|
|
How much fly line?
How many feet of flyline should be tied on to your backing?
Thanks, Steve Thomas |
How much fly line?
"Steve Thomas" wrote in message ... How many feet of flyline should be tied on to your backing? All of it. The more useful question is, "How much backing should be behind your fly line?" The answer is, generally, as much as will fit. Thanks, You're welcome. Wolfgang |
How much fly line?
Steve Thomas wrote:
How many feet of flyline should be tied on to your backing? Most flylines are 30 yards long and are designed to be put on the reel whole. Some people cut their double taper or DT flylines in half but most of us don't. In the case of weight forward or WF flylines only the front of the flyline is tapered the rear portion being like a running line. So a flyline is a distinct entity, a whole thing as it were, not a length of something you cut to fit. -- Ken Fortenberry |
How much fly line?
On Mar 19, 2:05 pm, (Steve Thomas) wrote:
How many feet of flyline should be tied on to your backing? Thanks, Steve Thomas That depends heavily on how many feet of fly-line you need, and what you want to do with it. Most people buy a ready made fly-line, either a WF ( weight forward, badly misnamed, which is basically a shooting head, normally about thirty feet long attached to integrated running line), or a DT ( Double taper ). The "standard" fly-line length is ninety feet. Some people cut this in half, or even other configurations, to match the rod, suit a particular purpose, get more backing on the reel, or a combination of all these things. There are now a large number of variations and deviations from the standards in fly-lines. Most versatile of all systems is a shooting head system. The following may be of use to you; What is a "shooting head"? What can I do with it? Do I really need one? Basically a shooting head is just a piece of line of a certain length and weight, designed to carry out a specific task. Although shooting heads are widely considered to be pure distance tools, this is not at all the case. Of course they are excellent distance tools, but when correctly set up, they can be used for a whole host of things. The abbreviation used for shooting heads is "ST". For instance, a ready made head might be designated ST#7F. This translates to "Shooting Taper, AFTM #7, Floater. The AFTMA, American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association, which is now the ASA, American Sportfishing Association, originally defined some standards for fly lines. These standards were based on the first thirty feet of any given line, ( excluding any level tip, if present), and have been in use for a long time now. The "taper" on most shooting heads is the same as the taper on the front of a DT on standard heads, but there are in the meantime a great many "special" tapers available. Of course one may buy shooting heads "ready-made", including those with special tapers, but these will practically never match either the rod, or your preferences. How do I get one suited to my particular purposes then? First of all, one has to determine what those purposes might be. It is as well to know how these things are defined, and the nomenclature in use. A shooting head is basically any piece of line other than a full line, which is joined to shooting line by a knot or similar. That is to say, any line where the shooting line is not "integrated" at manufacture. Any line with a head and running line section which are seamlessly integrated, may be referred to as Weight Forward ( WF) fly line. Rocket Tapers, Bass Bug Tapers, Sal****er Tapers, Steelhead Tapers, Triangle Tapers and Teeny Tapers are all weight Forward Fly Lines. The integrated shooting line, is in this case referred to as "running line". Assume we wanted a head for pure distance casting, then we must find a piece of line which suits our rod and other preferences exactly. As this particular type of casting is more suited to the competition and tournament fields, we will leave this for the moment, and move on to more practical considerations. Suffice it to say here, that the shooting head for distance is irrevocably linked to the double haul, which was first introduced to competition casting by Marvin Hedge at the 1934 Nationals in St. Louis. We will first take a look at a specific practical use for shooting heads, namely, fly fishing in sal****er. As a shooting head rarely even enters the rod-rings during this type of fishing, it does not have to be of any extreme quality. One may use mill end DTīs and cut them as desired. This is cheap and easy. How does one decide what weight line to use in the first place? As a rough guide, here is a table, for roughly matching fly-sizes to lines; The larger the number ( up to size 1/0) the smaller the hook. Above 1/0 the larger the number, the larger the hook. Line Weight Fly size 3 28 -12 4 up to 10 5 up to 8 6 up to 6 7 up to 4 8 12 - 1/0 9 up to 2/0 10 up to 3/0 11 up to 4/0 12 up to 6/0 There is a lot of overlap, and heavy ( weighted) or bulky flies will require a heavier line than indicated in the table. There is a lot of nonsense talked about "weightless" flies etc. Here again, there is no such animal. The larger the fly the heavier it is. Bulky flies also have more air resistance and need heavier lines to carry them. Double hauling will increase the weight of fly which can be carried, as it generates more line speed. A shooting head will carry the most weight in any given range. This is the AFTM line rating table. It is the only set of standards in existence for fly-fishing tackle. There