Pros: Lighter than the XP; Forgiving action; Accurate; Long"ish" casts
Cons: Brand new to the market so long-term durability a question mark
The Bottom Line: New to the market, so question marks remain. You have to try the rod to appreciate it. While maybe not imbued with magical properties, it might get the mojo working.
(Fair Warning: This review ended up a bit long; even for me. However, given how new this rod is to the market in terms of both the series and the technology used in its construction, I wanted to be as "complete" as I could with both the technical details and my perceptions. I also wanted to be as fair as possible to both Sage and the readers by not only providing as much objective information as I could, but also by detailing my experiences in the limited time I had to give the rod a workout. I hope what follows is a sufficient beginning for those interested in the Z-Axis.)
Here is a quote from 2006 Sage paper catalog...
"...XP rods are the standard by which all other fast-action rods are judged."
Arguably, the XP series of fly rods was one of Sage's most successful designs from the standpoint of popularity. If one accepted that XP rods 'set the standard' for fast action rods, then that individual might be greatly shocked to discover that Sage has completely discontinued the series for 2007. It's a move which has caught many Sage fans by surprise.
But, why would they completely replace one of their best recognized rod series? Here's what they say in their 2007 paper catalog...
"Magic Replacing what is quite possibly the most popular fast action fly rod in the world takes a lot of ... well, research and development. It also takes something so good you can confidently move forward without a backward glance. In short, it takes a fly rod with nearly magical properties.
Introducing the incredible new Z-Axis Series fast action rods."
Through research and development the company has discovered a magic rod that is so incredible as to give them the confidence to discontinue 'the most popular fast action rod in the world' without a second thought?! Whoa. What happened? Did I miss something? Is this a Twilight Zone episode...
[You'll have to imagine the voice of Rod Serling...]
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop -
The Z-Axis
Names for companies, services, and products are rarely selected for arbitrary reasons. Often, the name is chosen specifically for the purposes of marketing; with the name alone presenting a message. For instance, loosely translated, Volkswagen means "the people's car." CNN virtually coined the term "cable news network;" thus, every time someone refers to competitors such as MSNBC or FOX as a 'cable news network,' they are knowingly or unknowingly saying (and advertising) "CNN." What does the name "Jiffy-Lube" say to you? Pet Rock? Jawbreakers? You get the idea.
While the name "Z-Axis" is no exception, the subtleties of the message might be lost on those not familiar with mathematics. Interestingly, Sage only hints at the message being sent in their catalog with phrases such as: "...previously unattainable levels of line feel, response and performance...;" "better fit the modern casting style...;" and "An entirely new level of fishability."
Making things a bit oversimplified, the term "z-axis" comes from the Cartesian coordinate system in mathematics. When dealing with two-dimensions, you generally have two axes notated "x" and "y." In order to work in three-dimensions, a third, "z" axis is created. Without getting into which is which, this third, "z-axis" is what allows for a perception of depth; e.g., three-dimensionality.
This is the message Sage wishes to imply with the name - a new dimension, one that will add "depth" to your fishing. (And, we all know what depth can imply to a fisherman.) But, what makes this "new" dimension "previously unattainable" and "an entirely new level?"
Aligned Fiber Technology
To understand the "advance" in graphite fly rod design that Sage's Aligned Fiber Technology represents and, thereby to gain some understanding of what the Z-Axis means in today's market, let's take a brief look at how graphite rods have been made up 'til now. Since this can get a little jargonistic and technical, I'll try to simplify it as much as I can; e.g., skipping some of the techno-babble and hitting on the major concepts as I understand them. Please bear in mind that I'm not a technician nor am I an expert on the subject.
Pick up a fly fishing products catalog and you'll regularly find graphite fly rods described based on the modulus of the graphite used. Modulus stands for "modulus of elasticity;" a stiffness to weight ratio inherent or imparted to the material. The way graphite modulus is created is that the fibers are taken and bathed (carbonized) through chemicals and heat for a specified period of time. The longer the bath and the higher the heat, the higher the modulus. (Of course, the longer and the hotter, the higher the cost.)
