Replacement for sage 590 RPL

Ken I'll leave the physics to others. All I know is I fish with it as
Ken long as it floats and then I go drink Budweiser. I had the
Ken conceit at one point that after the line started to sink I would
Ken strip it off the reel, turn it around and fish the other end of
Ken the double taper until it too started to sink, but that's when I
Ken felt I had to fish all day. I rarely fish more than 3-4 hours at
Ken a time anymore and the silk line will float just fine for that
Ken long.

Enjoying it while it lasts is a good principle.

The reason why I wanted to ask about this is that I've been intrigued
by silk lines, but they're pretty damn expensive, so I wanted to think
about the situation first.

Quite another thing is that silk lines rhyme with bamboo, and that's a
road where I can not afford to go...

--
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:
snip
The reason why I wanted to ask about this is that I've been intrigued
by silk lines, but they're pretty damn expensive, so I wanted to think
about the situation first.

Quite another thing is that silk lines rhyme with bamboo, and that's a
road where I can not afford to go...

Bamboo is the reason I bought it in the first place. I have a vintage
'boo rod and I didn't want to replace the original small guides with
modern guides large enough to accomodate a Cortland peach.

I had the idea to use it on a slow rod because I think a silk line
presents long leaders and small flies better than plastic lines.
The idea to use the silk line on a relatively fast Sage RPL to do
battle with the wind was, how shall I say it, "herbally inspired". ;-)

It is something of a hassle however. When I lived in a cabin on the
stream all summer I installed cup hooks under the eaves of the cabin
so that I could take it off the reel every day, string it up under
the eaves and let it dry overnight.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken I had the idea to use it on a slow rod because I think a silk
Ken line presents long leaders and small flies better than plastic
Ken lines. The idea to use the silk line on a relatively fast Sage
Ken RPL to do battle with the wind was, how shall I say it, "herbally
Ken inspired". ;-)

The traditional way to create pieces of art and make significant
discoveries. Even some real ones.

Ken It is something of a hassle however. When I lived in a cabin on
Ken the stream all summer I installed cup hooks under the eaves of
Ken the cabin so that I could take it off the reel every day, string
Ken it up under the eaves and let it dry overnight.

Yes, it sounds like something to do when having access to reasonably
good facilities. Ideal on daytrips on small streams near home.

I have heard that when taken good care of, the silk lines can last at
least twice as long as the plastic ones, so maybe I could justify it
like that. It's like explaining my own actions afterwards: I've always
been creative enough to find an acceptable story.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:29:09 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:


Ken And speaking of the RPL, where did the notion come from that silk
Ken lines were the exclusive province of slow rods ? I put one of the
Ken modern silk lines from Phoenix in 5DT on the RPL and I think the
Ken lower profile silk line works very well on a relatively fast rod
Ken like the RPL, especially in the wind.

I assume that with lower profile you mean smaller diameter, right?
I've heard and read this about silk lines before, but I've never
understood it. ROFF is probably the best place to ask dumb question,
so please help me out.

Let's take two floating 5wt DT lines, one ordinary (plastic or
whatever), one silk. We know that their weight is the same for the
first 30'; let's cut the lines at 30', and let's denote the weight of
this 30' of line by the symbol m (don't worry, I'm not getting geared
up for a debate about adherence to the AFTM standards :-)).

So we have two pieces of line, each with weight m. Now let's assume
that these lines _float equally well_. This means that their densities
must be the same, right? So let's denote this (common) density by d.

Density is defined as the ratio of mass and volume, which we denote by
symbol V. That is d = m/V. Let's denote the volume of the ordinary
line (the 30' piece) by V1 and the volume of the silk line by V2. With
the assumptions that we had - both lines are 5wt and float equally
well - the volumes must be the same, since their masses and densities
are the same, and V1 = m/d = V2.

If the lines have the same volumes, their average diameters must be
equal. In fact, if they are both DT lines with similar tapers, then
they must have exactly the same profiles.

So, in my small mind it seems that in order for a 5wt silk line to
have a smaller diameter (lower profile) than an ordinary line, one of
the following must be true:

1. The silk line does not float as well as the ordinary line (because
it has a higher density).

2. The volume of the silk line is greater in water than in the
air. How would this be possible? Well, it just occurred to me that
air bubbles might attach themselves to the surface of the silk
line, thereby increasing its volume in water. Theoretically, that
is.

Or maybe it's really something completely different. You tell me.

The silk line absorbs water at a different rate than the plastic line
-in fact, the plastic line should not absorb it at all from a practical
standpoint of the average person's fishing time, but it's still at a
different rate than the silk. Hence, treating of silk lines, which
doesn't "seal" them as "plastic" does, and so, they will reach a "sink"
stage faster than plastic, but more important to the discussion at hand,
be of a different weight (and for the truly picky out there, a different
diameter as well, based on factors not germane here, IMO) than that from
which they started. So, what you've got, basically, is a line that is
fluid in weight because of, well, fluid. However, they are of a lesser
diameter at a given weight, starting out, of course, so they do have
advantages. Frankly, I just like them, and wouldn't even attempt to
truly defend their "necessity," only their appeal to me, and then, again
for myself, only on cane.

As to diameter, the original letter system was based on diameter, and
because there was (basically) only one material, silk, and since silk
pretty much all weighs the same at a given diameter, at least for our
purpose of discussion here, it worked.

(As a sidenote, the "letter" system went from A to I, with the A being
largest at .060", and I the smallest at .020", IIRC - but I'm sure it's
on the 'net somewhere for the curious.)

Then, came "plastic" lines and diameters were no longer usable as
accurate indicators of weight. So in the late 60s, the AFTMA came up
with, surprise, a weight standard that had nothing to do with diameter.
They used a reasonable amount of line for average fishers, settled on 30
feet, did some math with the silk lines to keep some order between the
letter-diameters and the number-weights, and ta-da! The AFTMA weight
standard was born.

Well, that was fine for a time, as things were fairly easy to compare
for those using equipment during the transition phase and with limited
choices available, anyway. But now, everybody has to be all
cutting-edge, high-tech, and keep up with the Krehs, so we are faced
with nonsense like "heavy 5s, light 6s," etc., and in the midst of it
all, silk (new and vintage) and older rods becomes (moderately) popular
again. So, now, one must convert one way or the other, i.e., a new rod
marked with a weight standard, but original silk standards are
diameters, or the rod is older and marked with a diameter, and convert
to a weight standard. Clear as mud? Well, OK, so it's probably some of
my description, true enough, but it is also the fact that what would
(and should) be a "quick mental conversion" situation has been made into
a friggin' 3-field math problem by fishers asking for w-a-a-a-a-a-y more
than they need and manufacturers only too happy to oblige.

The bottom line (pardon the pun): Silk has its place and plastic has its
place, and personal preference plays a large part in an informed
decision, but just like with the "5.5" nonsense, close will be more than
adequate for all but a VERY limited few fishers - if you have a rod
marked "5," a line marked "5" or starting with "HE.." will be fine or if
you have a rod marked "HEX," a line marked "5" will probably do you
just dandy. Granted, the letter-to-number conversions aren't EXACT,
again, close is gonna work for the GREAT majority.

HTH,
R
"...gee, honey, your waistline isn't a medium, it's merely in the larger
end of the small+ range..." SLAP!

rdean However, they are of a lesser diameter at a given weight,
rdean starting out, of course, so they do have advantages.

Do you mean "lesser diameter than plastic lines at a given line
weight"? If so, then why "of course"?

--
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:

Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually
Ken with red Mucilin.
And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line?

Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day
Ken like a plastic line will.

I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too
imprecise. :-)

But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation
would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep
the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all
the time.


Let an amateur scientist poke his nose in here for a minute. There are
two components of flotation, one is density, the other is surface
tension. If you treat the silk line, you do 2 things for it, 1) you
reduce it's tendency to get wet and pass through the surface film, and
2) you delay the time when water starts to enter the line and add
weight. We see the same effect with flies that we add floatant to.
The fly is still too heave to float, but until it's pushed through the
surface film it floats beautifully.

Sinking agents work like soap, making the surface like water, and
eliminating the surface tension. Floatants are the opposite, resisting
the water and using the surface tension.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

Chas Let an amateur scientist poke his nose in here for a minute.
Chas There are two components of flotation, one is density, the other
Chas is surface tension. If you treat the silk line, you do 2 things
Chas for it, 1) you reduce it's tendency to get wet and pass through
Chas the surface film, and 2) you delay the time when water starts to
Chas enter the line and add weight. We see the same effect with flies
Chas that we add floatant to. The fly is still too heave to float,
Chas but until it's pushed through the surface film it floats
Chas beautifully.

An excellent point, Chas, and this could very well be the key to
explaining this difference between silk and plastic lines. It never
occurred to me that maybe these lines land so softly that they can
utilize surface tension. Heck, 30' of a 2wt line weighs approximately
5 grams, so weight per inch, for example, is ridiculously small, and
surface tension might very well be the key.

So, hmm, perhaps the difference really is that it is easier to
increase the surface tension of a silk line. Since its surface is
porous, you can treat it easily with floatants.

Once again impressed by what a curious man can learn here. :-)

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:37:33 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:


rdean However, they are of a lesser diameter at a given weight,
rdean starting out, of course, so they do have advantages.

Do you mean "lesser diameter than plastic lines at a given line
weight"? If so, then why "of course"?

Yes, I did mean lesser diameter than plastic at a given (and equal)
weight. Or better yet, let's use "rod-appropriate loading weight" in
place of merely "weight" - IOW, a silk line whose weight will properly
load rod X will be lesser in diameter than a plastic line that will
properly load that same rod - sorry for being unclear. And "of course,"
because as I understand it, the lesser the diameter of the line
traveling through the air, the lesser the resistance. Does any or all
of this make THAT big a difference for the average fisher at average
fishing distances under average fishing conditions and where silk would
be appropriate? Probably somewhere between, "no, not really" and "well,
maybe a little bit," but again, I'm not trying to _justify_
(scientifically, practically, or otherwise) the use of silk (beyond "I
like it"), only attempting to offer answers to your questions.

TC,
R

In article , Jarmo Hurri
wrote:

An excellent point, Chas, and this could very well be the key to
explaining this difference between silk and plastic lines.

This *is* the reason. At least, for the fact that they float for
different reasons.

Silk lines aren't better than plastic ones. In fact, really, they're
worse, just as bamboo is really worse than carbon. I use both cane
rods and silk lines, but I'm not trying to make my fishing as
technologically efficient as possible. I think it's crazy when people
justify their use of outmoded technology by arguing that it's more
efficient. It isn't. But it may be nicer.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
snip
... I think it's crazy when people
justify their use of outmoded technology by arguing that it's more
efficient. It isn't. But it may be nicer.

Well, call me crazy, but I can cast a size 14 hopper on a 8'
leader more "efficiently" into and against a howling wind
with a 5DT silk line than with any plastic line I've ever
used on the same rod. Nice doesn't have anything to do with
it, it just flat ass works better.

And if you find yourself in a situation where you need to
use a 12' leader and size 20 dry fly you'll quickly learn
that a silk line is neither outmoded nor inefficient. A
silk line *IS* a pain in the ass to take care of, but that's
the only reason it's "outmoded technology".

--
Ken Fortenberry