are no others. The figures given are for the first thirty feet of a DT line, including the taper, but excluding the level tip, ( if present). AFTM In grains In grams In ounces 3 100 +/- 6 6.48 0.228 4 120 +/- 6 7.78 0.274 5 140 +/- 6 9.07 0.32 6 160 +/- 8 10.42 0.366 7 185 +/- 8 11.99 0.422 8 210 +/- 8 13.61 0.48 9 240 +/- 10 15.55 0.55 10 280 +/- 10 18.14 0.64 11 330 +/- 12 21.38 0.75 12 380 +/- 12 24.62 0.86 It will be seen that 30 feet of #12 line weighs 0.86 ounces. (Most of my #12 sal****er and pike fishing heads weigh a full ounce, as they are slightly longer than thirty feet). Once again, as a rough guide, most #6 rated rods, will cast a full ounce without difficulty. A one ounce weight will carry a relatively heavy fly a long way. Unfortunately, most people do not grasp the basics of fly-casting or gear matching from the start. Often as a result of misinformation. In order to be succesful you must match your gear to the task at hand. The only way to do this, is to decide what you are going to fish for, where you are going to do it, under what circumstances, and WITH WHICH FLIES!!!!! Once you know which flies ( in terms of size, weight etc), you need, then you know what size line you need to carry them. Once you know which line you need to carry them, you can choose a rod to suit the line. You may also use different lines on the same rod to suit particular purposes, quite irrespective of what is marked on the butt. This is what matching, or "balancing" gear means. Assuming however, that you already have a rod you wish to use, most people have, although, as stated, it is the wrong way to go about things, then you need to find a "rough" match for it, so that you know which weight line to buy. Assume further that the AFTM rating on the rod is accurate. Assume the rod has a rating of #8. This means that the rod will theoretically cast optimally with thirty feet of #8 line outside the tip. This is "NEVER" the case! Most rods will cast much heavier weights than they are rated for, as they must usually be capable of casting a whole DT! This means that this particular rod will cast ninety feet of #8 line! Ninety feet of #8 line weighs 630 grains!!! Or 1.44 oz! As a general rule, and a matter of experience, the optimum casting weight for such a rod usually lies at about two thirds of this weight = ~ 400 grains which is about an ounce. We only wish to cast thirty feet or so of line. So we need to look at line that will give us something like this weight for thirty feet. Thirty feet of #12 line weighs 380 grains (+/- 12 grains tolerance). So in this case, I would simply put a #12 DT on the rod, and casting normally, without hauling etc, slowly extend line, until I found the optimum weight and length, and then cut this at the rod tip. This line will be about thirty feet long, depending how accurate the line tolerances are, and the rod rating. That was it! Quite simple really. Just attach this "head" to shooting backing, and you have a perfectly matched head. Furthermore, if you weigh this head, you know exactly what weight of floater this rod will cast perfectly. IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS LENGTH!!! ( Within limits of course). If you want better more delicate presentation, choose a longer length of line with the same weight. Some casters prefer longer heads, up to 45 feet, or even more. But these can have disadvantages for sal****er fishing, and less than perfect casters. If you wish to use intermediate or sinking lines, the principle is the same, but take more care when casting the DT. Sinking and intermediate lines of the same weight, travel a lot faster than floaters, as a result of their lesser diameter, and greater density, this loads the rod more. You will almost certainly find that an intermediate line about one line rating lower than the floater will be about optimal, and a high density sinker about two ratings lower will be optimal. There are numerous advantages to such heads. You always cast the same length and weight of line, and this is easier. They are cheap! You get at least two heads out of a standard DT. They take up less room on the reel. They can be used in pretty tight conditions. You can loop on whatever head you wish to use in a very short time. I carry my heads loosely coiled in a "CD" wallet. Of course you can use WF lines, which basically are just shooting heads spliced to running line, "integrated" heads, which are more or less the same, or even full DT lines. But if you are serious about sal****er fishing, with relatively "conventional" fly-gear, then there is no real alternative to a well matched set of shooting heads. There is however a great deal more to be learned from the above simple set of facts. We have only covered one particular specific use for a shooting head. We know that a head will carry a great deal more weight than a conventional line which matches the rod. This is simply because it is shorter, and of course heavier. There is no reason we can not use these facts to help us with other angling problems. One can for instance use a shooting head to cast much heavier or bulkier flies than the usual rod and line combination will allow. We can for instance use a piece of #6 or even heavier line on a #3 weight rod, as long as the weight matches, thus allowing us to cast relatively heavy flies with very light gear. A little thought on the matter will show you numerous ways in which a head can help you with practical fishing problems. There are a number of solutions to various problems, using heads.. TL MC |
How much fly line?
|
Hauling.
