Nonstandard line weights - SA response

wrote...


Warren wrote:

wrote...

If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or make that
information readily available, I would have no problem with the
practice. But like you, I want to know what I'm buying. If I buy 5
weight DT line, I don't want to get a 5.5 weight.


They don't "advertise" that fact nor do they hide it. The info is
available on their "technical specifications" for various lines on
their website. The only way you could be "duped" is by not
researching what you are buying in the first place.

You didn't have to research in the past. If you bought a four weight
that's what you got. I don't think they should sell a 4.5 weight as a 4
weight.

You didn't have to research automobiles in the past either, but now
you do. Unfortunately I think it is just a sign of the times and
you are eventually just going to have to accept it. It bothered me
at first too, but now I am used to it and actually count on that
sizing system when buying lines.

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized? What if a
classic 4 weight line doesn't work on modern "4wt" rods? What is a
line manufacturer supposed to do? If the rod manufacturers aren't
following the standards, why should we blame line manufacturers who
adapt to the rod changes?
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on earthlink dot net to respond via email)
Clave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

Warren wrote:

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized?

It is precisely (partly) because of that. Also because they really want
to convince fly fishers that they need a different line for fishing for
pike, for fishing for bonefish, for fishing for trout, for fishing for
bass, for fishing nymphs, for fishing when there's wind.....

What if a
classic 4 weight line doesn't work on modern "4wt" rods?

You put a 5 wt on it and you blame the rod manufacturer for seeding
confusion by producing something that isn't as labeled.

What is a
line manufacturer supposed to do?

Produce lines that match the label on them. Period.

If the rod manufacturers aren't
following the standards, why should we blame line manufacturers who
adapt to the rod changes?

Why can we blame just one or the other? Rod makers create chaos by
producing rods that don't load "optimally" (purposely in quotes, and
understanding that other factors such as taper, length of leader, size
of fly, etc., come into play) with 30 of the matching line wt out. This
chaos is good for sales, bad for both the casual and the average fly
fisher.

By saying, in effect, "Now we can play not just with taper, materials,
etc., but also with the weight that should correspond to the labeled
line WEIGHT," the line makers can further jerk the consumer around and
jack up sales just like the rod builders.

But maybe you're right.... just a sign of the times. Nothing can be
done. Let's all just roll belly up.

JR

In article , JR wrote:

Warren wrote:

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized?

Snipped.

As I follow this though I think of the rods I own and my own
preferences. I like sloooow rods and lot of folks may consider my
Battenkill three weight a two weight and the St Croix Ultra 9'9" 5
weight I just bought is no five weight by my hand (and Wolfie and
Asadia agree) but more like a six until you get twenty feet of line out
(and that's a GPX 5 weight line!)

Is it time, as we all get more discerning, to start adding some sort of
modifier on rod weights to indicate speed? Something like a 5 + to
indicate a fast five that may easily accept a 6 weight to make it a
slow 6 or a 4- to indicate on that would take a four but three weight
and make it snappier?

No wait! How about a federal law that requires every fly shop to have
casting space? Well, maybe not....

Allen

"Allen Epps" wrote...
JR wrote:
Warren wrote:

I am not 100% sure that it is the line manufacturer's fault though.
I mean they are the ones making the lines that way, but could it be
because of how modern rods are manufactured and sized?

Snipped.

As I follow this though I think of the rods I own and my own
preferences. I like sloooow rods and lot of folks may consider my
Battenkill three weight a two weight and the St Croix Ultra 9'9" 5
weight I just bought is no five weight by my hand (and Wolfie and
Asadia agree) but more like a six until you get twenty feet of line out
(and that's a GPX 5 weight line!)

Is it time, as we all get more discerning, to start adding some sort of
modifier on rod weights to indicate speed? Something like a 5 + to
indicate a fast five that may easily accept a 6 weight to make it a
slow 6 or a 4- to indicate on that would take a four but three weight
and make it snappier?

The last line I bought, a SA XXD WF5F was at a show earlier this year. This is
one of those lines they rate at 1/2 weight over. Although they have a bulletin
on their website stating this, I don't remember if they stated it on the box.
It is a great casting line on my 5/6 mid-action rod.

No wait! How about a federal law that requires every fly shop to have
casting space? Well, maybe not....

.. . . and free beer. . .
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

What if a classic 4 weight line doesn't work on modern "4wt" rods?

JR You put a 5 wt on it and you blame the rod manufacturer for
JR seeding confusion by producing something that isn't as labeled.

What is a line manufacturer supposed to do?

JR Produce lines that match the label on them. Period.

Exactly. Hey, it is a _very simple_ standard, no more, no less.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

Warren wrote...
[snip]
You didn't have to research automobiles in the past either, but now
you do.

Right. Odometer fraud was so prevalent during the 50s, 60s & 70s that
practically all used cars were 'low mileage'. Most Americans believed
that a car was worn out at 100,000 miles. Well, by the time the
odometer rolled over it had already been rolled back twice (or more).
The first driver'd put 40-60K on the car before trading it in. The
dealer would promptly roll the odo back a good 10-20K and sell it to
owner #2. #2 would drive it until the odo read 80K or so, trade it in
and the dealer'd roll it back to 60K. Owner #3, drives it to 100K+
and in reality the car's got over 150K or more.

Prior to the 'odometer accuracy' laws of the late 80s, very few cars
had accurate odometers after they were handled by a used car dealer.
If you buy a used car today, you are practically guaranteed that the
odometer is accurate.

"In the past" the used car comsumer didn't have the means to research
automobiles. The only way to get a well-researched used car was to
buy one from a private owner, preferably the original owner, with
complete & accurate service records w/receipts. Since practically
nobody keeps these records, you ended up with an unknown quantity. If
you bought a used car from a dealer, you were nearly guaranteed an
unknown quantity.

With regard to fly lines, I expect a 4wt when I buy a 4wt. Perhaps an
AFTM logo on the package to denote adherence to the AFTM standard is
in order. Kind of like ADA Accepted toothpaste or UL Listed
electrical appliances. OTOH, I probably couldn't tell the difference
between a 4wt and a 4.5wt under normal fishing conditions.

Tom G