Not inconsequentially, the longer the fibers of the graphite or composite are "baked," the stiffer they become. Graphite fibers are very strong when pulled straight, but not nearly as strong or durable when twisted, bent or "flexed." Given the flex required of a fly rod, too much stiffness made the 'early,' high-modulus graphite rods prone to breakage. That's because the graphite was stiffer and the reinforcing scrim/resins hadn't caught up.
The true advances that allowed for higher modulus graphites in rods have been in the resins. The "carbonized" fibers are mated to a scrim (typically fiberglass); allowing for hoop strength and preventing the carbon fibers from peeling away. The polymer (resin) is used to cure this "mix" or matrix or recipe. The recipe used for any given rod series from any given manufacturer becomes a proprietary formula based on its given suitability for the specific recipe as related to the taper/material combination used to generate the desired action.
Once this material is mated, it is then cut into a single, patterned, trapezoidal form and "rolled" around a steel mandrel tapered to the exact specifications for the rod design based on action desired, section of the blank, rod weight, rod length, etc. Here we run into a potentially protracted discussion and debate related to wall thickness; i.e., the diameter of the mandrel, thus the diameter of the rod blank. Suffice to say that the size of the mandrel determines the thickness of the blank and, thereby, the size and physical weight of the blank. This is all tied to the desired taper which, again, in conjunction with the modulus, will impart the action/stiffness to the rod; which both contribute to the accuracy, 'castability,' and 'fishability' of the rod.
Once the blank is rolled, it is wrapped in some form of 'tape' (usually cellophane or some derivative), then placed in an oven. The blank is then heated so that the resins in the material liquify, saturating the carbon fibers and the scrim. Then, the heat is turned up to the point where the resin cures; leaving a blank where the material is now formed into a single, solid composite of carbon, scrim (fiberglass), and form.
When the tape is removed, most companies will 'sand' (a little bit of a misnomer) the blanks to eliminate the symmetrical ridges left by the tape during the curing process. This is largely an issue of cosmetics. But, there is an argument that the elimination of these ridges reduces the weight of the blank by mere fractions of an ounce. And, as we'll see shortly, for the niche the Z-Axis is targeted toward, fractions of an ounce can count for a lot.
[This is not an universal process. There are some notable companies, Scott Fly Rod Company being the most recognizable (see Traditional Class and Quality Fiberglass Fly Rod ), that have argued in the past that such 'sanding' can, potentially, result in damage to the blank. Frankly, this debate has become largely a moot issue; even Scott now 'sands' the blanks in several of their rod series.]
The remainder of the graphite rod building process involves painting the blank; quality control process for blank straightness, stress, blemishes, and proper flex (including marking the spine; cork grip/reel seat; wrapping the guides; labeling the rod; and finish coats of epoxy. We won't go into sleeve-over vs. spigot ferrules; a debate that has been raging for decades. The Z-Axis is a sleeve-over design; Sage feeling that the design is stronger for their rod designs while allowing for better, more consistent construction/production. Sleeve-over ferrules are also less expensive to produce, thus keeping the overall cost of the rod down.
Why does all of this matter? For decades now, rod designers have been trying to find a way to get rid of the fiberglass scrim. They feel, with some justification, that to fully avail themselves of the inherent properties of graphite vis a vis fly rods, that the graphite must not be 'dampened' by the foreign, scrim material. In other words, to get the full efficiency of the graphite (casting is all about efficient energy transfer), you must eliminate the less efficient fiberglass scrim.
Additionally, fiberglass is a heavier material compared to graphite. In the search for "better" fly rods, the catch terms have long been lighter, faster, stronger. Nearly 100 years ago, Frederick M. Halford published a book entitled The Dry-Fly Man's Handbook (originall printing 1913). In the 2000 reprint edition by The Derrydale Press, we see the following passage:
"...The absurdity of grading rods by their gross weight in ounces is demonstrated in this article, and I have done my best to show that mere weight is in fact no criterion. A rod of 4 oz. may be, and often is, far more tiring to the hand, wrist, and forearm of the angler than a correctly balanced one of 10 or even 12 oz."
Oh, the pain of it all. In 1913, an extraordinarily light rod was considered to be four ounces; six ounces less than the 'average.' Juxtapose that to the weight difference between the Sage XP and the Sage Z-Axis. The 4-piece, 9' six weight Z-Axis that I got to play with for a couple of weeks and will explore momentarily weighs in at 3 7/16 ounces. Remember, Sage considers this to be significantly lighter than the XP; which, in the 2006 catalog was partially described using the phrase - "...the first thing you'll notice is the almost magical lightness in your hand." I can see what they're talking about. I mean the Z-Axis weighs 3 7/16 ounces while the XP in the same configuration came in an arm-breaking mass weight of 3 9/16 ounces!!!
ONE-EIGHTH OF AN OUNCE?! That's it?! That's significant?! Short answer?
Yes.
In the game of lighter, faster, stronger as it relates to graphite fly rods, fractions of an ounce can mean the difference. Take for example the BIIX, R.L. Winston Rod Company's successful, "lightest in the industry," fast-action rods. The 4-piece, 9' 6 weight version comes in at a weight of... ready? ... 2 7/8 ounces. For those that don't want to try the conversion in their head, that means the BIIX is 9/16 ounces lighter than the new Z-Axis. Just think, in 1913 Halford was addressing the issue of a rod that was 4 - 8 ounces lighter and now we're talking about just over 1/2 ounce difference.
The problem is that to achieve this extra half ounce, Winston had to reduce the size (diameter and length) of their cork grips, the size of their guides, and incorporate boron (the "B" in BIIX) into the butt section. Boron is even lighter than graphite, but it is also more expensive and, for now, more difficult to obtain given that the aircraft industry is given priority in distribution of the material. Would you want to stake the future of your company on a material that has the potential of being more expensive and difficult to obtain?
Well, Sage didn't. They decided to solve the graphite minus the fiberglass scrim "riddle" and focus on a combination of lightness, castability, and accuracy rather than an emphasis on light. To that end, Sage starts with "the latest version of our Generation 5 (G5) Technology" for the Z-Axis; G5 is how they designate their proprietary formula of graphite. Then they developed what they refer to as "Aligned Fiber Technology" (AFT).
The way AFT works is that instead of a fiberglass scrim, Sage starts by wrapping the mandrel with a scrim of graphite. Then, rather than a single, patterned, trapezoidal form, the graphite is cut into a series of two or three segments; allowing them to be separately rolled around the mandrel so the fibers will align with not only the previously wrapped scrim, but with each other. This combination is then compressed so that the aligned fibers are all "fit" together into a seamless blank, which is then heated to saturation and cured.
The result being a theoretically more efficient blank that no longer has the less efficient fiberglass. Or, as Sage states: "...previously unattainable levels of line feel, response and performance." Additionally, as the theory goes, such a blank is stronger than one rolled with fiberglass scrim in that you are no longer mating dissimilar materials; instead, fitting, compressing, and 'cooking' the same type of material into a single unit.
There. Now wasn't that simple and understandable?
So What About The Rod?!
The Z-Axis has been available in fly shops since the end of September 2006. It comes in 37 models; five 2-piece, twenty-seven 4-piece, and five Spey configurations. Listing all 37 models in line weight, length, et al. variations would be too much; even for my traditionally lengthy reviews.
Suffice to say that the 2-piece is available in 4, 5, 6, and 8 wt. versions all 9' (with one, 8 1/2' 5 wt.); ranging in price from $293 - $298 for the blanks and $585 - $595 for the finished rod. The 4-piece version is available in 3 - 10 weight, with lengths ranging from 8 1/2' - 11', blanks going for $320 - $338, and finished rods running $640 - $670. The Spey models are 6, 7, 9, and two 10 wts. Lengths in the Spey models are 12 1/2' - 16'; with blanks being $360 - $425 and finished rods costing between $720 - $850.
The blanks are a dark olive color, with light olive logo/rod information. The rod tubes are likewise colored. The five grip styles depend on the model; but, they are not significantly reduced in size and diameter as with the Winston BIIX. In fact, the grip on the 9' 6 wt. Z-Axis was ever-so-slightly thicker than the one on my 9' 6 wt. SP; such minor variation being standard on production rods.
To my eyes, the guides are notably smaller in diameter than those on my SP. One friend of mine who is aware of such things stated that he thinks they are actually smaller than those on the BIIX; but, I didn't get the chance to confirm this with any type of objective measurements.
Did The "Magic" Happen?
My initial encounter with one was the first week of October. I was able to cast a 9' 7 wt. My first impression was that it was definitely not an XP. My second impression was that it is a lively rod; definitely not your proverbial "stick with a tip."
A week later I was at a flyfishing conclave and ran into a guy I've known for over a decade. This guy is a Sage fanatic from the word "go." On the other hand, I have never been much of a Sage fan. I have always recognized that Sage rods were good casting rods, but didn't think much of their "fishability." The closest they've ever come to making a rod that 'fit' me were their Light Line (LL) series (maybe the best rod series Sage ever produced for general, light trout work and next to impossible to find on the used market since owners hang on to them) and their SP series; both now discontinued. [I own an 8' 9" 4 weight 5-piece and a 9' 6 weight 3-piece 6 weight in the SP series.]
My friend has been trying to talk me into Sage rods since the first day I met him. And, with the Z-Axis, he thinks he finally has a rod that will do it. Taking me to the Sage booth, he had me grab the 9' 6 wt. and take it to the 50' casting pond set up outside. The next twenty minutes or so proved very interesting.
This rod does not 'punch' line like the XP; it has to be stroked. It's still a 'fast action,' but with more flex than the XP. One or two strokes is all it needed for 50' casts; in fact, I had to rein in a bit to keep from overshooting the casting pond. Now, for me, that is a very unique feeling. I originally thought the XP was a 'caster.' The Z-Axis seemed to nearly do it for you provided you didn't try to overpower it as one is often tempted to do with many faster action rods. It roll cast 45' slick as you please with the 6 wt. Rio Grand line that it was loaded with.
[It would seem a word needs to be inserted here about 'fast action' and what that means. The terms slow, medium, medium-fast, fast, and similar speak to the rod's ability to generate line speed. The 'faster' the rod, the higher the line speed it is able to generate. Higher line speeds eventually equate to things like casting distance and greater ease for casting in the wind.
Until recently, faster action rods were usually made of higher modulus graphite with a resultant, stiffer rod. Such stiffness has, for many (including some rod designers), become erroneously synonymous with 'faster action.' To mitigate such stiffness, particularly when it comes to tippet protection and 'fishability,' many rod manufacturers have incorporated a more flexible 'tip' section. Thus, the expression "a stick with a tip" mentioned earlier.
In the last couple of years, with the advent of technologies such as boron composites and Aligned Fiber Technology, rod designers have found that they can develop rods which will generate high line speeds and attain a certain level of flexibility previously unknown in 'fast action' fly rods. In that sense, the 'fast action' rod category has been redefined. It is also why I think XP fans may, at first, wrongly perceive the Z-Axis as a 'slower' actioned rod. Remember, stiff is not the same as 'fast.']
Making a longish story a trifle shorter, my friend obtained a 9' 6 wt. 4-piece Z-Axis for himself not long after the show. A couple of weeks ago, he came to me and said he had a business trip to take and asked if I would like to 'babysit' his new rod while he was gone. I should feel free to take it for a workout; just to keep it in shape.
Let's see... A virtually brand new, $650 retail (for this model) just released to the market rod, based on new technology, mated with a Galvan Standard reel loaded with a Rio Grand 6 wt. line to experiment with as much as I could fit in for two weeks. MMMMM. What's the downside? Shuffle feet. Hem and haw.
