Up one line? Two?

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Jake L, Aug 2, 2008.

  1. jcnewbie Member

    Posts: 855
    Kent, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Yep, was gonna try that too...and kneeling...and sitting in a folding stool...lying on my back...kicked back in a recliner with a cold one, oh wait...,that's afterwards :D!!

    Seriously tho, thanks Philster, I was/am gonna try that...:thumb:

    JC:)
  2. jcnewbie Member

    Posts: 855
    Kent, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    iagree...so true - and the worse it gets, the worse it gets!!! I've been conscious of the fact that the easier and more effortless it is, the better and farther the cast is...:cool:

    Too hot last night to practice at the park:mad:!

    JC
  3. jcnewbie Member

    Posts: 855
    Kent, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0

    I don't wanna admit to that....'cuz that means I'm not in control of my own, uhm, destiny or something like that......:D!

    JC
  4. jcnewbie Member

    Posts: 855
    Kent, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    That is really, really tough for Type A's ya know? Well okay, more like a B- or C+ now :rofl:!

    JC:rolleyes:
  5. Denny Active Member

    Posts: 4,019
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +38 / 0
    Because there needs to be some type of consistent basis, some relative measure.

    I think what you're trying to say is what really matters, without sticking to the numbers as the ultimate guide, is how the rod and the shooting head relate to each other, irrespective of the line weight reference on the rod or the head.

    In the same line weights, even in the same rod models, often each rod will be individual. I remember years ago Stonefish picked up a GLX 8 weight that really seemed more like a 6.5 weight. I had (have) a GLX 8 weight, and the two rods were hugely different. Even though they were both labeled as 8 weights, obviously they would respond differently to the same lines.
  6. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  7. jcnewbie Member

    Posts: 855
    Kent, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    http://www.mike1.bplaced.net/Wikka/RodLoading

    iagree...as if I needed further proof of my imbecilic, moronic math abilities...:rolleyes:

    JC:beathead::beathead:
  8. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Your suggestion ignores how the weight is distributed, and the density of the weight matters as well. a lead weight delivers its energy immediately and carris through the air like, well a lead weight. Its profile, drag coefficient, everything remains consistent. An unrolling fly line reacts completely differently especially in the way it accepts and delivers the energy of the cast. Trajectory, air resistance, everything is different. compare a small clouser and a larger deceiver that weigh the same. Cast each of them on a 12 foot leader. The physics are completely different, just as the physics of a lead weight on 8 pound test mono is physically different than a fly line with a running line. A short head vs. an extremely long one makes a huge difference. Look at spey line "ratings" They have different ones for different length lines. Extremely long lines are much heavier than than short heads. Yes spey casting is a different game, but it still relies on the rod storing, and transferring energy to the line. A shorter line will give the sensation of compressing the weight you are throwing and feels as though it's loading the rod more deeply than a longer line of the same weight. I'm not a physicist, but I can tell you from experience that it just does. Some american custom builders are labelling their rods with "grain windows" now in recognition of these issues. Different weight results in different actions, but within a given "action" in the feel of the road, shorter can be lighter, longer can be heavier without significantly affecting the action.

    To find the optimum casting weight for a "shooting head" by far the most direct and efficient approach is to start at the line weight the manufacturer suggests your rod is rated for, and go up two sizes. If this feels too light for a shooting head style cast, go up three. On a 7 start with an AFTMA rated 9 weight 30 foot length of line. If you don't get optimum distance go up to a 10. Now these outbounds and such are a different animal, and theoretically the conversion has been done for you already, although Richard and others seem to feel the airflo is often worthy of uplining one size. I frankly believe Richard when he says that. The Bastard owes me flies, but he can fish... Just kidding Richard, I've been too busy to respond about getting my flies back, what with summer and the kids and all:p

    It seems like your procedure is overthinking the problem. Throw your lead weight, and use that as a starting point to select your line. Unfortunately I see precious few folks fishing who actually know how to cast a spinning rod when I go out, which is a whole other issue. I don't really see a disadvantage to taking the manufacturers opinion of a rod's rating as the starting point for selecting lines. Either way you test cast line and go up or down from there...

    Maye I'm missing something. Perhaps it's something a really "keen" fisherman might do to take more ownership of the process of line selection. Personally I'm taking every bit of help I can get from the manufacturers and people I know and trust. It's easier and cheaper in the long run in my experience.

    Unlike you, I probably do need a translator for what I just spewed out to make sense... But it makes sense to me!:thumb:
  9. Denny Active Member

    Posts: 4,019
    Seattle, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +38 / 0
    It appears you do need an interpreter, particularly when you make comments like "The only criteria of any importance when choosing a head are the actual weight and length of the line. What the AFTM rating says is irrelevant."

