| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Hello,
I built a 6wt rod and it has a slower action. In fact it throws a 5wt line much better, I learned this by trying a wf5. I wanted to buy a dt line for it and was wondering if there were any that compliment slower rods more?. I know that there are wf specifically designed for fast rods but wasn't sure about double taper line. Thanks, Brian |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 5 Dec, 20:05, wrote:
Hello, I built a 6wt rod and it has a slower action. In fact it throws a 5wt line much better, I learned this by trying a wf5. I wanted to buy a dt line for it and was wondering if there were any that compliment slower rods more?. I know that there are wf specifically designed for fast rods but wasn't sure about double taper line. Thanks, Brian The line weight a rod will handle is independent of the action. "Action" is defined as being the point to which a rod bends when casting the optimal weight. If the rod casts 30 ft of #6 weight line optimally, then it is normally referred to as a #6 weight rod. http://www.stcroixrods.com/content.asp?id=70 Weights above and below the optimal weight also affect the action. Using a lighter weight makes the rod action faster. Judging by what you wrote, and assuming you are a reasonable caster, then it sounds as if you would be best served with a #4 DT line. This also depends on how you fish, the average length of line you cast, and the size/weight of the flies involved. TL MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
For optimal performance on a slow rod, a silk line is best. If you
want to know the reasons for this and what I wrote above, then please ask. TL MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
wrote in message ... Hello, I built a 6wt rod and it has a slower action. In fact it throws a 5wt line much better, I learned this by trying a wf5. I wanted to buy a dt line for it and was wondering if there were any that compliment slower rods more?. I know that there are wf specifically designed for fast rods but wasn't sure about double taper line. Thanks, Brian Greetings Brian, I've found the DT (Double Taper) lines work well with slow action fly-rods. If you're currently casting a 5wt WF with your 6wt rod, you can probably throw a 4wt DT line, or the 5wt DT line as slow fly-rods are very forgiving. You should also cast at different distances to find out which line weight will work best. Here's anything to try, see how slow you can make the cast with that full action rod, you might be surprised. Also try the roll cast, don't use a lot of power, just east to a stop. -tom |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On Dec 5, 2:36 pm, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:
wrote in message ... Hello, I built a 6wt rod and it has a slower action. In fact it throws a 5wt line much better, I learned this by trying a wf5. I wanted to buy a dt line for it and was wondering if there were any that compliment slower rods more?. I know that there are wf specifically designed for fast rods but wasn't sure about double taper line. Thanks, Brian Greetings Brian, I've found the DT (Double Taper) lines work well with slow action fly-rods. If you're currently casting a 5wt WF with your 6wt rod, you can probably throw a 4wt DT line, or the 5wt DT line as slow fly-rods are very forgiving. You should also cast at different distances to find out which line weight will work best. Here's anything to try, see how slow you can make the cast with that full action rod, you might be surprised. Also try the roll cast, don't use a lot of power, just east to a stop. -tom thanks for the replies. The blank I builit the rod on is rated 6wt but I have a hard time believing that is the optimal weight to through with it. When I strung it with 6wt line if felt like I was throwing a stick through a mudwall even with 15-20ft out if I went to 30 flex was felt under the cork...when I switched to 5 it opened up and cast like a dream with minimal effort. The reason I asked is that I have read that newer wf lines are designed for fast action rods and wasn't sure if it was the same with dt. I have some dt4 maybe I'll try that lots of snow here in Cleveland today so that might postpone it for a bit. Thanks again, Brian |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 5 Dec, 21:02, wrote:
thanks for the replies. The blank I builit the rod on is rated 6wt but I have a hard time believing that is the optimal weight to through with it. When I strung it with 6wt line if felt like I was throwing a stick through a mudwall even with 15-20ft out if I went to 30 flex was felt under the cork...when I switched to 5 it opened up and cast like a dream with minimal effort. The reason I asked is that I have read that newer wf lines are designed for fast action rods and wasn't sure if it was the same with dt. I have some dt4 maybe I'll try that lots of snow here in Cleveland today so that might postpone it for a bit. Thanks again, Brian There is no "rating" as such for blanks, or rods either for that matter. The only rating applies to the line. If the rod is bending to the corks with 30 feet of line out, then there are basically two possibilities, you are overloading it, (= line is too heavy) or you are trying to cast too fast. The "rating" as such is actually meaningless. Obviously you can cast it with a #5 WF so that indicates that a #6 is simply too heavy. Slow rods also require a slow casting action. The only design feature of any real significance on any line is the weight per foot. It is basically immaterial whether a rod is fast or slow. A WF line exactly matched to a rod will cast very well, and a shooting head best of all. With regard to a DT , if the rod is overloaded with a #6WF, and casts reasonably well with a #5 WF, then the only real option is to try a #4DT, as using anything else will simply overload it at anything but very short range. TL MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
