Replacement for sage 590 RPL

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

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.

Actually, this isn't a difference between silk and plastic. They both
take floatant nicely, they both use surface tension, and they both land
softly enough to stay on top. Just a little care, and a 10wt line can
land very softly. I've had trouble with intermediate #5 and #6 lines
not breaking the surface tension, so they don't start sinking right
away.


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.

No, that's not a difference, as I said above. It's just the reason why
a silk line works even though it's denser.

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

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.

Chas Actually, this isn't a difference between silk and plastic.
Chas They both take floatant nicely, they both use surface tension,
Chas and they both land softly enough to stay on top.

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.

Chas No, that's not a difference, as I said above. It's just the
Chas reason why a silk line works even though it's denser.

So, what you're saying is that it would be possible to develop denser
plastic lines and use a floatant with them to achieve a floating line
with the same line diameter as a silk line. If this is true, then the
reason why plastic lines have a larger diameter is the fact that
fishermen prefer their lines care free.

Maybe it would be possible to just use an intermediate plastic line
with a floatant.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

In article , Ken
Fortenberry wrote:

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.

Doesn't that make it nicer?

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".

Fair enough. You're probably right. They are better. I suspect also
that for downstream wet-fly fishing, which I don't do much of for
trout, you might well have a much better feel for the fly.

I agree. I use them because I like using them, and they do have a nice
feel (and a nice sound) zinging out through the rings. And the physics,
as you point out, makes them much better into a wind.

The *main* advantage, though, is being able to look over your half-rim
spectacles at other anglers and say 'Oh, you've got one of those new
bubble lines, have you. Are they any good?'

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
snip
The *main* advantage, though, is being able to look over your half-rim
spectacles at other anglers and say 'Oh, you've got one of those new
bubble lines, have you. Are they any good?'

How on earth did you know that I wear half-rim spectacles ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

So, what you're saying is that it would be possible to develop denser
plastic lines and use a floatant with them to achieve a floating line
with the same line diameter as a silk line.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but sure, the dacron or nylon core is
smaller than the silk line, this could be done.

If this is true, then the
reason why plastic lines have a larger diameter is the fact that
fishermen prefer their lines care free.

Bingo!


Maybe it would be possible to just use an intermediate plastic line
with a floatant.

A thought, but most intermediate lines are made with a coating that
wants to break the surface tension, and I'm not sure how they would
take the floatant. I think in general you need to be careful what you
put on the modern lines, some chemicals could attack the plastic.

Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind,
so I don't see any reason to bother trying to push the square peg of a
modern line into the round hole of a silk line. I'd bet a fair amount
that I can cast cleanly and accurately with modern equipment to any
fish these guys can cast to with bamboo and silk. The advantage of
silk is aesthetics, not function.

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

If this is true, then the reason why plastic lines have a larger
diameter [than silk lines] is the fact that fishermen prefer their
lines care free.

Chas Bingo!

:-)

Chas Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in
Chas a wind, so I don't see any reason to bother trying to push the
Chas square peg of a modern line into the round hole of a silk line.

Well, for me that seems to depend on the length of the cast. For
example, while fishing with my 2wt last week, I was having plenty of
trouble with the sidewind when trying to reach feeding fish that were
further away. (I can't give you any exact measures of the distance I
was or was not able to handle.)

I am aware that a 2wt is not a long-distance tool, but since I
couldn't wade there, and the fish were surface feeding, and _did_ take
the fly when I was able to cast it there...

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

Chas Wade wrote:
snip
Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind,
...

But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Chas Wade wrote:
The advantage of
silk is aesthetics, not function.


I think there are advantages, but for me the care required out ways them.

As I understand it, a four weight silk is going to be about the same
diameter as a 2 weight. I think that is a VERY big advantage when
fishing for rising fish on flat water. It is also going to cast better
because of less wind resistance. I think I'd like to fish a silk line in
the lighter weights but I need my equipment to be as low maintenance as
possible.

Willi

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Chas Wade wrote:

snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in
a wind, ...


But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)


Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous
assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all
of us can do it.

Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch!

Willi

Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Chas Wade wrote:
snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT
in a wind, ...

But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and
change into that costume with the "S" on the front and
the cape on the back ? ;-)

Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous
assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all
of us can do it.

Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch!

Nigh on impossible for me, and I'm no slouch.

--
Ken Fortenberry