It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 12:49


Previous  1, 2, 3 New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 31 Aug 2021, 08:27 • #51 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/06/17
Posts: 2498
Location: South of Joplin
I often use 3-5 differing line weights on my 'glass rods, depending on the rod, they all can handle more than one correct weight. The very nature of casting line means that the rods must have a wide range of 'correctness' say from a few grains at 12' to ~400gr at 70-80' for a 6wt rod, so use of one weight up or down is well within the rod's capability at normal fishing distances. I just want the lines to follow the standards so that I know how much up or down I going from the "optimal" weight suggested for the rod.
I would not object to a change of the standards to show line mass at different length points in the same way they currently show spey lines, but as long as the standard remains the standard, a line company that mislabels a line weight is a cheat. The idea of more line character designations as suggested above is excellent, imo. I like the RW6SCTTNTOS for a lot of my fishing.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 31 Aug 2021, 15:08 • #52 
Administrator
Joined: 01/10/06
Posts: 7811
Location: Holly Springs, NC
Proheli, this is my personal view of the fly line market. There are three categories of fly line, not including spey lines*.

Traditional Style Lines. Traditional lines have a very short level section, a front taper, and an un-tapered main body. The front taper is usually a few feet long, but could be longer. On WF lines, the front taper and main body are 30-40(ish) feet long, then taper quickly to a running line. On DT lines, the main body is 60-80 feet long, then fades out through a back taper and level section. Traditional style lines meet the AFTMA specifications. To make it easy, these currently marketed lines are the closest I could find to what I consider traditional style;
  • 406 Fly Lines - they sell a WF and a DT. Do you really need more options?
  • Barrio Fly Lines - the Mallard WF and DT lines are traditional style
  • Cortland Fly Lines - the 444 and 333 are long running traditional style lines (most forum members have a couple)
  • Rio Fly Lines - the LightLine WF and DT (the LightLine only goes up to 5 weight)
  • Scientific Anglers - the Mastery DT and the AirCel WF lines (in general SA holds to the AFTMA standards better than most)
  • Airflo - the Tactical Trout (with a very long front taper)
  • Phoenix Classics - it doesn't get more traditional than silk...

Specialty Lines. These include intermediate lines, sinking lines, slime lines, bass bug and saltwater tapers, level lines, lead core, and more. There are good reasons for specialty lines, such as subsurface fishing or casting large, wind resistant, flies to large fish. These lines extend fly fishing to more species and/or more locations.

Enabler Lines. These new designs put as much weight as possible, as far forward as possible. The lines enable fishing with overly stiff graphite. Very, very few even come close to the AFTMA standards. Most have 'interesting' tapers, some of which may be useful in specific situations. Many are unreasonably expensive. If you need one of these, wait for the year end fly shop clearance and pick them up for pennies on the dollar. On a fiberglass fly rod, I don't think enabler lines present a fly any better than a traditional style. On the other hand, if you need to brag about casting a #4 hopper/dropper combo 70 feet with a '3 weight' rod, then you need these lines. ;)


Tom

* Spey line standards make my head spin...


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 31 Aug 2021, 17:20 • #53 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/21/06
Posts: 3080
Location: Orygun
It seems like your "enabler" grouping could easily be lumped in with "specialty" lines, because, well, they are specialty lines.

For most folks using glass in trout scenarios, using something in the 'traditional' category will flat out get it done.

I've dabbled in the dark arts of two handed fishing and the standards for those lines still makes my head spin, so it's not just you....lol.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 31 Aug 2021, 17:55 • #54 
Piscator
Joined: 08/10/05
Posts: 19077
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
He's talking about Teeny lines as specialty lines, and hugely over-weighted salt lines as enabler lines.

I did find one glass rod with a very temperamental taper that required a narrow grain-weight head and just the right line taper to get everything out of it - CGR 7/8.
It handles any line extremely well in close, but getting past a soft spot in the mid required the correct grain weight and front taper.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67210&p=358855#p358855

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=64518&start=25

I'll also add, my specific need was a 3rd-stroke 70' shoot while seated in a kayak.


Last edited by bulldog1935 on 02 Sep 2021, 08:03, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 31 Aug 2021, 18:18 • #55 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/21/06
Posts: 3080
Location: Orygun
it's more of a blurred lines thing to me, I guess.

yeah, I remember that post on the CGR. It's funny, all of my current rods that are remotely temperamental are graphite, but even then, none are that bad (for lack of a better term).


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 01 Sep 2021, 06:15 • #56 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 12/05/06
Posts: 2086
Location: US-PA
Tom:

Under "Traditional Style," don't forget my friend Terenzio Zandri of Terenzio Silk Lines in Italy.

He does traditional silk lines, and synthetic silk lines in "traditional" tapers but offers "specialty tapers," not to mention a possible "enabler line" or two. ;)

He'll also make custom tapers upon request and makes the best dang leaders I ever used.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 01 Sep 2021, 15:05 • #57 
Guide
Joined: 05/02/13
Posts: 213
Location: Almonte, ON, Canada
I have enjoyed this discussion, as I have been going thorough a similar excercise, and even documents my opinions https://raspberryfisher.wordpress.com/2 ... and-reels/

I will say jgestar's summary is good (not trying to ---- up to the moderator, but this is my honest opinion). I will add,

* really prefer suppliers illustrate there profile and taper as it it does illustrate the thinking of the line designer - is the line for casting or fishing. IMHO RIO trout lines - except for the RIO Lightline - are for casting.
* there are practical limits to 2 and 3 wt lines.
* there are a few front taper lines (aka Triangle taper, Delta Taper) - Cortland, Guideline (possibly Wulff, Airflo) that I will commit $ to. (Wullf fails to document well what they are really delivering, so as after some disappoints with the Ambush, I will look elsewhere).
* Guideline is hard to fine, but it is worth investigating.
* I am disappointed in SA, and the changes at Airflo.
* I am cold, but will consider RIO.
* I do like my Phoenix fly lines (4,5 and 8wt)
* If using a "plastic" line, I will first look to Cortland and Guideline.

* My favourite lines to rods include
. * Cortland 333 DT5 with my Don Anderson 8'0 5wt bamboo (trout)
. * Airflo Switch Streamer 360 with my James Green 7wt Fiberglass (Steelhead)
. * Cortland Bonefish 8 with my Scott Meridian 8wt (Bonefish, also my partners favourite)
. * Cortland Tarpon 11 with my Guideline RSi 11wt (Permit)
. * SGS Scandi 320 grain 31' Trouter with my Mieser 12'6" 4wt (anything I can land!)
. * Gaelforce Equalizer 8 with my Burkhieimer 7134 (steelhead)


Last edited by raspberry-patch on 01 Sep 2021, 21:37, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 01 Sep 2021, 20:29 • #58 
New Member
Joined: 09/16/17
Posts: 24
Location: US-FL
Trev, throwing out lots of basic wisdom.
Tom, they should make a sticky out of your last post. Maybe change the word “enabler”, because a lot of the rods really do need some extra weight to get going, and you know, its not good to hurt the young guy’s feelers when they are learning something new, lol.
Clarkman makes such a good point. Its my graphite rods that are the problem children on lines. I work hard to get them to feel like glass, lol.
Raspberry saying that Rio is just for casting has my head spinning worse than trev’s line designator, because I’m afraid he just might be right - especially for trout distances.

Any complete taper naming system would have to be accompanied with a grid and illustration of each taper, or its only the guys that already know what they are talking about that would be able to understand it. I’m not up for that tonight. Lol.


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 02 Sep 2021, 07:06 • #59 
Guide
Joined: 08/19/16
Posts: 314
Location: Brazil
From my perspective, "enabler" is a perfect adjective to describe many lines that are marketed. It is a matter of enabling the fly rod manufacturers that deliberately mislabel their rods, as well as enabling the line makers that knowingly deceive the fishing public into buying lines that are one weight or more than what they are labeled. And this is true for standard single-hand tackle, without even mentioning spey/switch rods. When we see "SGS Scandi 320 grain 31' Trouter with my Mieser 12'6" 4wt", we should immediately realize that any rod which can balance with 320 grains over the first 31' is anything BUT a 4-weight, for which the first 30' must weigh around 120 grains. Otherwise, it is not a 4-weight, even if it is a spey/switch rod!


Top
  
Quote
Re: WF vs DT lines
Post 02 Sep 2021, 13:10 • #60 
Guide
Joined: 05/02/13
Posts: 213
Location: Almonte, ON, Canada
Pete,

In my journey of fishing, and for the past 10 years enjoying fishing with a spey rod, I have learnt to ignore the "weight" rating. I would add for spey rods and lines
* the AFTMA 30' point is not applicable as well when dealing with long rods, and the weight placement will be different base on style of fishing - short heavy heads to throw chickens, scandi touch-n-go casts with light flies and then classic long line. This is why I like seeing a line illustration.
* Europe and OEM have different views - example a Nextcast (US) versus Galeforce (UK)
* Many spey OEMs - rods and lines - clearly define the grain rating.
* The weight rating is more like a ranking in my view. Example, how to separate a Burkheimer 7134 from their 8134.

But the surviving grace here is that many of these builders identify the grain window - and will identify a difference base on casting style., so the problem is a learning curve, a two hand rod is different.

Citing the Meiser example - yes, for marketing, he rank it as a spey 4wt. Gary Anderson (ACR) might have called it 5 weight. But he did clearly identify the grain weight, recommended head length, and this information is available before purchase and written on the rod.

But these wide ranges, different styles, makes the two most common questions on another board for two handed rods ....
a. I got a .... rod, what line do you recommend?
b. I got a .... rod, what reel to balance it, should I get?

Given this, I reserve some space on my blog for these answers.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Previous  1, 2, 3 New Topic Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chaoticscott, ottobahn and 18 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