What would be the most noticed change if I were to use a line weight that was one number lighter than specified?
Thanks.
The rod will not load as well and you probably will not be able to cast quite as far, but you’ll still be ale to fish the outfit okay.
Jim Smith
You might find that the thinner line works better under windy conditions as it will be slightly less air resistant. You will still be able to load the rod but it will take more line out of the end to have the weight of line the manufacturer intended to load the rod. To be truthful you might not notice much difference with most graphite rods. It may be a little harder to feel the rod loading which seems to be one of the main reasons people give for going the other way and overlining a rod. Try borrowing a lighter line and trying it on your rod to see how you feel about it.
If you have to get into the running line to properly load it will make casting harder.
The most noticed changes will be the rod will feel a little bit crisper and more responsive with the same amount of line out the tip versus the heavier weight line. The rod will load fine you just need more line out the tip to get it to load the same way as a heavier line would load it.
Cast the rod with 30ft of line out. With typical WF lines you will be in the middle of the belly of the taper Then cast it with 25 ft of the same line out. That will give you a rough idea.
I saw a post from Bruce Richards of Scientific Anglers once where he wrote that for typical WF lines the weight of 5ft of,the belly section was about equal to a 1 weight difference.
Line weight is rating is just a measure of the mass of a line. In the above example you reduce the mass of line being cast by about 1 line weight. If the cast was done with 35ft it’s roughly like going up size.
Typically if you go down a line size the rod may feel like it has a bit faster action. The action really hasn’t changed. You are just casting a lighter mass of flyline so the rod does not load (bend) as much so it unloads (unbends) in less time. Also at short distances it may be even more difficult to load the rod for a cast. Some people who are casting long distances may use lighter lines to make it easier to carry long lengths of line in the air while false casting prior to a presentation cast.
Ray, what has been posted is correct in theory.
Like a battle plan, theory is seldom what happens in reality.
You may notice absolutely no difference. I’ve found that one line weight either way has zero effect on my perception of casting/fishing a line. I simply can’t tell the difference. But I don’t measure how much line is out the tip, I just cast what feels right to me.
The rod may cast easier or require more effort. No way to know for sure until you try it.
Buddy
I’ve found that using the prescribed line for the rod usually works best for most applications. Going one size lighter works for going lighter, smaller flies, with especially shorter distances. Going a size up works for the heavier weight fly - plus does better for those WINDY days.
tailingloop hit it on the head… especially last paragraph!!
An interesting follow-up. I recently bought a small digital scale with a calibration weight to use in weighing model airplane components. I noted the charts on fly line weights and proceeded to check out the first 30 ft. of a new #8 line I had.
I checked out exactly at the center of the range for a #9. So much for manufacturer’s credibility.
There has been “line weight creep” (for want of a better term) over the years. It started out that some line of some brands (Rio Grande, for example) brought their line weights up to the gray zone in between weights. Now, Rio Grand is full line weight heavier than than what it’s rated. (It’s not just Rio, but that’s the one I use.) They don’t hide the fact – it’s reaction to the perception that rod manufacturers rate their rods on the light light side to appear faster than they are. (I don’t know if the perception is true or not; but many very fast rods cast better for the average caster with a slightly heavier line.)
Ray, the line manufacturers are usually pretty good about listing actual weights of their line in their catalogs and are getting better at providing this information as it is not always easy to find. Note I wrote “usually” and the practice doesn’t seem to be universal. And the info can sometimes difficult to interpret. So Rio often gives the weight of the total head length rather than the 30 ft length. Makes everything perfectly clear, right:confused: For example Rio indicates in their catalog that their Rio Grand lines are 1 wt heavy at 30 ft and their Outbound Short lines 2.5 weights heavy and Scientific Anglers notes their GPX lines are 1/2 wt heavy. This info may not always be clear on the box.
When you weigh a flyline you need to remember that the initial level tip section is not part of the 30 ft section that is used to base the line wt on. This tip is usually 6 to 12 inches. Though if you weight the first 30 feet starting at then end the result should be slightly less than the standard calls for because you have excluded a foot of the thicker/heavier belly portion of the line in place of the tip. So that would not account for your measurement. When you do weigh a line you do need to ensure that the section past 30 ft is exerting no pressure/tension of any type on the portion being weighed. This can be difficult to do. I find this much more difficult to do with any kind of scale that the line is rested upon the measuring surface compared to using a hanging spring scale that suspends the line like the discontinued Umpqua Line scale. How the portion beyond 30 ft is handled can dramatically effect the result of the measurement.
I have weighed lots of lines and have not yet found one that that is very far off for the manufacturers detailed specifications when I have been able to find the detailed specifications. Now I have found some lines that were heavier than listed on the box as in your example, but no detailed specs were available for the line.
