It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 09:33


1, 2, 3  Next New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 06:55 • #1 
New Member
Joined: 10/06/20
Posts: 5
In my last post asking about lines for a FF 70, I noticed a lot of people talked about using a double taper line. I know in general what a double taper is, but honestly I've never fished anything but a WF. What is the advantage of a DT over WF? I know this is probably a pretty basic question, but thanks for everyone's indulgence.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 07:52 • #2 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 05/30/07
Posts: 2342
Location: Arlington, TX
DocS
it's really about the history of fly lines. there was a time when silk lines ruled, with most affordable being level or un-tapered lines. Fly line companies sometime in the past around WW2's end developed a double ended tapered line. these lines could be switched after drying to re-use the other end. DT fell out of favor with most with the advent of modern WF tapers, but some folks still like and use them. For instance I prefer them in 4DT or under, because they are easier to handle when mending. In my opinion, for UL enthusiasts, DT rules since most of these lines are roll cast and the need to turn over heavier more wind resistant flies is not necessary.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 08:50 • #3 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 02/10/07
Posts: 1632
Location: The Netherlands
Rather than looking for description that might fit your idea(?), why not try one and feel it yourself?
Until about a year ago Hook & Hackle sold DT (and WF) lines that were $39 and on sale $29 which were (both) a steal. I think they were Cortland 333's made for H&H.

Due to the pandemic Barrio's shop has almost no lines left but do check often to see if there's one on the shelf. His lines are quite good and very reasonably priced:
https://www.flylineshop.com/shop.html


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 08:58 • #4 
Piscator
Joined: 08/10/05
Posts: 19077
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
With a WF, you can run out of belly, and the next cast stroke, the running line can't turn over the heavier belly, and your cast collapses (should be shooting line here, instead).

With a DT, heavier line is always turning over lighter line, and you can handle much longer line lengths in the air.

Note that newer DT designs have a back taper in addition to the front taper, and are designed to shoot. That said, most DT lines shoot pretty well even without the back taper, just because of the line mass that's loading the rod. Overall DT is more versatile, fishing better in close, making long reach casts, and even shooting distance.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 09:18 • #5 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/09/05
Posts: 2524
Location: US-CO
As others have said, the DT lines have tapers at both ends and the running line is level, not a reduced diameter like the WF lines. As mentioned above, it allows you to turn it around when one end gets worn out or damaged, it roll casts better than a WF line (if you get beyond the rear WF taper), it shoots line a bit less well that a WF line because the higher mass of the body of the DT line is heavier.

The last thing to consider is how if fits on a reel. A DT line will fill a reel significantly more so than a WF line due to the difference in diameter of the running line. Where you might be able to put a WF line with a fair amount of backing on a relatively small reel, the same will not prove true with a DT line. Unless you fish for species that will routinely take you well into the backing, this should not be a problem.

For tradition’s sake, short casting, and best roll casting performance at distance, twice the line life, and the possibility of less backing on a given reel, a DT line is my choice. For longer casts where I am shooting line, need a lot of backing, or hoping to use a smaller sized reel to match a particular rod, WF works best for me.

Bulldog - rear taper on a DT line?...egads. What will they think of next...AFTMA-overweight lines? Sheesh.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 09:22 • #6 
Sport
Joined: 10/30/18
Posts: 75
Location: Gateway to Death Valley
I think that a DT line is more useful at typical trout fishing distances.

Casting out to about 40' is about the same WF vs DT. It's easier to mend and roll cast a DT though.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 09:29 • #7 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
https://www.cortlandline.com/products/444-classic
https://www.cortlandline.com/products/444-peach-double-taper

In the case of 444 Peach- WF has 8' front taper + 20' body + 4' back taper
the DT has the same 8' front taper + 74' of body + another same 8' front taper (allowing turn around if damaged or worn)

So, if I took my DT and cut it off at 32' and attached a running line, I would in essence have a WF. A WF is a shooting head with integral running line.

As Buldog1935 said at about 32' the cast collapses unless it is shot, so I dislike WF lines for roll casting which makes up the majority of my fishing. On the other hand if in a casting contest the shooting line usually might cast farther, it's what they were invented for.