On 5 Dec, 21:02, wrote: thanks for the replies. The blank I builit the rod on is rated 6wt but I have a hard time believing that is the optimal weight to through with it. When I strung it with 6wt line if felt like I was throwing a stick through a mudwall even with 15-20ft out if I went to 30 flex was felt under the cork...when I switched to 5 it opened up and cast like a dream with minimal effort. The reason I asked is that I have read that newer wf lines are designed for fast action rods and wasn't sure if it was the same with dt. I have some dt4 maybe I'll try that lots of snow here in Cleveland today so that might postpone it for a bit. Thanks again, Brian There is no "rating" as such for blanks, or rods either for that matter. The only rating applies to the line. Total nonsense. All modern fly rods and fly rod blanks are given a line weight designation by the manufacturer. You can argue that the designation is sometimes inaccurate but to say that there is no such thing is demonstrably false and needlessly confusing. Except in *very* rare instances the AFTMA line weight designation given to a fly rod by its manufacturer correctly identifies the fly line it will cast best. In fact I have never encountered a situation where this was not true, even with the cheap KPOS's I've tried. This may be one of those very rare instances but it is definitely unusual for a rod marked 6wt to be anything other than a 6wt. If the 5wt line works well my advice would be to stick with it. -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote:
I built a 6wt rod and it has a slower action. In fact it throws a 5wt line much better, I learned this by trying a wf5. I wanted to buy a dt line for it and was wondering if there were any that compliment slower rods more?. I know that there are wf specifically designed for fast rods but wasn't sure about double taper line. Yes there are lines that compliment slower rods better, Some you might want to look at are the Rio Selective trout II (not sure if it is shipping yet), The SA Mastery trout tapers or SA XPS lines, the Cortland Classic 444, or the Classic Slyk. Another line that would be worth trying on that blank is Wulff LB 6wf. It's kind of a hybrid wf/ dt line and seems to work really well on slower rods. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
"Wayne Knight" wrote in message ... On Dec 5, 2:05 pm, wrote: I built a 6wt rod and it has a slower action. In fact it throws a 5wt line much better, I learned this by trying a wf5. I wanted to buy a dt line for it and was wondering if there were any that compliment slower rods more?. I know that there are wf specifically designed for fast rods but wasn't sure about double taper line. Yes there are lines that compliment slower rods better, Some you might want to look at are the Rio Selective trout II (not sure if it is shipping yet), The SA Mastery trout tapers or SA XPS lines, the Cortland Classic 444, or the Classic Slyk. Another line that would be worth trying on that blank is Wulff LB 6wf. It's kind of a hybrid wf/ dt line and seems to work really well on slower rods. I second the Cortland 444 DT5F - Peach JT |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 5 Dec, 23:23, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Total nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. For example, I might test a fly rod and consider it perfect for a number 6 line, while someone else deems the same rod better suited to a number 7 line. In my experience, American manufacturers tend to under-rate their rods, which often work better with lines one or two sizes heavier than indicated. MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington, Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label a fly rod with the wrong line designation. -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 01:15, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington, Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label a fly rod with the wrong line designation. -- Ken Fortenberry Ooops! Silly me........ Seems I forgot the quotation marks in my last post, and the source; "Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. For example, I might test a fly rod and consider it perfect for a number 6 line, while someone else deems the same rod better suited to a number 7 line. In my experience, American manufacturers tend to under-rate their rods, which often work better with lines one or two sizes heavier than indicated." http://www.michaelevans.co.uk/advice_Choosing_a_Rod.asp It does not matter how many times you or anybody else writes it, there is NO STANDARD for rod weights, it is entirely subjective. In most cases it will be good guide, that is all. The ONLY measurable standard is for fly lines. MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. You're just trying to stir up trouble. It's so obvious. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
|
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington, Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label a fly rod with the wrong line designation. Ooops! Silly me........ Seems I forgot the quotation marks in my last post, and the source; ... Posting nonsense or quoting nonsense, what's the difference ? It's still nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. You're just trying to stir up trouble. It's so obvious. Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
|
