PLEASE NOTE: In order to post on the Board you need to have registered. To register please email paul@sexyloops.com including your real name and username. Registration takes less than 24hrs, unless Paul is fishing deep in the jungle!
You’d need a scanner as many lines are not round (especially thick ones)
Sakari,
How much does the diameter vary along different axes for thick lines? Are the cross-section areas you get for the min and max diameter values much different?
I would expect that the pressure you might apply with a mechanical micrometer would also have a big effect as mentioned in the Trident article.
Makes me wonder how manufacturers measure the diameter profile of their lines. " Low Cost" is probably a dream.
gordonjudd wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pmThat would be fantastic if you could get Bruce to give an overview of how he came up with the tapers for different lines. I think he is the only one in this discussion who could explain what you could expect when you reverse the taper in a long belly of a fly line.
Heads.png (25.45 KiB) Viewed 2989 times
Here's a selection of head images from the line makers featuring distance profiles or spey profiles. I've removed the information about which end is attached to a fly. One of them is also 20' shorter than the other three: that information would tell us that it's not a distance line. I own or have owned three of these lines and they all do exactly as stated on the box.
I'd have trouble telling them apart from the images alone and apparently the Swedish team didn't care too much either.
I am surprised that you could reverse the taper and get better results, but then I have no feel for how the taper works. I will be interested to get some input from Graeme on that subject.
One of those lines in the picture is a fantastic distance line and really good for teaching loop propagation because it unrolls so slowly. It's a great fishing line too. Trouble is, it's not a taper design that people would choose to use for most fishing because it cuts against the grain of conventional wisdom. To fish it properly, I need to use flies that are not as large as I'd throw on a conventional line of the same weight rating. I expect the Swedish team had success with the reversed MED heads for the same reason I have success with this line: While the turnover is not delayed, it is certainly enhanced with a very long front taper. It doesn't take much energy to keep the loop propagating, so I can spend a bit getting the head flying, knowing that there will always be heavy line turning over lighter line at the end of the cast.
It's much easier to get a feel for how tapers work by casting the line than by modelling it. However, once someone knows the feel of a given design, it's easy for them to predict how lines with similar designs will feel. That is going to be the value of this database.
Thanks for the links but the subject seems incomplete and there are too long explanations for a practical use by laymen. Information must be concentrated in a single database. I would prefer illustrations like the ones Graeme posted above, with a short comment to give the pro and cons of those tapers, that would help fishermen by getting benefit from the experience of skilled casters.
Checking the AFFTA classification is a minimum, but the database should give indications about the head. The length might be given by the maker but nowhere can one find the corresponding weight. I'm not a specialist and have little training with the large choice of available line tapers, this is where experimented people can give basic information: how would one chose the head of one's line for a specific purpose? The length? The weight? Both?
I agree with Graeme on the point that asking for a lot of technical information will put the database to death. Information must be synthetic and lean. Just like for rods, calculating or measuring many parameters is useless, it can only be understood by a few. Today in France some people use the CCS to detail rods with numbers that very few people can interpret in practical means. Even the authors do not know the technical reason for deriving most of these numbers.This is something which has be avoided and given the extremely large difficulty to model a line flight, experience must take the lead. Even if some of us are interested with technical intricacies, most are of little use for fishermen. We have a line standard and it does not tell all, and we have no rod standard, and there are good reasons why. Up until know, and despite its popularity, CCS has never been accepted as a standard. Can we find something better? I think so but the issue would remain the same: impossible to be recognized by manufacturers, and I think I know the technical reasons why. So let's try to be practical in the fly line domain.
Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they won't play if they're maltreated
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Line Number, Make, Model, AFFTA weight, Head length, Head weight, Total length, Total weight, Diameter running line, Diameter tip
Seeing Gordy's post I now don't think running line diameter can be measured easily since it appears that it is not level, but I do think that it needs measuring somehow. My reasoning for total weight and total length is one way of testing consistency between lines that should be the same. Even lines from the leading manufacturers are not always consistent in these regards. Obviously there is some manufacturing variation. When I measured two widely different lines of the same model (using total weight measurement) I found that the length was the same, but the running line was considerably thicker on one. But there is also regular discrepancy in total line lengths.
What I'm saying is that one line measurement will not be enough of each line model and that total line weights might be one way of identifying rogue lines.
Head profile shapes and line colours can be (usually) found on the manufacturer's website and I would think that a link to that page would suffice. I agree that experienced comments on the uses of such lines would be good information. Perhaps a link to a discussion in the tackle section on the Board?