It took about thirty seconds, but I eventually agreed to the loan rationalizing that I could always write reviews for Epinions on the rod, reel, and line. See what 'sacrifices' some of us make for the readers? Tough job, but somebody needed to do it. :o)
My first move was to arrange a get-together with another friend of mine who is a Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF) Certified Master Casting Instructor to put the Z-Axis through a lawn test session. The reason for this is that I wanted to be as fair to the rod, and Sage, as possible. I have a decided preference for moderate to slow action rods for most trout fishing. In addition, I have what is kindly referred to in fly angling circles as a "fishing cast." In other words, I get the fly where it needs to go (most of the time), but it isn't pretty and I ain't gonna be competitive in any distance tournaments.
My friend laid out some orange markers every 10' out to 100'. I only took the Rio Grand on the Galvan Standard reel along since that's what the rep at the conclave had 'advised.' Without launching into a second review of the Rio Grand, let's just say that means we were, literally, overlining the rod. The Rio Grand 6 wt. line is actually 2 grains into the 7 wt. line category by AFTMA standards. While the line is specifically marketed by Rio for fast action rods, such overlining can slow the rod action down and helps with short casts, but can have a detrimental impact on distance.
Mr. FFF Certified Master Casting Instructor started with a NEW, unstretched line and pumped out an 85' cast on the first go. Okay. What's a little "showin' off" between friends. We then stretched the line and he started casting like the thing was an XP. His thought was that would be the first inclination of those trying the rod who were familiar with the series since the Z-Axis was its direct replacement. Besides, one of his newer, favorite toys is the Sage Casting Analyzer; a computerized gizmo which quantitatively measures your casting stroke compared to a Sage expert caster using an XP.
As I said, this thing is NOT the XP. He was making 70' - 85' casts; but, with tailing loops, dropped backcasts, lots of tip bounce, etc. Simply put, he was putting WAY too much power into the stroke given the rod's design. As he said, he was used to using rods like the XP or the TFO heavy rods where you blast for distance and the rod 'punches' line out. He then started aggressively double-hauling and just basically workin' it. Again, same results.
What impressed me was the fact that even though he tried every way he could think of to do it wrong, the rod still laid the line out there. "Forgiving" is the appellation typically used for a rod action that allows for that kind of ill-treatment and still casts line. For me, that wouldn't be the right term. "Thoroughbred" would be more my thinking. This thing just wants to cast. (Alright, when he stroked the rod, my friend measured a cast near 100'. But, he wasn't much interested in trying for distance you understand. Uh huh.)
Oh boy, my turn. I picked the thing up, took three strokes, and hit the 75' mark. (Bear in mind that the best, "officially" measured cast I've ever made was with a 9 1/2' 8 wt. at 97'. But, that was when I was younger and didn't know what I was doing. Ahem.) I found that, with only a single haul and, for me, an almost intuitive stroke, I could easily lay line out from 10' to just under 80' with one to three strokes. It has to be the rod.
Accuracy was spot on. Roll casting is problematic at best on a lawn. However, reach casts, reach mends, flips, something my friend referred to as a "constant tension" cast (yeah, whatever, I just know it works and I came up with it on my own, without instruction; and, no, it isn't pretty), pile casts, S-casts, etc. all pretty much hit where I wanted from 15' to around 50'. Once I get beyond that mark, the fancy stuff pretty much goes out the window; which, with a 'fishing cast' is just fine in that 90% of trout hookups happen within that 15' - 50' range. Just to put the icing on the cake, I even (would you believe, deliberately?) laid out a 70' cast so that it landed almost perfectly on top of the 100' tape for the entire length of the cast.
[It bears repeating, this rod needs to be stroked, like a fly rod should be when cast, to get the full benefit. Remember, I used the word "thoroughbred" a moment ago. While a thoroughbred is still built to run no matter the rider, if the jockey handles it correctly, you could be off to the races. With the Z-Axis, when stroked, there is virtually no tip bounce, tracking is about as good as it gets, and accuracy is dinner plate-sized. For me, the stroke was 'right there' from the first. Those used to stiffer, gotta be a bit aggressive, 'punch it' fast action rods, it might take a couple minutes to find it. Just think in terms of "taking off the spurs" or "sparing the whip" and you'll be in the right frame of mind.]
The session ended where it almost felt like I knew what I was doing. Now, that's saying something.
