Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Jake L, Aug 2, 2008.
Deleted by author
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".
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.
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?
I think part of the issue that Traditionalist is getting at is that the AFTMA standard is vastly outdated.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.
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! And before you get your knickers in a bunch, yes that's a joke.
I'm out. You're clearly in need of help. A grain window would make it easier on the normal consumer than a single line rating... Ninja puhlease!!! Anybody who understands casting or physics can look at the discussion, your websites, and make their own decision. Your pages are down by the way. Just as well.
Yeah 30 feet of 11 weight line... We're talking aftma standards... and in particular the standards as they apply to shooting heads , WFs and modified WFs. Not your 11wt DT. How many people are using a full DT for saltwater fishing? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?
Nice one on the blocking of your site. Now you just need to block anybody who knows anything about casting or physics and you can be the expert in your little world. Misapplied science is worse than no science at all.
Ahhh... Must be why you're rewritting history by deleting your posts... Too bad you can't delete the stuff where people quoted you... Then your "Genius" would be unimpeachable...