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 01:40, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? -- Ken Fortenberry The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly" rated, because there is no correct rating. The ONLY defined standard is for fly-lines. There is NO defined rating for rods. ANY so-called AFTM ratings on rods are purely subjective. MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. You're just trying to stir up trouble. It's so obvious. Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line rating, if that's what you mean. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line rating, if that's what you mean. I once owned a fairly decent 9wt Sage XP. Labeled 7. Hated that rod. - JR |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Theoretically yes, but there are a number of imponderables. Which line
suits a certain caster on a certain rod is very considerably dependent on the caster, among other things. The absolute weight outside the rod tip is only a reliable consideration when it is a lead weight! Even then only up to a certain point. A good caster will also cast a lead weight further and more accurately than a poor caster! The loading characteristics of rods vary considerably depending on the shape of the weight. There are a large number of taper configurations in lines nowadays, and some suit some rods better than others. A powerful skilled caster can load a rod better, and also move it faster ( or slower if required)in the right manner, so the dynamic loading on the rod is greater when a good caster casts it. The right combination of rotational and linear hand movement results in maximum rod loading, and maximum line acceleration. These skills vary very widely indeed among casters. Beginners, and even many "intermediates", usually feel better off with a relatively heavy line on a fast rod, as they find it easier to load the rod with a heavier line. Of course, none of the people who "rate" the rods are beginners ( at least not with reputable manufacturers). Slow rods tend to perform better for beginners with lighter lines. Also, a curious phenomenon is now observable. At one time rods were built to cast a certain defined piece of line, with plenty of "overlap". Lines were all more or less identical. Now there is a vast range of lines, and a number of manufacturers either deliberately ignore the AFTM standards, or "improve" them in some way. The rod manufacturers also now often design a rod to cast a particular line. However, an extreme long belly WF line which conforms to the AFTM #6 standard, is not at all the same thing as a normal #6 WF line which also conforms to that standard. Indeed, in this case the standard is completely meaningless! It only begins to load the rod properly when the (say) 60 foot head is outside the tip, and with overhang. A rod which has been designed to do this, is more or less useless to an average caster, unless he goes up at least two line weights in a "standard" WF line. He just can not load the rod properly otherwise, and probably not even very well then! Much less at close range. The main reason for "under-rating" rods is to make them less likely to be broken! If a rod is consistently underloaded when casting, it is far less likely to break than one which is overloaded. A rod which is rated a #6 must be able to cast the 30 foot standard length of line, but it must also be able to cast a full ninety foot DT if required. Practically all modern rods will also do this, even with some reserve, but this means that somebody who is using a #6WF with a "standard" 35 foot head is casting with a hopelessly underloaded rod. This is why many people feel that a lot of top class American rods are underrated. It also means that it is extremely difficult to cast and control such a rod/line combination at short range. If the person concerned mainly fishes at short range, then the combination of a fast rod and a light line make life extremely difficult for him. He would better served with a medium action rod and a standard line, or even a slightly heavier line. To get the fast rod to work at all at close range, it has to be very considerably overlined. This is also a design factor in many fast rods. Rods which are now classed as #6 rods, would once have been classed as #8 rods, and so it goes on. The whole industry has shifted focus very considerably over a long period of time, and tackle choice is no longer as simple as it once was. Due to the present problems, and also as a result of AFFTA endeavours with regard to Spey lines, which is also fraught with problems, and has resulted in some people providing tables to re-convert to the old system!!!! http://kellycreekflycasters.com/spey_line_guide.htm it is fairly probable that some newer system will come into operation in the not too distant future. Until then, becoming informed and using some common sense is the best basis for selecting lines and rods. This is of course difficult for beginners. Especially when they are continually told that if it says AFTM #6 on a rod, that that rod will cast any AFTM#6 line. This is simply not true. Regards and tight lines! Mike |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:37:45 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods is subjective. It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense. In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington, Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label a fly rod with the wrong line designation. Ooops! Silly me........ Seems I forgot the quotation marks in my last post, and the source; ... Posting nonsense or quoting nonsense, what's the difference ? It's still nonsense. If I may be so bold....I believe what Mike is simply saying is that there isn't any *standard* for rating a rod, while there is a standard for rating a line. Thus a rod "rating" is basically the result of a subjective process left to the manufacturer to develop, while a line rating is an objective metric with a standardized procedure to support it... /daytripper |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 03:50, daytripper wrote:
If I may be so bold....I believe what Mike is simply saying is that there isn't any *standard* for rating a rod, while there is a standard for rating a line. Thus a rod "rating" is basically the result of a subjective process left to the manufacturer to develop, while a line rating is an objective metric with a standardized procedure to support it... /daytripper Indeed, that is basically correct. ( Although quite a lot of lines no longer conform to the standard either now). TL MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
JR wrote:
rw wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line rating, if that's what you mean. I once owned a fairly decent 9wt Sage XP. Labeled 7. Hated that rod. - JR My favorite rod, a Sage 5-piece 5wt XP (8'9"), the rod I've used for trout fishing about 95% of the time for more than eight years, actually performs best with a 6wt line. It took me three years to figure this out. I felt like an idiot. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
daytripper wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Posting nonsense or quoting nonsense, what's the difference ? It's still nonsense. If I may be so bold....I believe what Mike is simply saying is that there isn't any *standard* for rating a rod, while there is a standard for rating a line. I believe he said the following: "There is no "rating" as such for blanks, or rods either for that matter." To which I replied: "Total nonsense." -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
To which I replied: "Total nonsense." Yes, we know. We understand. Now calm down. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Yep, thatīs basically it. It depends how far you want to cast and with
what. You should choose your line first, to suit the flies you are going to be casting. The leader ( often neglected when practising), must also be correct, as it affects how the line behaves. A fast rod designed to cast a long belly WF ( the TCR 5 for instance, which is used in many "standard tackle" distance events now, coupled with long belly WF lines), will simply not work properly with a "standard" #5 WF because it only has a 35 foot belly, and weighs less than half of the long belly line! Some more info on that; http://www.sexyloops.com/tackle/sagetcr5.shtml As you can see, even this gentleman, who is one of the worldīs absolutely top casters uses the TCR5 with a 6 weight XXD, FOR FISHING!! I have tried this myself, it was still too fast for me, and was very tiring indeed. I could only get the rod to work properly and easily with a 35 foot #8 head, which pretty much precludes my use of it for normal fishing. To me there is no point in having a light rod which causes me a lot of work, and is impossible to use with a light line for delicate presentation if desired. There are many people who will say this is an absolutely first class rod, and I agree, but only when used for what it was designed for. It is not much use to me. For actually fishing, such distance casting with fairly heavy flies in the salt, I use a fast 9ī6" #7 weight with thirty four feet of #12 head. I can cast this easily all day long, and it will handle much larger fish better. OK, this is a fairly extreme example, but there are plenty of others which are not so extreme but just as germane. If I want to fish dry flies at close range, say up to forty feet, then I use a fast three weight. I still overline this with a #4 silk DT to slow the action down a touch, and give me more punch into wind etc, but I never cast more than about forty feet with it. ( 9īrod, nine foot leader, 40 feet of line = ~50 feet effective radius). That is about itīs operating optimum, it loads easily and quickly, and even at shorter ranges gives excellent control. Some people would prefer to use a medium or even soft rod to begin with. A medium to soft #3 weight with a #3 weight line for instance. Just examples. This is why it is basically immaterial what # is printed on a rod, you have to know what you are going to use it for, and how. Also why it is pointless buying a rod, and then trying to get other gear to suit it. Decide what flies you are going ot use, then what line you NEED! and then which rod will cast it as desired. Regards and tight lines! Mike |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly" rated, because there is no correct rating. More total nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 04:49, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: If I may be so bold....I believe what Mike is simply saying is that there isn't any *standard* for rating a rod, while there is a standard for rating a line. I believe he said the following: "There is no "rating" as such for blanks, or rods either for that matter." To which I replied: "Total nonsense." -- Ken Fortenberry OK. The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty feet of line ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160 grains +/- 8grains. Could you tell me how you would "rate" a #6 weight rod? MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 05:01, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly" rated, because there is no correct rating. More total nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry So you keep saying. The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty feet of line, ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160 grains +/- 8 grains tolerance Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod? MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 05:01, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly" rated, because there is no correct rating. More total nonsense. -- Ken Fortenberry AFTM rating states that the first thirty feet of a #6 line must weigh 160 grains +/- 8 grains tolerance. What is the rating of a #6 rod? MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:10:13 -0800 (PST), Mike
