Line weights

[Magnus]

Lasse your grasp on modern rod technology is clearly letting you down and it's the AFFTA who's at fault! Somehow?

These issues are not new. Having dozens of special purpose fly rods is new, some rods benefit from specially designed lines which challenge the AFFTA standard. Most of the controversy is marketing vs reactionary bullshit.

The FP article is ok . However it needs sampling to look at manufacturing consistency. It should look at the stated weight of a line, not just the line class. IMHO the worst of this is when a line is being sold as, say, a #6 with no indication that it is overweight, if I can read the weight the makers claim for their line, that they designed it to be, and the line weighs at that, then this becomes pointless - frankly juvenile!

BTW the rating on a rod was always a guide not a law. If I buy a rod and decide to strip off the gloss, paint it pink and match it with #5 #6 or #7 lines depending on how I feel, where I'm fishing and what I'm fishing with - that is my rod and I have every right to do whatever I want with it....and the more sanctimonious casting gods can fuck off.

Magnus

[johnnybg]

Johnny, SA used to make their 30 feet shootingheads according to AFFTA :-) The volantis however is designed by the importer, and thus have the text according to their wishes....

Thanks for the clarification.

And it all boils down to having fishcred by saying you're the hero using a 5 weight outfit, or 4 weight or 000..... when in reality, you're out throwing a piece of 10 weight line and thinking you are a casting God in the elements ;-)

Yup, I've definitely seen and heard that more than once along the coast in DK. I reminds me too much of Hyacinth Bucket in "Keeping up appearances". Apparently, there's a lot of ways of boosting once ego, but it would be nice if people with that need stopped rejecting common standards, facts and reality and stopped substituting their own for fish creds.

[George C]

I think the real issue is that most guys don't have any idea what is possible with a fly rod.....and, even less, how to go about achieving it.

I fly fished saltwater off and on for 25 years (and caught plenty of nice fish) with the firm conviction that a 60' cast was average, a 70' cast good, an 80' cast was great, and a 100' cast was a lie. Head wind was to be avoided and tailing loops were best dealt with by fly design.
From this perspective, finding an extra 5 feet thru equipment makes sense. And does work.
Stiff fast action rods help compensate (a little) for overpowered poor delivery casts....and heavy short-headed lines help compensate (a little) for underpowered poor back casts. If a little is good then a lot must be better......that's just human nature.

Imagine my surprise when I learned I could get an extra 40 ft by learning to cast the rods I already owned.

[Paul Arden]

If Paul sells a ht4 and someone pairs it with a line one weight over they have 2 choices...

It doesn’t really happen that way Matt. There is always a discussion about suitable lines and of course I recommend the ones I use on these rods - or if it’s a shooting head I ask Lars. If someone is asking for a 5WT rod I say we don’t have one. I really don’t like a 5 line on the HT4 and so I tell them to go and buy something else. (While expounding the benefits of a 4WT outfit of course! ) Of course if they are going to buy a 5 that’s really a 6 then we can help!!

In fact even if that discussion is not initiated by the purchaser it’s a conversation I always have nowadays. Because I want them to get the very best out of the equipment and not buy a line that is two line weights heavy. Our rods are not stupidly stiff. The butts in particular are far more forgiving than many other brands. And if you put a heavy line on them you’re going to kill the sensitivity. Putting a 5WT line on the HT4 is like wearing a WW2 Condom over your old man.

Incidentally I agree with Magnum. Once we have worked out the margin for measuring error we will have a pretty clear picture of manufacturing consistency with enough measurements. That’s going to be interesting. Especially when even line lengths are often totally different between lines. The same thing will apply to rods and CCS. Anyone measured their rod length recently?

Cheers, Paul

[Boisker]

If Paul sells a ht4 and someone pairs it with a line one weight over they have 2 choices...

It doesn’t really happen that way Matt. There is always a discussion about suitable lines and of course I recommend the ones I use on these rods - or if it’s a shooting head I ask Lars. If someone is asking for a 5WT rod I say we don’t have one. I really don’t like a 5 line on the HT4 and so I tell them to go and buy something else. (While expounding the benefits of a 4WT outfit of course! ) Of course if they are going to buy a 5 that’s really a 6 then we can help!!

In fact even if that discussion is not initiated by the purchaser it’s a conversation I always have nowadays. Because I want them to get the very best out of the equipment and not buy a line that is two line weights heavy. Our rods are not stupidly stiff. The butts in particular are far more forgiving than many other brands. And if you put a heavy line on them you’re going to kill the sensitivity. Putting a 5WT line on the HT4 is like wearing a WW2 Condom over your old man.

Incidentally I agree with Magnum. Once we have worked out the margin for measuring error we will have a pretty clear picture of manufacturing consistency with enough measurements. That’s going to be interesting. Especially when even line lengths are often totally different between lines. The same thing will apply to rods and CCS. Anyone measured their rod length recently?

Cheers, Paul

I wasn’t seriously implying it did work like that for your rods Paul.... and it wasn’t meant as a comment on your rods... I would expect people looking to purchase a rod from you are far more involved... it was the general principle, let’s face it most rods and lines aren’t sold that way.. perhaps I should have said a Sage rod rather than ht

[johnnybg]

It is normal with shooting heads to use one or two line classes heavier. That has always been the case and is a good rule of thumb. Many flylines lines are now integrated shooting heads, at least in all but name.

