And that’s why I asked the original question:p:p…I guess maybe we can agree there is no QC:(…I was hoping there was more QC than that…
My thought is that the newer manufacturing processes make that QC inherent. I could be completely wrong, but I can’t see things being the same place they were 40 years ago. At least I really hope they are not.
I just don’t see where it would be that difficult for the manufacturers to state, “Our 4W lines run x grains plus or minus y grains.”
same thing as my successive post
evidently Ive hurt someones “feelwins”…so I removed this post
You havent hurt my “feelwins”, Sully. 
We disagree, is all. I disagree with my wife all teh time and she still likes me. I think. :lol:
You already know what they are by the line designation. All this messing around weighing lines, doing the common cents calculations etc., etc is time better spent on fishing or practicing casting. In particular the casting practice.
I worked in a fly shop for several years and had the oppertunity to cast several different weight rods by several different manufactures. Every thing from 2-weights to 12-weights from Sage, Orvis, T&T, St. Crois, Temple Forks, SA, and a host of rods that were brought into the shop by people wanting to find a fly line for that rod. I never run into a rod that did not perform as expected when using a line that was designated on the rod.
What I did notice though was most people can’t cast worth a hoot. Those who can’t cast almost always blamed their equippment rather than their own casting skill for their poor casting performance. Lines are too heavy, too light, rods too stiff, too soft, too slow but never "My casting is not too good ".
Fix the casting skills and I think you will find the line weight problem will take care of itself. Being a good caster also gives you more time to devote to the fishing without having to think about the casting.
Merry Christmas to all,
fishbum
I have never stated that I could cast for cr*p. Quite the contrary. I know my casting sucks. That said, I enjoy the technical aspect of the sport.
Equipment does play a role. The whole idea with this system is that you can take inexpensive to mediocre equipment and make it perform better because it is matched up better. Not all equipment is set up correctly or even labeled correctly. I don’t need to be fighting mismatched or poorly set up equipment while trying to improve my casting. I need to be able to concentrate on casting, not compensation. I can’t compensate until I know how to cast.
I know my equipment is set up properly and that the only excuse I have is, well, none. It is not my equipment. It’s me. Now I can concentrate on casting and not have to worry about the equipment.
Maybe it’s all in my head, but my gear does seem to cast better. It feels better to me and I am casting some better. Besides that, being a total and complete geek, I find it to be part of the fun.
Cortland Clear Camo WF5I…Rocket …= 154 gr.
Cortland Camo WF5I…Precision…138gr.
I’m glad to know that…now I will pick the rods I have that should like the one line and others that should like the other line.
You know, I still don’t get it. Yes, rods work better with appropriate lines, but either a line OR a rod may be off from the labeled designation. Maybe my rod is actually a 4.95 an the line is a 5.1 - what am I to do?!!
I wonder if you are concerned about casting a specific distance. In the example you listed for Cortland lines, 33.48ft of the lighter line = 30ft of the heavier line, so if you cast those amounts of those lines the rod should feel the same (but your timing will have to change). If you want to cast 10ft or 40ft, what are you going to do? By changing line lengths you changing the ‘virtual’ weight designation, the rod will not be casting the ideal weight, and the feel of the cast will change.
You might actually want to cast the heavier line if your casts are all short (or you tend to shoot line on the cast). Or use the lighter line if you are casting farther or prefer to arialise a lot of line rather than shoot. This is where the plan of the perfectly weighed line to match the common-cents rod fails. If you always cast long, then you are casting 6wt of line regardless of the 5wt rod designation. This is why most respondents to this thread are promoting FEEL over measurements. The line may be Rocket Taper, but this is not rocket science.
Just one more thing to add, the 30’ measurement at which line is weighed and rated is just an arbitary distance chosen just to standardize the line rating. It is not the optimum distance for casting performance, just like the 48mph the EPA uses to test vehicle fuel mileage rating is not the optimum speed for a vehicle’s performance.
Greg, I think you are correct.
To me the CCS is a starting point.
There is one thing that bothers me about what some of you have said about weight /ft…unless you are using a level line the weight /foot would vary depending on tapers.
Ideally your ERN (Effective Rod Number) and ELN (Effective Line Number) should match, but that is something that probably will not happen. I think it is good within a quarter step. With your example above, you are already close enough to call spot on. The rod should load properly for an average caster under average conditions. All of the other things you mention still come into play.
The “feel” is absolutely important. I drag out my TFO Pro Series 5w and it “feels” better with the Bass Pro CV2 5w line than the Dogwood Canyon 6W did with the 6w line. I could cast the TFO much easier and had that “feel” of a nice cast more often. I struggled with the 6w. Well, it is not really a 6w. Turns out it has an ERN of 5.65, almost a spot on 5w, and it “feels” much better with the 5w line I normally use with the TFO. So here is a rod that even the folks at Bass Pro Shop that sold it to me say is a “cheap rod” and not to expect too much out of it, that is now a keeper. The cool part is that I understand why it was such a clunker and figured it out all by myself.
All this does is give me a head start on figuring out which way to go with a method I am comfortable with due to the way I think. Both methods get us to the same place.
It may not be practical to get the information I am looking for. I have been swapping emails with SA on it, but it occurs to me that while an individual run of 3w Sharkskin lines might run 102 grains, that the next run could be different. We will see what we will see.
I’m having fun with this. Isn’t that what it’s about?