2 wt fly line
 

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
JR wrote:
Bill Kiene wrote:

About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line.


....

I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them
down to get them in synch with what they are used to?

My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it
seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt.

2 wt fly line
 

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
JR wrote:
Bill Kiene wrote:

About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line.


....

I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them
down to get them in synch with what they are used to?

My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it
seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt.

2 wt fly line
 

Willi wrote:snipthe "regular" fly
gear industry is ignoring established standards and things are getting
muddled.

I think this has been going on for some time. I have a Loomis IMX 2 weight rod
made close to a decade ago that barely loads with a 4 weight line. If I had
wanted another 4 weight rod, I would have bought a 4 weight rod.

Big Dale

2 wt fly line
 

Willi wrote:snipthe "regular" fly
gear industry is ignoring established standards and things are getting
muddled.

I think this has been going on for some time. I have a Loomis IMX 2 weight rod
made close to a decade ago that barely loads with a 4 weight line. If I had
wanted another 4 weight rod, I would have bought a 4 weight rod.

Big Dale

2 wt fly line
 

John Hightower wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...

JR wrote:

Bill Kiene wrote:


About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line.


...

I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them
down to get them in synch with what they are used to?

My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it
seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt.

FWIW, both my 2 weights cast better with the rated line. I tried
uplining both, and it made them feel sluggish. I guess it all depends on
how you like the rod to feel?

brians

2 wt fly line
 

John Hightower wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...

JR wrote:

Bill Kiene wrote:


About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line.


...

I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them
down to get them in synch with what they are used to?

My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it
seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt.

FWIW, both my 2 weights cast better with the rated line. I tried
uplining both, and it made them feel sluggish. I guess it all depends on
how you like the rod to feel?

brians

2 wt fly line
 

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
JR wrote:
Bill Kiene wrote:

About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line.


In other words, a fair number of 3-weight rods are mislabeled as
2-weights. Golly. The "industry" better get on the ball and mislabel
more 3-weight lines as 2-weight, or the suck..., uh, customers are going
to start thinking they're being had...

JR




As a consumer I think the pattern of not following the standards that have
been accepted for a long time, sucks. With flylines, this is getting to
be
somewhat commonplace. For example, some lines sold as 5 weights are
not 5 weights based on the standard. Maybe this is starting with rods too.

It seems ironic, based on what PC reported: spey casters are trying to
establish a standard to make things less confusing, the "regular" fly
gear industry is ignoring established standards and things are getting
muddled.

Another simpler option to trying to get all the line and rod manufacturers
to agree on standards would be to write a lot of letters to the rod
manufacturers, and get them to list the recommended lines from major
manufacturers for their specific rods. Even if all the line manufacturers
agreed to standardize their weight ratings, we'd have to check the year a
line was produced to see if it was still rated the same: what Rio sold as a
5wt in 2004 might now be sold as a 6wt in 2006, even for the exact same
line. That would get even messier than the balagan we currently have.

You know, it would not be a difficult thing for a roffian to make a database
of different rods and the weight/brand of line that we use on them.
--riverman

Question: can we assume that a manufacturer who makes rods and lines (are
there any?) are internally consistent, at least? Would a brand X 5wt line
fit a brand X 5 wt rod? Can we assume the same about reels, also?

2 wt fly line
 

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:23:21 GMT, Tom Church wrote:

Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills.

Tom Church
(the good looking Church)

FWIW
I was just nosing around Cold Spring Anglers web site and found this
on their fly line specials page.

With free shipping and handling.

10-992 45.00 32.00 WF2F Sage - Quiet Taper - Weight Forward Floating -
2 Weight
It is marked down from 45 to 32 bucks.

They also have this sinker marked down to 36 dollars if you are into
that sort of thing.
10-922 52.00 36.00 TTI2 Royal Wulff - Triangle Taper - Intermediate
Sink - 2 Weight

Their site:
http://www.coldspringanglers.com/onl...rtland%20444SL


Kiyu

2 wt fly line
 

riverman wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...


Another simpler option to trying to get all the line and rod manufacturers
to agree on standards would be to write a lot of letters to the rod
manufacturers, and get them to list the recommended lines from major
manufacturers for their specific rods.




Even if all the line manufacturers
agreed to standardize their weight ratings, we'd have to check the year a
line was produced to see if it was still rated the same: what Rio sold as a
5wt in 2004 might now be sold as a 6wt in 2006, even for the exact same
line. That would get even messier than the balagan we currently have.

You know, it would not be a difficult thing for a roffian to make a database
of different rods and the weight/brand of line that we use on them.
--riverman

The whole point of of having a standard is to avoid a messy situation
like that.None of the above would be necessary if the line manufacturers
stuck to the AFTMA ratings standard that has pretty much been followed
for over fifty years. For example, if the standard is followed ALL 5
weight lines would weigh between 134 and 146 grains. It wouldn't matter
if it is a floating line, sink tip, weight forward, double taper,
shooting head etc. If you buy a 5 weight line, you would know that
no matter what type line, from what manufacturer, the line would load
the rod in approximately the same way.

Willi

2 wt fly line
 

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...


Another simpler option to trying to get all the line and rod
manufacturers to agree on standards would be to write a lot of letters to
the rod manufacturers, and get them to list the recommended lines from
major manufacturers for their specific rods.




Even if all the line manufacturers
agreed to standardize their weight ratings, we'd have to check the year a
line was produced to see if it was still rated the same: what Rio sold as
a 5wt in 2004 might now be sold as a 6wt in 2006, even for the exact same
line. That would get even messier than the balagan we currently have.

You know, it would not be a difficult thing for a roffian to make a
database of different rods and the weight/brand of line that we use on
them.
--riverman

The whole point of of having a standard is to avoid a messy situation
like that.None of the above would be necessary if the line manufacturers
stuck to the AFTMA ratings standard that has pretty much been followed
for over fifty years. For example, if the standard is followed ALL 5
weight lines would weigh between 134 and 146 grains. It wouldn't matter
if it is a floating line, sink tip, weight forward, double taper,
shooting head etc. If you buy a 5 weight line, you would know that
no matter what type line, from what manufacturer, the line would load
the rod in approximately the same way.

I realize that, but which is easier: to get every line manufacturer to
adjust the rating of every line they make (with all the associated
advertisting, labeling, recalls, etc), or to get every rod manufacturer to
make a list of which lines, in the current stupid system, work with that
rod? Although the first option would be optimal (and logical), I think the
line makers have some reason that they varied from the standards, and have
$$ invested in advertising, etc, and would not be easy to convince to go
back to the standards. The second strategy might even force them to get
standardized over a short time, once word got out that a Rio 5 wt is really
a 6 wt according to the standard ratings.

That being said, I am very nervous now about how to re-rig my rods....I have
no idea what reel or lines would work best. Damn.

--riverman