HAULING It is not usually very much use to try and aerialise more than about 35 feet of any line, most especially with a WF line ( which normally has a thirty foot "head"). They are designed to be shot. The heavy head part is aerialised, and the thin running line is shot. This is much more difficult to do if you have too much running line out. Indeed beyond a certain very limited amount, it is quite impossible, as the thin running line will not transfer energy to the head. The same applies to "shooting heads", although these may vary considerably in length. Ideally you should not have more than a yard of thin running line outside the rod tip. To practice, do the following; aerialise as much line as you can cast comfortably, without any strain or heaving or hauling or anything else. If the line is correctly matched to your rod, you will find this is about thirty to thirty-eight feet. MOST LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!! You will normally require much heavier lines as WFīs or as shooting heads, as these are much shorter and consequently lighter than the line the rod is designed to cast. If the line does not match, results will be poor. On rods marked #7/#8 then you should try a #9 head first. One can make up oneīs own heads, from ordinary DT lines, but this is the subject of another article. Quite a few people will disagree with this, and tell you all sorts of things. If you want to KNOW! what works best, then simply try it, you donīt have to take my word for it. For a lot of my fishing I use much heavier heads than this with no problems. If using a WF line, you must determine where the head part of the line ends, lay this about a yard or so outside the rod tip, and then take a felt waterproof pen, and mark the line WHERE YOUR LEFT HAND IS HOLDING IT AT THE ROD BUTT. Do not try to aerialise any more line than this. Even very good casters are unable to aerialise more than about three or four yards over the head length of a WF line, despite using various tricks, as it is next to impossible to get a satisfactory power transfer from the thin running line to the head. The cast just collapses. If you are unsure where the head part of the line ends, and the running line starts, just pull off line through the tip ring with your fingers, ( DONīT BEND THE ROD TO DO THIS; PULL LINE DIRECTLY FROM THE REEL; AND THEN STRAIGHT OUT OF THE TIP RING! You can otherwise easily break your rod tip), until you notice a fairly sudden step-down in the line diameter. Some WF lines will have "back tapers" of varying lengths, Most shooting heads have no back taper. ( At least at the time of writing). That is the end of the head. Having determined where this is, pull two to three feet more out of the tip ring, and then mark the line at THE BUTT WHERE YOUR LEFT HAND WILL HOLD IT. This ensures that you always have the optimum amount of line out. Trying to aerialise much more than this will simply not work, so it is pointless to try. Distance casting is easier with a shooting head, but a WF will also work if you realise exactly what you are attempting to do. You will not be able to achieve the same distance though. On water, and in thick undergrowth or similar, it is best to use a line tray, as otherwise your line will constantly tangle, or be held by the water when you attempt to shoot. On grass, when practising, it does not matter. You can cast further to some extent simply by putting more power in the forward cast, and then letting go of the line you have previously pulled off the reel and have laid out properly, at the right moment. The right moment is exactly at the end of the forward cast. Too soon and you will lose power, and the line will wrap around the rod below the butt ring, too late and the line will not shoot to its maximum potential. In order to gain more distance, we need more line speed. This is achieved by hauling on the line at the right moment. One may work out line normally in order to extend the head initially. Here, we are assuming that the line is already extended properly, before the cast is actualy commenced. This will be the result of false casting, roll casting, or similar, under normal fishing conditions. Assuming a right handed caster, the simple way to explain the single haul is as follows. Your back cast has completed as normal, and the line is straight out behind you. As you start your forward casting stroke, you should be holding the line tightly in your left hand, YOUR HANDS SHOULD BE CLOSE TOGETHER, ( for maximum power, tournament casters reach forward and grasp the line at the butt ring, but do not try this at first, it just complicates matters ), as the rod moves forward in the casting stroke, pull down on the line, dependent on how hard, how fast, and how long you pull ( the length of the left hand pulling stroke), the line speed increases proportionally and dramatically, as it is directly accelerated by the pull of your hand. Ideally, the haul should be of the same duration as the stroke, accelerating smoothly up to the stop, just as the rod tip is doing, propelled by the casting hand, but in practice this is not required, even a short haul at the right moment will give massive line acceleration. The cast consists of two completely independent components, the rod stroke with the casting hand, and the haul with the line hand. These movements must be coordinated properly for maximum effect. As the forward cast completes, and the rod is stopped, let go of the line completely with your left hand. You will probably be quite amazed at the distance you have shot. The first few times you do this it is quite common for the line to go out with so much power that the ratchet on the reel comes into operation! This means you could have shot more line easily! Try to keep the haul smooth and powerful, do not jerk it. One of the most common mistakes beginners make, is trying to apply too much power too quickly. Once you get the hang of things, you will be surprised at how little power is really required to cast a very long way. The technique is far more important than brute force. Concentrate on casting UP! and back, not just back. This will keep your back cast high, and prevent a lot of problems. The double haul is slightly harder to accomplish. At the start of the cast, your rod tip should be low, almost touching the ground, and there must be no slack in the line. YOUR HANDS SHOULD BE CLOSE TOGETHER, the line gripped firmly in your left hand. Raise the rod slowly and smoothly to the ten o clock position KEEPING YOUR HANDS TOGETHER, move smoothly into your back cast at ten o clock, and at the same time haul down on the line with your left hand, as the back cast flows out smoothly up and behind you, and still holding the line tightly MOVE YOUR LEFT HAND BACK with the line, as the line goes out, and the rod drifts slightly, so that your hands are once again almost touching. Do not try to speed up this movement, simply allow the line to feed back up through the butt ring. As soon as the line is all straight out behind, the forward thrust of the rod is started, and the left hand immediately hauls down on the line. The forward drive is now complete, and the rod is stopping, the haul hand has reached itīs maximum travel, and at PRECISELY THIS MOMENT, release the line from the left hand. The line will shoot a very long way. A ninety