Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Up one line? Two?

20K views 230 replies 26 participants last post by  Richard E 
#1 ·
I've decided from the excellent input in another thread to get a Rio Outbound type III sink. I'll be putting the line on an Echo Classic 10' 6wt. Its a moderate fast action rod. I know many people here are upping their line weights one or two sizes with lines similar to the Outbound. Due to various circumstances (timing etc), I may not be able to try different lines on the rod before buying my new line. If this is the case, I'd like to have as much information as possible when picking what line size. So I'm opening up a new thread hoping for as much input as possible.

Who out there is upping their line weights on integrated shooting heads? What is your set up?

Those who are using standard shooting heads, if you know the head weight (or close to it) shout it out so I can compare.

Thanks all for the input. Hopefully I can go see Leland or Les and get their help and wont need this thread, but it sure can't hurt.
 
#112 ·
NB,
I fish the whole line, stripping in the head also. Here is how I cast my line, a Airflo 40+ which has a 35' head.
After the cast, I do a quick roll cast. This generally will get about half the head out the rod tip, so say 15'. Next I'll do a water haul to get the rest of the head out of the rod tip. Now the line is straight and ready to shoot. So basically, I'm doing one roll cast, one water haul then shooting the line. Picking the entire head up off the water and shooting it after the water haul is really easy.
The Airflo line has a black mark where the head connects to the running line. You can also feel a 'thump" as the end of the head exits the rod tip. Basically, I've got both a visual (black mark) and feel (thump) that tells me when I'm ready to shot the line. I like to have the head outside the rod tip, with a max of two feet or so. Shooting the line with some of the head not outside the rod tip decreases my distance.
With this line, I try to avoid making a bunch of false cast. The water haul works for me and my casting style.
I'm sure you'll get other opinions on how folks like to cast these lines.......
 
#117 ·
Stonefish speaks big medicine! iagreeiagreeiagree I, too, will strip in much of the head because I've had a lot of fish follow in the fly and take in close!

Absolutely great description, by someone who knows his stuff and catches lots of fish from the beach! You should see him effortlessly BIG casts! He is absolutely giddy about his new line, and after watching him cast, I don't blame him.
 
#114 ·
On my Outbound, the head is the sink tip -- 37.5 feet. Just bought a 40+ floater from Herl this weekend and tried it out for the first time last night. I think the head on that one is 35'. I do like the black thump thing. You don't get the tactile thump with the Outbound, but the head is a different color than the running line. Early results say I'm casting 5-10' farther with the Airflo than I am with the Rio, but I don't have a large enough statistical sample to make any categorical conclusions.

So the roll cast + water haul is to get the head out rather than to put a full load on the final backcast? I'll give that a try. I can generally do that with 2 false casts though, so we're back to preference and style.
 
#116 ·
I do the roll to a haul specifically to take stress off of my body.. Lifting a sink tip 5,6,7, or 8 feet out of the water takes quite a bit more effort than a roll cast. Then the second the sink tip slaps the water I go back into my haul so it is like casting a dry line up on the surface.
 
#118 ·
Since I'm self taught often many of my casts slap the water. I have become much better at not slapping when seeking spooky fish in quite water. I will catalog Jeremy's comment though. The next time I'm literally beating the water with my line and doing my water haul I'll tell everyone that Jeremy Floyd taught me that trick to "save my body". I ain't getting any younger, I should opt to save as much as I can. Thanks for the tip Jeremy.
 
#122 ·
I agree with Philster, there really isn't a right or wrong way to fish theses lines. Everyone has a different style or technique that works for them.
For me personally, I think I'd catch a lot less fish by not stripping in the last 30'. Doing so also helps me set up my roll cast. As the end of the head gets near the rod tip, I like to swing the fly hard and fast to my right and toward the beach. This fishes the fly all the way to the beach and puts the rod in great position for the roll cast.
 
#132 ·
That's what I do too. With my polarized glasses, I watch as I swing the fly past me toward the shore and try to notice any chasers. It seems to me a lot of strikes come near the bank as the fish realizes that it has to strike now, or lose the bait in the shallows. I strip in as little as possible, sometimes just a few feet into the rod tip, and swing the rest around toward the shore, then roll cast out so my line is ready for the water load and then shot back out.
 