The flylines that are now integrated shooting heads, is that just a common WF with a short belly?

Why is there a difference when it comes to shooting heads and the AFFTA standard? Was the AFFTA/AFTM standard made for DT lines?

[Paul Arden]

I’m sure Matt! It would be different if we were selling indirectly. That would lead to a conundrum. Do we make rods for true to weight or do we make them for heavier than standard? Fortunately it’s not my problem

Hi Johnny,

Not so long ago most rods had multiple line weights classifications eg 5/6 or even 5/6/7 The idea was 5 for DT, 6 for WF and 7 for ST. Sometimes they were more dynamic, eg 5-9!

It was pretty much when American rods started appearing in the UK that they went to a single line rating. But the rods didn’t change, just the numbers or lack of them.

So basically every rod will cast a wide range of line weights and profiles. The question is what is “optimal”? That then becomes a little or a lot subjective. This said there is a great difference in feel (for me anyway) between lines of one line weight difference. Eg HT4 and 5WT line.

I think for many people it actually doesn’t matter. If it works it works. Where it matters a bit is if you are trying to optimise your casting and your tackle. Then there is undoubtedly a performance and feel difference.

Where is matters a lot, however, is for stealthy presentations, turning over flies, fishing light tippets, when a running fish is dragging 90’ of flyline and so on. Ie fishing considerations and not merely casting ones.

That’s why I say that people most probably have bought the wrong rod if they are over lining. Because the fly line comes first in importance! For example I want to fish 7X in Bosnia. So I need a 4WT line maximum. I buy a rod that says 4WT but for some reason it doesn’t work for me. Maybe I have a different casting style or perhaps the rod is simply too stiff for a nice feel. So I buy a 5WT line. Now I can’t fish 7X comfortably... so I bought the wrong rod.

Me personally, unless it’s for distance casting, I fish DT and WF of the same AFFTA weight on a given rod. The only time I would want to drop the DT line weight is if I’m purely making long distance casts with long carries. But I don’t have any fishing application for this and would much prefer a long belly line in these circumstances.

Much of the confusion is because of a general misunderstanding as to how casting works. “The Big Spring needs the right weight to bend”. “There is an optimal weight to load it properly”. I don’t believe these statements. The rod bends perfectly well without any line! In fishing we present flies from next to our feet all the way to the horizon. I want a line/Rod combination that feels good/comfortable at all my normal fishing distances. Me personally I like to get up close. And I like the sort of fishing where I get to take fast shots. Sight fishing. And preferably huge fish as well

Personally I think fly casting elevates fly fishing into an amazing sport/art, quite unlike anything else. There is no question in my mind that excellent casting puts fish on the line. Particularly here in the jungle or in tropical saltwater. Not everyone has discovered this yet - and that’s fine! - but IMO it is a mistake to think that rod number is what matters. What truly matters is the actual weight of the fly line. That is our connection to our flies. Choose the line and then choose the rod!

There is an interesting article here from Steve Parton
https://www.sexyloops.com/sparton/rodrating.shtml

Cheers, Paul

[Lasse Karlsson]

Why is there a difference when it comes to shooting heads and the AFFTA standard? Was the AFFTA/AFTM standard made for DT lines?

AFFTA is for all lines. Shootingheads and WF lines aren't a new thing, they predates the standard by many many years

Cheers
Lasse

[Lasse Karlsson]

Lasse your grasp on modern rod technology is clearly letting you down and it's the AFFTA who's at fault! Somehow?

These issues are not new. Having dozens of special purpose fly rods is new, some rods benefit from specially designed lines which challenge the AFFTA standard. Most of the controversy is marketing vs reactionary bullshit.

The FP article is ok . However it needs sampling to look at manufacturing consistency. It should look at the stated weight of a line, not just the line class. IMHO the worst of this is when a line is being sold as, say, a #6 with no indication that it is overweight, if I can read the weight the makers claim for their line, that they designed it to be, and the line weighs at that, then this becomes pointless - frankly juvenile!

BTW the rating on a rod was always a guide not a law. If I buy a rod and decide to strip off the gloss, paint it pink and match it with #5 #6 or #7 lines depending on how I feel, where I'm fishing and what I'm fishing with - that is my rod and I have every right to do whatever I want with it....and the more sanctimonious casting gods can fuck off.

Magnus

Damn, I had a suspicion I was wrong

And agree

Cheers
Lasse, who happily uses a MED 5 on a rod his friend designed to throw a 6, and also sticks a 10,5 meter piece of intermediate 9 weight on it mostly... sometimes its 11,5 meter of intermediate 8 though....

[Paul Arden]

Funny I was reading what you wrote to Andy on FW, Lasse. The idea that modern rods need heavier lines is quite absurd If there was any difference at all, then surely they would be able to cast lighter lines more efficiently? What a bizarre concept.

I think the reason it makes us angry is because it’s obviously unsubtle marketing when a manufacturer of both rods AND lines produces stiff rods and heavier lines to work them. They take us for fools.

The problem is of course, that they may be right.

Cheers, Paul