The biggest single problem that I see currently is that lines are 1/2, 1 or even significantly more AFFTA line weights heavier than advertised. This makes it very hard to match lines to rods and adds an additional complication. The only way around this is to know the true AFFTA weights. When the line is being used as a Head then you need to know the true Head Weight. Not only is it hard to find this information on manufacturers' websites, I think having all the information together will be of great assistance.
SA also see this as being a problem within the industry. They will help. As indeed I'm sure will others.
I would prefer illustrations like the ones Graeme posted above, with a short comment to give the pro and cons of those tapers,
Merlin,
I agree and in essence that is what I am asking.
What are the pros and cons of having a long belly line that is thin at the front and thick at the back such as the Triangle Taper vs ones with a negative taper like the Rio Gold.
I hope that Bruce can give a succinct explanation.
Are you seriously saying you don't know the answer and want one of us to provide it? Okay, but you disappoint me. I thought you knew more.
The Wulff TT is not a long belly line. The head is about 40', most of which is taper. The belly is the thick, nearly-level portion towards the rear of the head and it's quite short. This is a short belly line with a long front taper.
A long front taper is good for delivering light flies delicately and making casts in the "roll cast family". Having the bulk of the mass near the rod tip during these roll casts helps bend the rod easily because the mass sits in the D loop near the tip. Any forward movement of the rod gets the rod bending early and helps produce a good SLP. The taper then allows an efficient transfer of energy from heavy to light line throughout the loop propagation, greatly aiding the turnover of the loop. That taper also means the anchor has less mass than you'd find in a "conventional" line, and since the ratio of the mass of line in the D vs the anchor is important, these lines excel in this field.
The long belly lines with a "negative taper" like Rio Gold IT are much harder to roll cast because there is less mass in the D loop than there is in the anchor. However, they are pretty good for long overhead casts. In my opinion, the main reason for that bulb of mass near the front taper though is revealed in their marketing blurb: "These lines are designed to load modern rods quickly." By having a heavy section near the front of the line, casters feel like they don't need to carry a lot of line to "make the rod load" and they get the sensation of feeling the rod bend without being able to carry lots of line. (Rio and others also accentuate this by making these lines half to a full line weight heavier, because their customers like that and buy more of them.)
That heavy bulb does help carry heavier flies than they would otherwise do. And whilst Bruce has stated that the reason it's there is to "delay rotation of the loop", I have noted that sometimes on my longest casts, my loop can't get past that hump efficiently. A DT line without that hump doesn't suffer the same fate and the loop reaches the leader more easily when the energy of the cast is nearly exhausted. (A better caster than I would not have the same problems, I'm sure.)
So what happens when a long belly line also has a very long front taper? One example of such a line is the Snowbee Rollcast ED line, with a 60' head including a 40' front taper. (There are literally dozens of examples in the 2 handed Spey world too.) These lines cast a very long way and the loop easily reaches the end of the line: it's almost impossible to prevent it! The problem with this line is that it does not deliver a large fly to the target efficiently, so I really need to make sure I fish within the limits of the line. The first 30' is within AFTMA spec on the 6wt line, and since I'm still in taper at that point, the full head really bogs down the HT6 on a distance cast. It feels heavy (of course) but 120' casts are a breeze. It's built for spey and roll casting though, and this is where the line really sings. An 85' dynamic roll cast is a piece of cake.
I find the Rio SH Spey lines to be a pretty good compromise for fishing. Typically from Rio, they are a bit heavier than the standard, but the line is a brilliant fishing line. It obviously roll casts very well, but it can deliver a weighty fly if required or a light fly delicately. The caster can choose how that's done with loop control. The head is a miserly 34', which disappoints me. Maybe they'll make a line with a longer head for us one day.
To summarise: A long belly promotes long carry and long casts. A long front taper promotes easy turnover of the loop, which is perfect for roll casting and delicate presentation.
I still haven't read that Trident article. I hope what I've written above has demystified the differences between the two line profiles for you.
Can you please now answer the question of how you use line velocity profiles when you're fishing or teaching?
Yeah it would!! I think that there is some different dynamics going on with head vs long belly lines. It’s not only a reversed MED that flies further as a head but it’s something I’ve heard in a few other places too. That was just the first time I heard about it.
It would be interesting to chop up something a bit more extreme like a TT and turn that into a reversible Head.