The next step was to take the rod down to a river. This piece of water has some serious muscle and can be downright dangerous to wade except at the lowest flows. As a consequence, even the smaller trout can quickly put you in the hurt locker with anything less than a powerful five weight; the 'standard' rod being either a 6 wt. or even a 7 wt.
Again, using only the 6 wt. Rio Grand line, I initially strung it up with a 7 1/2' 4X leader and 4X tippet. I attached a large, Bole' yarn indicator, 2 BB sized split shot, and two beadhead (with lead underbodies) nymphs; a size 12 2X long on about 5' of 4X tippet with a standard size 14 about 2' below that on a 4X dropper. It's one of the most awkward rigs I can think of to cast, usually requiring that one open their casting loops significantly. But, it is precisely the kind of nymphing rig required to get down on this river.
The rod cast the rig with better authority and far less "clunkiness" than my 7 wt. Scott SAS; even when deliberately not opening the loop. Distance was 15' to about 45' with the typical cast being around 20' - 25'; which is about all you can ask of a 6 wt. with such a rig and about all you want in terms of distance for that type of fishing. Mending was more than acceptable. Line pickup was excellent. "Hook set" was also good; if you count when the indicator goes under and all you set up on is a rock.
Dry flies. Gotta go there. I returned to the river late one evening, just before the rise got going; what there was of one. Same 7 1/2' 4X leader, but with 5X tippet and a size 16 dry. I stood around and stood around and then stood some more. For all the bugs (mixed caddis, midge, and mayfly), there were only sporadic and shotgun patterned rises. You could narrow the section of river down to about 100 yds. long by 50 yds. wide as to where they were rising, but couldn't line up or pattern any one fish in particular. Until...
Sunset. A group started rising with fair regularity. Unfortunately, I was standing in the middle of the river and couldn't get myself into a good position. The rises were sporadic enough that it was tough lining up on any, single fish. Eventually, a couple ended up rising relatively consistently in one section; of course, this was right toward dark and on the other side of the current.
The rod cast the dry rig very well and with little effort. A couple of strokes and it was out there 50' - 60' and drifting where it needed to be. Mending was a bit problematic at that range and with that current. But, this rod has power. The tip is noticeably softer than the XP, flexing about 35% or so down the blank normally, with a limited amount of flex in the butt. However, it has plenty of authority in the butt when it comes to mending, casting, and playing fish (particularly 'the big one' for the three or four seconds it's on).
I missed two or three rises that were probably legitimate takes. (It was getting too dark to see details, but you could react to the rise. Nothing stuck, but the rises were in the right place. This is a problem I initially and consistently have with rods I'm not used to working with; i.e., missing the first few strikes.) I finally got the timing right. The rise was where a nice fish had been regularly taking off the surface. I set up, the hook stuck, the hook held... for about 3 or 4 seconds. However, in that 3 or 4 seconds, it felt like I had a rock on the other end of the line in terms of weight and "it ain't going anyplace but where it wants to" feel.
About that time I looked downstream and realized I could barely see my reference point on the bank marking the line I needed to take to wade out and not drown. So, calling it good, it was time to go.
A 6 wt. fly rod is the true "working man's" rod. It is a rod weight that is caught in the middle; too heavy for light work and too light for heavy work. So, most owners tend to think of it as their "do it all" rod. Go figure. In the end, a 6 wt. can find itself expected to handle anything from size 20 dries to size 4 and larger streamers.
On that basis, I took it to a lake and decided to see what it would do with a different type of fishing. I first strung it up with a Scientific Anglers 6 wt. Stillwater full sinking line. I attached a lightly weighted, size 4 derivative of a Davy Wotton Shad (see http://www.davywotton.com/davy-wotton-shad.htm ) on about 6' of straight 10 lb. monofilament. While the line felt a bit light for the rod in comparison to the Rio Grand, I still handily managed 40' - 50' casts.
Moving down the bank, I switched to a heavily weighted, 2X long, size 6 nymph. Although it was getting a little cold for bass, the shad imitation and the size 6 nymph would split the difference between the long-shot bass and the occasionally large rainbow and brown trout in this water body. Again, no problem. Except...
