[Ab fisher]

ok so i have never used a double taper line, its alwasy been seight forward. It seems like most people dont use the double tapered line but i have know a few that only use double tapers. so i was wondering if there was any advantages to a double taper line over a weigth forward line.

 

[Jeff Coria]

I'm guessing you are thinking for your 3wt rod. My TXL I have used the weight forward line and I just bought a the Sage Quiet double to see what the big fuss was about. (Sage recommends it) I'd say if you are fishing small streams go with the DT its lighter in the tip and has a more gentle presentation, another advantage to the DT weight is in the middle of the line and you can use both sides of the line if one side wears out. The weight forward helps get a lot more distance over the DT, great for ponds when you need to get out and touch something. Helps load the rod great also. If you are going to pick one line only I would suggest going with the WF its versatile. Thats my two cents take it or leave it. I like the SA GPX wf-3-f. Its a great line. The loop to loop is fast and lazy, but the welded loop does tend to sing about and inch into the water instead of floating entirely on top.
Good luck!

 

[Guest]

Depends on what, where, and how you are fishing. If distance is a priority, WF is the best (or similar). On small rivers I like DT or level lines. They roll cast and mend easier. However, level lines aren't in stock that often or at all for that matter.

 

[Mumbles]

WF=Way Far
DT=Delicate Touch

 

[roh]

The comments about distance are completely accurate, but delicacy depends on the taper of the line. There are weight forwards that have very delicate tapers suitable for spring creeks and similar tough waters. There is one area where a double taper really beats a weight forward, and that is in mending. Because you start the mend in the heavy middle section, you get excellent transfer of the energy all the way down the line. With a weight forward, the light running line portion cannot carry enough energy to easily mend the heavier front end. That said, you can mend with any line, it's matter of how much effort you want to put in. I do a lot of river nymphing, where mending is a fact of life, and I much prefer a double taper as my basic line. Try one out, you may like it, and if not find some old fud like me who'll take it off your hands.

 

[bitterroot]

Depending on the lines manufacturer, of course, they are identical out to about 45 feet. So unless you are fishing beyond that distance it doesn't matter a lick in either shootability, delicacy, mending, etc. A double taper will allow for less backing on your reel but when one end gets ratty you can flip it over and use the other end.

 

[Steve Saville]

It also depends on the direction of the mend. Most often we mend upstream but if you pick up only a portion of the line and the allow it to mend downstream, without disturbing the tip and fly, it can be very advantageous as in drifting foe steelhead.

 

[Richard E]

The comments about distance are completely accurate, but delicacy depends on the taper of the line. There are weight forwards that have very delicate tapers suitable for spring creeks and similar tough waters. There is one area where a double taper really beats a weight forward, and that is in mending. Because you start the mend in the heavy middle section, you get excellent transfer of the energy all the way down the line. With a weight forward, the light running line portion cannot carry enough energy to easily mend the heavier front end. That said, you can mend with any line, it's matter of how much effort you want to put in. I do a lot of river nymphing, where mending is a fact of life, and I much prefer a double taper as my basic line. Try one out, you may like it, and if not find some old fud like me who'll take it off your hands.[/QUOTE

Some good stuff here.

To add to the discussion, long belly weight forward lines (like, say, a steelhead taper line)and DT lines will mend identically. Because the front tip, front taper, and the belly portion back to the beginning of the rear taper (different lengths usually depending on the line weight, unless a person can roll cast fairly deep in to the line, say past 35', then roll casting and the presentation of one line vs the other is the same.

I find that usually the quality of the presentation is more a function of the caster and not necessarily the line.

 

[bitterroot]

I just looked at my Rio Trout LT line, WF vs DT.

From the tip of the line to where the rear taper starts on the WF it is 42'. The tapers and steps of the WF and the DT up to that 42' point is nearly IDENTICAL. There are a couple of slight differences ( 6" at one taper and 1'6" at another).
Now factor in a 9' rod + 9' leader + 2' of tippet = 20'. 42' + 20' = 62'.
This means that I can fish a fly 62' from my rod tip with either the WF or DT and the lines will be the same in EVERY respect.

Don't get caught up in WF vs DT unless you are fishing your fly further out than that distance. At less than 62' the WF will mend, shoot and be as delicate as the DT, and visa versa.

 

[tkww]

I just looked at my Scientific Anglers Trout LT line, WF vs DT.

