Fly Line Database

[Paul Arden]

I would love to spend a week or two playing with line design. Just imagine taking the MED and playing with the head. Making it slightly longer and then playing with the taper. You would learn a massive amount too. I can only imagine that Bruce has done this and did for decades but he doesn’t 170.

The MED really impresses me as a line. I had a few variations that Bruce sent me many years ago. There were a couple in there were amazing. There was one on ten pounds monocore that was 150 feet long and I could cast it all (Rick did too). I had a yellow one that dazzled me but I don’t know how it was different (sorry!).

When RIO were developing their Comp Gold they had 8 prototypes. Ultimately they went with number 6, pretty much on the strength that Menno in the Netherlands loved it. However 7 and 8, particularly 7, were awesome 170 lines. We threw them in a Shootout in Sweden. The prototype 6 was more suited to a compact stroke with less carry. That’s what they released. The others threw further in our shootouts.

Casting the TT for comp distance is very challenging. It’s not a stable line with overhang - it can be carried to the backing knot but this is not the best way to chuck it. Carrying just beyond the head isn’t either and you have to carry somewhere in-between. The problem with the light long front taper is that it runs out of steam.

I’ve been fishing a prototype Infinity Salt from SA for the past 6 months. That’s very much “front loaded” and the long rear taper starts close to the front of the line. This is a very interesting line and great for Snakehead Shots. At first I had a problem with the line “running away from me” but after a bit of practise I’ve dialled into this. It’s very unusual for me to like shorter heads this is actually a very nice line indeed. With this front loaded head (I don’t know what else to call it) I always get very positive turnover. I don’t see it being delayed, but I have nothing to compare it to.

Cheers, Paul

[Paul Arden]

It’s possible - I don’t know - that a line with more mass just behind the front taper continues to shoot better after the loop has unrolled. Certainly there is significant shooting after the loop unrolls with the MED. This applies to all lines, whether the MED is more stable in flight at this point I don’t know, but I can certainly imagine it.

Maybe if we would like to discuss the MED I can invite Bruce. He’s retired now so I know he has nothing to do.

Cheers, Paul

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

As to standardizing "scales"...

BTW... while "scales" are the common term, lab nerds have a fit when that term is used. "Fish have scales, labs have balances". Rulers have scales too... actually anything with marked divisions has "scales"... blah, blah...

Anyway... without getting too technical, there is calibrating and then there is verifying. Calibrating infers adjusting the instrument, where verifying just means that... determining if it is (still) accurate or accurate enough.

I'm guessing that most of the commonly available scales are not capable of being calibrated, or adjusted. Even if they are, the process can be complicated and usually requires some expertise. But, you can verify that they are somewhat accurate by weighing known objects (like coins, but they have unknown bias) on them, then noting how close they are to the "known" weight. If the scales report a weight different from, but close to, the known, then the scales have a bias... but that can be documented and is therefor still useful.

I have available many sets of obsoleted weights once used to verify lab balances. They come in different gram weights: from 0,02 g up to 100.00 g.

I'm guessing we could come to an agreement on a set of weights, like those close to say 5,8, and 10wt flyline specs. Then we could send them around to the participants, and they could check their scales against them. Grossly inaccurate scales could then be eliminated. Scales sort of accurate could have their bias recorded. And we could go on from there.

I would be willing to weigh the old but still useful verification weights on a lab balance to get their "known" weight. (If they are outside of 0.001 g they are not acceptable in a lab setting, but still plenty good enough for us). And then I could ship them to someone. If they were then used to verify that persons scales, then shipped to the next participant, the only cost incurred by anyone would be a one time shipping cost.

Let me know...

[Paul Arden]

OK balances... thanks Gary

When I was visiting Graeme in Perth, we bought a couple of electronic digital balances It is actually possible to calibrate these. Later, while in Tasmania, Flavio the Physicist tried to calibrate them (not verify), however after he calibrated for a known light mass, when verified using a heavier mass they exhibited bias. And then, calibrated for the heavier mass, they exhibited bias for the lighter mass. How's that for correct terminology?

Now I just have to find the damned thing. I'm certainly up for the verifying/calibrating plan!

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

I would like to know what the effect of the slope of the taper section of a line has on the velocity vs distance profile as the loop propagates.

Will a front loaded (and hence a negative slope in its taper) line such as the Rio gold have a lower velocity profile so its roll out is delayed as Paul implied? Does that mean a line using a positive slope taper such as the Wolf Triangular taper will produce a faster velocity and faster turn over?

As Lasse has said, it's about their use for casting and presenting flies, not about velocity profiles. I'd be choosing one of those for roll spey casting and the other for casting distance. What would you do with the velocity profiles Gordy?

I would not need the detail you've collected make a decision about the lines. I can get line profiles from the maker, since they nearly always provide those diagrams. I want to know which line best matches the rod I own before I spend my money on the line. The makers don't always tell me something as simple as the mass of the first 30', and that is some fairly important information to me.

You can push for copious amounts of detail to be collected for each line, but if it discourages contributions, the database will be dead before it gets off the ground. There's a compromise between too much and too little detail. We need to find it.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Merlin]

May I make a suggestion?

I think CIs / MCIs could give indications about the best use of typical profiles like WF, WF long belly (existed before the MED appeared), DT, TT, etc. That means a general agreement in between themselves

The useful set of measurements could be: the AFFTA weight to qualify the line by reference to the standard, the head weight and head length. That could be more useful in terms of line use. That should be enough.

Merlin

[gordonjudd]

Making it slightly longer and then playing with the taper. You would learn a massive amount too. I can only imagine that Bruce has done this and did for decades but he doesn’t 170.
and
Maybe if we would like to discuss the MED I can invite Bruce. He’s retired now so I know he has nothing to do.

Paul,
That 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.

I suspect that like coming up with rod tapers it is based on seat of the pants experience and involves a considerable amount of experimentation as you mentioned for the SA and Rio projects for coming up with a distance line.

I was surprised that the volume density of the MED 5 floating line was close to that of water but that makes sense if you want to reduce the diameter of the line and yet get the same linear mass density profile of a lighter line.

The useful set of measurements could be: the AFFTA weight to qualify the line by reference to the standard,

Merlin,
Why limit the measurement of the mass to the first 30 feet? I would like to see the mass value at 5 meter intervals over a wider range of lengths that would cover the distance to the running line.

Gordy

[gordonjudd]

I think CIs / MCIs could give indications about the best use of typical profiles like WF, WF long belly (existed before the MED appeared), DT, TT, etc. That means a general agreement in between themselves

Merlin,
I think that kind of generic information is easily found on the web.

The Limp Corbra site https://thelimpcobra.com/2013/03/07/fly ... r-designs/ gives a good oversight with articles written by Bruce Richards.

Here is his comparison of https://thelimpcobra.com/2013/02/28/dou ... ly-better/ WF and DT lines:

Gordy

[sms]

A thickness gauge (hooked to a computer) would not give the full picture. You’d need a scanner as many lines are not round (especially thick ones).

[Paul Arden]

Hi Gordy,

I wrote to Bruce yesterday. He’s in a remote area at the moment, I’m not sure what he is doing there But he will be back at his laptop on Wednesday and will contribute then!

Indeed the MED is an “only just” floater. Often in my Stillwater trout days, early season when bank fishing and casting into the wind, I would fish an intermediate line instead of a floater which makes casting into the wind much easier.

Cheers, Paul