Does anyone know if any of the line makers puts some out that are 1/2 a line weight less than the exact specification…as Rio does with the Grand that is 1/2 higher?
Yes, Rio does. The half step lower for a 5w Rio would be the Rio Grand 4.5.
:oops:Duh:(:(…
I really, really don’t get this concern with line weights that are 1/2 wt heavier or lighter than the designated norm. If a person wants a cast that feels 1/2 wt lighter at a given distance from a target, all they have to do is move about 3ft closer to the target. Or you could add a couple of feet to your leader so you are casting less line weight. (If you want a ‘heavier’ 4wt, cut the first 12" off the front of your line and shorten you leader 6" so you are casting more line wt). No matter whether a line choice ‘exactly’ matches the label on the rod or is even 3wts lighter or heavier, the ‘perfect’ feel for any line/rod combination will only be ‘perfect distance (for that combination)’ +/- 3ft. Closer or farther from that perfect distance you are effectively casting at least one line wt down or up. All the fussing in the world is going to be lost if the fish aren’t always the same distance away from the caster.
I just asked a question…why try to read anything into it?
For some of us, half the fun is in the fussing.
This is the first tme I recall reading such an explanation and will be very interested in others’ responses.
Your rod can actually be adapted to the fishing situation by over lining a rod when all your casts are short, for example, and underlining for longer casts. If the truth be known, the difference between line weight, say a 4wt vs. a 5wt is only 20gr. or in feet, approx. 5 feet of fly line. In other words, 25’ of 5wt line weighs the same as 30’ of 4 wt line. In a small stream situation where the casts are short, you may find a heavier will load your rod well. Instead of buying a different rod to fish different streams, changing the line may be all you need to do in some cases. Also if you check the CCE rating system, rods from different manufacturers and different models are all over the place with regard to power.
Think about this, you fished a medium sized stream with your favorite 4wt rod (with 4wt line) and were pleased with its performance at the 20’ to 40’ casting distance. On your next trip to a smaller stream, where your casting was limited to 15’ to 35’ max, you fished the same rod, but with 5wt line. You would have the same smile on your face at the end of the day, since you cast/loaded your rod with the exact same weight range of line.
You have to try different lines to see what works best with your rod and for the type of fishing you do. Most of my rods perform best with the recommended line, but I have several rods that perform better for me with a line weight heavier or lighter. I often use multiple weight lines on the same rod depending on conditions. Don’t take my word for it, give it a try.
… sometimes, anyway.
Just talking about my own experience and preferences, of course.
There is a lot of merit to what Greg had to say. But for me, it isn’t the whole story. On the extremes, I’ve fished a DT3F line off a 14’ for 8/9 two handed spey rod and caught fish with size 16 dry flies. Okay, okay, that was just for fun. Closer to reality is casting DT3F, DT5F, and WF7F lines off a 7’9" for 4/5 Hexagraph rod. And all three lines across FIVE line weights were quite managable with that rod. ( The Hex may perform a bit better with a wide range of lines than a bamboo or graphite rod according to the owner of the Hexagraph Fly Rod Co. I haven’t done any comparison tests so I can’t really speak to that. )
On the other hand, and I just posted this to HCR on his thread about lines for a Z-Axis and an Fli, I found that a Rio Grand WF7F was okay very close in but really “bogged down” my 9’ for 7 wt Fli at any distance at all whereas a Rio Selective Trout II WF7F made the rod feel just a bit stiff in close but really brought it to life for the longer casts and bigger flies that I bought the rod for. The Fli, at least for my purposes and casting stroke, was not worth diddly with the half weight heavier Grand. It is a joy to fish with the designated 7.
John
P.S. I just started fishing with a WF4F on the Hex and that is a line that it really likes.
Seems a simple enough question, and there probably is a simple answer, such as yes.
ducksterman does not state the reason behind the question, so the balance of this reply is not directed to his question, but rather the question and I believe answer which he has prompted in my mind.
Do we need a 1/2 weight fly line available to us from the manufacturer or are we simply not completely understanding the physics involved in casting and applying that knowledge.
Any given rod will perform with “X” amount of weight outside the tip top to “load” the rod with “optimal” energy for the cast. We as casters have a tremendous amount of input in loading the rod. One casters stroke is not necessarily equal in the energy imparted by anothers stroke.
Now if “E=mc2”, and if a variable is acceleration, as in the two different strokes of our imaginary casters, then it follows, that if the fly is going to land at the same distance, another variable must be changed also, and that is mass (amount of line beyond the guides). (This also relates to over and under lining of rods)
If you will take any line of the correct size on a given rod, it will have a “sweet spot” or ideal amount of line (weight) outside of the tip top.
This sweet spot can vary from one caster to another using the SAME rod.
Take your rod, find the “sweet spot” and get yourself ready for the next cast. Now stop, and mark the line at your thumb of the line hand. For the next several casts, hold that mark with your line hand and cast. It is amazing that we actually do this subconsciously with each cast we make. We tune ourselves to do this from the first cast we make with a new rod.
Next part of the experiment. Have your buddy do the same thing with that rod and line. After he is comfortable with the “sweet spot” as “he” determines it, mark the line again.
I will bet that you have two different marks on your line, demonstrating clearly that you each have a different casting stroke. This is absolutely “normal”.
Now a manufacturer is in business to make money. If he is not selling enough of a product he comes up with something new, and this is great. After all it gives them an added profit center, and us a chance to spend some of our money.
Do you really need a 1/2 wt increment in a fly line? I suspect not!
Now before a bunch of you start telling me that lines will hinge if you try to aerialize “X” amount. Yes that is true, it is also true that this is the reason why we single and double haul. We increase acceleration as the hinging precludes us from increasing mass any further.
Again ducksterman, great question, it made me think about what I have described. And, I believe, that anytime we think about something and break it down, we learn.
Thanks for the lesson,
George
I don’t know of any. In fact, it’s hard enough to find a line that isn’t 1/2 weight heavier. Hardy makes a line that is a true 5-weight.
I guess, but I’m not sure, you can always go to a Hardy double taper.
Randy
Strip in 2 or 3 feet of line and voila!!..1/2 a weight lighter.
BYW, the difference in a 1/2 line weight between a 4 and 5wt would be two hundreds of an ounce.
I pretty much agree with Greg.
Even if you go up 1/2 a size in line mass, line mass is not the main factor in how the rod “feels” or bends in relation to the mass you are casting. What bends the rod is energy and KE = 1/2 MVV, where M = Mass and V= velocity. So line velocity is a square function and is the most important factor in casting distance and rod bend. Work on your casting and forget about the 1/2 line wts.
If you need to go up a 1/2 wt to get that rod feel, you may not be casting effectively to load the rod. Except where you always cast short distances, I don’t think there is a need to go up in line wt and then not just by 1/2 a wt.
Finally, the need to go up may be related to the need to to get closer to the target. The need to get closer may be related to the need for accuracy. If that is the case, the solution is not over lining the rod, it is again working on casting with accuracy
Since fly line manufacturers are offering 1/2 increments in line wt., you may think that you are improving your ability to cast or your “feel” for the rod. In reality, I doubt that there will be any change in results if a double blind test were performed.
I like the fly line weight discussions, but I always feel they fall short in that the profile of the line is not discussed.
It seems to me a really important consideration for fly line performance is how the specified 30 ft. of line weight is distributed within the 30 ft. profile the manufacturer uses for construction.
Is it a level taper?
Is the weight pushed to the front?
Is it pushed to the rear?
Is it tapered front to rear in uniform taper?
Does it have a 4 ft. forward taper?
Does it have a 10 ft. forward taper?
Where is the rear taper?
and so on.
It creates the most baffling question for the fly caster to answer for himself when presented with the options and how he wants the line to perform for him.
I think the first question anyone should ask is: What do I want my fly line to do? and to answer that question for yourself you need experience.
only my 2 cents YMMV
Boy do I ever agree with you! The line mass changes with every cast but the profile stays the same. The profile determines how the line casts, how it carries the fly, and how gently the line lands. I think it is more important that a 1/2 change in line weight.
I made that exact point in this earlier post:
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/showthread.php?34469-Lne-weights-for-Sage-Z-Axis-and-FLI/page2
"When you choose a fly line, you are really making a compromise about what you think your average cast is going to be. Most of the time, you will be casting below or above that average and it is unlikely that many of your casts will be spot on with the ideal. So realize that it is a compromise and not perfection that you are after.
What is really more important, I think, is the taper and the distribution of that mass. Choosing that correctly is more important in my view than getting the line wt spot on by 1/2 a line wt. Taper and mass distribution along that taper determines how that line will land and how it will carry your fly to its target regardless of the distance you are casting."
Silver,
Kinetic energy is a calculated term and has little meaning in the physical world except as a device to calculate real variables like velocity. As it turns out, the kinetic energy contained in the line at RSP equals the work put onto the line by the caster. See http://www.hatofmichigan.org/e-book.html under Mechanics … for a better explanation. Yes, mass is important in rod feel.
But I do agree that 1/2 line wt. is hard to differentiate. When I overline for short casts with a stiff rod, I’ll go one or two full line weights. And with regard to taper, the first 30 feet of a line is the same for any line class. With normal floating lines, the difference from one taper to another in a normal 30-40 foot cast is not particularly noticable except in final loop turnover. It matters there primarily because of the size and type of fly you may be casting. Small flies seem to prefer more gentle front tapers. Sinking lines are a whole story unto themselves.
But in the final analysis, a really good caster can adapt to nearly any reasonable combination by adjusting his acceleration and the length of his stroke. It is just some feel better than others. I call that “handle metrics.”
Bob
Bob,
In Part 3 of your article you say “Turns out that the kinetic energy required to make a certain distance cast with a certain weight fly line is exactly the same as the work done on the fly line by the rod”
I think the formula for KE is a better way to explain the way the work we put into a cast results in the distance we cast because it clearly relates the two components of line mass and line speed. It gives a clear example of why increasing the velocity marginally with a double haul results in a relatively larger increase in distance and energy. I also think that explaining the cast in terms of energy allows the bend in the rod to be understood as potential energy related to the kinetic energy of the cast. I personally think the layman understands the concepts of mass and velocity more easily than the relationshiup between work, force, mass and acceleration.
Isn’t the feel of the rod related to the bend of the rod and and isn’t the bend of the rod due to the potential energy stored in the rod which will ultimately be released as Kinetic Energy? Trying to explain the bend in the rod as the potential to do more work and line acceleration seems a more complex way to explain the process than as just a form of energy added to energy already in the line by virtue of its pre-existing velocity and mass.
Silver,
Sounds like you have a background in physics or engineering mechanics. If so, you will really enjoy www.sexyloops.com on their bullitin board. They have a topic on casting analysis with international contributors like Grunde Lovell, Gordon Judd and others. Turns out the whole subject is very complex. Beware that many of the contributors are European and into distance casting.
I almost always think of casting as an energy balance. Helps to understand strange things like why the loop accelerates as it unrolls and why all the potential energy stored in the deflected rod is not returned to the line. But to the average caster, the math stops at velocity and even acceleration is a little beyond their interest. I wrote that series of articles in a bubble because I had not been exposed to other mathematical sources. There are mistakes in there but at a macro level, they are essentially correct. JC really didn’t respond well to them but I think we came to understand each other better later on.
There is a school of people, the majority really, that are more into just doing it and don’t really care why things happen. And that’s okay. But some of us are driven to a different place and are compelled to understand. Sounds like you may have that sickness too.
Bob