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!

The problem with lines

Moderators: Viking Lars, Magnus

User avatar
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 19528
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 2
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

The problem with lines

#1

Post by Paul Arden »

Hi chaps,

I had an interesting conversation tonight with a customer who was telling me with his style he would like a stiffer rod. Which of course is fine (but surprised me because we’ve cast together). I asked what lines he thought were right for the HT10 that he was using. He told me some 7 and 8 WTS. I did some research and the “7WT” line he was using weighed just over 9.5WT!! Ie closest to 10WT parameters.

Now I can understand all of this and he was surprised when I pointed out his seven weight line was actually nearest to 10WT.

However what may surprise you is that he is an instructor.

What I take from this is the AFFTA system will fail unless we (or AFFTA) go out of our way to educate everyone. We are not very far away from the days where rods and lines will need to be sold together as one package.

Cheers, Paul
It's an exploration; bring a flyrod.

Flycasting Definitions
User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm
Answers: 0
Location: There, and back again
Contact:

Re: The problem with lines

#2

Post by Lasse Karlsson »

Welcome to my world since forever :D

Cheers
Lasse
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

Flycasting, so simple that instructors need to make it complicated since 1685

Got a Q++ at casting school, wearing shorts ;)
nicholasfmoore
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:41 pm
Answers: 0

Re: The problem with lines

#3

Post by nicholasfmoore »

Hi Paul,
What I take from this is the AFFTA system will fail unless we (or AFFTA) go out of our way to educate everyone.
I think you need to do a nice video about it, Paul. Choosing tackle starting with the biggest fly you will fish, then a leader, then your fly line and finally a rod. Disadvantages of using a heavy line with tiny flies etc. A lot of people think that loading the rod is the be all and end all of casting (manufacturers and tackle shops), so it's probably a misunderstanding about casting which is perpetuating the heavier lines. Being able to identify a line by looking at it is a good skill to get an idea of what it is, the problem is when people overline, or double(!) overline, they usually tell you, though.

If you want to fish size 20-22 flies effectively, then you'll need about a #4 line that's true to weight. If it says #4 on the box but it's really a true #6 or #7 then you are going to straighten the small hooks and/or snap the tippet with the heavy line, you won't be able to see/feel the take very well either. Finding a true to weight line is becoming harder. :(

All the best!
Nick M

"Memento Piscantur Saepe" :upside:
User avatar
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 19528
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 2
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

Re: The problem with lines

#4

Post by Paul Arden »

A video is a very good idea Nick. It will certainly save my fingers. What surprised me here was not the misunderstanding itself but it being a misunderstanding by an instructor.

I suppose there are nowadays a large number of casters who have never cast a DT. Or even cast a true to weight line :)

Cheers, Paul
It's an exploration; bring a flyrod.

Flycasting Definitions
User avatar
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 19528
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 2
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

Re: The problem with lines

#5

Post by Paul Arden »

Incidentally an FP on measuring line weights would be a good one. Ie 30’ of line in a small bucket and the rest being suspended above it. Would someone like to write this please? :) We must get that line weight database running!

Thanks, Paul
It's an exploration; bring a flyrod.

Flycasting Definitions
Tangled
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:33 am
Answers: 0

Re: The problem with lines

#6

Post by Tangled »

I assume you guys saw the Trident line tests

“ In rough numbers, only one-third of the lines tested are “true” 5-weight lines (134-146 grains) according to the standard and about another third are “within the margin of error” (126-152 grains). Also interesting is the fact that zero lines weighed in below 140 grains.”

https://www.tridentflyfishing.com/blog/ ... ers-guide/
We must get that line weight database running!
Wouldn't that be a good idea.
Bendix
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:23 pm
Answers: 0
Location: Denmark

Re: The problem with lines

#7

Post by Bendix »

Hi

I have a funny story regarding this issue...

Last year I purchased an old used book about coastal fly fishing for Seatrout, written back in 1998, by a Danish guy. Upon reading the section about the rods he recommended, he said that the best all round rod is a 10wt. At first, this made me laugh a bit, but then I realized, that if he was using a true 10wt back then, then it would cast a line similar to the lines modern day anglers use on their 7 and 8wt rods... Meaning that this actually made good sense!

I also remembered, that I have an Guideline LXI 10 foot #7 in my quiver, that was discontinued a couple of years ago. Despite being labeled as a 7wt, the Guideline designer has actually written on the blank, that he recommends using lines that weigh between 17 and 19 grams... What the heck is that all about???

/Bendix
User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm
Answers: 0
Location: There, and back again
Contact:

Re: The problem with lines

#8

Post by Lasse Karlsson »

Bendix, 17-19 grams is the go to weight for most coastal fishers today, with short headed lines none the less... it cones directly from the old recommendation of going up 2 line sizes for a 30 foot shootinghead. Some people thought it meant that AFFTA was useless (when it was in fact used quite rightly) and discovered that going 3 or even 4 classes above gave them more distance... rods dont care, casters do, and it gives coast cred to say you fish a 4 weight, just don't say that the line is an 7 or 8 weight 🤣

Cheers
Lasse
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

Flycasting, so simple that instructors need to make it complicated since 1685

Got a Q++ at casting school, wearing shorts ;)
User avatar
James9118
Posts: 1657
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:59 pm
Answers: 0
Location: N.Wales

Re: The problem with lines

#9

Post by James9118 »

In the past I have sent lines back to the manufacturer because they were outside of the AFFTA specification (all have instantly offered a replacement or money back). This was, of course, because I'm involved in casting sport and don't ever want to be disqualified if my line gets weighed (the BFCC rules states that any record cast must have the tackle scrutinised). I think one of the problems is that, outside of casting sport, people generally don't have a clue how much their lines should actually weigh, i.e. if it says '#5' on the box then it's a #5, and there's no further checks required. Thus the '#6' in a box marked #5 gets rave reviews as a great casting line. Try this test - ask a typical fly fisher what AFFTA weight outfit are they fishing and what does that mean in terms of actual gram weight?

I think it needs us all to buy overweight lines and then return them under the sale of goods act, or whatever consumer protection is in your country. The purposeful mis-labelling of products against the specification would eventually come to an end if the consumer demanded it. In reality though, this isn't going to happen because if it says #5 on the box....

James
Tangled
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:33 am
Answers: 0

Re: The problem with lines

#10

Post by Tangled »

Have you ever thought of dobbing one of them in to the Advertising Standards Authority?
Post Reply

Return to “Tackle”