It was at this point that I came to the realization that I was so engrossed in testing the rod that I wasn't actually fishing the rod; i.e., working the water in the way it needed to be worked to have a realistic shot at catching a fish. How did I come to that conclusion? Well, I had just completed a long cast, straight out from the bank, made a 6" strip and, out of the corner of my eye, I saw movement. I turned my head to the left...
Just in time to see a rainbow trout that had to have been (no exaggeration) between 23" and 25" slash the surface about 15' to my left and about 10' off the bank; right along the edge of the dropoff to deeper water. The glare had been working against both of us; I didn't see him and he didn't see me until he'd taken off the top. I think you can guess at the slightly light-headed feeling one gets at watching a large fish dive for deep water, while you're furiously trying to strip way too much line in, so that you can flip a cast in front of a fish you know has been irretrievably spooked.
As a result, I switched over to a floating line; a DT, 6 wt. Rio Classic. I wanted to see how the rod would perform with the 'lighter' line; a line made for and nicely mating with more moderate action rods, but not a particularly good performer on medium-fast or fast action rods. This seemed like an opportune moment to switch over to a dry rig, but I stuck with a size 12, lightly weighted nymph under a Palsa foam indicator that would sink relatively slowly. I mean, aside from the one (sniffle) rise I'd just watched, I'd only seen two others, about 40 minutes apart.
Of course, switch to a 'light' line, 7 1/2' 4X tippet with about 5'-6' of 5X fluorocarbon tippet and what happens? Yep. The wind kicks up to about 15 mph; right into your face. How did the rod do with the 'lighter' line, in the wind? Can you live with 50' - 60' casts? If so, you can live with this combination.
The wind eventually brought in a steady, light rain. Might as well end it where I started. I switched back to the Rio Grand and stuck with the size 12 nymph, Palsa indicator, and the 5X fluorocarbon tippet. It must have been fate (or just my kind of luck). As I turned around to face the water, what looked like about a 16" trout rose about 25' out and about 40' to my left. Out of position and with line jumbled at my feet, what was I to do? I stroked about 15' of line out the tip, single hauled, and let fly. BOOOOMMMM. Right on target, just past the fading ring where the fish had risen. Nothing. But, for me to cast like that, it has to be the rod.
There is a certain point of land I like to finish the day at on this lake. For me, if you're gonna get fish at the end of the day, this time of year, this is the place I want to be. The only problem is that it usually requires a minimum of a 70' - 80' cast to reach all but the odd fish that gets too close when you're standing on the bank. To add to your problems, the ground slopes steeply behind you; limiting your backcast room. Most days, I'm not up to the task. Even when I occasionally get it done, my confidence in making a cast to the inevitable "big one that's just out of range" isn't what we'd call supreme.
Sure enough, just as it was getting dark, this BIG back comes out of the water. I won't guess at the size, but it was noticable at about 80' - 90' at near dark. What struck me was that I didn't even hesitate. I just stroked the rod once, single hauled, and BOOOOOMMMMMM. It's the only time I've ever done that on this piece of water without having it rattle around in my brain that it was an useless casting exercise. I mean, I just unconciously knew I had a shot...
Unfortunately, I had to give the rod back the next day; telling my friend in a rather understated tone that I was "almost impressed." I mean, you don't want to make it too easy after over a decade - right?
Final Recommendations
Obviously, the Rio Grand worked the best of the three lines I used with the rod. For me, it would probably end up being my line of choice. (Just this afternoon I met another gentlemen who had been fishing with a 5 wt. Z-Axis and he had also been using the Rio Grand with the rod.) However, either the Rio Selective Trout (see A Fly Line for Trout and for Selective Fly Fishers ) or the Scientific Anglers GPX should and probably would make a reasonable pairing. (Sage says that their Performance Taper is an obvious match.)
The Galvan Standard my friend had was an older model and was, probably, perceptibly just a touch heavy for some folks. However, I cut my teeth on 'heavy' reels, so I thought it balanced out fairly well. Still, most of those whose emphasis is on "lightweight" are going to want to look at something like the Galvan OB or the Ross Evolution reels; particularly in the 5 - 8 wt. categories for freshwater. In the 3 - 5 wts., noting my preference for standard ("classic") style reels, a Hardy Lightweight Series reel (currently a tad expensive), a Ross Cimarron, or a Galvan Standard (I really fell for my friend's) would suit most trout situations and balance the rod reasonably well.
I've had one individual express the thought that the rod might still be a bit too stiff to protect light, 6X/7X tippets; even in the lighter weight rods. While I haven't even touched a Z-Axis lighter than the 6 wt., I can see and agree with both sides of the argument. I only went down to 5X with the 6 weight. Partly because the waters I fished with it preclude the use of such light tippets.
But, as stated, I personally prefer the slow - moderate action rods for light trout work. I think they provide a "safety cushion," if you will, when working with light tippets and large fish. Thus, I'm not likely to seriously look at the Z-Axis in the lighter weights. However, even I acknowledge that you can learn to work with light tippets in conjunction with "stiff" rods. Practice and technique (particularly when it comes to fish playing) are the keys. It's good to be able to let the technology do the work. It's better to be able to work with it, no matter the technology.
Of the two or three Z-Axis rods I've tickled, there have been a couple, cosmetic problems. The 7 wt. I cast had a grip that was too big; the lighter mass of the rod not being enough to transmit vibration through the thicker cork. I asked the Sage rep at the show and he noted that I was not the first to notice this and that the company had already addressed this as a 'cosmetic' issue; recalling and replacing the grips on the initial shipments. I'll "buy it" until something more affordable comes along.
On my friend's 6 wt., the hook keeper was placed slightly out of alignment. This did not impinge upon the function, but did throw off initial assembly for both the FFF Certified Master Casting Instructor and myself. Particularly when a rod comes with no alignment dots on the rod sections, the hook keeper is lined up with the reel seat so that as you assemble the rod, you can line up the guides with the keeper and, thereby, with the reel seat so that the reel automatically lines up when attached.
There's still one, large-sized elephant in the room - the question of durability. As we've noted earlier, the problem with eliminating the fiberglass (or other) scrim has been a lack of integrity and durability. If you ask Sage, they will tell you that the Aligned Fiber Technology used in the Z-Axis is stronger than fiberglass. Critics and the dubious will note that stronger isn't the same as durable. Obviously, Sage wouldn't replace a very popular rod series with one they didn't think would stand the test. Just as obviously, there was a certain amount of testing that occurred prior to its introduction. However, never underestimate the ability of actual consumers to push a product's limits. Therefore, given the rod has only been on the market for just over a month, nobody can effectively answer the durability question. Only time will tell.
Am I going to be rushing down, cash in hand, to purchase the next 6 wt. Z-Axis my local shop receives? Unfortunately, current finances preclude such ostentatious expenditures. Also, I don't really need another 6 wt. Then again, I can take a journey, not only of sight and sound, but of mind. I can use my imagination and see that section of the Madison in Montana, the shoreline of Pyramid Lake in Nevada, the Lower Sacramento in California, the...
As Sage says in their 2007 paper catalog: "It might not be magic, but it's pretty darn close." You know, it is the Christmas season. A magical time of year with Santa and his reindeer. That being the case, maybe I need to get out the album with jazz guitarist Larry Carlton so I Got My Mojo Working. Insofar as my casting, the Z-Axis sure seemed to get it going.
We think you will find the Sage Z-Axis Fly Rod is the lightest, longest-casting, most accurate fast action fly rod you have ever tried. Sage went ...More at Fishwest Fly Shop
Fantastic prices with ease & c...(Stock status: N/A)
We think you will find the Sage Z-Axis Fly Rod is the lightest, longest-casting, most accurate fast action fly rod you have ever tried. Sage went back...More at Amazon Marketplace
Fantastic prices with ease & c...(Stock status: N/A)
We went back to the drawing board to create the incredible Z-Axis Series Fast Action Rods. By improving the entire rod-building process, we created a ...More at Amazon Marketplace
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.