foot cast is usually no problem with this method. Do not hold the line with your left hand, or form "o"s with your fingers or anything like that. Let go of the line completely. A haul ( the amount of line pulled with the left hand ),of a couple of inches is sufficient for most casting, although as I said, the longer harder and faster the haul, the greater the distance possible. Top casters using this technique, and shooting heads, reach distances in excess of 80 yards, which is TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY FEET. This is not a misprint or a mistake, it is a fact. For normal casting purposes, no particular exertion is required. There is absolutely no need to "bust a gut", your movements should be controlled and not over hurried. If you attempt to reach maximum distance with every cast, you will however tire quickly. Once you can consistently reach 70 feet without strain, leave it at that. You can occasionally try for much further,but don't try it all the time, or your fishing will become more like a workout than a pleasant experience. These techniques are especially good for covering a lot of water, as in much sla****er fishing, and on large stillwaters. With practice and as your timing improves, you will routinely cast one hundred feet with ease. Take a tape measure along, and peg out the field where you are casting before you start. This saves a lot of nonsensical argument. Try also to remember that this is not a competition, you are simply trying to improve your casting, irrespective of what anybody else says or does. It should also be remembered that a well built powerful person who uses this technique properly will be able to cast further than a slightly built person. For the same reason that they can throw a hammer a javelin or a discus further. They have more power to start with. It should also be remembered that there are certain physical limits. For a person of relatively normal build and height, the best rod for this purpose is a stiffish fast action rod about nine feet three inches long. Taller more powerful people can often use longer rods. Some people prefer longer rods for certain types of fishing, although a 10 foot rod is about the maximum snesible length for most single hand rods in normal use. Double hauling for distance with a seven foot #4 trout rod and a DT line is just silly, although a double ( or single ) haul may be useful for other purposes in this case. When fishing into a wind, or using heavier than normal flies for instance, and wishing the leader to turn over properly. For some of you who asked about shooting heads. It is important to realise that the WEIGHT of a shooting head is critical, and not its length. The length is to a great extent immaterial. There are however limits. Thirty feet of #8 line weighs about 212 grains. This is about the same weight as 45 feet of #5 39 feet of #6 33 feet of # 7 30 feet of #8 27 feet of #9 22 feet of #10 18 feet of # 11 Once you know what actual weight of line, in grains or ounces, your rod casts best with, you can use any line of the same actual weight on it, irrespective of its length. Of course you will have trouble trying to aerialise more than sixty feet or so of line, and never reach the optimal weight. Less than about twenty eight feet of line is also harder to cast. A thin fly line has less air resistance than a thick one, so theoretically you should be able to cast 45 feet of #5 a lot further than 30 feet of #8. However, many casters have trouble aerialising 45 feet of head properly. In practice, a head about thirty feet long matched to the rod is about the best casting instrument for normal fishing. A high density sinking head is about the best line for attaining pure distance in normal fishing. Assuming pure distance is what you want. It is also the best line for fishing deep water. As ever, it is as well to realise that casting is only one skill required for angling. It is no use casting one hundred feet if the fish are at your feet, or only thirty feet away. TL MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 19, 6:27 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: ... MOST LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!! snip Must be a European problem. All my fly rods match up just fine with the flylines of the same weight. Note to newbies: I would take Mr. Connor's "articles" with a large measure of salt, anybody who tells you to cast a 6wt or heavier line on your 3wt has got a screw loose. -- Ken Fortenberry 60 feet of #3 weight line weighs ~ 200 grains 30 feet of #6 weight line weighs ~ 160 grains 30 feet of #8 weight line weighs ~ 210 grains You may cast any of these lines at those lengths on a #3 weight rod. All that happens is that the rod loads sooner with the heavier line, but as the casting capacity of the rod is not exceeded, it makes no difference to the rod itself. Indeed, several top casters tried casting #12 weight lines on # 3 weight rods. The rods felt like noodles with more than a certain amount of line out, but nothing happened, no rods broke, or were otherwise damaged, despite those involved trying their hardest. The actual weight of a line is important, not the AFTM #. The weight is a factor of the length, and the line size. So in point of fact, you can cast 90 feet of DT#3 line on a #3 weight, which weighs 300 grains, or you can just as easily cast 30 feet of #10 weight, which weighs 280 grains. MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 19, 8:05 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: ... MOST LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!! snip Must be a European problem. All my fly rods match up just fine with the flylines of the same weight. Note to newbies: I would take Mr. Connor's "articles" with a large measure of salt, anybody who tells you to cast a 6wt or heavier line on your 3wt has got a screw loose. snip The actual weight of a line is important, not the AFTM #. The weight is a factor of the length, and the line size. So in point of fact, you can cast 90 feet of DT#3 line on a #3 weight, which weighs 300 grains, or you can just as easily cast 30 feet of #10 weight, which weighs 280 grains. Like I said, a screw loose and mad as a hatter too. Your fly fishing pronouncements remind me of nothing more than the bombast the late George Gehrke used to pitch here. No harm, no foul I guess, so long as no one actually believes your silly "theories". I'm tempted to ask why on earth the AFTMA would deliberately mislead the fly fishing public about line weights leaving the one and only truth to be discovered and taught to us mere mortals by the great Mike Connor but I'm afraid you might actually try to answer. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry Whatīs the matter dumbo, canīt you read a simple table? MC |
Hauling.
There are no theories involved, merely the weights given for lines in
the AFTM table. MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 19, 2:00 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: There are no theories involved, merely the weights given for lines in the AFTM table. Your theory seems to be that the only thing that matters is the weight of the flyline, that is since 30 ft. of 10wt weighs the same as 90 ft. of 3wt then both will cast just fine on a 3wt fly rod. Which is, of course, hooey. Why? Wolfgang |
Hauling.
