Anyone tried the newest version of the Rio Grand?

[John_N]

I noticed recently that the newest version of the Rio Grand is listed as being one full line weight heavier than the stated weight, as opposed to the half weight heavier that used to be the case. I've used various generations of the older, half-weight heavier Grand for years on a number of rods, and have preferred it over the SA GPX and other half-weight heavier lines. I'm just wondering how much difference this newer, even heavier version makes. Seems unnecessary to me, especially since lining up a full weight would seem to be a simple matter of, duh, buying the next weight up. Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone that has fished and been a fan of the older version has fished this newer one and could comment on what sort of difference they observed. Hope I'm not forced to have to find a new favorite...

[bgreer]

I looked at Rio's website.....and sure enough......it states, "a full line size heavier than the industry standard".

I looked at the date on the calendar....it's not April 1.

I don't get it, either.

edit: I couldn't leave it alone. So I cheked to see what the actual weight of the lines were, compared to the AFTMA standards.
It looks like all of the line weights are right at the bottom edge of the next weight up. So the new Rio Grand 4wt line weighs in at 'just' being a 5wt line.

I still don't get it.

[sagefisher]

First off, I am not an expert on fly lines.

However, reading about the Rio Grand vs say the Rio Gold I can see the difference.

To begin with is how they write it up:

"RIO Grand
Designed for the modern, fast-action fly rod.

The RIO Grand is a full line size heavier than the industry standard, and features more weight distributed towards the front of the line to easily load faster action fly rods. The line has a short head that is easy to cast, and is built with "MaxCast" Technology, RIO's ultra-sophisticated line coating that actively repels water for higher floatation, longer casts and greater durability. The RIO Grand is the best choice of line for the modern, fast action fly rod.

Front loaded, short head
A full line size heavier to easily load fast rod
Built with a supple, coldwater core and coating
Welded loops on both ends"

Now then, comparing the Grand to the Gold, the Grand weights more than the Gold and more importantly, the head length is shorter by 9 feet. So, you get more weight off the tip of your fly rod in a shorter cast. Hence, that is why they made this line. It will load up the fast rods better than a standard line without having to go up a size.

In the past, I have always gone up one size on my XP rods, because it loads them faster. But, just going up one size means you still have to have a lot of line out for that load, compared to the shorter head length of the Grand.

This could really be good when casting in restricted areas, like no back cast room or overhanging branches, etc.

Rio is just trying to give us another option if we want to use it.

Larry ---sagefisher---

[rockthief]

Companies need new offerings to tempt buyers. That's my thought.

[Longs for Cutts]

This is for people who go out and buy the "experts only super mega-fast high performance over-hyped fly rod of awesomeness" and find out they can't cast it because either A.) They aren't very good casters, B.) They are fine casters but have a relaxed stroke, C.) They are using some rod designed for casting the whole line in saltwater on some creek full of 8" brookies and can't get the rod to load at 15 feet instead of 75.

I see all three cases ALL THE TIME and it drives me nuts. Rather than buying one of these lines, I wish people would just get a plain-old medium or medium-fast rod they can actually cast at normal fishing ranges and get a normal-weight line for it.

[redietz]

This is for people who go out and buy the "experts only super mega-fast high performance over-hyped fly rod of awesomeness" and find out they can't cast it because either A.) They aren't very good casters, B.) They are fine casters but have a relaxed stroke, C.) They are using some rod designed for casting the whole line in saltwater on some creek full of 8" brookies and can't get the rod to load at 15 feet instead of 75.

I don't think that's what he meant by "I don't get it". Most of get why half weight lines exist, but why make a line full weight heavier, and label it as the lower rating? If I wanted a line at the higher weight, I'd just go out and buy one at that weight. There would be a lot more options.

There's another reason for half weight lines, btw. Some classic cane rods designed for silk line just don't have a line that balances them in the full weight ranges.

[John_N]

Much to respond to:

I don't think that's what he meant by "I don't get it". Most of get why half weight lines exist, but why make a line full weight heavier, and label it as the lower rating? If I wanted a line at the higher weight, I'd just go out and buy one at that weight.

My feelings exactly on that point

This is for people who go out and buy the "experts only super mega-fast high performance over-hyped fly rod of awesomeness" and find out they can't cast it because either A.) They aren't very good casters, B.) They are fine casters but have a relaxed stroke, C.) They are using some rod designed for casting the whole line in saltwater on some creek full of 8" brookies and can't get the rod to load at 15 feet instead of 75.

I see all three cases ALL THE TIME and it drives me nuts. Rather than buying one of these lines, I wish people would just get a plain-old medium or medium-fast rod they can actually cast at normal fishing ranges and get a normal-weight line for it.

LfC, while I agree with you on much of that, I think you might be painting with too broad a brush. I've never been a fan of the uberfast rods, especially years back when the manufacturers were racing to top each other with the newest, fastest "cannons". I'm anything but an expert caster, but most of them from that period were absolutely lifeless to me and DID require lining up to perform for many of us, especially at closer ranges. I own and love several medium and medium-fast rods (including fiberglass) that I like best with "normal" weight lines. At the same time, I have several rods that a lot of folks rave about with "normal" weight lines that I happen to like better with the extra half weight of the old Rio Grand or SA GPX. Some of those are rated medium fast by their manufacturers (though how they arrive at these arbitrary labels could be a topic unto itself), while others are rated fast, but are clearly not the lifeless, broomstick fast of some I can think of from the past. I don't think that's a crutch, but maybe I'm wrong on that. I just always liked the little bit of extra loading from that additional half weight on certain rods, notably at close ranges. In some cases, I've spent time casting the same rod with a true-to-weight line, one of the half weight heavier lines and a third line a full line weight up and have just found that the half weight line has hit a sweet spot (for me) that the other two haven't. I know this is one of those "to each his own" things, but I just don't see why Rio would take that intermediate option off the table.

Sagefisher - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the text you underlined is almost exactly the way Rio marketed the Grand all these years prior in it's half weight heavier iteration. That's part of what makes this strange to me. It's touted as serving the exact same purpose as always, they've just added yet another half weight to make it a full line weight heavier than it's rating. I don't think "the modern, fast action rod" has gotten any faster in the last couple years. If anything, I think the manufacturers have come up with tapers and materials to make many fast rods load better than they ever have at short ranges, which would seem to lessen the need for additional line weight rather than call for even more of it. Oh well, what do I know?