DT Fly line for a slower action rod.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

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.


Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?


I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line
rating, if that's what you mean.

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

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line
rating, if that's what you mean.

I once owned a fairly decent 9wt Sage XP.

Labeled 7.

Hated that rod.

- JR

JR wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested
line rating, if that's what you mean.


I once owned a fairly decent 9wt Sage XP.

Labeled 7.

Hated that rod.

- JR


My favorite rod, a Sage 5-piece 5wt XP (8'9"), the rod I've used for
trout fishing about 95% of the time for more than eight years, actually
performs best with a 6wt line. It took me three years to figure this
out. I felt like an idiot.

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

Theoretically yes, but there are a number of imponderables. Which line
suits a certain caster on a certain rod is very considerably dependent
on the caster, among other things.

The absolute weight outside the rod tip is only a reliable
consideration when it is a lead weight! Even then only up to a certain
point. A good caster will also cast a lead weight further and more
accurately than a poor caster! The loading characteristics of rods
vary considerably depending on the shape of the weight. There are a
large number of taper configurations in lines nowadays, and some suit
some rods better than others.

A powerful skilled caster can load a rod better, and also move it
faster ( or slower if required)in the right manner, so the dynamic
loading on the rod is greater when a good caster casts it. The right
combination of rotational and linear hand movement results in maximum
rod loading, and maximum line acceleration. These skills vary very
widely indeed among casters.

Beginners, and even many "intermediates", usually feel better off
with a relatively heavy line on a fast rod, as they find it easier to
load the rod with a heavier line. Of course, none of the people who
"rate" the rods are beginners ( at least not with reputable
manufacturers). Slow rods tend to perform better for beginners with
lighter lines.

Also, a curious phenomenon is now observable. At one time rods were
built to cast a certain defined piece of line, with plenty of
"overlap". Lines were all more or less identical.

Now there is a vast range of lines, and a number of manufacturers
either deliberately ignore the AFTM standards, or "improve" them in
some way. The rod manufacturers also now often design a rod to cast a
particular line. However, an extreme long belly WF line which conforms
to the AFTM #6 standard, is not at all the same thing as a normal #6
WF line which also conforms to that standard. Indeed, in this case the
standard is completely meaningless!

It only begins to load the rod properly when the (say) 60 foot head is
outside the tip, and with overhang. A rod which has been designed to
do this, is more or less useless to an average caster, unless he goes
up at least two line weights in a "standard" WF line. He just can not
load the rod properly otherwise, and probably not even very well then!
Much less at close range.

The main reason for "under-rating" rods is to make them less likely to
be broken! If a rod is consistently underloaded when casting, it is
far less likely to break than one which is overloaded. A rod which is
rated a #6 must be able to cast the 30 foot standard length of line,
but it must also be able to cast a full ninety foot DT if required.
Practically all modern rods will also do this, even with some reserve,
but this means that somebody who is using a #6WF with a "standard" 35
foot head is casting with a hopelessly underloaded rod. This is why
many people feel that a lot of top class American rods are underrated.

It also means that it is extremely difficult to cast and control such
a rod/line combination at short range. If the person concerned mainly
fishes at short range, then the combination of a fast rod and a light
line make life extremely difficult for him. He would better served
with a medium action rod and a standard line, or even a slightly
heavier line.

To get the fast rod to work at all at close range, it has to be very
considerably overlined. This is also a design factor in many fast
rods. Rods which are now classed as #6 rods, would once have been
classed as #8 rods, and so it goes on.

The whole industry has shifted focus very considerably over a long
period of time, and tackle choice is no longer as simple as it once
was.

Due to the present problems, and also as a result of AFFTA endeavours
with regard to Spey lines, which is also fraught with problems, and
has resulted in some people providing tables to re-convert to the old
system!!!! http://kellycreekflycasters.com/spey_line_guide.htm it
is fairly probable that some newer system will come into operation in
the not too distant future. Until then, becoming informed and using
some common sense is the best basis for selecting lines and rods. This
is of course difficult for beginners. Especially when they are
continually told that if it says AFTM #6 on a rod, that that rod will
cast any AFTM#6 line. This is simply not true.

Regards and tight lines!

Mike