Last edited by Trev on 23 May 2021, 19:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 10:30 • #8 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 10/09/09
Posts: 2796
Location: US-NM
If my rod will handle a double taper that’s my first line of choice for all the reasons above then a long belly wf. will not use a traditional wf which will probably go the way of the dinasour............Aurelio


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 10:39 • #9 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 09/18/09
Posts: 5561
Location: Relocated to the Drought Stricken West.
Just to make it clear, the 32ft head is just for that line.

There are small stream WF lines with a 22ft head and other distance WF lines.

Every brand has a long belly (distance) version. SA Mastery Extreme Distance, Rio keeps changing the name, Bario GT. These lines have a long front taper (~25-30ft) a Belly ~10-15ft and a really long rear taper over 25ft.

They let you carry a large amount of line in the air. More than a DT, since you don't overload the rod when you get 50ft of line in the air. They don't do well with heavy flies, since the long front taper doesn't have the mass to turn over a heavy fly.

So the DT is popular on this forum for a few reasons. One is tradition. When the FF70 was built, the DT was a very common line. Another its it's ability to roll cast. A third reason is we're cheap. The DT line can be flipped over and the other end can be used.

I have a hard time spending $90 for a fly line, but that's what a high end Distance casting fly line costs, and if you need it, it's worth every penny. However, for every day fishing, a $30-40 WF or DT is more practical and definitely more affordable.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 11:36 • #10 
Master Guide
Joined: 12/27/08
Posts: 936
Location: Columbia, Mo. USA
This is not scientific----but for me on older fly rods a DT line feels better and cast better---IMHO.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 15:46 • #11 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 02/10/07
Posts: 1632
Location: The Netherlands
Oh and do turn over the DT line every 3-4 months rather than every 2-3 seasons. Otherwise the part that was living ‘down under’ will probably suffer from ‘squished’ and memory


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 23 May 2021, 17:29 • #12 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 04/20/07
Posts: 8920
Location: US-ME
Another way to say it is that WF lines are easier to "throw." DT lines are more versatile to cast and enable more precise control of the fly in mending, swimming the fly/ retrieving and so on.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 May 2021, 05:42 • #13 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/24/11
Posts: 1144
Location: Belgium
The original WF lines were mostly like the first 25 - 30 feet of a DT with a back taper tacked on and then running line. The belly was level, just like the belly of a DT. You could even think of a DT as a very long level belly with a front taper and a back taper that are exactly the same.

Modern lines have much more complex tapers, optimised for different fishing situations. The bellies are not level and mass distribution is optimised either for turnover or gentle delivery. As bulldog writes even some DTs now have rear tapers rather than a level belly.

I personally find the traditional tapers more honest. By this I mean that they will cast in a way that honestly reflects the caster's input. As such they are versatile but they do show up caster error more easily.

Many modern tapers are easier to cast - as long as you use them for their intended purpose, dictated by their particular design, they will deliver the fly consistently. They tend to have more mass quite far forward in the head (with the notable exception of spey casting tapers which have a very long and fine forward taper and more of the mass just outside the rod tip - but of course this works only with a fixed amount of line). You can immediately see how these line designs make life easy for the caster as long as he/she is sticking to the playbook, too much or too little line out of the rod tip and they won't work very well. Also difficult to do a nice curve cast at distance with lines that have short, heavy heads or super long front tapers designed for spey casting.

Getting back to the DT vs WF discussion the conventional DT is the most versatile line out there but it also needs to be cast properly. It takes up more space on the reel so that can be a consideration at times. Long belly WF also tend to be very nice casting and honest. The short head, overweight WF I don't like much - it's too close to casting a weighted lure for my taste, but it can be extremely easy to use in many situations.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 May 2021, 06:20 • #14 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 02/06/07
Posts: 1437
Location: US-VT
While I agree with most of the above opinions, I never subscribed to the "last twice as long" by flipping the DT. That rear end usually is as memory tight as an "old ladies" perm.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 May 2021, 07:56 • #15 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
I think the "aggressive" and multi-tapered specialty lines are not truly "weight forward" in the original sense, they are just specialty lines, very good for very narrow application. They should be listed by name and mass rather than trying to hide their identity under the WF umbrella and giving them standard weight designations when the first 30' might be several line weights heavy.
The long belly WF are also tending away from the original WF idea, but in a good way, because if the belly is extended to 50'-60' the line is for practical purposes a DT.

I don't think of the modern DT as being designed to last twice as long, because the plasticizers drying up will be the end of life of any plastic line, they do give me the option of turning out the "new" end if the first end becomes damaged, which when I fish from the bank can happen easily with one misstep, it has also happened when I cast just a bit close to a sunken tree and became tangled, so I do think of them as "being two lines in one". I think the DT design is in a way a "left over" from braided line days when eventually the line would sink no matter how well greased, so after a while, perhaps at lunch time the line would be reversed on the reel giving a dry line to continue fishing with.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 May 2021, 08:21 • #16 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 04/20/07
Posts: 8920
Location: US-ME
Agree, "lasts twice as long" is a secondary factor. Most of the rest isn't opinion, but rather empirical and mechanical as to the nature of casting an elongated weight. DT versatility in fishing/handling, not specialization for casting with finicky rods--which most 'glass rods are not--is their main virtue. If getting maximum life by turning the line is important, though, that's easy enough. Don't wait to do it until one end is worn out. Do it periodically. With loop connections, or a nail-knotted leader loop, and the same to the backing, turning a DT line by winding it from one reel to another, or from the spool to the same reel with another spool takes all of three minutes. It can even be done astream, the current being helpful in relaxing the line before it is rewound. Hold the "out" end, throw a loop in the current, and let the line unspool its full length. Disconnect from backing and let the whole line straighten and wave in the current while tying the "out" end to the backing. Reel it all up. You have at least 4.251 minutes (aprroximately, rounded to the nearest thousandth minute) into that, less time than it takes to study the box of some intricate specialty taper. Plus you rested the run while standing there, and you will only have to cast once or twice to present and fish the fly to catch a feeding fish who has eased out of caution mode while you were rerigging instead of flailing away trying to throw a specialty line to fish that have been spooked across the river.

There are many good discussions on FFR about the properties of DT and WF lines in the relatively straightforward configurations most common in the fiberglass era, and well suited to 'glass (and bamboo as well) rods. One is the origin discussion of 406 lines, initiated when the product line was being developed. Sorry, I don't have time this morning to search it out. Here is another good one: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51560&hilit=input


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 May 2021, 08:28 • #17 
Piscator
Joined: 08/10/05
Posts: 19077
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
if you've ever gone to the trouble of varnishing a silk line for a week to 10 days, a pegboard can be a very helpful place for stretching them out to relax (or cure).


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 26 May 2021, 22:10 • #18 
Master Guide
Joined: 01/21/12
Posts: 462
Location: US-NY
I disagree that you can carry more line with a longbelly than a DT. Although I'd agree that it is really close.

DT line won't make you a better caster, but I prefer them because it is easier to mend, roll cast, and most importantly for me,, make presentation casts at a distance. I can also shoot them into my backing if I want. Longbelly lines are a close second but I prefer DT.

I think gpx type tapers are horrible for dry fly fishing but are fine for streamers.
A 30 to 40 foot head means you have to shoot line on any long cast which makes presentation casts difficult and inconsistent. Honestly, I think those tapers shouldn't even exist below 6 wt.

And don't even get me started on ambush or OBS...


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 12 Aug 2021, 16:16 • #19 
New Member
Joined: 07/10/21
Posts: 1
The topic, DT vs WF has been covered well. So, I'll bottom-line the topic. Slow to medium action, most fiberglass and bamboo rods and some medium action graphite rods, use DT. All medium to fast action rods WF but a DT can be nice in sort to medium distance situations. With that said the long belly lines can be great on all rods, but they don't come cheap.

Save your money on the reel that only holds line and is capable of enough drag to prevent backlash, unless you're catching fish on heavy tippet and weighing 15 plus pounds, there are many inexpensive rods that cast really good, so spend what you can afford. Spend the extra money on a good line because without a good line your casting experience may not be enjoyable, no matter how much money you spend on a rod and reel.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 13 Aug 2021, 08:10 • #20 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 10/20/11
Posts: 1880
Location: US-MD
Yep long belly's are the best of both worlds.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 14 Aug 2021, 19:01 • #21 
Master Guide
Joined: 07/21/21
Posts: 447
Location: Florida
Ok so what is a good long belly line for a glass rod?


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 15 Aug 2021, 00:20 • #22 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
Well since a good DT is about $60-$70 and the long belly only has one end, I'd look for one at ~$35, I can see a long belly as being better than the standard WF but it has no advantage over the DT imo.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 15 Aug 2021, 07:00 • #23 
Sport
Joined: 09/16/20
Posts: 36
Sadly I’ve never met a DT line that likes me. I’ve tried but they just don’t like my casting stroke. TT lines like me even less. Nothing scientific here, I just go with what feels best to me.

The Scientific Angler Mastery line, the one with the rainbow on the box, tolerates me as much as my wife does.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 15 Aug 2021, 16:16 • #24 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 09/18/09
Posts: 5561
Location: Relocated to the Drought Stricken West.
Cyguy wrote:
Ok so what is a good long belly line for a glass rod?

That's like asking what oil should my car take.

Each rod is different. For that matter, different people like different lines on the same rod.

TT long belly works really well on McFarland rods since he designs his rods for TT lines. I think the long belly line brand is less important than matching the line weight to the distance you are casting.

SA Mastery Extreme Distance, Rio Technical Trout, Bario GT90 or GT125, Wulff Long Belly. Are all good. I think Cortland has one too. My preference is a long front taper like the TT or GT90. At least for dries. The SA M.E.D. is front loaded and made more for lawn casting than presenting a dry fly. The GT90 and TT long belly are also more reasonably priced than the SA or Rio lines.

The issue I say with weight is that a line is rated by the weight of the first 30ft of the fly line, but by the reason that you want a long belly line is you want to carry more than 30ft. And some glass rods will overload more than others.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 15 Aug 2021, 17:34 • #25 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
I agree with Carlz, I think. on most points; but not being a real casting expert, I'm seeing differently maybe on carrying more line, my head says that increasing the belly length just means the line is more like the DT or for that matter the level line, so that 50' of long belly will have about the same mass as 50' of DT; given the same taper and not much different than 50' of level line, the only way that mass can be reduced is by increasing the front taper and in standard line weights that should have the result of larger diameter and I suspect larger mass when it reaches the level belly, thus probably bring the carried mass back to about the same. Even making the front taper longer than 30' still leaves that 30' with the same mass as the DT or Level line. 30' of XXg will always be 30' of XXg.
Am I not seeing something?

I've had a few of those rods that overload quickly past the 40' point and the way I carry more line is to use a line with less mass in the first 30'- a lower number line, thus having a lower mass at 50-60', however needing to carry more than 30-40' is generally not a problem for me when fishing streams. I think those older rods were designed less for casting and more for fishing, distance was gained by using longer rods and heavier lines.
I think the new improved line weight standard should look like the current Spey line standard giving total mass at certain lengths. In fact I look at the Spey chart when thinking bout what mass a head should/could be for a rod rated as X.

I haven't used the long belly Wulff lines but I used the TT for a few years and often rollcast beyond the belly, which is in effect the end of the line. Same problem as all WF lines, the head length is the line length, the rest is shooting line or in most cases simply backing.
I've long thought that using a shooting head and a better more efficient running line should make WF obsolete, so far I've been wrong. I'm not sure why, the large guides on modern rods pass loop connections, so the joining shouldn't be the problem it once was.

Scott Milford wrote:
Sadly I’ve never met a DT line that likes me.

I'm curious how they failed you?


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

1, 2, 3  Next New Topic Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chaoticscott, Smaily79 and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group