what WF3 line should I buy?
 

I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

For 3wt and under, I like lines that roll cast well. I use the Triangle
taper.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message
...


I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

Any of the premium WF lines by the major makers would be a good WF3. As to
your application what type rod, a faster action rod would probably do better
with one of the slick coated lines, whereas a slower action rod would do
better with a more supple rod. Used to be you could take a DT and cut it
half but the tapers have changed where that may not work as well for you. I
like the SA mastery and the Wulf series of lines myself.

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

William,

Sage worked with Dave Whitlock and Scientific Anglers a few years ago to
developed a series of small weight forward floating lines in #0 to #5 line
size for their small light "SPL" rods. It is called the 'Quiet Taper' and
would be worth a try.

Any of the premium fly lines should be good.

--
Bill Kiene

Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento, CA, USA

Web site: www.kiene.com


"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message
...


I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message
...


I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

I'm happy with a Airflo Platinum Chalkstream that I bought because it was
the only decent line I could find in a small store. The finish is quite
slick.

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message
...


I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

I only fish Cortland 444 on full lenght fly lines. (actually i use their
shooting line for my coastal fishing too)
The coating is superb, and the line keeps smooth and "silky" even when
fishing at very low temperatures. It floates well too(the floating lines of
course, hehe). I've heard that when fishing on locations where it can very
hot (fishing permit, tarpon, bonefish etc), the line will get very stick and
almost "rubberband" like. I've never fished such places, so I cant say if
that's true or not.

Also Cortland lines are very affordable compared to SA, TEENY and SAGE lines
imho. Some might say that SA lines are more durable than Cortland lines, but
when a Cortland costs 50% of en equal SA line, then you could change your
line every ½ season, and always have a fresh new line. Allthough i've never
had any problems at all with Cortland lines. :o)


/Thomas

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message ...
I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

I try to buy double tapers whenever possible (they're sometimes
hard to find). They work fine for me, and you can turn them
around and fish the other side of the line, thereby doubling
the line life. Weight forward lines (at least for small trout
stream rigs) where a conspiracy--by the line manufacturers--to
sell more lines.

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

Salmo Bytes wrote:

"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message ...
I've been fishing for years with dispensable factory outlet junk lines.
Now I want something good.

What would be a good WF 3?

I try to buy double tapers whenever possible (they're sometimes
hard to find). They work fine for me, and you can turn them
around and fish the other side of the line, thereby doubling
the line life. Weight forward lines (at least for small trout
stream rigs) where a conspiracy--by the line manufacturers--to
sell more lines.

One of the best examples of how the industry is f***ing up the sport in
order to sell more stuff is the line manufacturers' screwing with line
weights (i.e., producing lines whose first 30 ft is not standard). A
very good summary was put together by Chuck Stranahan (Caddis Variant)
in his posts on this thread on the VFS forum:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=208385

JR

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

JR One of the best examples of how the industry is f***ing up the
JR sport in order to sell more stuff is the line manufacturers'
JR screwing with line weights (i.e., producing lines whose first 30
JR ft is not standard).

I'm curious: which manufacturers/lines no longer adhere to the
standards?

The one I know of is Scientific Anglers GPX (a 4wt line is in reality
something like 4.5wt).

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

In article , JR wrote:

Salmo Bytes wrote:

"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message

snipped

What would be a good WF 3?

snipped


One of the best examples of how the industry is f***ing up the sport in
order to sell more stuff is the line manufacturers' screwing with line
weights (i.e., producing lines whose first 30 ft is not standard). A
very good summary was put together by Chuck Stranahan (Caddis Variant)
in his posts on this thread on the VFS forum:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=208385

JR

That may well be true JR (and I'll read the article later) but the
Cortland Quiet Taper WF3F I use has been a very good small stream line
that has a much shorter forward taper than most. That being said I
bought it knowing that after talking to the Cortland rep so there was
no false advertising involved. I don't think it roll casts as well as a
DT but it handles any wind and larger flies better than others I've
tried.

Allen

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

JR One of the best examples of how the industry is f***ing up the
JR sport in order to sell more stuff is the line manufacturers'
JR screwing with line weights (i.e., producing lines whose first 30
JR ft is not standard).

I'm curious: which manufacturers/lines no longer adhere to the
standards?

The one I know of is Scientific Anglers GPX (a 4wt line is in reality
something like 4.5wt).

Good question. The GPX is the line most folks know deviates from the
standard, because SA has been pretty up front about it (sorry, couldn't
resist g).

A lot of new lines are being put on the market with remarks from the
makers about the front part of the line being somehow different from the
"norm", but with no actual specs on the weight. Consider this from
Cortland:

http://www.cortlandline.com/technical/444_specs.html

Note that the specs for all the old 444 lines have info on the actual
AFTMA line weight (±140 grams for the first 30 ft of a 5wt, for
example). For the "NEW" lines, though, i.e., the 444 Tropic Plus Lazer
Redfish and the 444 Classic Sylk (sic, God help us), there is only info
on the tapers, nothing about weight. The same seems to be true for Sage
and SA; you won't find much about the actual weight of their lines.

My own view is that after having hoodwinked a large portion of those new
to the sport into believing that as you become a "better" caster, you
will (and should) inevitably want to cast farther and you will (and
should) therefore want to "progress" to faster, usually more expensive,
rods in order to do so. Problem is most fast rods are so stiff they
don't load properly with less than a whole lot of line out. So the
chumps, er, customers end up with rods they can't cast worth a damn at
the distances 90% of us fish 90% of the time. Hence the need for
six-weight lines labeled as fives, fours labeled as threes, etc.

I've heard (and read on the web) rumors that some of the new "delicate
presentation" lines are lighter than the AFTMA norm, but I can't now
remember which ones. That would be particularly odd if true since they
would cast particularly poorly at close range. In any event, once the
line weight standard goes out the window, a line is only a five-weight
because the manufacturer says it is, and matching a "5wt" line with a
"5wt" rod becomes a crap shoot, an exercise in trial and error, which is
of course not a bad thing for the line companies.

JR

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

JR wrote:



One of the best examples of how the industry is f***ing up the sport in
order to sell more stuff is the line manufacturers' screwing with line
weights (i.e., producing lines whose first 30 ft is not standard). A
very good summary was put together by Chuck Stranahan (Caddis Variant)
in his posts on this thread on the VFS forum:


My chief gripe about lines too.

Willi

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

JR A lot of new lines are being put on the market with remarks from
JR the makers about the front part of the line being somehow
JR different from the "norm", but with no actual specs on the weight.
JR Consider this from Cortland:

JR http://www.cortlandline.com/technical/444_specs.html

JR Note that the specs for all the old 444 lines have info on the
JR actual AFTMA line weight (±140 grams for the first 30 ft of a 5wt,
JR for example). For the "NEW" lines, though, i.e., the 444 Tropic
JR Plus Lazer Redfish and the 444 Classic Sylk (sic, God help us),
JR there is only info on the tapers, nothing about weight. The same
JR seems to be true for Sage and SA; you won't find much about the
JR actual weight of their lines.

Good point. What we will soon need is some fanatic who will actually
weigh new lines and publish the results on a web page for
comparison. Pretty much insane - we already had the standard.

I think that my next new line will be one of the old 444's - just to
support lines with known ratings...

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

In article ,
Jarmo Hurri wrote:

JR A lot of new lines are being put on the market with remarks from
JR the makers about the front part of the line being somehow
JR different from the "norm", but with no actual specs on the weight.
JR Consider this from Cortland:

JR http://www.cortlandline.com/technical/444_specs.html

JR Note that the specs for all the old 444 lines have info on the
JR actual AFTMA line weight (±140 grams for the first 30 ft of a 5wt,
JR for example). For the "NEW" lines, though, i.e., the 444 Tropic
JR Plus Lazer Redfish and the 444 Classic Sylk (sic, God help us),
JR there is only info on the tapers, nothing about weight. The same
JR seems to be true for Sage and SA; you won't find much about the
JR actual weight of their lines.

Good point. What we will soon need is some fanatic who will actually
weigh new lines and publish the results on a web page for
comparison. Pretty much insane - we already had the standard.

I think that my next new line will be one of the old 444's - just to
support lines with known ratings...



My local fly fishing dealer (I live in Europe) says the Gary
LaFontaine's Delicate Presentation Line is the best invention since
sliced bread. Cortland 444 is old news.

Do you happen to know this line?

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:47:02 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:




Good point. What we will soon need is some fanatic who will actually
weigh new lines and publish the results on a web page for
comparison. Pretty much insane - we already had the standard.

I think that my next new line will be one of the old 444's - just to
support lines with known ratings...


No sympathy from this corner -- if you think regular lines are screwed
up, you should try spey lines.

One popular West Coast light spey rod casts both a Rio Windcutter 5/6
and a Hardy Mach 1 8/9 lines with equal ease as both lines weight
about the same!!!

It's chaos . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

Peter Charles wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:47:02 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:



Good point. What we will soon need is some fanatic who will actually
weigh new lines and publish the results on a web page for
comparison. Pretty much insane - we already had the standard.

I think that my next new line will be one of the old 444's - just to
support lines with known ratings...



No sympathy from this corner -- if you think regular lines are screwed
up, you should try spey lines.

One popular West Coast light spey rod casts both a Rio Windcutter 5/6
and a Hardy Mach 1 8/9 lines with equal ease as both lines weight
about the same!!!

It's chaos . . .

That sucks! When the line makers abandon the standard, you have to buy
or try out a bunch of lines to find what's going to work for you. I'm
going to buy those lines that still rate their lines by the standard.
Hope at least some still stay that way.

Willi

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:28:23 -0600, Willi wrote:



Peter Charles wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:47:02 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:



Good point. What we will soon need is some fanatic who will actually
weigh new lines and publish the results on a web page for
comparison. Pretty much insane - we already had the standard.

I think that my next new line will be one of the old 444's - just to
support lines with known ratings...



No sympathy from this corner -- if you think regular lines are screwed
up, you should try spey lines.

One popular West Coast light spey rod casts both a Rio Windcutter 5/6
and a Hardy Mach 1 8/9 lines with equal ease as both lines weight
about the same!!!

It's chaos . . .

That sucks! When the line makers abandon the standard, you have to buy
or try out a bunch of lines to find what's going to work for you. I'm
going to buy those lines that still rate their lines by the standard.
Hope at least some still stay that way.

Willi


With spey lines, there never has been a standard -- they're working on
it now.

I've produced some charts to help this along. Since not all of line
behind the rod is used to load it in a spey cast, that portion of the
line used in the load, I've called "casting weight". I've suggested
to the line makers that lines be rated according to their casting
weight, based on an arbitrary standardized D-Loop. It's had a
reasonable reception from SA so we'll see where we go from here.

In case you're interested. It's dry stuff but it would useful for
anyone interestied in spey casting. Incidentally, spey casts can be
done with any spey rod.

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...tingweight.xls
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...texplained.pdf
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...eightmodel.pdf
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...weightuses.pdf
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...htvariance.xls

Peter

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:08:54 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:


In case you're interested. It's dry stuff but it would useful for
anyone interestied in spey casting. Incidentally, spey casts can be
done with any spey rod.


That was supposed to be "any fly rod".

duh!!

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

William H.M. Wood wrote:

My local fly fishing dealer (I live in Europe) says the Gary
LaFontaine's Delicate Presentation Line is the best invention since
sliced bread. Cortland 444 is old news.

Do you happen to know this line?

I'm not familiar with that line, but your local fly fishing dealer
sounds like a fine salesman. :-)

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

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Peter Charles wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:47:02 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:



Good point. What we will soon need is some fanatic who will actually
weigh new lines and publish the results on a web page for
comparison. Pretty much insane - we already had the standard.

I think that my next new line will be one of the old 444's - just to
support lines with known ratings...



No sympathy from this corner -- if you think regular lines are screwed
up, you should try spey lines.

One popular West Coast light spey rod casts both a Rio Windcutter 5/6
and a Hardy Mach 1 8/9 lines with equal ease as both lines weight
about the same!!!

It's chaos . . .

That sucks! When the line makers abandon the standard, you have to buy
or try out a bunch of lines to find what's going to work for you. I'm
going to buy those lines that still rate their lines by the standard.
Hope at least some still stay that way.

Um......I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that line standards don't
mean **** if they aren't matched to stringent rod standards? Anybody here
ever tried to cast identical rods matched with identical reels and identical
lines side by side? And, I don't suppose it has ever occurred to anyone
that line standards based on gross weight of the first thirty feet......or
whatever.....don't mean **** unless the weight is distributed EXACTLY the
same in ALL of those lines?

Here's a little experiment you can do at home:

Take two identical rods, two identical reels, and two identical lines.
Spool up the lines and attach the reels to the rods. Thread the lines
through the guides. Now, attach a small weight......say, a tiny split
shot.....to the end of one of the lines. Take an identical weight and
attach it to the other line, about fifteen feet from the end. Remember now,
the lines are identical. Thus, by attaching the two identical weights you
have in NO way changed the difference in weight between the first thirty
feet of the two lines......they are STILL identical.

O.k., now go outside and cast both rods with an identical length of line out
above the tip top. Try a whole bunch of different lengths. Here's what's
going to happen.....no matter what length of line you have out on the two
rods (assuming it is the same for both), they will NEVER cast the same.

So far, so good.

Now, get 37 five weight rods.....all of them different makes and/or models
from one another. Cast all of them with the same reel and line......pick
whatever weight line is handy.....it doesn't make a damned bit of
difference. O.k. Done? Surprised? Why? You shouldn't be.

Sophistry, it would appear, still isn't an exact science.

Wolfgang

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote...
snip
Now, get 37 five weight rods.....all of them different makes and/or models
from one another.

Wayne - is that you?
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Now, get 37 five weight rods.....all of them different makes and/or models


Now that's an experiment I can appreciate g

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

William My local fly fishing dealer (I live in Europe) says the Gary
William LaFontaine's Delicate Presentation Line is the best invention
William since sliced bread. Cortland 444 is old news.

William Do you happen to know this line?

It's a WF line, so that's a definite no-no for me. Besides, the point
was that we at least know the true rating of a 444, whereas for other
lines it seems to be more or less a gamble these days.

Certainly not something to lose your sleep over, but might still be
worth voting with your money. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

Wolfgang Um......I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that line
Wolfgang standards don't mean **** if they aren't matched to
Wolfgang stringent rod standards?

Well, we can still hope that at least the one standard that has been
well defined would also be applied (in reality). It would be (has
been) a starting point, if nothing else.

Wolfgang Anybody here ever tried to cast identical rods matched with
Wolfgang identical reels and identical lines side by side? And, I
Wolfgang don't suppose it has ever occurred to anyone that line
Wolfgang standards based on gross weight of the first thirty
Wolfgang feet......or whatever.....don't mean **** unless the weight
Wolfgang is distributed EXACTLY the same in ALL of those lines?

True to some extent. The split shot experiment is probably too radical
to prove that the weight distribution has to be _exactly_ the same. My
guess would be that If I take two identical 5wt rods with identical
reels, and rig them up with two different true 5wt DT lines - which
have the exact same weight at 30' - they're going to feel _very_
similar. The differences in DT tapers are probably not the same order
of magnitude as the difference you get when you attach a split shot at
different positions. Haven't tried it, though, but I am willing to
place a small bet. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

William H.M.Wood wrote:My local fly fishing dealer (I live in Europe) says the
Gary
LaFontaine's Delicate Presentation Line is the best invention since
sliced bread. Cortland 444 is old news.

Do you happen to know this line?



If you are talking about the one that is in a drab olive color I bought one of
them when they first came out. It might be the answer if you fish primarily
very small flies in something like spring creek conditions. I don't but once
every five years or so. It does not work worth a damn with the heavily weighted
flies that I use in size 8 or 10 for my bluegill fishing. When I fish for trout
I seldom use flies smaller that a size 16 and I think that line excells for the
smaller flies.Since I bought that line, I have bought five or six more of the
old peach colored 444 lines in various sizes. I seldom cast more that 30 feet
in my fishing, so I do not need the ability to cast very long distances.I also
found that the drab olive color of that LaFontaine line was difficult to see at
the longer distances. You might want to consider this.

Big Dale

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

"Jarmo Hurri" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang Um......I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that
line
Wolfgang standards don't mean **** if they aren't matched to
Wolfgang stringent rod standards?

Well, we can still hope that at least the one standard that has been
well defined would also be applied (in reality). It would be (has
been) a starting point, if nothing else.

Intuitively, it seems undeniable that standardization in any aspect of
equipment HAS to make it easier to make sound decisions about how to
match components to achieve optimum performance. Intuition sometimes
fails. Casting dynamics are just too complicated for a fixed line
weight to be the ideal solution for even a small number of casters
under a highly restricted set of circumstances. Far better, I think,
to go in the opposite direction......to offer a much wider variety of
weights and tapers than is currently available and simply label
accordingly. Let the user decide which suits him or her best.


Wolfgang Anybody here ever tried to cast identical rods matched
with
Wolfgang identical reels and identical lines side by side? And, I
Wolfgang don't suppose it has ever occurred to anyone that line
Wolfgang standards based on gross weight of the first thirty
Wolfgang feet......or whatever.....don't mean **** unless the
weight
Wolfgang is distributed EXACTLY the same in ALL of those lines?

True to some extent. The split shot experiment is probably too
radical
to prove that the weight distribution has to be _exactly_ the same.
My
guess would be that If I take two identical 5wt rods with identical
reels, and rig them up with two different true 5wt DT lines - which
have the exact same weight at 30' - they're going to feel _very_
similar. The differences in DT tapers are probably not the same
order
of magnitude as the difference you get when you attach a split shot
at
different positions. Haven't tried it, though, but I am willing to
place a small bet. :-)

The split shot experiment IS radical, but deliberately so, to
illustrate the point. But your counter-example illustrates that too
much emphasis is being placed on this matter of standards. If the
differences among 5 wt. DT lines aren't sufficient to demonstrate what
the split shot does, then what is the problem?

As for betting, I'd be willing to wager a goodly sum that very few
people, if handed a fly rod and told that it was either a four or five
weight and that it was strung with either a four or five weight line,
could consistently tell you which combination it was. Complicate the
experiment just a bit by repeated trials with different brands of rods
and I think no one would get results much better than random guessing.
Under actual fishing conditions the complexity of the problem is
increased by orders of magnitude. By the time you add in leader
characteristics, length of cast, type of cast, fly characteristics,
environmental considerations, individual casting idiosyncrasies and
others, the mere gross weight of the first thirty feet of line pales
to insignificance.

Wolfgang

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

wolfgang Intuitively, it seems undeniable that standardization in any
wolfgang aspect of equipment HAS to make it easier to make sound
wolfgang decisions about how to match components to achieve optimum
wolfgang performance. Intuition sometimes fails. Casting dynamics
wolfgang are just too complicated for a fixed line weight to be the
wolfgang ideal solution for even a small number of casters under a
wolfgang highly restricted set of circumstances. Far better, I
wolfgang think, to go in the opposite direction......to offer a much
wolfgang wider variety of weights and tapers than is currently
wolfgang available and simply label accordingly. Let the user decide
wolfgang which suits him or her best.

Yes, casting is too complicated to allow such an easy solution to the
problem of finding an _ideal_ line, as you note, but I think that
standardization facilitates finding satisficing solutions. Pros can
optimize in their own backyards.

wolfgang The split shot experiment IS radical, but deliberately so,
wolfgang to illustrate the point. But your counter-example
wolfgang illustrates that too much emphasis is being placed on this
wolfgang matter of standards. If the differences among 5 wt. DT
wolfgang lines aren't sufficient to demonstrate what the split shot
wolfgang does, then what is the problem?

I was naturally talking about 5wt DT lines which conform to the
standards.

wolfgang As for betting, I'd be willing to wager a goodly sum that
wolfgang very few people, if handed a fly rod and told that it was
wolfgang either a four or five weight and that it was strung with
wolfgang either a four or five weight line, could consistently tell
wolfgang you which combination it was.

Agreed.

wolfgang Complicate the experiment just a bit by repeated trials with
wolfgang different brands of rods and I think no one would get
wolfgang results much better than random guessing. Under actual
wolfgang fishing conditions the complexity of the problem is
wolfgang increased by orders of magnitude. By the time you add in
wolfgang leader characteristics, length of cast, type of cast, fly
wolfgang characteristics, environmental considerations, individual
wolfgang casting idiosyncrasies and others, the mere gross weight of
wolfgang the first thirty feet of line pales to insignificance.

I find fly-fishing to be the sum of many, many small issues that in
isolation seem insignificant, at least to some people. Like the brand
of whisky one prefers. Maybe many of these issues actually are as
small as they look, can't say.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Wayne Knight wrote:
"William H.M. Wood" wrote in message
What would be a good WF 3?

I like the SA mastery and the Wulf series of lines myself.

I'll third the recommendation for the Wulff Triangle Taper. It's lovely
on my 8 ft 3 wt.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
\ Mu Young Lee
remove all dashes and underscores in reply address

what WF3 line should I buy?
 

Peter Charles wrote:

No sympathy from this corner -- if you think regular lines are screwed
up, you should try spey lines.

One popular West Coast light spey rod casts both a Rio Windcutter 5/6
and a Hardy Mach 1 8/9 lines with equal ease as both lines weight
about the same!!!

It's chaos . . .

Yeah, every time I take it into my head to quit just thinking about
going spey and actually buying something, I look at the Spey Clave site,
and after an hour or so my head starts spinning from all the rod/line
combinations, so I revert to rumination mode.....

Someone just posted these links on Westfly -- tables with Rio's and SA's
spey line-to-rod matchups.

http://www.rioproducts.com/pages/speyrecs.asp
http://www.flyfishusa.com/lines/mast...atability.html

Are these useful in your opinion? Maybe *this* is the future.... :(

JR