Nonstandard line weights - SA response

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:11:54 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:


Motivated by the discussion in the "What WF3 line should I
buy?"-thread I sent an email to Scientific Anglers today. I asked them
which of their current lines do not conform to the AFTM standards, and
also suggested that they could add the line weight (first 30')
information into their line information bulletins.

To be honest, I did not expect any response.

I was wrong. _Kudos to SA_. They sent me an Excel sheet containing two
line weight standards that they use. The first one was the ordinary
AFTM standard. The second one was a nonstandard weight table with
heavier actual weights in each line weight class, a system which they
seem to call "half size heavy". Not only did this table contain the
heavier rating system, but it also contained the names of the lines
that follow this (nonstandard) system.

The nonstandard lines a
- GPX
- Headstart
- Nymph
- Windmaster
- Air Cel
- Concept

Most notably, according to this table the Trout and XPS line series
follow the original AFTM standard. I'm not familiar with sal****er
lines, and I'm not sure if they were included here.

The heavier rating system is what one would expect from its name: the
target weights are midway between the AFTM targets of the nominal line
weight and the next line weight up. For example, AFTM targets for 4wt
and 5wt are 120 and 140 grains, so in the heavier standard the 4wt
target is 130 grains. Tolerances do not change.

Excellent service.

Yes, it is, but let me he-e-e-e-e-e-l ya, brotha! I picked through some
of the original thread, including at least some of the split-shot
experiment. While this may have already appeared, I'm not wading
thorough it all to check, so if it's old news, sorry for wasting the
bandwidth. Unless the fishing caster is NEEDING (not just WANTING) to
boom out some serious line in less-than-ideal conditions and knows what
they are doing, a little weight one way or the other just doesn't
matter. I'll kiss your ass on the casting lawn and give you an hour to
sell tickets if 1 caster in 50 could _explain_ the difference (i.e, not
just say, 1 is different than 2, etc.) in 5 rig-ups I could hand them,
all X weight-rated, yet 49 out of the same 50 could probably catch
fish in 49 of 50 places they could imagine with any or all of the same
rigs.

Simply put, don't get all wrapped around the axle. AFTMA rating is a
range, and if the exact weight in grains (between x weight and x + 1
weight, within such a _practically_ small margin) is THAT crucial to
someone, they're either anal beyond all reason or a tournament caster.
If they are the former, NOTHING is going to please them - Jesus could
certify a line as 5.125, but they'd weigh it, and whine that it was
really a 5.126 - and if they are the latter, they ain't buying
box-o-line because it's marked whatever, Jesus and his traveling scale
or otherwise....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: all the average freshwater
flyfisher _needs_, terminal tackle excepted, is a rod marked something
between 4-5 and 6-7 (of even 5-6-7, etc.) from K/Wal-Mart, a reel at
least as good as a real (i.e., older) Medalist, and a "non-kit" line
that has one of the rod's numbers on the box. Everything beyond that is
choice, and not always for the better...of the angler or the fish.

HTH,
R

rdean Yes, it is, but let me he-e-e-e-e-e-l ya, brotha! I picked
rdean through some of the original thread, including at least some of
rdean the split-shot experiment. While this may have already
rdean appeared, I'm not wading thorough it all to check, so if it's
rdean old news, sorry for wasting the bandwidth. Unless the fishing
rdean caster is NEEDING (not just WANTING) to boom out some serious
rdean line in less-than-ideal conditions and knows what they are
rdean doing, a little weight one way or the other just doesn't
rdean matter. I'll kiss your ass on the casting lawn and give you an
rdean hour to sell tickets if 1 caster in 50 could _explain_ the
rdean difference (i.e, not just say, 1 is different than 2, etc.) in
rdean 5 rig-ups I could hand them, all X weight-rated, yet 49 out
rdean of the same 50 could probably catch fish in 49 of 50 places
rdean they could imagine with any or all of the same rigs.

rdean Simply put, don't get all wrapped around the axle. AFTMA
rdean rating is a range, and if the exact weight in grains (between
rdean x weight and x + 1 weight, within such a _practically_
rdean small margin) is THAT crucial to someone, they're either anal
rdean beyond all reason or a tournament caster.

Well, I'm not a tournament caster. On the other hand, this weight
thing is not crucial - it just doesn't please me. Let me put it the
other way round: if you can't tell the difference, why on earth do the
line companies then deviate from the standard? What's the _frigging
point_? Don't try to tell me that the standard does not help at all -
since it certainly does - so why start messing with it if there's
nothing to be gained?

Anyway, I he-e-e-e-e-e-ar ya, brotha, and since you're concerned with
my health, let me assure you that I sleep extremely well at night in
spite of having bought a 4wt SA GPX line a couple of years ago. And
yes, it's an excellent line too.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

I don't have a problem with nonstandard line weightds as I can't tell the
difference most of the time. I bought one of those little line scales and found
that for the most part they all weigh within the range. I do have a couple of
those red pike lines that were sold one as an 8 weight and one as a 10 weight
that weigh essentialy the same. No wonder I was having trouble getting the 10
weight rod to load well when tha line marked 10 weight actualy weighed as an 8
weight line. I figure this was just an OOPS', but till I weighed the line I had
not figured out why for sure for about five years.

Big Dale