#124 ·
Philster, you've mentioned the Belgian cast a few times. I'm going to seek it out. Being self taught I don't know names of casts and techniques that I often employ. I do have a method of casting in a more circular fashion that I find helps me in some different situations. If you have any suggested resources on this casting style, let me know. Thanks. (I will likely be getting some formal casting instruction too).
 
#126 ·
I think the best "name" teacher in the business is Joan Wulff. Check some of her stuff out. If I recall correctly she teaches it in a couple books and probably a video or two. This is again one of those Barnes and Nobel moments. 2 minutes looking at an illustration will give you all the info you need.
 
#133 ·
Oh man 'o man!! I obviously need to change my diet to something waaay more bland as I'm having great difficulty "digesting" all the "food-for-thought here!" I guess "overwhelmed" would suffice as an understatement!bawling:bawling:

I scares the hell out of me when I occasionally have those moments of extreme lucidity and can comprehend just how far I have yet to go with my fishing and especially, casting skills. :eek::eek:

After my last reported foray onto the grass at the park after which I was supremly confident of my "World Class Status in Fly Casting" (that's a joke by the way:rofl:) and put it to the final test on the water, butt deep with my stripping tub bobbing around in the waves, at the Narrows with a 5-10 mph breeze coming from my right (strong side)....

...I think I already reported this earlier so won't go into the sordid details all over again (deja'vue all over again.....:beer1:)

I will only say this.....I tried it again yesterday, Wednesday, and it was NO better AND with NO wind until 6 hours later -- no excuses, no rationalizations -- just plain-crappy-casting!:(:(:(

To say the least, I'm somewhat discouraged at the moment.....sighhhhh!bawling:

I even went trout fishing later in the day with my little 3 wt to assuage my hurt feelings and prove to myself that I could still cast something...caught 21 little guys in 1 1/2 hours on a Copper John beadhead - three on the first four casts out of the same run. Even after the tube hatch began in earnest and after an encounter with an underwater branch then an overhead branch in which persistence paid off - got my fly back - but in the process weakened the tippet and popped the nymph off about 2 cast later.

This ratio of success should have made me feel betterbut it didn't....so back to the grass tonight for more ego-pumping practice, ha!:hmmm:

JC:beathead::beathead::beathead:
 
#135 ·
Just relax on the beach. When I start really thinking hard about it and trying to focus on distance, and putting some extra muscle into it, that's when I tighten up and start screwing up. With more time and just relaxing, you'll start to better feel the rod loading and your timing and stroke should be easier to fine tune. That said, each time I hit the beach, I start out just fishing and relaxing, but at some point, when I'm tired of focusing on the fishing, I just start trying to bomb out some distance casts just to see how far I can get. That's when I hit myself in the head, or get a wind knot. But each time I get a little better, and then when I go back to relaxing and fishing, my casting is just a tiny bit improved.
 
#145 ·
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.

Why people are more or less totally fixated on AFTM ratings for shooting heads is a complete puzzle.
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.
 
#140 ·
Thanks Flyborg, I think that I had stumbled upon a similar practice on my own. This will allow me to refine what I have been doing for sure. Self taught casters sometimes figure out well established casting techniques...but maybe through a lot more trial and error. Anyway, thankg again!
 
#147 ·
I am not TRYING to say anything, I said what I meant. I was unaware that I needed an interpreter.

Any rod will cast a specific weight best. A shooting head of that specific weight will cast best of all, when the whole head is aerialised.

Total performance depends on the type and length of head, floating, intermediate, sinking, and the caster´s skill.

That is basically all there is to it. It makes no difference at all what any AFTM ratings say.

They only apply to lines anyway. Unfortunately quite a few manufacturers no longer adhere to them, making them even more useless than they already were.

Rod ratings are completely subjective, and there is no standard.

The AFTM ratings were only of use to those people trying to find a very rough match for their rods, before tuning the heads as required. This is best done by cutting down a suitable DT line.

May be of interest;

http://www.mike1.bplaced.net/Wikka/RodLoading

Also;

http://www.mike1.bplaced.net/Wikka/ShootHead

To find the optimum casting weight for any rod, mount a fixed spool reel, and start casting lead weights, incrementing the weight as you cast. The optimum casting weight is reached when you can cast a lead weight the farthest.

If you go too heavy the rod will be sluggish and you wont cast as far. If you go too light it wont cast as far either.

Once you have found the optimum weight, you can look at the AFTM table to find a line which will roughly match that weight in the length you require. The weight you have found by casting lead will be equivalent to casting a high density sinker.

If you wish to cast an intermediate or a floater, then you can go slightly heavier if you wish, as these do not load the rod as much. (Or move as fast in air). This also needs to be tested. Once you know the weights required for any given type of line, you can IMMEDIATELY match any line perfectly to that rod, for weight and length.

This will result in an optimum head for your purpose, without any guesswork, or a lot of nonsense with AFTM ratings or ready made shooting heads, which is extremely unlikely to match your rod anyway. The chances of it doing so are astronomically small.
http://www.mike1.bplaced.net/Wikka/RodLoading

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

JC:beathead::beathead:
 
#152 ·
Weights have no energy, merely mass, which = inertia. When moving, p = mv (linear momentum= mass X velocity).
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".
 
#154 ·
Whatever you say, You just keep on interpreting then.

Just as a matter of interest, do you know how much 30 feet of #12 line weighs?

How many ~grains per foot, or ~grams per meter?

How does the AFTM rating affect these measurements?

Have a nice day.
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.
 
#155 ·
Whatever you say. As I already noted, it makes no difference to me. I just hate to see people struggling with things that don´t make much sense.

Hard facts, actual measurements, and logic, always make sense.

Have a nice day.
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?
 
#157 ·
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.
 
#160 ·
I also get really sick and tired of hearing people say something like "You are using the equivalent of an AFTM #11 line on a #6 rod" or similar. This is total nonsense.
All because the system is at fault.
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.
 
#161 ·
If all rods simply had "grain windows", ( just the same as bait casting rods have weight ranges), then one could choose a rod to suit the line easily. This would still leave a lot of subjective leeway with stiff or soft, fast and slow actions etc, but it would clear up a great deal of confusion.
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.
 
#163 ·
an #11 weight line weighs at least 1140 grains.

30 feet of #11 line ( the front thirty feet of a DT, including taper but excluding level tip if present)

weighs 380 grains +/- 12

Oh, and my web site pages are not down, I simply blocked access to you and others.

Bye bye sunshine.
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.
 
#165 ·
Wrong again, you seem to be talking a load of old rubbish, which is why I will simply ignore you, and this forum in future.

No big deal. As I already told you several times, it makes no difference to me.
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...
 
#167 ·
You don´t know what you are talking about, you are quite unable to refute simple facts, and your only recourse is to use insults.

Bye bye sunshine.
What facts haven't I refuted? I called you a liar once in jest in regards to the statement that building your own lines is cheaper. It isn't, just as tying your own flies isn't the cheapest way to get your hands on flies. I have stated you miss the boat on many of your assertions. Like it or not the Fly rod world runs on AFTMA ratings. In order to say that lines don't comply with them you still have to acknowledge the bloody ratings! 11 wt rating isn't 1,100. That's a fact.

So who have you blocked from your site? Me, Richard, anyone else who disagrees? Who still has access? The folks who are still in the learning process? The folks who can't question your "facts". Deleting your prior posts isn't "walking away from an argument with a pig". It's trying to salvage your rep. Too late. As I said, you can't delete what others quoted from your posts. Your brightest gems persist. As do mine. I'm not ashamed of mine. Pity you can't say the same.
 
#170 ·
What I do with my site is entirely my business. I am not ashamed of anything at all, I merely decided to delete my posts as a matter of principle.

I don´t need to salvage anything, it seems you do, or you would simply have ceased posting this nonsense. Nor do I need anybody to agree with me about anything at all. It would seem you do, and your preferred method when they do not is to insult people and "shout them down" as it were.

Are you going to continue posting rubbish and insults? To what end? Or is that your main "teaching method"?

Go away and learn some manners you silly man.
You've seen my teaching method. I've seen yours. All I know is I posted the following "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." And what do you do? delete your posts and block your site:rofl: If you were interested in "teaching" you would have left your posts because "the truth will out" and it would have been a testament for all time to the superiority of your knowledge to that of us mere mortals. Action speaks louder than words.:cool:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top