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?