wrote: On 6 Dec, 04:49, Ken Fortenberry wrote: If I may be so bold....I believe what Mike is simply saying is that there isn't any *standard* for rating a rod, while there is a standard for rating a line. I believe he said the following: "There is no "rating" as such for blanks, or rods either for that matter." To which I replied: "Total nonsense." -- Ken Fortenberry OK. The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty feet of line ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160 grains +/- 8grains. Could you tell me how you would "rate" a #6 weight rod? MC I think the point has been made, let's move on... /daytripper |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod? To be fair, there are objective ratings and subjective ratings. People rate movies and TV shows and fly rods, but not in the relatively objective way that fly lines are rated. The difference is semantic. Fortenberry is trying to pull your string. Don't fall for it. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
On 6 Dec, 05:34, rw wrote:
Mike wrote: Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod? To be fair, there are objective ratings and subjective ratings. People rate movies and TV shows and fly rods, but not in the relatively objective way that fly lines are rated. The difference is semantic. Fortenberry is trying to pull your string. Don't fall for it. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. I donīt think so, he just refuses to grasp the matter. He can no longer "pull my string" as you put it. Also, I am not making the point for him, but for people who might be interested. In this case the difference is not semantic. The AFTM rating is an absolutely concrete objective physical definition for any given line. There is no AFTM definition for any given rod, there never has been, and there never will be. The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing at all to do with the AFTM standards. TL MC |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing at all to do with the AFTM standards. Correct. You and Fortenberry mean different things by "rating." That's why the difference is semantic and not worth arguing about. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
On 6 Dec, 05:01, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly by the manufacturer ? The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly" rated, because there is no correct rating. More total nonsense. So you keep saying. The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty feet of line, ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160 grains +/- 8 grains tolerance Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod? Me ? I'd just look at what the manufacturer wrote on it. If it said 6wt, I'd rate it a 6wt. There is no conspiracy afoot to fool the consumer and one doesn't need a slide rule or a set of shooting heads to determine which fly line to put on a fly rod. In the vast majority of cases the manufacturer has correctly determined the properly matching fly line, 100% of the time in my experience. -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
Mike wrote:
snip The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing at all to do with the AFTM standards. You keep repeating the same total nonsense. You may not like the way manufacturers rate their fly rods but rate them they do and they rate them to correspond with specific fly lines which are standardized. And they rate them correctly damn near every time so far as I can tell. -- Ken Fortenberry |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
daytripper typed:
snip I think the point has been made, let's move on... Move on? MOVE ON!? Not while there's an opportunity to argue and fuss over details that need have no argument - not on your life, buster! -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
"Mike" wrote in message ... ...The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing at all to do with the AFTM standards. Hm...... Given: 1. There are objective AFTM standards for fly line designations, based on weight. 2. Any rod will perform differently with any one AFTM line weight designation than with any other. 3. Expectations and satisfaction are highly variable between individuals. On the face of it, no.1 appears to suggest an objective element in fly rod designations. On the other hand, no. 3 seems to leave the door wide open for complete subjectivity. No. 2 looks like it could swing either way. The crux of the issue lies in the fact that variable as expectations are, they nevertheless tend to cluster; you'll have a hard time finding anyone who insists that his 1 weight rod performs best with a 12 weight line......or vice versa. But then, whether a particular 6 weight rod works best in a given specific situation with a 5, 6, or 7 weight line is remains highly debatable. In short, there are certainly objective criteria in fly rod designations but they shade into subjective judgments on the fine points. In other words, as usual, you are both wrong. The debate, in this instance (and as is typical here), hinges not on differences of opinion, resulting from different caches of fact and interpretation, but rather on the fact that you are both assholes to whom the truth of the matter (to whatever extent it may be discoverable) is a monumental irrelevancy. Carry on. Wolfgang |
DT Fly line for a slower action rod.
"Mike" wrote in message ... What is the rating of a #6 rod? #6. Wolfgang |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter