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

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

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

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

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

http://www.sexyloops.com/beginners/lesson2/aftm.shtml

MC

http://www.letsflyfish.com/aftmprobs.htm

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

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

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.