Are overweight lines getting out of control?

#1
upload_2014-12-9_10-33-52.png
upload_2014-12-9_10-34-46.png

Above is a chart for the Rio Outbound, and the second chart is the AFFTA approved weights. I am looking for a line for my Sage, and was questioning how far out of spec many lines are from MOST manufacturers, not just Rio.
Now I know it's wise go up or down a size as needed to adjust for gear and conditions, but look at the above for a minute. I know Outbounds are meant to shoot and not cast, BUT the Rio is 50% heavier than the spec. I think a few years ago, all the rage was to go a line weight or 2 heavier, and the manufacturers jumped on that by implying you could cast farther that way. This might be true for shooting line out, but for casting it's a different story.
Lets say I bite on the marketing, and need a new 5 wt line. I buy a 6 to put a heavy load on a 5 wt because that's the trend...I wind up with a 240 grain (6 wt) on a 5 manufactured for a 140 grain.

Kreh has a great article on flexibility in adjusting equipment,
http://www.scientificanglers.com/pl...s/how-choose-right-fly-line-weight-lefty-kreh
but how much is too much on marketing lines SO FAR out of spec? Kreh says you might even go 2 line sizes heavier if needed, which could waste my $80 by purchasing a 275 grain, 7 wt Outbound line on my 5 wt that was supposedly designed for 140 grains.

Seems trivial now that I type it, but I think the standard needs to be reeled back in line with spec, or why have the spec in the first place.

Rant over....
 

shotgunner

Anywhere ~ Anytime
#2
Take a peek at the current RIO Grand lines.. one full line class fat.

In my opinion the 'standard' was tossed out years ago.
 

David Dalan

69°19'15.35" N 18°44'22.74" E
#3
Maybe should just stamp reccomended grain weights on the shaft. I have a switch built on a 5wt single hand blank that has the grains listed also. 140 - 210 if I recall correctly. Most builders provide the grain reccomendations on a rod even if it is not stamped on the shaft. But the caster is such a variable, that the "this rod and this line will work for everyone" is not really possible. I quit adjusting my casting to accomodate the rod and line some time ago. It's why I have favorite setups I rarely stray from. They let me be me.
 
#5
The lines aren't getting any more out of control than the rods are. They're not just randomly deciding to make heavier lines. But I agree with DD, I'd rather see a grain weight ranges, and I would really like to see line manufacturers start giving better, more consistent info about their products too. (In some cases you can't even find the same information about different products from the same manufacturer.) "Perfect for modern fast-action rods"... So what does that mean? Just give me the actually weights of the line and I'll decide if that's perfect for the rod I'm using it on. And I'd know what to look for when I needed to replace it, whether it's with that same brand of line (but maybe they don't make the model of line anymore), or some other brand.

One thing, though--the Outbound is a specialty, non-conforming line anyway. And they specifically say that it's heavier. It's sort of like comparing the gas mileage from a sports car to the average family sedan. Yeah, they're going to be different, but they also drive / handle very differently.
 
#6
One thing to keep in mind with the outbound and similar lines (40+ or ambush) is that they are shooting heads. Yeah they are 2-3 sizes heavy at the 30ft mark, but the weight of the entire head won't be that much heavier than the weight of the head for a standard WF line. Think of it like the weight of the 50ft head on a standard WF line is compressed into 30ft. The 30ft shooting head will load the rod the same amount as a 50ft cast with a standard WF line. This enables quicker loading and casting when backcast room is limited. As mentioned above, they are specialty lines.

I totally agree that a lot of modern rods are super fast and now require heavier lines to cast well for most people.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#8
I don't know if it's out of control, but it sure looks confusing as all get out. My work around is to buy old school fly lines when I see them on sale somewhere for my old school rods (except the RPL).

Sg
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#9
One thing to keep in mind with the outbound and similar lines (40+ or ambush) is that they are shooting heads. Yeah they are 2-3 sizes heavy at the 30ft mark, but the weight of the entire head won't be that much heavier than the weight of the head for a standard WF line. Think of it like the weight of the 50ft head on a standard WF line is compressed into 30ft. The 30ft shooting head will load the rod the same amount as a 50ft cast with a standard WF line. This enables quicker loading and casting when backcast room is limited. As mentioned above, they are specialty lines.

I totally agree that a lot of modern rods are super fast and now require heavier lines to cast well for most people.
Yupper, +1 on that. I'm wondering whether the recent attraction to the glass days will find the aficionado's needing to underline so as not to deaden that sexy, slow action. ;)
 

MarkY3130

Active Member
#11
I agree with the others on many points. The outbound is an integrated shooting head line intended for specific uses. I really like the outbound on my 6-8 wt rods for fishing from the beach. The stated grain weights are spread out over 37.5' and not 30'. It's still far heavier and is intended to be for its use. I also much prefer the Outbound over the outbound short. The 40+ is a fantastic line as well.

On my 5 wt Sage One I prefer a true 5 wt line. Currently using an older Cortland model. A lot of people say you need a heavier line on the fast action rods, I disagree most of the time.

I also have a mixture of medium action and fast action rods and like them all for different reasons. I'm not sold that one action is superior to the other. I'm glad we have all the options we do!

I'd support the move to stating grain weights for rods and lines. Would cause confusion to many at first but would be easier in the long run. Would probably be the case with switching to the metric system as well!
 
#13
I agree with the others on many points. The outbound is an integrated shooting head line intended for specific uses. I really like the outbound on my 6-8 wt rods for fishing from the beach. The stated grain weights are spread out over 37.5' and not 30'. It's still far heavier and is intended to be for its use. I also much prefer the Outbound over the outbound short. The 40+ is a fantastic line as well.
Forgive me for adding to the confusion, I was using the outbound short head length as an example. The outbound has a longer head, while the ambush is even shorter at ~20ft. But the concept remains the same.

Here are the grain weights for the rio gold. A standard WF line that is slightly on the high end of the AFFTA scale at 30ft. The total head weight (at ~46ft) is pretty similar to what the outbound weighs at 37.5ft and the outbound short weighs at 30ft, or the ambush weights at 20ft.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
#14
Back when manufacturers for the most part followed AFTMA (AFFTA) life was simpler (at least for typical stream fishing). But now that many don’t, it probably sells more lines while you look for what matches you rod and fishing scenario. I like what Rio and some others are doing by listing grains at varying lengths (the front 30’, total head weight, etc). Remember these are just brochure numbers though. The line you pull from the shelf may vary from that. I’ve probably weighed and recorded over 30 lines in the last decade or so due to this "no standard" situation that developed. It can be a real eye opener. A $12 digital scale removes a lot of the tail chasing and BS if you already know what your rods like for different fishing scenarios. I don’t see the manufacturers going to a standard. Grains for varying lengths would be nice but what is their incentive to make it easier to match lines to rods.
 
#15
What really hasn't been touched on was that the "old" AFTMA stuff was for earlier generation fly rods. We've been hacking around this for years about the newer rod technology and why companies constantly bring out new rods. I think we've arrived at the point where we realize that in order to stay in business the companies have to do it to stay competitive. The change in the line recommendations represent the change in the rods over twenty years ago. Almost every rod is so much faster, stiffer; you fill in the adjective. The charts/line weights merely represent the needed poundage to turn over flies on the new rods. That's why guys are constantly overlining them with their older lines. Think about it...:eek:
 

Latest posts