DT Fly line for a slower action rod.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly"
rated, because there is no correct rating.

More total nonsense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 6 Dec, 04:49, Ken Fortenberry
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.

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

OK. The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty
feet of line ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160
grains +/- 8grains.

Could you tell me how you would "rate" a #6 weight rod?

MC

On 6 Dec, 05:01, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly"
rated, because there is no correct rating.

More total nonsense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

So you keep saying.

The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty feet
of line, ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160 grains
+/- 8 grains tolerance

Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod?

MC