what WF3 line should I buy?

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 . . .

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

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

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

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:08:54 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:


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.


That was supposed to be "any fly rod".

duh!!

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Willi" wrote in message
...


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.

Um......I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that line standards don't
mean **** if they aren't matched to stringent rod standards? Anybody here
ever tried to cast identical rods matched with identical reels and identical
lines side by side? And, I don't suppose it has ever occurred to anyone
that line standards based on gross weight of the first thirty feet......or
whatever.....don't mean **** unless the weight is distributed EXACTLY the
same in ALL of those lines?

Here's a little experiment you can do at home:

Take two identical rods, two identical reels, and two identical lines.
Spool up the lines and attach the reels to the rods. Thread the lines
through the guides. Now, attach a small weight......say, a tiny split
shot.....to the end of one of the lines. Take an identical weight and
attach it to the other line, about fifteen feet from the end. Remember now,
the lines are identical. Thus, by attaching the two identical weights you
have in NO way changed the difference in weight between the first thirty
feet of the two lines......they are STILL identical.

O.k., now go outside and cast both rods with an identical length of line out
above the tip top. Try a whole bunch of different lengths. Here's what's
going to happen.....no matter what length of line you have out on the two
rods (assuming it is the same for both), they will NEVER cast the same.

So far, so good.

Now, get 37 five weight rods.....all of them different makes and/or models
from one another. Cast all of them with the same reel and line......pick
whatever weight line is handy.....it doesn't make a damned bit of
difference. O.k. Done? Surprised? Why? You shouldn't be.

Sophistry, it would appear, still isn't an exact science.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote...
snip
Now, get 37 five weight rods.....all of them different makes and/or models
from one another.

Wayne - is that you?
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Now, get 37 five weight rods.....all of them different makes and/or models


Now that's an experiment I can appreciate g

Wolfgang Um......I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that line
Wolfgang standards don't mean **** if they aren't matched to
Wolfgang stringent rod standards?

Well, we can still hope that at least the one standard that has been
well defined would also be applied (in reality). It would be (has
been) a starting point, if nothing else.

Wolfgang Anybody here ever tried to cast identical rods matched with
Wolfgang identical reels and identical lines side by side? And, I
Wolfgang don't suppose it has ever occurred to anyone that line
Wolfgang standards based on gross weight of the first thirty
Wolfgang feet......or whatever.....don't mean **** unless the weight
Wolfgang is distributed EXACTLY the same in ALL of those lines?

True to some extent. The split shot experiment is probably too radical
to prove that the weight distribution has to be _exactly_ the same. My
guess would be that If I take two identical 5wt rods with identical
reels, and rig them up with two different true 5wt DT lines - which
have the exact same weight at 30' - they're going to feel _very_
similar. The differences in DT tapers are probably not the same order
of magnitude as the difference you get when you attach a split shot at
different positions. Haven't tried it, though, but I am willing to
place a small bet. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

"Jarmo Hurri" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang Um......I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that
line
Wolfgang standards don't mean **** if they aren't matched to
Wolfgang stringent rod standards?

Well, we can still hope that at least the one standard that has been
well defined would also be applied (in reality). It would be (has
been) a starting point, if nothing else.

Intuitively, it seems undeniable that standardization in any aspect of
equipment HAS to make it easier to make sound decisions about how to
match components to achieve optimum performance. Intuition sometimes
fails. Casting dynamics are just too complicated for a fixed line
weight to be the ideal solution for even a small number of casters
under a highly restricted set of circumstances. Far better, I think,
to go in the opposite direction......to offer a much wider variety of
weights and tapers than is currently available and simply label
accordingly. Let the user decide which suits him or her best.


Wolfgang Anybody here ever tried to cast identical rods matched
with
Wolfgang identical reels and identical lines side by side? And, I
Wolfgang don't suppose it has ever occurred to anyone that line
Wolfgang standards based on gross weight of the first thirty
Wolfgang feet......or whatever.....don't mean **** unless the
weight
Wolfgang is distributed EXACTLY the same in ALL of those lines?

True to some extent. The split shot experiment is probably too
radical
to prove that the weight distribution has to be _exactly_ the same.
My
guess would be that If I take two identical 5wt rods with identical
reels, and rig them up with two different true 5wt DT lines - which
have the exact same weight at 30' - they're going to feel _very_
similar. The differences in DT tapers are probably not the same
order
of magnitude as the difference you get when you attach a split shot
at
different positions. Haven't tried it, though, but I am willing to
place a small bet. :-)

The split shot experiment IS radical, but deliberately so, to
illustrate the point. But your counter-example illustrates that too
much emphasis is being placed on this matter of standards. If the
differences among 5 wt. DT lines aren't sufficient to demonstrate what
the split shot does, then what is the problem?

As for betting, I'd be willing to wager a goodly sum that very few
people, if handed a fly rod and told that it was either a four or five
weight and that it was strung with either a four or five weight line,
could consistently tell you which combination it was. Complicate the
experiment just a bit by repeated trials with different brands of rods
and I think no one would get results much better than random guessing.
Under actual fishing conditions the complexity of the problem is
increased by orders of magnitude. By the time you add in leader
characteristics, length of cast, type of cast, fly characteristics,
environmental considerations, individual casting idiosyncrasies and
others, the mere gross weight of the first thirty feet of line pales
to insignificance.

Wolfgang

wolfgang Intuitively, it seems undeniable that standardization in any
wolfgang aspect of equipment HAS to make it easier to make sound
wolfgang decisions about how to match components to achieve optimum
wolfgang performance. Intuition sometimes fails. Casting dynamics
wolfgang are just too complicated for a fixed line weight to be the
wolfgang ideal solution for even a small number of casters under a
wolfgang highly restricted set of circumstances. Far better, I
wolfgang think, to go in the opposite direction......to offer a much
wolfgang wider variety of weights and tapers than is currently
wolfgang available and simply label accordingly. Let the user decide
wolfgang which suits him or her best.

Yes, casting is too complicated to allow such an easy solution to the
problem of finding an _ideal_ line, as you note, but I think that
standardization facilitates finding satisficing solutions. Pros can
optimize in their own backyards.

wolfgang The split shot experiment IS radical, but deliberately so,
wolfgang to illustrate the point. But your counter-example
wolfgang illustrates that too much emphasis is being placed on this
wolfgang matter of standards. If the differences among 5 wt. DT
wolfgang lines aren't sufficient to demonstrate what the split shot
wolfgang does, then what is the problem?

I was naturally talking about 5wt DT lines which conform to the
standards.

wolfgang As for betting, I'd be willing to wager a goodly sum that
wolfgang very few people, if handed a fly rod and told that it was
wolfgang either a four or five weight and that it was strung with
wolfgang either a four or five weight line, could consistently tell
wolfgang you which combination it was.

Agreed.

wolfgang Complicate the experiment just a bit by repeated trials with
wolfgang different brands of rods and I think no one would get
wolfgang results much better than random guessing. Under actual
wolfgang fishing conditions the complexity of the problem is
wolfgang increased by orders of magnitude. By the time you add in
wolfgang leader characteristics, length of cast, type of cast, fly
wolfgang characteristics, environmental considerations, individual
wolfgang casting idiosyncrasies and others, the mere gross weight of
wolfgang the first thirty feet of line pales to insignificance.

I find fly-fishing to be the sum of many, many small issues that in
isolation seem insignificant, at least to some people. Like the brand
of whisky one prefers. Maybe many of these issues actually are as
small as they look, can't say.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .