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