Fly Line Ratings

[rpsalmon]

For over twenty years the traditional AFTM line rating system has struggled to encompass lines incompatible with the basis of that system, whether they be lines for sea or salmon fishing. While the basis, and from the postings, success of the line pool system of this site can not be entirely due to members concerns over arbitrary line ratings, part of their concern must be matching line weights.

Wouldn't it be simpler to mark a rod with a weight calculated under a standard basis, either in grammes or grains, that would equate an ideal casting weight of line? In this way, an angler could be able to calculate from a particular rod's weight rating and action, also casting style that a Rio or SA whatever spey line would match their requirements. A system of weight ratings on rods would never become outdated and would encompass any future types and developments of lines.

Serious opinions please.

[acw]

rpsalmon said:

For over twenty years the traditional AFTM line rating system has struggled to encompass lines incompatible with the basis of that system, whether they be lines for sea or salmon fishing. While the basis, and from the postings, success of the line pool system of this site can not be entirely due to members concerns over arbitrary line ratings, part of their concern must be matching line weights.

Wouldn't it be simpler to mark a rod with a weight calculated under a standard basis, either in grammes or grains, that would equate an ideal casting weight of line? In this way, an angler could be able to calculate from a particular rod's weight rating and action, also casting style that a Rio or SA whatever spey line would match their requirements. A system of weight ratings on rods would never become outdated and would encompass any future types and developments of lines.

Serious opinions please.

Spey pages covers this rather well ,beleive its called the Denver system .
As a cromagnon switcher of Dt lines not really needed to play with this until recently when spey tapers were kindly given to me .

[rpsalmon]

I was aware of the system agreed upon by a few manufacturer's representatives in 2004. However, it is rather a contrived and complicated system that never provided a realistic solution of practical value. It masks the actual info you need, actual correct weight for rod & rod's action, it should be up to the angler to do the rest and choose the line.

[rpsalmon]

It is the weight that matters, not the length or diameter of belly or other part of any line. The fundamentals would be the same as the AFTM system apart from the fact there will be one ideal weight. Obviously this would come to some interpretation by some manufacturers (one or two already deliberately under rate their rods in order to make them seem more powerful than they are!) , as any system would, but at least their would be one simple and straight forward weight rating.

In the example you state, manufacturer's would simply have to state the weight of parts of their line and an angler would weigh up whether that line would work for that rod.

[rpsalmon]

It is the rod's most effective casting weight that would be stated, therefore it doesn't take account of ANY other factor. Of course a manufacturer could also state a range of weights covering say 10% either way, that would be up to them, but the single important factor is a single ideal casting weight. It would be impossible for a manufacturer to suggest any other guidance because they can not see into the future and see what lines are yet to be invented or created by inventive anglers. It would be up to the manufacturers of fly lines to state the weights of their products at different lengths in order for anglers to make an informed choice.

Whether anybody classifies the selection of lines as easy or difficult, on this system they have one basis for calculation of the line weight. Whatever diameter or design of line they choose for whatever purpose, all weight calculations would stem from that one basic rod weight rating.

[rpsalmon]

I am at a loss as to explain it any simpler. The current AFTM system has a number as a rating, all I am proposing is that the rating is replaced with a weight in either grammes or grains. As I've already said, the diameter, length or shape of any line is irrelevant because all that would be recorded is weight. From the casting weight an angler would calculate which line would be suitable, according to his needs and the action of the rod. Of course manufacturers would want a standard line to rate their rods, fine, ok, no problem.

[Fruin]

If a rod ideally suits a short belly spey line with a belly of 44g, it will require a heavier belly in the longer length according to the Denver Scale. I am no expert on this, but have made a few custom lines. When I weighed them later, they did tend to correspond to the principles of the Denver Scale - increasing in weight as the belly length increased.

[rpsalmon]

No angler would be limited to any specific weights of line, accepting that then the answer to your question is yes.

Whatever the manufacturer's weight rating of any rod, the angler would be able to use virtually any line of any length. However, to use a line with a rod effectively, the angler would have to balance his line weight to the rod's weight rating. If a rod had a 44g weight rating for effective casting and an angler required a 30 yard head for spey casting, he would use a thinner line than if he only wanted a 20 yard head for spey casting. The sole principal to a weighting system is weight, nothing else. It is a simple, straight forward and specific guide to the angler and allows him to calculate which line will suit the rod in either two years or one hundred years.

