line choice for beginner
 

Hi Mike!

Mike It is quite simple, 30 feet of #6 line weighs 160 grains.

Mike Short range is up to sixty feet, or two thirds of a standard DT
Mike fly line. 60 feet of flyline weighs ( ca) 160*2 = 320 grains.
Mike This will normally be about the optimal loading for most #6
Mike rods, and is also about the practical limit for most casters on
Mike rivers etc.

[snip]

Mike Before you even get close to properly loading a #6 rated rod
Mike with a WF line, you would have to use a #11WF which weighs 330
Mike grains. The presentation is not likely to be very good with such
Mike a line, even though it is a lot easier to cast.


This is a topic that I've given some thought to.

What worries me is whether rod builders nowadays in fact _design their
rods for WF lines_. I think that almost all rod manufacturers
recommend WF lines for the higher weight classes, that is, 7wt and
beyond. But a similar mentality seems to be spreading to the lower
weight classes as well. Sage, for example, sells its own brand of
lines specially tailored for Sage rods. Their "Performance Taper"
line, available in line classes 2-9, is a WF line. In addition, the
lines designed for the lightest line weights (0-2) and the SLT rod
series are WF lines too (Quiet Taper II).

Let's take as an example the 6wt rod / WF line combo, because in this
relatively high weight class (for trout fishing) one could very well
be casting 2/3 of the line.

If a company sells a 6wt rod, and a specially designed 6wt forward
line for that rod, I wonder whether the decision to specially design a
6wt WF line has also had an affect on the design of the rod.

That is, is it in fact the case that the 6wt rod was designed to load
optimally with a 6wt WF line. This might very well be true. Assuming
that the specially designed 6wt WF line is truly a 6wt line, it
wouldn't make much sense to design the rod to load optimally with 2/3
of the DT line outside rod tip.

If more and more people are starting to use WF lines in their trout
fishing, does this lead to the phenomenon that more and more rods will
in fact be designed to load optimally for WF lines in that line
weight?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

line choice for beginner
 

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:13:53 GMT, rw
wrote:

Quite so. Let's stick to the facts.

So, what kind of computer would you recommend for a beginner - Mac or
PC? g
--
Charlie...

line choice for beginner
 

i'd like to think i've got all the bases covered on this one.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster.


snip
... well ok, my name is jeff and i *am* clueless and stupid dammit...
but, imo ...and that's all that matters on this issue... it's much
more convenient for me to top post and to read new posts at the top...


Is it convenient because you're clueless and stupid or are you clueless
and stupid because it's convenient ?


i'm sure you'll agree.

jeff

line choice for beginner
 

Jeff Miller wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster.

snip
... well ok, my name is jeff and i *am* clueless and stupid dammit...
but, imo ...and that's all that matters on this issue... it's much
more convenient for me to top post and to read new posts at the top...

Is it convenient because you're clueless and stupid or are you clueless
and stupid because it's convenient ?

i'd like to think i've got all the bases covered on this one.

i'm sure you'll agree.

No, not really. While the typical top-poster is clueless and stupid and
you seem eager to describe yourself in those terms I would say that you
are better described as lazy, inconsiderate and pertinacious.

--
Ken Fortenberry

line choice for beginner
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers
fortenberry G.

Ken wrote:
Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which
makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster.
(stuff snipped)


Hi Jeff and Ken,
I usually think about snipping too much, or not enough. But I certainly
excelled in the latter category yesterday. :)
In my defense, heck there is no defense, I'm apparently clueless and stupid.
(on many different levels also)
DaveMohnsen

line choice for beginner
 

"DaveMohnsen" wrote...
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
Jeff wrote:
... i like tp'ing because it's contrarian *and* it bothers
fortenberry G.

Ken wrote:
Dave reposted that whole damn thing just to add "Thanks Mike", which
makes him every bit as clueless and stupid as your typical top-poster.
(stuff snipped)


Hi Jeff and Ken,
I usually think about snipping too much, or not enough. But I certainly
excelled in the latter category yesterday. :)
In my defense, heck there is no defense, I'm apparently clueless and stupid.
(on many different levels also)

At least you didn't apologize. You know what they say about apologizing on roff.
.. .
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

line choice for beginner
 

"Jarmo Hurri" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Hi Mike!


If more and more people are starting to use WF lines in their trout
fishing, does this lead to the phenomenon that more and more rods will
in fact be designed to load optimally for WF lines in that line
weight?

--
Jarmo Hurri


Hi Jarmo,

There is a great deal of jiggery pokery going on with rod and line design.
You may be right with some of these ideas. I don´t really know. However
this may be, even extreme designs still need to work and fish reasonably
well, or experienced flyfishers simply will not use them. Some modern rods
are extremely tip-actioned in order to load at very low line weights.

This makes it easier to get some loading on a rod using a light WF, and
seems easier at first, especially if one is not a very good caster, but has
disadvantages in other areas. The best rods are still progressive, and
simple physics dictates what they can or can not do.

Regarding the trend towards WF lines, I think you are right, but I have
never seen any point to it. In my opinion it is mainly marketing and profit
oriented thinking which causes manufacturers to sell so many in the first
place. Advertising, and a large number of misconceptions does the rest.

TL
MC

line choice for beginner
 

"Greg Pavlov" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:32:18 +0200, "Mike Connor"
wrote:


Don´t you find it curious that nobody else has "questioned my claims"?

Well, I did, because I also believe that you were inconsistent,
which I suppose makes me stupid as well. But your response to me
was a paternalistic lecture on line basics rather than a response
to my question.


Was I inconsistent? Or do you merely believe so? Which is it? Where was I
inconsistent?


Or offered more than a mild and highly specific refutation to a single
point,
in any shape or form? Do you think it could possibly be that this is
because
they agree with what I wrote?

I think that the bottom line is that most people appear to agree
with the basic premise that a DT is probably better for a beginner.
How or why you argued that conclusion was, perhaps, unimportant to
most of them.


It is not a "basic premise", there are reasons why DT´s are better for
beginners, or for many other people. If you accept "such things as "basic
premises" then you will never learn much at all. Such groundless "basic
premises" are the reason for many problems. A premise is a statement that is
assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn.

I agree with the basic premise that a DT is better for a beginner,
tho "better" in the sense that spinach may be better for you than
ice cream, because I can fully understand why dealers will offer WF
lines to beginners: it makes better sense in the actual world of
people wishing to cast farther, regardless of whether it is "good"
for them.



No, it does not make much sense there either. I have never yet met a
beginner who could cast a WF properly. Some not even after quite a long
time, when of course they are no longer beginners, just poor casters.

Paternalistic?

Oh well, could have been worse I suppose.

TL
MC

line choice for beginner
 

At least you didn't apologize. You know what they say about apologizing on
roff.

Its good for what assails you?

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

line choice for beginner
 

Mike Connor wrote:

Short range is up to sixty feet

Short range is up to 60 feet? Whoa!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.