    That makes no sense at all. That's like saying "It doesn't matter that a liter is a commonly used measure for volume, it's what you actually have that counts!".
  10. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  11. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  12. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0

    Yeah... I know. Energy just moves along, from your arm to your rod, to the weight you are casting, to the air, to friction on the running line, etc, etc, etc. I get that. But the "energy" that has been transferred to the weight temporarily acts and transfers to the environment very much differently between a pea sized dense mass and a 30 foot light one. Complicating matters with a casual application of science or physics, and ignoring or dissmissing what's inconvenient or would require too much work to explain is how we get "intelligent design".
  13. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  14. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    How do they not? AFTMA ratings are set up to give a standard, with a tolerance built in for inconsistencies in manufacturing, for weight within the first 30 feet of line. Taper comes into play, but most of us don't really sweat that stuff. So you can approximate grain per foot if you wish. Or you can just weigh a section of belly and get more accurate for the level belly section. We've got our share of line splicers on this forum, myself included. Most of us concentrate more on taper, with an overall total head weight being the final goal, because within the accepted tolerances we find there's not that much need to sweat the weight that much. If you're sweating 5 or 10 grains, you're worrying alot more than the manufacturers are. As long as you adhere to heavier line driving lighter line, the rest is art. None of us have the capability to apply "science" to home grown line design, even if we think we are.
  15. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Yeah and logic states if you're looking for a fly line to match rod, cast fly lines, not lead weight. How is that not logical?
  16. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  17. Flyborg Active Member

    Posts: 2,276
    Kalama, WA
    Ratings: +567 / 0
    I think part of the issue that Traditionalist is getting at is that the AFTMA standard is vastly outdated. It was definitely a step in the right direction when it was created. However, it was made at a time when fly fishing was far less specialized and line/rod technologies were considerably different than they are now.

    That being said, the AFTMA standard was developed recognizing that the actual line weight was more important than diameter (which is what the previous letter standard was based off of I believe). The number system was developed as a means to simplify grain ranges and give manufacturers a system to help consumers match their rods to their lines (that's right, rods to lines--not the other way around!).

    Unfortunately, since the standard was developed, a lot has happened to work against the it. Graphite rods were developed shortly after the AFTMA standard. This allowed for considerably stiffer rods. In turn, line manufacturers began to ignore the AFTMA standard in order to provide lines that better loaded the new rods (you'd think someone would have told the rod makers they were making their rods too stiff, but marketing has us all convinced that stiff "rocket" rods are ultra cool.)

    Fly fishing has also specialized considerably since the AFTMA standard was developed. People are fishing in ways and with lines that weren't conceivable back then. To that effect, the total head length and weight is often far more important than those first thirty feet.

    Regardless, lines are rarely built to AFTMA standard anymore--some of the manufacturers even say so right on the box. Even trout lines are usually at least half a line size heavy. Lines are largely specialized and their actual weights reflect that. Unfortunately, that leaves us as consumers to play the guessing game of how to best match our rods. Going back to the AFTMA standards original assumption that the actual weight of the line is the most important factor is the easiest means of doing so. The spey market trend has pushed that, to the point that rod makers provide grain windows for the rods--exactly as they should.
  18. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  19. traditionalist New Member

    Posts: 80
    Europe
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Deleted by author
  20. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,479
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    Well since I'm the person who said that, I doubt it's a random occurence that you should bring that up.:rofl:

    Okay let's make it simple. Yes you can cast all manner of weight lines on a fly rod. I can cast a 2 weight on a twelve weight and throw tight little loops. out to about 30 feet... because I don't need to load the rod to do so. Does that mean it's a good choice? No answer is required, but feel free to anyway.

    So lets discuss casting a line that weighs 350 or more grains on a six weight. That is casting the equivalent of an 11 wt line on a 6wt. why? because you are casting a 6 wt rod, and you are casting a line that is about what an 11 wt line weighs. It's like tenderizing a steak by pounding it with a shoe. How do you know when you are tenderizing a steak by pounding it with a shoe? Well the first hint is you are doing so when you are tenderizing a steak by pounding it with a shoe. What don't you get about that? Can you do it? Sure. You can cast a 350 grain line with a six weight! If you have a lifetime guarantee on the rod all the better. But let's not be silly and talk about "optimum" weights because there aren't any. different applications, different styles, jeez! I'm really glad slapping the ol' mitchell reel on your rod helps you pick out a line, but it gives you no advantage over starting by looking at the rods rating and test casting a few lines, which most shops will let you do! Over here they are called "parking lot lines". Old lines they let you cast in the parking lot. I'm sure they're called "car park lines" over where you are.

    And chopping lines is like fly tying. Anyone who tells you you save money doing it is lying. If you say it's cheaper, you're either just cutting cheap DTs to length, or you sir, are a liar!:p And before you get your knickers in a bunch, yes that's a joke.