I know there are several FFF certified instructors on our list, and I will dare to ask a dumb question.

If you were stringing up a rod to leave in the garage for daily practice, what length and line weight would you recommend? Would you choose your favorite fishing length, or would you use a bigger rod for practice? Would you practice more with a medium action rod or a fast one? How come some guys can cast every rod well, and some have a certain sweet spot (rod action) that works best for them? John Long gave a wonderful presentation on bamboo rods and casting errors at Canadian Cane, and I would like to establish more of a routine to help improve my casting. I did not get to ask him these questions as I did not ponder it until the long drive home. (Bob Maulucci)

Cast them all! Cast every day. (Timothy Troester)

I would suggest a heavier line for practice. For a cane rod, a 7-8 weight in the 8- 8 1/2 foot range is about right. It is very important to to be able to feel the line load the rod, and that's a lot easier with the heavier lines. A more moderate action rod is a better learning tool for the same reason. If you want to adapt to a variety of rods, the trick is to be able to adjust the speed of your wrist motion to the speed of the rod. That comes with handling and casting a lot of rods. A good caster is almost always a conscious caster, someone who understands the principles of casting and applies them, rather than someone who just mindlessly casts the same way all the time. Don't be shy about taking casting courses and seminars. They are a huge help. Anyone you consider to be a good caster has been coached by someone, I guarantee. (Tom Smithwick)

I just got in the house from a little "Lawn Casting." An interesting exercise. 75 to 80 feet of fly line out on several distance casts! Now I'm no expert caster, so it had to be the rod.  A 7 1/2’ 5wt, based on a Montague Battenkill.

Over the last few months I've come to two conclusions.

First: Don't overlook double tapered lines for distance. Several bamboo rods I've cast seem to like them better than WF in the same wt. It must be something to do with the mass of the whole outfit. 

Second: I (and I'd bet most casters) normally use entirely to much power in their casts. Over the last month I've been trying to use as little power as necessary to make the cast and seem to have added about 5 to 7 ft to my distance.  The answer is obvious, I was overpowering the rod, to much force to soon. I was on the back side of the effective power curve going down!

Other benefits include: being able to fish with less effort, making it enjoyable and conserving my strength and better line control.

If you haven't tried casting a bamboo rod using the very least power you can, try it. Like me, you may be surprised! (Terry Kirkpatrick)

Nicely put Terry

“casting a bamboo rod using the very least power you can”

It is definitely the way to go! it is amazing to watch someone who has only used graphite cast bamboo for the first time. they all, without exception, overpower their cast - too much acceleration throughout. it is as amazing to see the look on their face when, at your suggestion, they slow it down, and get more distance, with a lot less effort. That is one of the true pleasures of bamboo. (Steve Dugmore)

There is a famous Dutch author on fishing, Jan Schrijner, who claims that on many occasions heavier rod are better casting rods because of their weight. He claims that very light rods don't have enough weight to load the rod properly and that the lack of weight must be compensated by a faster movement, thus being more tiring. With cane rods, we do have this heavier rod, which gives us a rod that can cast with its own weight. I personally think this is an advantage, especially in shorter rods and also in paras, using that little bit of more weight in the tip section to load the rod to its limit.

Anyone ever thought about this? And... in view of this, what's the use of making lighter rods by hollow building?? (Geert Poorteman)

Converse to the heavy and slow I think there is a strong case for a super quick and light rod (hollow.

I think it really is a matter of individual preference.

....and I think light rods can load just as well as heavy if correctly matched to the line weight. the one significant difference for me between light and heavy line weights is that I find it much easier to cast curve casts etc. with a 4 wt plus line than with lighter lines. (Stephen Dugmore)

I agree with Steve. If the line is matched to the rod then, by definition, there is enough weight to load it properly. The difference in feel will be that it takes less casting force to load the lighter rod/line combination assuming the tapers are similar. (Al Baldauski)

Several years ago Terry K. gave me a good explanation using the e=mc2 equation. Maybe Terry has that explanation lying around somewhere. (Harry Boyd)

I don't know much about Einstein, but I do know that, in every casting situation, a bamboo rod must be as lightweight as possible for each particular line-size.

A rod must never be expected to "load" because of its own weight, although that's an unavoidable factor. Much more critical than the rod's weight itself is the distribution of that weight in relation to the line-size the rod's meant to carry. By "distribution," we're talking about the taper design -- that is, putting the mass (strength) where it will do the most good, while keeping it to an absolute minimum overall.

How a rod casts is a function of distributing strength only where we want it, with all excess weight considered as a negative byproduct. Our target is one of distributing strength where we want it in the taper. But strength is a function of mass, and mass is weight. And weight is the enemy. So it's not a rod's overall weight that tells us anything -- it's how that weight is put to use in a particular taper, and whether an equally strong rod might have been designed with better thought to reducing weight. If that can be done, the rod will be far more responsive and more pleasant to cast.