On Mar 19, 9:00 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: There are no theories involved, merely the weights given for lines in the AFTM table. Your theory seems to be that the only thing that matters is the weight of the flyline, that is since 30 ft. of 10wt weighs the same as 90 ft. of 3wt then both will cast just fine on a 3wt fly rod. Which is, of course, hooey. -- Ken Fortenberry Well now dumbo, it will doubtless be extremely interesting seeing how you manage to prove that particular bit of idiocy. In point of fact, most people will find it far easier to cast 30 ft of ten weight, than 90 ft of #3 weight on an accurately rated #3 weight rod. Most will also be able to cast it a great deal further. Purely a matter of physics, but of course since you canīt even read a simple weight table, it is probably beyond you. Do you even know what keeps a fly line in the air when one is casting? MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
wrote in message ups.com... Well now dumbo, it will doubtless be extremely interesting seeing how you manage to prove that particular bit of idiocy. shoot, he's proven greater bits of idiocy than that, over the years I have read his stuff. In point of fact, most people will find it far easier to cast 30 ft of ten weight, than 90 ft of #3 weight on an accurately rated #3 weight rod. Most will also be able to cast it a great deal further. the first part MAY be true, but I doubt it, sincerely. The second part is probably dead wrong. I guarantee that if you give me the chance to cast 90 feet of #3, I won't cast it all, but I can damn well get 65 feet of it out. That would put me, by my calculations, 35 feet past the end of the 30 foot section of #10......... Do you even know what keeps a fly line in the air when one is casting? trees, judging by several I have fished with amongst this group......... Tom |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 2:27 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: I don't intend to prove anything. -- Ken Fortenberry You can not prove anything at all, as you quite obviously donīt know anything at all about it. You immediately engage in personal insults and attacks, avoiding the subject matter entirely, or any rational attempt to even discuss it, simply because you are ignorant. MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 2:39 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Well now dumbo, it will doubtless be extremely interesting seeing how you manage to prove that particular bit of idiocy. shoot, he's proven greater bits of idiocy than that, over the years I have read his stuff. In point of fact, most people will find it far easier to cast 30 ft of ten weight, than 90 ft of #3 weight on an accurately rated #3 weight rod. Most will also be able to cast it a great deal further. the first part MAY be true, but I doubt it, sincerely. The second part is probably dead wrong. I guarantee that if you give me the chance to cast 90 feet of #3, I won't cast it all, but I can damn well get 65 feet of it out. That would put me, by my calculations, 35 feet past the end of the 30 foot section of #10......... Do you even know what keeps a fly line in the air when one is casting? trees, judging by several I have fished with amongst this group......... Tom Well, you could of course simply try it? You will discover it is indeed true. There are only very very few people who will be able to cast a full #3DT line. Indeed, the vast majority will never even get close to 65 feet. But there are plenty who can quite easily cast thirty feet of #10 line on a #3 weight rod quite a long way. In most cases that would be overkill. I often use a thirty foot piece of #6 weight line on my #3 weight, to cast a #6 long shank weighted woolly bugger, or other streamers etc. This means I oly need to carry one rod, and a few pieces of various lines, and I have a wide range of options. This is often necessary on the waters I fish. Furthermore, there is NOBODY who can cast a weighted #6 woolly bugger 60 feet, or even close to it, using a #3 weight line and a #3 weight rod. But many people can do it fairly easily using a piece of #6 weight line. Even more so if the weight is closely matched to the tod. This involves double hauling the thirty foot head ( or however long the matched piece happens to be), and shooting the backing. It is not even particularly difficult. The weight is the same, merely the length of the weight has changed. This has no affect at all on the rod. There is only one thing that keeps a fly line in the air when casting. Tension. It is far easier to maintain tension on a short piece of line of a certain weight, than a longer piece of line of the same weight, which is also why it is easier to cast such a short piece of line, and further to boot. TL MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
wrote in message oups.com... actually,Mike, much of what you say is true. I think you are exaggerating the reality a bit to make a point, but many of us overline a rod for certain situations. I do so with a 5 weight for streamer presentations(7 weight head and running line, or a 6 weight intermediate). And yes, tension keeps the line aloft, but trust me, I have fished with a lot of these guys, and trees keep the tension intact far longer than the rod or casting motion. I remember distinctly hearing a certain member mutter "****ing hemlocks!", and the vast bulk of his line stayed in the air for a good half an hour......g Tom |
Hauling.
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote large measure of salt, anybody who tells you to cast a 6wt or heavier line on your 3wt has got a screw loose. Although I agree that Mike's comments might confuse a newbie, I HAVE fished, successfully and many times, using a 2 wt and a cut down '8wt' shooting head. Now, obviously ( I think) when you cut most of the 8wt head off what is left is no longer an '8wt line' ... it is simply a very short 2wt shooting head. Backed with Amnesia running line it is somewhat like a spin casting/fly casting hybrid but gets the fly out there rather well. I, personally, only used this system years ago on putentake stillwaters around home here when I silly enough to think I wanted more sense of "fight" from these sluggish fish. Two weight heads weren't available and a shooting head is the way to fish stillwaters, imho, 99.874% of the time. So I experimented starting with a 'retired" 8wt head and it surprised me how well it worked. The system worked better and was more pleasant to cast ( for me ) than most shot/bobber/weighted nymph/standard line combinations I've used. I no longer use the 2wt/8wt marrage because I no longer fish a 2wt ....period. But I still buy 10wt heads and cut them down for my 8wt striper rod ( balancing to feel, cutting off a little at a time and testing ) and have fished this 10/8 combo and an 8/8 combo both enough to be able to declare the shorter head works better for me, most times and situations. You've mentioned fishing for Pike ( or something new for you, maybe not Pike ) and shopping for a 9wt .... when you get one ... try cutting back a 11 or 12 head until you feel it balances the rod with a couple feet of overhang ... it might surprise you how well it tosses a big fly NOTE: I am a ****poor caster and no expert ... just a guy who "has done that" |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 3:08 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... actually,Mike, much of what you say is true. I think you are exaggerating the reality a bit to make a point, but many of us overline a rod for certain situations. I do so with a 5 weight for streamer presentations(7 weight head and running line, or a 6 weight intermediate). And yes, tension keeps the line aloft, but trust me, I have fished with a lot of these guys, and trees keep the tension intact far longer than the rod or casting motion. I remember distinctly hearing a certain member mutter "****ing hemlocks!", and the vast bulk of his line stayed in the air for a good half an hour......g Tom No, actually I am not exaggerating at all here. As long as the weight matches the rod, the length of line is irrelevant within certain limits. The longer the specific weight is, the harder it is to cast. Heads under twenty five feet or so also become harder to cast properly for other reasons. In order to reach maximum distance with any rod of any nature at all, one needs a piece of lead ( or similar) of the right weight. Any rod will cast a range of lead weights, but there is one specific weight which it will cast the furthest. The same applies to lines, with a couple of other factors thrown in. Using a matched head ( or other piece of line within the casting capacity of the rod), is not the same as "overlining". Overlining is generally not a good policy at all, as it may result in straining a rod. With a matched head it is not possible to strain a rod, as the weight is matched to it. This also makes casting a lot easier. TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 3:03 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Your theories are so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous parodies when it comes to real life fishing and for most folks it is about real life fishing and not some nonsensical physics exercise in distance casting. It is sufficient to label your "articles" as nonsense for the benefit of those who don't know any better because arguing with you is an exercise in futility. -- Ken Fortenberry As usual, you are not "arguing" or even attempting to discuss anything at all, you are merely engaging in personal insults. MC |
Hauling.
wrote in message oups.com... There are only very very few people who will be able to cast a full #3DT line. Indeed, the vast majority will never even get close to 65 feet. But there are plenty who can quite easily cast thirty feet of #10 line on a #3 weight rod quite a long way. There's your problem with generalizations, many three weights don't have the taper to not get overpowered by 30' of #10 line, but without resorting to name calling I would have to agree trying to cast 90' of 3wt is different than trying to cast 30' of 10wt, regardless of the rod. Furthermore, there is NOBODY who can cast a weighted #6 woolly bugger 60 feet, or even close to it, using a #3 weight line and a #3 weight rod. I'm not a particularly accomplished caster and I would take that bet. Regardless I know several who could make that cast. This involves double hauling the thirty foot head ( or however long the matched piece happens to be), and shooting the backing. It is not even particularly difficult. The weight is the same, merely the length of the weight has changed. This has no affect at all on the rod. Disagree again, The weight of the line is but one factor. The length of the aerolized line is but one component of the process, that's why people who try to back cast with 30' of WF line often loose it because the combination of rod load, line speed, and taper get all shot to hell when the fatter "head" portion is dependent upon the skinnier running line to support the flight path. There were specific rods made to aerolize line but they tend to be softer action than the medium fast to fast action rods in vogue on this side of the pond. |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 3:31 am, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... There are only very very few people who will be able to cast a full #3DT line. Indeed, the vast majority will never even get close to 65 feet. But there are plenty who can quite easily cast thirty feet of #10 line on a #3 weight rod quite a long way. There's your problem with generalizations, many three weights don't have the taper to not get overpowered by 30' of #10 line, but without resorting to name calling I would have to agree trying to cast 90' of 3wt is different than trying to cast 30' of 10wt, regardless of the rod. Furthermore, there is NOBODY who can cast a weighted #6 woolly bugger 60 feet, or even close to it, using a #3 weight line and a #3 weight rod. I'm not a particularly accomplished caster and I would take that bet. Regardless I know several who could make that cast. This involves double hauling the thirty foot head ( or however long the matched piece happens to be), and shooting the backing. It is not even particularly difficult. The weight is the same, merely the length of the weight has changed. This has no affect at all on the rod. Disagree again, The weight of the line is but one factor. The length of the aerolized line is but one component of the process, that's why people who try to back cast with 30' of WF line often loose it because the combination of rod load, line speed, and taper get all shot to hell when the fatter "head" portion is dependent upon the skinnier running line to support the flight path. There were specific rods made to aerolize line but they tend to be softer action than the medium fast to fast action rods in vogue on this side of the pond. The taper and other factors are irrelevant. If the rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything. The length of that weight is also quite irrelevant (within certain limits and dependent on technique) whether it is a one inch piece of lead, or a thirty foot piece of line. A thirty foot piece of line weighing 200 grains can carry a very much heavier fly that a 60 foot piece of line weighing 200 grains. I know a couple of the worlds best casters. Not one of them can cast a weighted woolly bugger sixty feet using a #3 weight line, and regardless of the rod. With regard to carrying heavy flies the weight of the fly-line in use is the only relevant factor. ( Unless the weight of the flies and technique used is great enough to actually pull the fly-line, in which case it is no linger fly-casting, but bait-casting). It is quite impossible to aerialise more than the head and a few feet of line when using either a WF or a ST. This is because the thin running line/shooting line can not transfer energy to the heavy fly line. TL MC |
Hauling.
