Nonstandard line weights - SA response

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.

--
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:
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.


I definitely agree. One sign of a good company.

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.

Willi

Willi If they advertised them as a 4.5 weight or 6.5 weight line, or
Willi make that information readily available, I would have no
Willi problem with the practice.

Yep, that would be the upright solution.

--
Jarmo Hurri

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

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.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on earthlink dot net to respond via email)
Clave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt...nConclave.html

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.

Willi

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

Years ago, I complained to Cortland about their line weights. It was so bad
at one point that many fly shops weighed the lines and then marked the
weights....particularly on shooting heads. Things have gotten better since
then. However, there are also great variations in rod design i.e. very slow
rods all the way to extremely fast rods (rods so fast in action that they
were unheard of years ago). Some fisherman buy a fast action rod and have
trouble casting a line with it...because the timing may be different than
they are used to. In that case, you can "overline" the rod and usually slow
the action down. Conversely, you can often take a rod that is too slow and
"underline" the rod and speed up the action a bit (not always but
sometimes). Also...rods can handle a half weight up or down without a
problem IMHO. All you have to do is adapt your casting stroke a bit. Keep
in mind that the manufacturer's recommendation may not always be right for
you. I recall arguing with Harry Wilson (deceased now...but he used to be
the Scott PowerPly guy) on some of his heavier rods. In my opinion, they
would handle a much heavier line than he recommended...but my casting stroke
was much different than his...and that was the problem. You can also buy a
scale and weigh your lines...right at the fly shop if you're so
inclined...just to check the weight (weighing the first 30 feet less the
front taper was the way Leon Chandler of Cortland recommended...and he too
is deceased now....guess I'm showing my age).

Barry


"Warren" wrote in message
. ..
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.
--
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