Anyway I just wish each manufacturer would give us 2 pieces of data: first is the weight if the first 30 ft and second, the total head length and the weight of the head at that length.
Amen to tailing loop’s last sentence. Tell us what the first 30’ weighs! At least the AFTM does have standards for fly lines, however there are no standards for rods so we are at the mercy of rod makers. Most rod makers do a pretty good job on labeling their prefered line sizes.
I have weighed all my rods (10) using the Common Sense methods and find that some are 2 sizes off according to that method.
Don’t be afraid to try going up or down from the labeled size, You may find a size that fits your casting stroke better.
Amen to tailing loop’s last sentence. Tell us what the first 30’ weighs! At least the AFTM does have standards for fly lines, however there are <strong>no </strong>standards for rods so we are at the mercy of rod makers. Most rod makers do a pretty good job on labeling their prefered line sizes. <br>I have weighed all my rods (10) using the Common Sense methods and find that some are 2 sizes off according to that method. <br> Don’t be afraid to try going up or down from the labeled size, You may find a size that fits your casting strole better. <br><br> <br><br>
In MY humble opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You’d have to be some kind of a bionic robot to notice the difference. In a controlled BLIND study, using two SAME wight and length rods, there is ( almost) NO way I’d be able to discern which rod was lined wirth which line. This from my own experience adding a bit of “WHO CARES ?”. Two or three line weights deviation would/could beg some adjustment but one ???
Mark
The ideal double bind test is two rods of same make and model with the same model reel mounted using the same model line that is one weight difference. And I agree the the effects of going up or down a line size quite often will not be discernible, especially at the 30 ft mark that is used to establish line weight.
My own personal experience is that I am much more likely to notice a difference with ultralight or heavier weight rods than the 4-6 wt rods commonly for trout fishing. So I find going up up or down a line size is more notable to with a Sage TXL 00 wt rod or Sage 10wt than a typical 5wt rod. I have half a dozen 5wt rods and am hard pressed to notice much difference with 5 of those rods.
I also find that with models of rods I am more likely to notice a difference than with others especially with slower action glass rods. That one 5wt that is more sensitive to me is built on a slow glass blank
Also, differences in taper ( how weight is distributed along the length of line being cast) of the fly line can also have an effect that is more noticeable to me than going up or down a size, especially as the length of line being cast is changed
If you were a rod manufacturer and wanted to produce a popular rod for all casting abilities, don’t you think you would design and mark your rods with the best “OVERALL” line weight for the rod?
Now, if your fishing or casting stroke is unusual; i.e., you rarely cast more than 20 feet, usually cast 50 feet or more, etc., you might find a heavier or lighter line to suit your casting better than that marked on the rod.
Actually, I think they mark them for the intended use they had in mind when they made the rod. A Sage 99, for example, is designed specifically for nymph fishing; it’s probably not marked for a line size that is comfortable to cast at 50 feet. Other rods are designed for distance and are marked for lines that are comfortable at that distance or longer.
Some rods are designed to be “do-it-all” and are marked for the best “OVERALL” line weight, at least to the casting style of the designer. I think more are marked for longer casts. If you’ve ever watched people at a show testing rods, you’ll notice that almost everyone immediately tries to see how far they can cast with the rod, not how it behaves at 10 feet. Which line rating is going to sell more rods – the one that balances at 10 feet or the one that balances at 50?
The example you give is a “specialty” rod.
Most all-around trout rods are , I believe, designed for the line weights which provide the best performance in common fishing situations and distances.
A fly shop I frequented in the early 80’s had a huge poster which covered most of one entire wall. It contained the likeness of a fly rod with knobs to place a rod. You then hung a one ounce weight from the tip eyelet. The chart had lines which marked the various line weights depending upon the deflection of the rod.
Of course, it was a Scott Rod wall diagram, based on their designs.
I agree the 99 is a specialty rod, but that was my point. Most all rods are “speciality” of sort. Rods built to be all 'rounder’s do have the best “all round” weight line put on them, but rods whose selling point is how far they’ll cast (which for trout fishing in the east) is largely a niche rod will have a designated line weight which favors longer casts.
I’ve seen similar charts to the one you describe; they’re most useful in conjunction with a protractor (often on the chart) that shows not only how far they’ve bent, but at what angle they make that bend. The British magazine Fly Fishing and FlyTying uses those numbers (total deflection and angle) to rate rods as to how fast they are, etc. And they’ll let you know if there numbers – and their casting evaluation of the rod – don’t agree what the rod is rated (which seems to be the case more often that not.)
(BTW, that magazine – which is not the same as the American one of the same name – has excellent product reviews, because they actually review the product, not just publish the manufacturer’s press release. They often disagree with line rating of the rod, and they suggest uses where the rod is the best fit.)