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

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

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

Yep, that´s 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 world´s
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 9´6" #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. ( 9´rod, nine foot leader, 40 feet
of line = ~50 feet effective radius). That is about it´s 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

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

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.