From the tip of the line to where the rear taper starts on the WF it is 42'. The tapers and steps of each line up to that 42' point is nearly IDENTICAL. There are a couple of slight differences ( 6" at one taper and 1'6" at another).
Now factor in a 9' rod + 9' leader + 2' of tippet = 20'. 42' + 20' = 62'.
This means that I can fish a fly 62' from my rod tip with either a WF or DT and the lines will be the same in EVERY respect.

I don't think this applies to all manufacturers across all lines. For example, the SA LT series may be the same in the front, but the diagrams on Rio's site show some pretty distinct differences between between say a Rio Gold WF and their Trout LT DT. Very, very distinct differences. There are even some subtle differences between their WF and DT lines inside the same Trout LT series.

I had a TFO 4 wt that simply wouldn't load a DT line until I had maybe 35 or 40 feet of it out there. It was almost painful. Add a 9' leader and it was more total line than almost any stream fishing I do. It worked fine on lakes, even great. But eventually I had to change things up because I fish a lot more moving water than still, and working great for 20% of the time not-so-great for 80% didn't make sense.

None of my other rods are half that picky. I do notice subtle differences with different lines and rod actions (in the same rod wt), but generally speaking I would agree that it's not _that_ big a deal. I think the WF is a more versatile style, but I am fond of DTs in the lighter rod weights and/or slower rods.

 

[bitterroot]

Yes, you do need to compare apples to apples. There are differences between a Rio Gold WF and a Rio Selective Trout WF. They are two different lines with different tapers and characteristics that make one preferable over another for whatever reason. BUT, when you compare WF to DT in the SAME line you will find that most tapers are either IDENTICAL or VERY CLOSE. I would argue that the sometimes subtle differences would not even be noticable to the fisherman. For instance, with 62' of line out (or 20' for that matter) could you tell that one taper started 6" sooner than another? I doubt it.

 

[tkww]

I would argue that the sometimes subtle differences would not even be noticable to the fisherman. For instance, with 62' of line out (or 20' for that matter) could you tell that one taper started 6" sooner than another? I doubt it.

Indeed. I just wanted to point out that WF and DTs are not necessarily the same for 60 feet. But I would agree that where they are similar, most people won't be able to tell.

 

[Kyle Smith]

I've found that while it's easier to shoot a lot of line with weight forward, it's easier to keep a lot of line in the air with a double taper. And longer mends are much easier with a DT, it really does make a difference when I'm indicator nymphing.

 

[Stewart]

Two lines for the price of one. That's my cheapskate thinking. The cynical side of me thinks that is why it's hard to find a DT line in a fly shop, and also the reason the manufacturers put all of their advertising dollars into WF lines. They get to sell twice as many.

The remaining differences are negligible to me.

 

[David Loy]

Not having read all of the posts, I'll wade in anyway. Lakes = WF (maybe). Streams = DT (maybe).
I use WFs probably more than DTs but as a casting tool alone, I prefer a DT. I think you can throw almost as much line with one, if it's clean anyway. A WF often seems like a crying child to me - "Throw me farther, farther, farther." To the point that you can't control (mend) the line. Not so bad on a still water. Needs attention on moving water. With a modicum of skill you can throw a DT 60 feet. You only need 45. I find a DT a more civilized, user friendly tool. Easy to throw, predictable, easy to mend on the water (or in air). You can pick up any length of line (except the whole enchilada) and lay it back out again. A plus for some is that it's reversible.

 

[Brookie_Hunter]

Two lines for the price of one. That's my cheapskate thinking. The cynical side of me thinks that is why it's hard to find a DT line in a fly shop, and also the reason the manufacturers put all of their advertising dollars into WF lines. They get to sell twice as many.

The remaining differences are negligible to me.

iagree I'm high on frugality too. I fish small streams a lot and regularly beat my lines on rocks and other debris. If one just fishes stillwater and larger rivers, their lines may excape this abuse. But if a rod casts a DT line similar to a WF line, why wouldn't one get the DT particularly for what fly lines cost these days? I've also noticed that DT lines are a much rarer specie in most fly shops and in some cases, they're non-existant.

 

[Canedawg]

My simple rule is this:
DT, I use for Dry Flies. It gives you a softer landing for drys in my IMHO.
WF, I use for nymphs. WF lines turn over strike indicators and weight better.