Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello, I am a French fisherman and I wanted to know the opinion of fishing across the Atlantic on 2 subjects.

FIRST
In France when we buy a American rod (Sage, Loomis, WINSTON ...), the number of fly lines (Airflo, Mastery...) which is indicated on the rod corresponds to a WF.
Is this your opinion?
A French seller told me that the number corresponds to a DT and when two number are indicated (9 '# 4-5), the fisrt is to DT4 and the second is to WF5?:hmmm:


SECOND
I bought a LOOP AEG fly rod 9 '# 5, and a French seller told me fishing with a WF6 fly line as the numbers on the LOOP rod are not identical to other rod. Do you have a LOOP rod and which fly line you use?

Thank a lot for your help :thumb:
 

·
Retired Mod
Joined
·
11,079 Posts
Well, years ago they used to have different ratings on the rods depending on the line you were going to use. I have a few old glass fenwicks that have a list of lines you'd load depending on what you fish or type of line you plan to use. I do believe the rods nowadays give a range depending on the line you're using (no two WF flylines are the same). So it's a rough range. I have a 7-8wt that if I'm using a heavy sinktip, I can run down to a WF7S, but with a floater I'm using a WF8F. I don't design or run all the tech on these rods, so someone in the know may be able to elaborate. I just know that on my casting style and lines I prefer, dictates which line I put on.
 

·
card shark
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
The rating has nothing to do with the taper of the line as either WF (weight forward) or DT (double taper).

Rather, it is the weight of the first 30 ft of the fly line in grains. To help with standardization of measurements, the American Fishing & Tackle Manufacturers Association developed the below table. Thus a "five" weight rod is designed to handle a fly line of 140 grains, or a weight in the range of 134-146 grains, in the first 30 ft of line. If the rod is a "fast" rod it may actually be closer to a 6wt rod in terms of what weight of fly line it best handles, and some folks like to use a heavier line for that type of rod as it loads the rod better. Likewise, a softer/slower rod may cause you to want to drop down to the low end of the 5 wt or high end of the 4 wt line range.

Much of it depends on personal preference as to your casting style, and what distance you normally cast to fish. You should try a range of lines to match your rod, casting style and type of fishing you do. Some fishermen routinely go up a weight as it makes feeling the loading of the rod a bit easier, especially at close distances, which helps with the timing on your casting. I have no personal experience with the LOOP AEG fly rod and have no opinion on what line best matches that rod.

AFTMA Fly line weight ratings (grains)

Weight Grains Tolerable Range
1 60 54-66
2 80 74-86
3 100 94-106
4 120 114-126
5 140 134-146
6 160 152-168
7 185 177-193
8 210 202-218
9 240 230-250
10 280 270-290
11 330 318-342
12 380 368-392
Grains are weighed over front 30 feet of line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Aron78'

We need to thank Jim for weighing (no pun intended) in on this with his comments about line weights and casting styles and the particular needs of individual fishermen. We need to thank him too for posting the AFTMA specifications. Interesting, Arno, that you use the word history in your original question. Without those historical guidelines it would be impossible to discuss the issue at all, unless you consulted the previous line designations. I am looking at an old fiberglass rod that is stamped with line specifications as follows: model 9100 8'6".
D, L5F, HDH, DT6F, HCF, WF7F. The standards that Jim posted above were created to relieve us of that gobbledegook. and make it possible to go to the store and buy a line that would work with the rod we bought at that store. That is because the rod manufactures agree to make rods that would do so. An 8wt. rod would reasonably cast an 8wt. line. (Notice that the numbers quoted above include DT6F and WF7F, and older rod would not even give us that much.)

I think the Loop company came into existence in the early eighties though I am not sure. I own an Orvis 8'6" 8wt. (Shooting Star) rod that was built around 1980. That rod casts an 8wt. line to my liking. I believe there are few people here who would say the own an 8wt. rod built in the last few years that casts an 8wt. line to their liking. For instance, The likely best selling line in Western Washington today is the Rio Outbound. That line in 8wt. weighs 330 grains. but that is not all, the head length is 37 ft. instead of the normal or AFTMA specified 30 ft. Now Rio makes an Outbound Short 8wt. that is actually 30 ft. long and it weighs a mere 315 grains, only 105 grains, or exactly fifty percent more than the AFTMA specification for 8wt. lines. No wonder a fellow asked a few months back (knowing that the new rods generally handle heavier lines than their designated weight) if he should go two weights higher when he buys the Rio Outbound. If he did buy the Rio Outbound, say in a ten weight for an eight wt. rod the head would weigh 380 grains. To watch him cast that weight, along with the extra seven feet of line he would airialize would provide me entertainment to last a lifetime.