When a bamboo rod loads properly, it's because of the weight of the line that's extended at one end, combined with the strength of the casting stroke imparted at its other end. And the less the weight of the rod itself factors into that equation, the better will be the rod. If the taper has been well-designed for its intended line, in every case, the rod that achieves the greatest strength for the least amount of weight will be the best casting rod.

Hollow-building (if done properly) reduces the weight of the rod without compromising its ability to load as intended -- all good.  (Bill Harms)

Well said. I would extend that to the "type" of rod (intended fishing target) also. Steelhead may require a different rod than the same line weight intended for trout. Which should also be optimized.

As to the weight itself. When dealt with in the Harms's manner, I believe the weight itself is a blessing. It is what separates us from graphite.. Because of the material, bamboo, we get a natural feel that is different (intangible) , but the benefit of weight, within reason, is a feedback system that lets us feel that difference, mass. The inertia of this mass gives us a little more feel? (Jerry Foster)

I agree that a bamboo rod should be designed to be as light as possible and the speed of the rod should be designed to fit the particular casting style. I think the "feel" of bamboo is due to the inherent weight it must have because it doesn't have the Modulus of Elasticity of graphite. To get it stiff enough that it doesn't feel like spaghetti you have to use a greater weight of material. This leads to greater inertia and an overall slower stroke than with graphite. But graphite can be made to feel more like bamboo. The trouble is with today's astronomical MOEs in graphite the wall thickness would be so thin to get a "slower feel" similar to bamboo that it would be very fragile. They're fragile enough as it is. Graphite designers make fast rods so that there is enough wall thickness in the lower 2/3 to be durable (this makes it very stiff) and all the flex is in the upper 1/3 or 1/4. The total deflection in a graphite rod is less, leading to less of an "opportunity" to feel it load. Of course designers don't want it to feel like bamboo because they wouldn't have anything NEW to sell.

I believe the properties of bamboo allow you to design a rod for any application and still have it feel good. The only disadvantage to bamboo is you can never build a rod as light as its equivalent in graphite, but who'd want to!!!??

Probably the area where graphite has an advantage over bamboo is in the long rods. That's where you really notice the weight difference. (Al Baldauski)

Thanks Al for putting in real terms what we all really knew about plastic rods but couldn't quite put a handle on. (Bill Fink)

Global Dorber here in Flippin AR. makes a graphite rod that casts and feels like a bamboo rod. It is made from "Ultra Weave" Graphite cloth. I have the first 4 wt blank they made. It does cast like bamboo and is ultra light in weight.

Just for information.

I do test cast some of their rods. (Tony Spezio)

Yes, for long rods graphite is a blessing. But I think fly fishermen have no idea what is meant with a long rod in the low countries, Belgium, Holland, France, where we usually use what the Brits call a roach pole. A roach pole is a long rod without guides, meant to manipulate a float. We have them up to 13 meters... And there graphite reigns supreme!! (Geert Poorteman)

I believe that a "slow" rod is what fits the short line situation you describe. Whether up close or at a distance, when a slow rod is lined "properly", the line is along for the ride and the mass of the rod itself is the overriding factor. In this case changes in line length are not so noticeable. Even a fast bamboo rod suffers when you shorten the line for up close fishing. (Al Baldauski)

I got curious after reading some of the posts, so I dug out some of my old graphite rods.

I didn't get any 80 ft casts out of either of the 5 wts but I did get some 75’ casts. One rod was an 8’ 4 piece 5wt and the other was a little 7 ft 3p cannon built for me by Dave Lewis. (I remember getting around an 80ft cast with it the first time I cast it.)

My impressions?

The back cast on my bamboo rods seem to load the LINE a lot better than the back cast on the graphite rods.  Almost all the power seemed to be applied in the fore cast. I'm not sure what that's all about.

A few other notes on our recent discussion.

Several people used the word "slow" to describe bamboo. I remember reading a Lee Wolff article in which he stated that the distance you cast is directly related to line speed. Line speed can't be any faster than the rod. So if I'm casting 75 to 80 ft I have to creating a line speed of x whether I'm using bamboo or Graphite. Therefore bamboo has to reach the same speed as graphite.  

My feeling is that bamboo has to START slower, to get the mass in the rod moving smoothly, but the cast ends up at about the same speed as graphite.

Power (force, energy, what ever you want to call it) has to go some where. No matter what the material in a fly rod if you produce Y energy it's got to go somewhere. If a rod's well designed, the energy will end up being applied to the fly line. If it's not then some of the energy will be bled off somewhere else. (I think of the "rebound" that a rod tip sometimes makes as one place energy can be wasted.) If some of the original energy goes into the rod, then that energy goes somewhere. Maybe back into your wrist as you try to stop the rod, or maybe out the line accelerating the cast?

And last, but not least, remember when we cast, we're always pulling the line, never pushing it. (Terry Kirkpatrick)