Ridged fly lines

[Kerry Stratton]

I was browsing through a fly fishing mag the other day and seen an ad for a new type of fly line that has ridges. The ad claimed the ridges reduced drag because of less surface area in contact with the rod guides. I had seen this ad before and on the surface the idea of ridged fly lines made some sense but something in the back of my mind kept saying there was a problem with this concept.

It finally came to me; dirt. It would seem that dirt and grime would collect in the valley of the ridges eventually filling them up and take away any advantage of less surface area. I would also assume that the collection of dirt and grime in the valley of the ridges, if it indeed did collect there, would alter the weight of line and affect its castablity somewhat.

Anyone else have thoughts or comments on these new ridged fly lines?

[mdram]

ive got one, 5wt airflo riddeline. the ridges are no where near as pronounced as the add shows. it actually feels smooth.

casts like a dream, i had a 9' airflo floating polyleader on it. my only issue is that the first inch or 2 sinks slightly, i think its due to the built in loop, but not sure.

im sure if you maintain it properly there shouldnt be any issue with buildup.

found an article
http://tinyurl.com/m8fs2

There are 12 peaks and the radius of each peak is a minute 0.04mm.

[rrhyne56]

I wonder how sturdy they might be? A six weight line weighs 160 grains in the first thirty feet. (with a margin for error calculated in). That weight cannot vary too awfully or one is no longer casting a six weight line.

Those ridges would seem to require that the material in the ridges be taken from some other part of the line. What are the structural trade-offs? I really don't know but that us where my line of questioning goes when I consider this point.

[Jonezee]

How many people actually weigh their fly lines? How many have a scale to weigh in grains? What if you shorten your line by a foot? It still works. My opinion, most manufactures are within 15 to 20% actual grain accuracy so there will be margin for error in most all fly lines.

[Dave E]

I have an old S.A. Saltwater series Monocore that has a rough or bumpy texture by design. The idea then was that it would increase it's shooting characteristics. One thing it does do is collect gads of salt in the valleys. While I'm normally very good about rinsing and drying my gear. When I saltwater fly fished five to seven days a week, week after week, there would be times when I'd get lax about stripping the line all the way to the backing and cleaning it. So on subsequent days of fishing, I'd always run across patches on the running line that would be caked with salt residue.

I used that line primarily on a 9x9 Loomis Nautikos, the combination of that line and the Nautikos' guide set made for an almost hacksaw like sound when shot, double hauled or stripped with gusto. More so than any other rod I tried the line on. While that noise raised some concern in my mind about possible damage to the guides, after a season and a half of heavy use ( and some fairly heavy fish ), I was unable to detect any appreciable wear to the guides.

Best, Dave

Oh and Jonezee,
Re: "How many people actually weigh their fly lines? How many have a scale to weigh in grains?"

I do, but then I've always been a little funny that way or weigh.

[Kerry Stratton]

How many people actually weigh their fly lines? How many have a scale to weigh in grains? What if you shorten your line by a foot? It still works. My opinion, most manufactures are within 15 to 20% actual grain accuracy so there will be margin for error in most all fly lines.

I have a scale and weigh fly lines all the time. This is because I make all of the lines I use on my 2 handed rods. I can tell you that as little as 10 grains can make a difference in how a line casts. In my opinion 15 to 20% is a huge margin of error and I would hope the line manufactors are a lot closer then that.

[RoyC]

Well lets ask the question about line weight a different way. Since the first 30 feet of line is, generally, used to determine line weight, how many of us cast with exactly 30 feet of line off the rod tip? Answer most likely is not many and of those not often. You are always making adjustments to your casting stroke for the varied amount of line you have out and I suspect most due this without realizing it. Therefore, I do not see precise line weight to be a major issue.

RoyC

[rrhyne56]

hey guys,

I guess my point was that, within certain limits, there is only so much mass to work with. That mass is distributed according to the design of the line. My question was, how the structural integrity of the line might be affected due to the redistribution of the mass in order to provide those ridges? A circle cross-section vs. an asterisk cross-section?

[Kerry Stratton]

Well lets ask the question about line weight a different way. Since the first 30 feet of line is, generally, used to determine line weight, how many of us cast with exactly 30 feet of line off the rod tip? Answer most likely is not many and of those not often. You are always making adjustments to your casting stroke for the varied amount of line you have out and I suspect most due this without realizing it. Therefore, I do not see precise line weight to be a major issue.

RoyC

Good question. When I say that 10 grains will affect the cast ability of a line I am talking about what is known as the Skagit style of casting a 2 handed rod. Using this style a somewhat exact amount of line is outside the rod tip for every cast making the weight of the line important.

[mdram]

my guess would be they kept the same weight in the first 30'. either wise it would not be that weight line.

as far as structural, i dont thing there should be any impact.
are you thinking cracking? or tension?