My sense is that rod and line manufacturers slowly made improvements to their products to match the needs of individual preference and and specific conditions. Rods got stiffer, or faster, or softer, lines got heavier, longer, shorter, etc. For instance, It looks to me that today only Rio manufactures an eleven weight AFTMA specified 30 ft. long shooting head that weighs the specified 330 grains. This I know because I need one, to load to my liking, my new 10 ft. 8 wt. Loomis rod. Unless, that is I wanted the Outbound, but that would be 37 instead of 30 feet long; unless I went for the Outbound Short, but that would weigh 315 grains instead of the 330 grains that I want. I can hear it now "You couldn't tell fifteen grains difference if hell froze over". That is right, but I am pretty well attuned to a hundred grains difference. Here is where I should say that I really like my Rio Lines, and I absolutely love my new Loomis rod.

I would like to hear from others on this thread about how closely they are able to match their rods to AFTMA standard lines and vice verca.

Anyway, your original question was as good as questions get on our forum and especially so because you used the word history. My knowledge of these things is limited to personal experience and that experience is limited to eight weight rods. I want to hear of others experience and I particularly would like to hear more about the real history of these things.

Steve
 

·
NEVER wonder what to do with your free time
Joined
·
984 Posts
Possible threadjack here, but I think it does pertain to the discussion, or at least the direction it's now going. Last year I listened to a podcast interview with the chief line designer for Scientific Anglers. Without going into the whole thing, his answer to the question of "will there be and end to rods becoming stiffer and stiffer" was enlightening. He says that very fast, stiff rods are designed by the manufacturer to perform with the rated line weight (AFTMA standard). The manufacturers don't make these rods with the intention of over-lining the rod to make it cast easier, or make it cast to closer distances. He went so far as to say that doing so might degrade the rod's action, meaning it wouldn't "feel" right. Fast, stiff rods are made for specific kinds of fishing; long distances, bigger flies and dealing with wind. And there was a statement that these rods require really good casting skills to make them perform correctly. His answer to the whole thing was to buy the rod that best suits your fishing. If you're using a GLX/TCR/Helios/whatever to fish a small river you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not calling this opinion right or wrong, but it does make a lot of sense to me. I now think about my rod purchases in a different way. I have a 10' GLX that I over-line so I can use it more, but now I wouldn't buy that particular rod for the type of fishing I do with it. And I'll always search around for a line that I like best on a particular rod; if that ends up being a line weight or two heavier that's okay with me. And I'm sure that I feel like a lot of people concerning rods- I paid a lot of money for that "whatever", and I'm gonna fish it wherever! If I have to hobble it with a heavy line, so be it.
 

·
card shark
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
An Interesting thought from the SA guy, Chad. It seems to me that any discussion of fly lines needs to separate out "specialty lines" from those lines designed to fit the AFTMA ratings chart, in order to compare apples to apples.

While the rods may be designed to cast it's AFTMA weighted line, the fly line manufacturers, like RIO Outbound and Airflo 40 (2 companies that I think are on the cutting edge), are designing lines with the intent to over-line a rod, but I think these have to be considered “specialty” lines. The result, on a medium-fast to fast rod, is not a down grading of performance, but maximizing performance for distance casting. Perfect for beach or boat fishing. Not perfect for smaller river fishing.

I think as your casting skills increase, the use of specialty lines fills performance gaps, and matching the line to the rod, intended use and casting style becomes more important. On the average skill level and for use on trout streams or lakes, which includes about 80% + of uses I would guess, using a line within the AFTMA chart to match to your rod is really all you need.

Arno, the LOOP AEG is advertised as a fast rod, and going to a line in the AFTMA 6 wgt range will likely make casting more pleasurable. Send an email to the manufacturer and ask their opinion, giving them your most often intended use. If it were me, looking for a trout line, I would try out a number of fly lines on that rod at a local shop before buying, starting out with a WF6F wt RIO Gold line and also compare it to a 5 wgt line to see how it feels to you. It is hard to go wrong with a RIO line. The 6 wgt line will load the rod easier, especially for casting 30-40 ft, and give you some extra ability to cut through the wind, and better turn over of large flies or streamers. If I was concerned with presentation of smaller trout dry flies, say size 16-18, I would also consider a double taper for better presentation.
 