[williegunn]

I cannot be that bothered reading through all your great long posts Alan but basically if you have a rod rated for 44 you can cast a line weighing between 35 -55. Those of us brought up on double tapers realised that if you were casting a long line you used a lighter line than recommended and a short line a heavier one.

The Denver scale is a lot of Amerian twaddle, only brought about because the American line makers brought out the XLT and the Grande Spey which were grossly over weight.

Now rod and line dynamics.................... we should not really be discussing weights, mass would be better, as the mass can be altered by its speed. You can cast a 10 weight line on a 5 weight rod IF you slow it all down, and converesly you can cast a 5 weight line on a 10 weight rod by speeding it up.

Now stop typeing great long posts, stick a line on a rod and go and cast the thing

[rpsalmon]

I wasn’t quite sure whether you were being deliberately difficult but I was determined to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, sadly your ultimate aim was always very clear.

The first thing you have done, is replace the basis for the system I stated for the system you have in mind for your argument in order to arrive at the conclusion that my suggested system is flawed. Nowhere in your response do I see any understanding of the basis, reasoning or conclusion to the system I outlined. Since the system I outlined is purely based upon weight, it can not be flawed because it misses out another factor because all other factors are immaterial. I’ve tackled the issue of different lengths, diameters and profiles of lines irrespective of whether they are Spey or Tarpon lines. It would be up to the angler to take the ideal casting weight of the rod and interpret that to the lines and purpose he intends. You have completely mixed up or ignored certain factors to support your argument, I expected you to do this because in your repeated clarifications you clearly demonstrated you were not thinking about what I had written.

I am aware of the performance of Bruce & Walker as well as other manufacturer’s rods and on my favourite B&W rod I have cast many lines, including a AFTM number 16 shooting head, various spey lines, through to an entire 35yrd dt5 trout line, adjusting the casting style and format as necessary. I can do this because the prime factor to base any decision is ideal line weight, once you know this everything else becomes easy.

When the inevitable new line format arrives, whether it be a “USpey” line from the US, “Lap Spey” line, or “Sea Taper” line from wherever, and they will come because there is no limit to the inventiveness and ingenuity to humans, what are we to do then….invent a “Denver 2” or “Colorado” system? The only sure thing about these systems is that they won’t stand the test of time. Only one system can stand the test of time and that is “weight”. Of course manufacturers should state other information such as whether they consider the rod a tip, medium/tip, medium, medium/soft action etc and the sooner such standards are brought into existence the better it would be for all.

[rpsalmon]

Yes Willie Gunn.

You correctly mention the relationship of mass to weight but I think the only factor manufacturers could state would be, using a standardised test, ideal casting weight. Of course this has to be interpreted by the angler, but at least there is one set rating to base line calculations.

Because of the issues involved in any rating system there can not be any simple system to solve all issues, but a weight rating on the rod is a basic basis to form all other calculations. I have a custom line that I made 15 years ago, part made from an experimental Cortland "WF" tarpon line as well as bits of DT line, that is my standard line for purely testing a salmon rod's casting weight, I know the weight of every foot of that line and mark each rod with the weight based upon a number of different casts. Easy!

[rpsalmon]

Dear Springer

I have no intention of spending time trying to convince you whether I know what I’m talking about when it is clear you have not taken the time to think about my postings, what I know for sure is that you either do not understand what I’m talking about or are being deliberately difficult. I have not skirted around anything, the proposed system I outlined is so utterly simple it is beyond my understanding or comprehension that anyone wouldn’t understand it. I have already provided the information necessary for anyone to understand it, if someone reads these postings and still fails to understand my proposed system then they must be admitting to be incapable of understanding the AFTM system.

[williegunn]

springer said:

Im glad to see that you basically agree with me, judging by your first paragraph.

Your second one is basically your usual anti-American stance, looking closely ay the standard reveals that it is actually in use here far more than you appreciate or choose to.

Your third, although maybe possible is far to extreme an example to take seriously.

And lastly if you cannot be bothered to read what I write then how do you know if it is right or wrong?

Alan, a rod is rated by someone, the manufacturer, their tame caster, who ever, it is not an exact science so why should lines be so exact. The Denver scale took place without any of the big British players present and was only put into place as the XLT and Grande Spey lines did not fit in the other categories. Fact not opinion.
In a fishing situation is makes little difference if you are casing a long or short bellied line, weight wise, the difference as I have said before is in the length and speed of stroke. Telling me about the length of line in the floor of the D so not affecting the overall weight has little importance compared with line speed or total line weight.