wrote in message ps.com... A thirty foot piece of line weighing 200 grains can carry a very much heavier fly that a 60 foot piece of line weighing 200 grains. But it's not the weight of the two lines that determines that, now is it? Or is a pound of feathers going to fall at the same rate as a pound of lead? I know a couple of the worlds best casters. Not one of them can cast a weighted woolly bugger sixty feet using a #3 weight line, and regardless of the rod. The only world class caster I know is also the chief fly line designer for one of the big three US line makers. But I know several great fishermen who can make that cast with the right rod and fly line. With regard to carrying heavy flies the weight of the fly-line in use is the only relevant factor. No the taper and composition of the rod have a lot to do with it too. It is quite impossible to aerialise more than the head and a few feet of line when using either a WF or a ST. This is because the thin running line/shooting line can not transfer energy to the heavy fly line. While I won't use the word impossible and as I said, it is difficult for most anglers, my self included to have 30' of a WF line extended on a back cast, it is not unusual to cast a distance greater than 30' on the forward stroke. It is not difficult of have 30+ feet of line in the air on a back cast with DT or one of the Triangle Taper or Long Belly lines but the resistance of a DT line will limit the distance the average caster can shoot it out. In the modern US market, the trend has been towards faster rod actions which help the average angler generate more line speed that one does not need 30' of fly line. One of my favorite rods is an older and softer action 8-1/2 5wt. My prefered fly line is a Scientific Anglers Trout taper 5DT. Except when I am knowingly fishing heavy streamers, I switch over to a Rio Nymph taper 5WF. I gained 25' with this fly line and those bugs. Can't tell you why scientifically but I did. But it behaves differently with than the 9' rod of the same series and weight. Go figure. It's maker sold a series of sal****er rods that were meant to aerolize line and they did it well. Their actions were and are unlike any of the rods sold since. So to call it impossible is wrong. |
Hauling.
"Wayne Knight" wrote in message . .. Following my own post because of typing disfunction. modern US market, the trend has been towards faster rod actions which help the average angler generate more line speed that one does not need 30' of fly line. one does not need 30' of line on a backcast to generate a 60-90' cast. |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 4:28 am, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
wrote in message ps.com... A thirty foot piece of line weighing 200 grains can carry a very much heavier fly that a 60 foot piece of line weighing 200 grains. But it's not the weight of the two lines that determines that, now is it? Or is a pound of feathers going to fall at the same rate as a pound of lead? The volume of the lines is important, as is the absolute weight. ( density = mass/volume). I know a couple of the worlds best casters. Not one of them can cast a weighted woolly bugger sixty feet using a #3 weight line, and regardless of the rod. The only world class caster I know is also the chief fly line designer for one of the big three US line makers. But I know several great fishermen who can make that cast with the right rod and fly line. It is impossible. 60 feet of #3 weight fly line weighs 200 grains. A long shank weighted #6 woolly bugger ( the one that was tried here, although of course these things vary ), weighs 50 grains. The #3 weight line will barely lift the fly. Let alone carry it anywhere. One can "lob" it, but not anything like sixty feet. With regard to carrying heavy flies the weight of the fly-line in use is the only relevant factor. No the taper and composition of the rod have a lot to do with it too. They have nothing at all to do with it. It is quite impossible to aerialise more than the head and a few feet of line when using either a WF or a ST. This is because the thin running line/shooting line can not transfer energy to the heavy fly line. While I won't use the word impossible and as I said, it is difficult for most anglers, my self included to have 30' of a WF line extended on a back cast, it is not unusual to cast a distance greater than 30' on the forward stroke. I can shoot thirty or forty feet into a final back cast, and others can shoot even more. That is not the same as aerialising line. It is not difficult of have 30+ feet of line in the air on a back cast with DT or one of the Triangle Taper or Long Belly lines but the resistance of a DT line will limit the distance the average caster can shoot it out. In the modern US market, the trend has been towards faster rod actions which help the average angler generate more line speed that one does not need 30' of fly line. Donīt understand that. I can aerialise a 65 foot shooting head with no problems at all. There are people who can aerialise a whole 90 foot DT, which is then merely a ninety foot shooting head. Also, the "resistance" as such is not the problem, the weight is. A short dense head can easily pull shooting line behind it. A long line has to pull itself as well as any weight it is carrying. One of my favorite rods is an older and softer action 8-1/2 5wt. My prefered fly line is a Scientific Anglers Trout taper 5DT. Except when I am knowingly fishing heavy streamers, I switch over to a Rio Nymph taper 5WF. I gained 25' with this fly line and those bugs. Can't tell you why scientifically but I did. But it behaves differently with than the 9' rod of the same series and weight. Go figure. It's maker sold a series of sal****er rods that were meant to aerolize line and they did it well. Their actions were and are unlike any of the rods sold since. So to call it impossible is wrong. The rod action, taper, composition, or anything else, is completely irrelevant. The ONLY thing that carries flies anywhere when fly- casting is the momentum of the fly line. p=mv whe p is the momentum m is the mass v the velocity A short object of a certain weight, will carry any given weight further than a long object of the same weight, as it offers less fluid resistance, and so loses its momentum more slowly. The surface area is a very great deal less. The analogy with lead and feathers is correct. But used incorrectly. A small dense object travels with a given momentum travels further in air than a larger object of the same weight. Rods donīt generate line speed, casters do. The line speed is a direct result of the force applied to the line. A short object propelled with the same momentum as a larger object of the same weight, travels faster and further. ( which also means it can carry more weight), Regardless of how that momentum was obtained. TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 4:33 am, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
"Wayne Knight" wrote in message . .. Following my own post because of typing disfunction. modern US market, the trend has been towards faster rod actions which help the average angler generate more line speed that one does not need 30' of fly line. one does not need 30' of line on a backcast to generate a 60-90' cast. I did not suggest one did? However, as a general rule, the more line one can aerialise, the farther one can cast. A short dense head of thirty feet may be hauled a very long way. Over two hundred feet is not unusual. This is not practical for normal fishing though. TL MC |
Hauling.
