that occured to me.
I got distracted following the links (Oooh Shiny!!); I would definitely like one of those no center axis reels. The rod, maybe not so much.
Someone mixed a batch of thermoplastic resin with a melt point consistent with a casette cartridge and left it out on their dash.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it …
I’ve cast this puppy and must admit I was attracted just out of curiosity but, that said I think theyr’e on to something. This rod is a windy day beast. It excells at dealing with headwinds and tailwinds, things that have made casting difficult for me in the past. It also shoots line quite well. You can feel each section/curve load during the cast which was a little distracting until I got used to it. the casting stroke is a little quicker and using your wrist to load the rod helps, something most teach you not to do, works with this rod. With a 5-10mph tail wind, I could perform a steeple cast, stopping my backcast at 12’oclock keeping a standard foward cast and cast 60 to 70 feet easily with a single haul. with a 10-20mph head wind, and again a single haul, a normal backcast and single haul would produce the same distance for me 60-70′ but, when the second section unloads, the foward cast would turnover better than a normal rod under the same conditions. It would literally punch the last bit of line straight instead of it dying and ending in a pile as most rods would do under the same conditions.
If you get a chance try it for yourself and ignore how unusual it looks.
Wayneb
Thanks for the summary, Wayne, and I’ll be sure to fiddle with one should our paths cross. Now confess … what’s the rod tube shaped like?
I’ve seen the rod in person, but have not cast it. The rod is not nearly as curvy as it looks in the photos, which are all taken in a foreshortened perspective (thereby exaggerating the curviness). Published arguments invoking certain aspects of “physics” do not seem to hold water when you think about it, but who knows? Also, unless there were some way to compare rods built identically (same materials and basic construction), but differing only in curviness, there’s really no way to identify the source of the extra ummph alluded to above. For example, if I were trying to sell something as a real rocketship, I’d make it out of very-high modulus graphite and underload it line-wise. Also, one wonders about the usefulness of all this at “normal” fishing distances. Now, all those extra guides are another thing altogether, adn I am a believer on that subject. The last graphite rod I built (normal in every other way) had 14 guides, and I love it.
I’m seriously considering purchasing the 9ft 8wt blank for bass fishing from a kayak. I thought I would fish it against my TFO Pro 9ft 8wt rod and see how they compare. I think the wave will give me an advantage casting from a yak, especially the backcast which quite often ends up on the water for me throwing my timing off. I’m still curious how it casts wind resistant bass bugs,fishes and handles fighting a fish, can’t figure that part out just casting it in a parking lot.
Wayneb
“Well, that’s the real trick isn’t it?”
Until one puts in ten hours or so of actual fishing, with a few different lines, I don’t think one can make an accurate judgment call.
Too, much depends on your specific situation. Around here, the ability to toss out a seventy foot cast against the wind is immaterial. Roll casting, throwing curves and wiggles in mid-air, the ability to mend with authority, those are what make a rod. (and caster) The acid test for any rod in my opinion is the ability to perform extreme change of direction roll casts. I’d be a little nervous about any rod designed only cast in one plane.
And again, there’s aesthetics. In the end, I couldn’t care less how well this rod performs. And it’s not just the curves…
Woops I posted my comment in the wrong place I was drawn to the barbie pole I guess.
I wrote an article on the wave as well the daily hunt and fish you know more than I could find on it, great article.
Chris
Hi trout chaser;
all your points are well taken. I don’t think this rod is going to be an everyday fishing rod, although some people I know say they use it exclusively and it roll casts well. I look at it as more of a specialty rod for dealing with wind and lack of room to perform a backcast. I did perform sidearm casts with this rod and it performed just as it did in a vertical plane. My biggest deisre was to test it’s abilty to deal with wind, something that I struggled with my conventional rods in the past. I also agree that making 70 ft casts is not something the average fly caster needs but, I imagine it would be handy for bonefishing and the like.
I can’t wait to get one built up and tested this summer for kayak fishing for bass and see how it holds up in every other aspect of flyfishing. I seriously hope it’s not just a gimmick rod as most are painting it to be.
Wayneb
A benefit many have overlooked is that it will not roll around in a truck bed. Just a thought….
Having now fished a 7wt Ultrawave rod for several months now, I have made it my primary 7wt. (I wrote one of the several reviews on it in out former version of Florida Fly Fishing Magazine. We will republish it soon.)
I really do like this rod. It’s easy to use, albeit a bit weird, and I think it would really help folks with physical limitations who might otherwise not be able to cast any effective distance.
I’ll leave the balance of my comments for the article.
Oh, the rod tube is pretty wide, but round, so it does roll around in the back of the truck….