·
Retired Mod
Joined
·
11,079 Posts
Salt dog, I wonder how they did the AFTMA ratings in the 60's. I know on my old fenwicks, most are all the same rating, except for a few lines listed (they have DT, WF, bass taper, etc all on the rod). Some vary up and down on the 9wt to 8wt scale depending on the line. Now, if I could dig out one of those rods out of what I call my shop I could figure out where it switches weights. LOL. Haven't finished my mancave yet, so have nowhere to put my fishing stuff for now. LOL
 

·
card shark
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
Donno Jerry....I'd like to think it was before my time, but obviously beyond my range of curiosity until now. I too have have gone through collections of rods handed down to friends from deceased relatives with a range of designations and descriptive words instead of a set line weight. Need one of the heavy weight members in vintage rods to post up and clear the record on this.
 

·
Retired Mod
Joined
·
11,079 Posts
Would be interesting to find out. I know on the 9wt glass fenwick I have, it does have the AFTMA 8-9 wt on the blank. But then a long list of weight ratings depending on the taper you were using.
 

·
card shark
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
Here is part of the answer:

The adoption and wide use of synthetic coatings solved many of the fly line performance problems of the day - but the movement also created a new problem. Since the early fly lines were first created - probably in England - they were identified by sizes expressed with letter designations that related to diameter. An "H" line measured .025" in diameter; a "G" was .030"; a "D" was .045"; a "C" was .050", etc. Thus, an "HDH" double tapered line for trout fishing was made to taper from a tip diameter of .025" (H) to a body diameter of .045" (D) then back down to .025" (H) again to complete the line. A "GBF" was a three diameter weight-forward taper design measuring .030" to .055" to .035" for the running line. The letter designations served the purpose very well - as long as all line manufacturers produced lines with braided silk with an oil impregnated finish coating. The weight factors were much the same - and an HDH silk line made by one manufacturer would weigh very close to that of an HDH produced by another maker using the same process.

For more info... http://flyanglersonline.com/features/readerscast/rc150.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Hello, thanks for yours answers. I put the question to a french retailer of Loop. He say me to buy a Loop Fly lines
Hello, I asked a French dealer. He told me to buy the silk loop that are made for walking sticks loop. I think it's more mainstream.
--------------------------
Here are my questions and his answers (google translation, sorry):
ARNO: Hello, I wanted to know what could advise me seen as fly lines to LOOP AEG 9'#5. (which lines for rod)

FRANCE LOOP: For Lopp rods, like almost all rods, fly line Loop WF5. In other brands, WF6, because the number on the rods corresponds to that of a DT. To my knowledge, there are only Loop that make fly line that match the number on the rod. For others, it must be converted to cane and 9'# 5, should read DT5 or WF6, which is in fact the old way of numbering the canes, 9' # 5-6. It is true that as the line DT have almost disappeared from the market, it is disturbing to number rods with the smallest number, or does not change the number of WF.

ARNO: Hi, I have taken note. By cons it seemed that most rod giving a number of lines was a profile for WF and not DT as highlighted in your response below?

LOOP FRANCE: Yes, I know is what many people think, it may even be what some manufacturers claim, but this is not true.

That may be why we always find in France, as many fishermen tied their DT: their weight is better for their rod. If they tried a WF a number above, it surely change their life.

Now, we must also say that some have used their rod to undercharged with WF too lightly: they find that it poses a better, more gently. It is a lack of technique. If they do not ask, they would just extend their bottom line, that would solve the problem.

Anyway, one who loves a DT5 and would not move to the WF6, or Loop WF5 whose weight is more or less than a WF6, there is a better solution: Loop Opti Stillwater WF5. Indeed, if the silk has the same weight as other line Loop WF5, this weight is distributed over a greater length. It actually behaves like a DT5 to 10.40 m. But beyond that distance, we recover the advantage of slips by WF, especially as his running line is thinner than most ordinary WF. It is a line combines the delicacy of the questions to the facility run away when necessary. Designed to run far in the tank, a bristle is actually very quiet for fishing dry river.

--------------------------------------------------

So I put me a lost of question !!!!!! I think that a US rod is give for a WF ?

BYE BYE
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
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