Ken Fortenberry typed:
wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I don't intend to prove anything. You can not prove anything at all, ... Your theories are so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous parodies when it comes to real life fishing and for most folks it is about real life fishing and not some nonsensical physics exercise in distance casting. It is sufficient to label your "articles" as nonsense for the benefit of those who don't know any better because arguing with you is an exercise in futility. You two can fight about anything, probably because you're so much alike. ;-) Here's the important consolidated newbie information (remember who started this thread?): If you travel 100 miles to fish and then discover all you brought was your 3wt rod and your 8wt line, you can still fish using Mike's suggested rig. But, as Ken will surely tell you, plan ahead and don't get yourself in that situation in the first place. The best fish always keep just beyond the reach of your cast - no matter how far the cast. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
Hauling.
Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote: Well now dumbo, it will doubtless be extremely interesting seeing how you manage to prove that particular bit of idiocy. shoot, he's proven greater bits of idiocy than that, over the years I have read his stuff. Do you really believe the *only* thing that matters is the weight of the flyline ? Talk about idiocy. Stand 20 feet away from a piece of glass and try to break it by throwing 4 ounces of something at the glass. Are you going to throw a four ounce piece of lead or four ounces of feathers ? Why ? They both weigh the same, consult the chart dumbo. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Hauling.
Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I don't intend to prove anything. You can not prove anything at all, ... Your theories are so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous parodies when it comes to real life fishing and for most folks it is about real life fishing and not some nonsensical physics exercise in distance casting. It is sufficient to label your "articles" as nonsense for the benefit of those who don't know any better because arguing with you is an exercise in futility. You two can fight about anything, probably because you're so much alike. ;-) No need to be insulting. Here's the important consolidated newbie information (remember who started this thread?): snip I would offer the following consolidated newbie info: 1. You don't need a tape measure, a caliper and a scale accurate to the grain to choose a flyline for your fly rod. If you buy a 3wt fly rod buy a 3wt flyline. 2. When someone talks about casting 90 ft of 3 wt flyline with a 3wt fly rod they're talking about a circus act, not fly fishing. 3. Take a lot of what you read here with a healthy dose of salt. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 12:07 am, wrote:
The rod action, taper, composition, or anything else, is completely irrelevant. The ONLY thing that carries flies anywhere when fly- casting is the momentum of the fly line. Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly. |
Hauling.
On 20 Mar 2007 10:21:49 -0700, "Wayne Knight"
wrote: Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly. Amen. And I can cast a #2 10x Grey Ghost 60 feet with my 4 weight Sage. No problem whatsoever. Back to lurk, hoping this is the end of a useless thread. |
Hauling.
Dave LaCourse wrote:
"Wayne Knight" wrote: Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly. Amen. And I can cast a #2 10x Grey Ghost 60 feet with my 4 weight Sage. No problem whatsoever. Back to lurk, hoping this is the end of a useless thread. But to cast a fly that size you must be using a cut down 12wt flyline on that Sage 4wt. Right ? ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Hauling.
Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote: Ken Fortenberry typed: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I don't intend to prove anything. You can not prove anything at all, ... Your theories are so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous parodies when it comes to real life fishing and for most folks it is about real life fishing and not some nonsensical physics exercise in distance casting. It is sufficient to label your "articles" as nonsense for the benefit of those who don't know any better because arguing with you is an exercise in futility. You two can fight about anything, probably because you're so much alike. ;-) No need to be insulting. You're right. Sorry Mike. Here's the important consolidated newbie information (remember who started this thread?): snip I would offer the following consolidated newbie info: 1. You don't need a tape measure, a caliper and a scale accurate to the grain to choose a flyline for your fly rod. If you buy a 3wt fly rod buy a 3wt flyline. 2. When someone talks about casting 90 ft of 3 wt flyline with a 3wt fly rod they're talking about a circus act, not fly fishing. 3. Take a lot of what you read here with a healthy dose of salt. I agree with all three. Hey, maybe *we* are a lot alik. . .eeeewwwww! -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
Hauling.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:04:32 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: But to cast a fly that size you must be using a cut down 12wt flyline on that Sage 4wt. Right ? ;-) Who da hell would cut down a perfectly good 12wt line to toss a size 2 10x Grey Ghost? I use a 4 wt sinking line (on an Orvis...gasp reel). No problem casting 60+ feet. If you're standing on the rock, ya gotta cast *across* the two currents dontchaknow, and dats more than 60 feet. BTL |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
I still say the trees keep the line aloft as often
as the casting.......... Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter