Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Motivated by the discussion in the "What WF3 line should I
buy?"-thread I sent an email to Scientific Anglers today. I asked them
which of their current lines do not conform to the AFTM standards, and
also suggested that they could add the line weight (first 30')
information into their line information bulletins.

To be honest, I did not expect any response.

I was wrong. _Kudos to SA_. They sent me an Excel sheet containing two
line weight standards that they use. The first one was the ordinary
AFTM standard. The second one was a nonstandard weight table with
heavier actual weights in each line weight class, a system which they
seem to call "half size heavy". Not only did this table contain the
heavier rating system, but it also contained the names of the lines
that follow this (nonstandard) system.

The nonstandard lines a
- GPX
- Headstart
- Nymph
- Windmaster
- Air Cel
- Concept

Most notably, according to this table the Trout and XPS line series
follow the original AFTM standard. I'm not familiar with sal****er
lines, and I'm not sure if they were included here.

The heavier rating system is what one would expect from its name: the
target weights are midway between the AFTM targets of the nominal line
weight and the next line weight up. For example, AFTM targets for 4wt
and 5wt are 120 and 140 grains, so in the heavier standard the 4wt
target is 130 grains. Tolerances do not change.

Excellent service.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Jarmo Hurri wrote:
a system which they
seem to call "half size heavy". Not only did this table contain the
heavier rating system, but it also contained the names of the lines
that follow this (nonstandard) system.

The nonstandard lines a
- GPX
- Headstart
- Nymph
- Windmaster
- Air Cel
- Concept

Most notably, according to this table the Trout and XPS line series
follow the original AFTM standard. I'm not familiar with sal****er
lines, and I'm not sure if they were included here.

The heavier rating system is what one would expect from its name: the
target weights are midway between the AFTM targets of the nominal line
weight and the next line weight up. For example, AFTM targets for 4wt
and 5wt are 120 and 140 grains, so in the heavier standard the 4wt
target is 130 grains. Tolerances do not change.

Excellent service.


I definitely agree. One sign of a good company.

If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or make that
information readily available, I would have no problem with the
practice. But like you, I want to know what I'm buying. If I buy 5
weight DT line, I don't want to get a 5.5 weight.

Willi

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Willi If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or
Willi make that information readily available, I would have no
Willi problem with the practice.

Yep, that would be the upright solution.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

wrote...
If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or make that
information readily available, I would have no problem with the
practice. But like you, I want to know what I'm buying. If I buy 5
weight DT line, I don't want to get a 5.5 weight.

They don't "advertise" that fact nor do they hide it. The info is
available on their "technical specifications" for various lines on
their website. The only way you could be "duped" is by not
researching what you are buying in the first place.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on earthlink dot net to respond via email)
Clave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Warren wrote:

wrote...

If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or make that
information readily available, I would have no problem with the
practice. But like you, I want to know what I'm buying. If I buy 5
weight DT line, I don't want to get a 5.5 weight.


They don't "advertise" that fact nor do they hide it. The info is
available on their "technical specifications" for various lines on
their website. The only way you could be "duped" is by not
researching what you are buying in the first place.

You didn't have to research in the past. If you bought a four weight
that's what you got. I don't think they should sell a 4.5 weight as a 4
weight.

Willi

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

wrote...


Warren wrote:

wrote...

If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or make that
information readily available, I would have no problem with the
practice. But like you, I want to know what I'm buying. If I buy 5
weight DT line, I don't want to get a 5.5 weight.


They don't "advertise" that fact nor do they hide it. The info is
available on their "technical specifications" for various lines on
their website. The only way you could be "duped" is by not
researching what you are buying in the first place.

You didn't have to research in the past. If you bought a four weight
that's what you got. I don't think they should sell a 4.5 weight as a 4
weight.

You didn't have to research automobiles in the past either, but now
you do. Unfortunately I think it is just a sign of the times and
you are eventually just going to have to accept it. It bothered me
at first too, but now I am used to it and actually count on that
sizing system when buying lines.

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized? What if a
classic 4 weight line doesn't work on modern "4wt" rods? What is a
line manufacturer supposed to do? If the rod manufacturers aren't
following the standards, why should we blame line manufacturers who
adapt to the rod changes?
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on earthlink dot net to respond via email)
Clave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Years ago, I complained to Cortland about their line weights. It was so bad
at one point that many fly shops weighed the lines and then marked the
weights....particularly on shooting heads. Things have gotten better since
then. However, there are also great variations in rod design i.e. very slow
rods all the way to extremely fast rods (rods so fast in action that they
were unheard of years ago). Some fisherman buy a fast action rod and have
trouble casting a line with it...because the timing may be different than
they are used to. In that case, you can "overline" the rod and usually slow
the action down. Conversely, you can often take a rod that is too slow and
"underline" the rod and speed up the action a bit (not always but
sometimes). Also...rods can handle a half weight up or down without a
problem IMHO. All you have to do is adapt your casting stroke a bit. Keep
in mind that the manufacturer's recommendation may not always be right for
you. I recall arguing with Harry Wilson (deceased now...but he used to be
the Scott PowerPly guy) on some of his heavier rods. In my opinion, they
would handle a much heavier line than he recommended...but my casting stroke
was much different than his...and that was the problem. You can also buy a
scale and weigh your lines...right at the fly shop if you're so
inclined...just to check the weight (weighing the first 30 feet less the
front taper was the way Leon Chandler of Cortland recommended...and he too
is deceased now....guess I'm showing my age).

Barry


"Warren" wrote in message
. ..
wrote...
If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or make that
information readily available, I would have no problem with the
practice. But like you, I want to know what I'm buying. If I buy 5
weight DT line, I don't want to get a 5.5 weight.

They don't "advertise" that fact nor do they hide it. The info is
available on their "technical specifications" for various lines on
their website. The only way you could be "duped" is by not
researching what you are buying in the first place.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on earthlink dot net to respond via email)
Clave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Warren wrote:

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized?

It is precisely (partly) because of that. Also because they really want
to convince fly fishers that they need a different line for fishing for
pike, for fishing for bonefish, for fishing for trout, for fishing for
bass, for fishing nymphs, for fishing when there's wind.....

What if a
classic 4 weight line doesn't work on modern "4wt" rods?

You put a 5 wt on it and you blame the rod manufacturer for seeding
confusion by producing something that isn't as labeled.

What is a
line manufacturer supposed to do?

Produce lines that match the label on them. Period.

If the rod manufacturers aren't
following the standards, why should we blame line manufacturers who
adapt to the rod changes?

Why can we blame just one or the other? Rod makers create chaos by
producing rods that don't load "optimally" (purposely in quotes, and
understanding that other factors such as taper, length of leader, size
of fly, etc., come into play) with 30 of the matching line wt out. This
chaos is good for sales, bad for both the casual and the average fly
fisher.

By saying, in effect, "Now we can play not just with taper, materials,
etc., but also with the weight that should correspond to the labeled
line WEIGHT," the line makers can further jerk the consumer around and
jack up sales just like the rod builders.

But maybe you're right.... just a sign of the times. Nothing can be
done. Let's all just roll belly up. ;)

JR

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

In article , JR wrote:

Warren wrote:

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized?

Snipped.

As I follow this though I think of the rods I own and my own
preferences. I like sloooow rods and lot of folks may consider my
Battenkill three weight a two weight and the St Croix Ultra 9'9" 5
weight I just bought is no five weight by my hand (and Wolfie and
Asadia agree) but more like a six until you get twenty feet of line out
(and that's a GPX 5 weight line!)

Is it time, as we all get more discerning, to start adding some sort of
modifier on rod weights to indicate speed? Something like a 5 + to
indicate a fast five that may easily accept a 6 weight to make it a
slow 6 or a 4- to indicate on that would take a four but three weight
and make it snappier?

No wait! How about a federal law that requires every fly shop to have
casting space? Well, maybe not....

Allen

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

"Allen Epps" wrote...
JR wrote:
Warren wrote:

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized?

Snipped.

As I follow this though I think of the rods I own and my own
preferences. I like sloooow rods and lot of folks may consider my
Battenkill three weight a two weight and the St Croix Ultra 9'9" 5
weight I just bought is no five weight by my hand (and Wolfie and
Asadia agree) but more like a six until you get twenty feet of line out
(and that's a GPX 5 weight line!)

Is it time, as we all get more discerning, to start adding some sort of
modifier on rod weights to indicate speed? Something like a 5 + to
indicate a fast five that may easily accept a 6 weight to make it a
slow 6 or a 4- to indicate on that would take a four but three weight
and make it snappier?

The last line I bought, a SA XXD WF5F was at a show earlier this year. This is
one of those lines they rate at 1/2 weight over. Although they have a bulletin
on their website stating this, I don't remember if they stated it on the box.
It is a great casting line on my 5/6 mid-action rod.

No wait! How about a federal law that requires every fly shop to have
casting space? Well, maybe not....

.. . . and free beer. . .
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

What if a classic 4 weight line doesn't work on modern "4wt" rods?

JR You put a 5 wt on it and you blame the rod manufacturer for
JR seeding confusion by producing something that isn't as labeled.

What is a line manufacturer supposed to do?

JR Produce lines that match the label on them. Period.

Exactly. Hey, it is a _very simple_ standard, no more, no less.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

Warren wrote...
[snip]
You didn't have to research automobiles in the past either, but now
you do.

Right. Odometer fraud was so prevalent during the 50s, 60s & 70s that
practically all used cars were 'low mileage'. Most Americans believed
that a car was worn out at 100,000 miles. Well, by the time the
odometer rolled over it had already been rolled back twice (or more).
The first driver'd put 40-60K on the car before trading it in. The
dealer would promptly roll the odo back a good 10-20K and sell it to
owner #2. #2 would drive it until the odo read 80K or so, trade it in
and the dealer'd roll it back to 60K. Owner #3, drives it to 100K+
and in reality the car's got over 150K or more.

Prior to the 'odometer accuracy' laws of the late 80s, very few cars
had accurate odometers after they were handled by a used car dealer.
If you buy a used car today, you are practically guaranteed that the
odometer is accurate.

"In the past" the used car comsumer didn't have the means to research
automobiles. The only way to get a well-researched used car was to
buy one from a private owner, preferably the original owner, with
complete & accurate service records w/receipts. Since practically
nobody keeps these records, you ended up with an unknown quantity. If
you bought a used car from a dealer, you were nearly guaranteed an
unknown quantity.

With regard to fly lines, I expect a 4wt when I buy a 4wt. Perhaps an
AFTM logo on the package to denote adherence to the AFTM standard is
in order. Kind of like ADA Accepted toothpaste or UL Listed
electrical appliances. OTOH, I probably couldn't tell the difference
between a 4wt and a 4.5wt under normal fishing conditions.

Tom G

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:11:54 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:


Motivated by the discussion in the "What WF3 line should I
buy?"-thread I sent an email to Scientific Anglers today. I asked them
which of their current lines do not conform to the AFTM standards, and
also suggested that they could add the line weight (first 30')
information into their line information bulletins.

To be honest, I did not expect any response.

I was wrong. _Kudos to SA_. They sent me an Excel sheet containing two
line weight standards that they use. The first one was the ordinary
AFTM standard. The second one was a nonstandard weight table with
heavier actual weights in each line weight class, a system which they
seem to call "half size heavy". Not only did this table contain the
heavier rating system, but it also contained the names of the lines
that follow this (nonstandard) system.

The nonstandard lines a
- GPX
- Headstart
- Nymph
- Windmaster
- Air Cel
- Concept

Most notably, according to this table the Trout and XPS line series
follow the original AFTM standard. I'm not familiar with sal****er
lines, and I'm not sure if they were included here.

The heavier rating system is what one would expect from its name: the
target weights are midway between the AFTM targets of the nominal line
weight and the next line weight up. For example, AFTM targets for 4wt
and 5wt are 120 and 140 grains, so in the heavier standard the 4wt
target is 130 grains. Tolerances do not change.

Excellent service.

Yes, it is, but let me he-e-e-e-e-e-l ya, brotha! I picked through some
of the original thread, including at least some of the split-shot
experiment. While this may have already appeared, I'm not wading
thorough it all to check, so if it's old news, sorry for wasting the
bandwidth. Unless the fishing caster is NEEDING (not just WANTING) to
boom out some serious line in less-than-ideal conditions and knows what
they are doing, a little weight one way or the other just doesn't
matter. I'll kiss your ass on the casting lawn and give you an hour to
sell tickets if 1 caster in 50 could _explain_ the difference (i.e, not
just say, 1 is different than 2, etc.) in 5 rig-ups I could hand them,
all X weight-rated, yet 49 out of the same 50 could probably catch
fish in 49 of 50 places they could imagine with any or all of the same
rigs.

Simply put, don't get all wrapped around the axle. AFTMA rating is a
range, and if the exact weight in grains (between x weight and x + 1
weight, within such a _practically_ small margin) is THAT crucial to
someone, they're either anal beyond all reason or a tournament caster.
If they are the former, NOTHING is going to please them - Jesus could
certify a line as 5.125, but they'd weigh it, and whine that it was
really a 5.126 - and if they are the latter, they ain't buying
box-o-line because it's marked whatever, Jesus and his traveling scale
or otherwise....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: all the average freshwater
flyfisher _needs_, terminal tackle excepted, is a rod marked something
between 4-5 and 6-7 (of even 5-6-7, etc.) from K/Wal-Mart, a reel at
least as good as a real (i.e., older) Medalist, and a "non-kit" line
that has one of the rod's numbers on the box. Everything beyond that is
choice, and not always for the better...of the angler or the fish.

HTH,
R

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

rdean Yes, it is, but let me he-e-e-e-e-e-l ya, brotha! I picked
rdean through some of the original thread, including at least some of
rdean the split-shot experiment. While this may have already
rdean appeared, I'm not wading thorough it all to check, so if it's
rdean old news, sorry for wasting the bandwidth. Unless the fishing
rdean caster is NEEDING (not just WANTING) to boom out some serious
rdean line in less-than-ideal conditions and knows what they are
rdean doing, a little weight one way or the other just doesn't
rdean matter. I'll kiss your ass on the casting lawn and give you an
rdean hour to sell tickets if 1 caster in 50 could _explain_ the
rdean difference (i.e, not just say, 1 is different than 2, etc.) in
rdean 5 rig-ups I could hand them, all X weight-rated, yet 49 out
rdean of the same 50 could probably catch fish in 49 of 50 places
rdean they could imagine with any or all of the same rigs.

rdean Simply put, don't get all wrapped around the axle. AFTMA
rdean rating is a range, and if the exact weight in grains (between
rdean x weight and x + 1 weight, within such a _practically_
rdean small margin) is THAT crucial to someone, they're either anal
rdean beyond all reason or a tournament caster.

Well, I'm not a tournament caster. On the other hand, this weight
thing is not crucial - it just doesn't please me. Let me put it the
other way round: if you can't tell the difference, why on earth do the
line companies then deviate from the standard? What's the _frigging
point_? Don't try to tell me that the standard does not help at all -
since it certainly does - so why start messing with it if there's
nothing to be gained?

Anyway, I he-e-e-e-e-e-ar ya, brotha, and since you're concerned with
my health, let me assure you that I sleep extremely well at night in
spite of having bought a 4wt SA GPX line a couple of years ago. And
yes, it's an excellent line too.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

Nonstandard line weights - SA response
 

I don't have a problem with nonstandard line weightds as I can't tell the
difference most of the time. I bought one of those little line scales and found
that for the most part they all weigh within the range. I do have a couple of
those red pike lines that were sold one as an 8 weight and one as a 10 weight
that weigh essentialy the same. No wonder I was having trouble getting the 10
weight rod to load well when tha line marked 10 weight actualy weighed as an 8
weight line. I figure this was just an OOPS', but till I weighed the line I had
not figured out why for sure for about five years.

Big Dale