I chose those extremes to illustrate my point as B&W make rods rated 7-10 using 3 differences would not make a big enough difference

[splash]

springer said:

steve said:

A visit to RB meisers website will sort this. Bob has started rating his rods by grain weight not AFTMA. Crucially, he advises on the relevant grain ranges for different head lengths, excellent concept, search

meiserflyrods.com

Steve

This is the basis of the Denver scale, I agree it is a good idea of Meiser to do this.

The Albright XX Lou Tabory salt water series of fly rods are also doing this and putting the information next to the AFTM # on the rod butt. I'm surprised more manufacturers have not followed suit as it seems like a sensible idea. For example, the 8 weight is rated for grain weights of 250 -300 grains and the 10 weight 450 -500 grains

[Fruin]

My scales do not measure in grains, and it is a pain to keep converting for different head lengths etc.. I wish the manufacturers of both lines and rods would label their products with weights in grammes. This way I could see at a glance what lines and rods would match with my preferences.

[splash]

fruin said:

My scales do not measure in grains, and it is a pain to keep converting for different head lengths etc.. I wish the manufacturers of both lines and rods would label their products with weights in grammes. This way I could see at a glance what lines and rods would match with my preferences.

Fair point Fruin, but I doubt that you'll get the US tackle manufacturers to go metric in a hurry The conversion is pretty straightforward though, approx 15.5 grains to 1 gram

cheers

Splash

[rpsalmon]

You would figure out what kind of tapered line you needed for your the objective of catching a fish, whether it be a shooting head or spey line, and in the instance of a spey line (as all lines) you would work out how much line you required beyond the rod tip for the job at hand. Then pick a a line of that size/taper that matches the requirements and rod weight.

What I would look forward to, is the nonsense of trout anglers feeling stuck to roughly 10-12 yard heads on "numbered" WF lines, if they knew and used the "weight rating" as a basis they would probably wake up to the fact that they can use alternately weighted lines with longer/shorter heads and don't have to stick to a set AFTM number.

The system I proposed is not revolutionary as it matches the AFTM system, it is just a practical and simple solution to an ever increasingly complicated problem of line weights and shapes which don't conform to any one system.

[rpsalmon]

Yes, a range would be better if only to let anglers know they are not restricted to one line. But I think I would still prefer to know exactly what the manufacturers expert rated it at so would like an ideal stated. Therefore for an ideal weight of 50g:

"Weight range 40 - 50 - 60"

[rpsalmon]

Dear springer

I note your view that we seem to be going around in circles. My view is that I find it astonishing that you do not seem understand my proposed system because it matches the AFTM system which I assume all anglers already know. You seem to wish to complicate this proposed system when it is actually simple and straight forward, so simple and straight forward that it can not tell you what length of head or cast you should use because that as well as a great many other options are up to the angler. Neither myself not any manufacturer can design tackle to be used in every situation, neither can any of them possibly know whether someone is casting in open water or with trees behind them and to what length of head they can and are capable of using in those situations and by an individual. Those options and choices are up to the angler.

The ability of an angler to cast is their concern and they will have to work on it, the makers of rods and lines cannot attempt to successfully compensate for any inability of varying anglers to cast, manufacturers already produce a range of lines of differing weight head length to make things easier for anglers and I do not think it is possible to get rod and line maker to agree with each other on standards when such tackle is constantly changing and new/developing products are kept secret. If the basis for the design of all rods is a system to help beginners and intermediates we will all end up in a more complicated situation. Excellence in tackle has to be the focus, help for the beginner must be a supporting factor and not the primary driving factor.

If the rod and line manufacturers do not sort this out then either the angling press or individual anglers will have to, I have done it with my rods and lines and I suggest that the line pool you appear to have initiated is an indication of the failures of the manufacturers and their weak line system. I suggest the fact that the line pool appears to thrive is proof positive that those manufacturers and their systems have completely failed.

I’d say that the ability to change head lengths, size of D loop, line positions, anchor size and speed etc are all BASIC skills of spey casting, just as changing the length of line and speed are basic elements of an overhead cast. If you want to suggest a guide for anglers in order to help them with line choices then that is a great idea in itself, but the main driving factor in the equation has to be the rod’s ideal casting weight and yes, this could be stated as a range such as 40g to 50g rather than just 45g.

[speycaster]

dont you ever get tired of hearing your own voice why cant you accept another anglers post with out rippng it to pieces and implanting your own annoying theory , do you ever fish or do you just read and then repeat it you are without doubt the most annoying person i have ever heard , just chill out man and let others enjoy