Fly Line Ratings

[juststartedagain]

At last - someone with more hot air than Archie MacPherson - archpsalmon ;D but at least good auld Archie didnt take himself seriously!!

[rpsalmon]

Dear springer

The AFTM system is accurate and hasn’t changed, it is therefore accurate for all line weights. I see that on my rods and fly line boxes they are still marked with reference to that system. If you think all these manufacturers are wrong then, well, that’s another subject. The relevance of the AFTM system is under question when it comes to various lines, including spey lines, because they are designed in lengths and weight incompatible with the 10 yard AFTM “norm”. Pre introduction of Spey lines, and even since then we managed quite well because all you had to know about a rod rating (presuming the manufacturer wasn’t deliberately under rating, but they still do this) was how much of whatever weight DT line they rated their rod with, you then made your calculation from that basis. The Denver scale is just an attempt at addressing the problem, it is already under strain and won’t last for ever.

I use DH rods of lengths between 12ft and 17 ½ ft and commonly with lines weighted from DT7 to DT12, a few times per season I will go down to a DT5 or DT6. I use shooting heads down to a length of 12 feet. I use spey lines with heads as short as 15 yards and as long as 25 yards (after this I just use a 30/35/40 yard DT line looped to shooting line if required. I also carry various pieces of line up to 15 feet that I can loop onto the end of the line for whatever purpose. I think what is required to fish a piece of water and depending on restrictions of bushes/trees/wind/rocks I will choose an appropriate line and rod to match. I see no need to get into hypothetical scenarios to explain why I am fishing with a 25 yard headed spey line and 15ft 10/11 rod. Of course, I would expect to adjust the cast if I were up to my waist in water, and if I were waist deep in water with fast water around/restrictions on casting space then I would probably step down in head length to say 20 yards.

[greenalert]

springer said:

Using this Denver scale and the theory behind it and my practical experience I have helped numerous members of this forum find suitable lines for there rods without ever meeting them or casting there rods. In an ideal world you would be there but then again feel comes into the equation some like to feel a rod heavily loaded as its easier to time, myself I prefer a lighter load/feel so there is no single definite.

I recon there are a good few members who could confirm these facts based on their own practical experiences I mention above.

I am one of the members to whom Springer has provided information on various Lines & where the optimum load point is

My casting has improved 100% (Sloggi might say different )purely because I now know where to take the line to in order to correctly load the rod

His information has been bang on every time, & I have also passed it on to colleagues who have the same lines & their casting has also improved

[rpsalmon]

Dear springer

I do entirely understand that you have failed to tackle any of the relevant points and have tried to complicate a simple system through the introduction of irrelevant facts of line lengths and weights. Since you have not won the argument I can see that you would wish to save face by implying I don’t know what I’m talking about. However, since my proposed system is just like the AFTM system and can be understood by anyone who understands the AFTM system, and as we’ve learned it already was/has been adopted by various manufacturers, I find it too much to believe your suggestions that you don’t understand it.

That you think this proposed system, that has previously/already been adopted, is irrelevant to this topic (a topic I started for the purpose of discussion on this subject), is another one of your astounding claims.

Since in another thread you challenged the work and collective knowledge of decades of scientific work I am forced to view you as comical.

[petersc]

A few years back before the Denver standard, I worked on the same problem and came up with the Casting Weight Model.

The Casting Weight Model weighs the top leg of a static, arbitrary, idealized D-Loop. It's the only approach that factors in head weight, head length, and weight distribution. In this model, a WF line with an 8 ft. front taper that weighed 500 grains at 60' would have a lighter casting weight than a 500 grain 60' head with a 30' front taper.

As a rating method, each line weight would be represented by the equation for the slope of a line, representing casting weight over head length. The customer need not know this as it's strictly "back office" stuff, but any line whose casting weight fell on the slope of the 9 wt. rating line, would be considered a 9 wt. In this way, a line of 50' and one of 70' or one with a 15' vs. one with a 40' front taper, that fell along this line, would all be rated consistently as a 9 wt.. More importantly, all such 9 wts. would all feel roughly the same in terms of rod loading, regardless of length or taper.

If you're interested here's the original work. Use the tabs on the spreadsheet to see the graphs and various tables.

www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/castingweight.xls

www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/castingweightmodel.doc

[scotview]

peterc,

what a brilliant bit of work.

I have just purchased a RIO SKAGIT Shooting head of 750 grains to see how my 15' & 14' Oracle react to a very short head length with a high mass.

This is testing a rods ability with an extreme of mass and very little D loop, almost the exact opposite of classic DT traditional lines.

Again geat analytical work peter.


Regards,

Scotview

[rpsalmon]

Dear springer
From the position of a comic (and from your own postings with limited casting experience & knowledge) you now compound your ridiculous position by continuing to imply I don’t know what I’m talking about, if that was true than all the people ever involved with the creation/maintenance of the basis for the AFTM system are all behind the times (in addition to all the generations of stupid scientists etc). If you are so sure of your position and can’t find the enthusiasm to converse with me then I suggest you inform Sage, T&T, Hardy, B&W, Meiser, Cortland, SA, etc etc of your expertise and tell them all that they are behind the times, out of touch, don’t know what they are doing, bla, bla, bla, etc etc etc.

[juststartedagain]

why dont you tell said companies of your brilliant idea so that we can all benefit then!

[rpsalmon]

Dear comical springer
No frustration within my postings, just amazement and amusement at the lengths you’re prepared to go to rather than just admit you’re wrong. It appears that irrespective of whether the subject is the entire fishing tackle industry or all scientists and their work, they are wrong and you are right. As previously suggested, you just go and tell Cortland, Scientific Anglers, Sage, Hardy, B & W etc your system and tell then that the basis of everything is wrong. The experts or “modern thinking anglers” you claim to be laughing at me must also be laughing at the full range of tackle companies & experts as well. Perhaps the “experts” or “modern thinking anglers” that you use to support your “credibility” also support your ludicrous views on scientists and scientific work? None of my views fall out of line with the widely accepted knowledge on rod ratings. If that has shocked you then it is a demonstration that you haven’t understood or even comprehended my postings.

Your “system” can never work because there is not really a system, and what you have isn’t even simple or straight forward. The best overall help you could give is to have a guide to the various lines that could be used with rods of particular casting weights/actions. Trying to build a specific system for spey lines won’t work because the lines are different and ever changing.

[juststartedagain]

well then RPS get the manufacturers to use your magnificent system - were all waiting!!!!!!! ;D

[robson]

AFTM standard In grams

#3 ___6.48g___
#4 ___7.78g___
#5 ___9.07g___
#6 ___10.42g___
#7 ___11.99g___
#8 ___13.61g___
#9 ___15.55g___
#10 ___18.14g___
#11 ___21.38g___
#12 ___24.62g___

Who would use this with 15' Salmon rod?

[ibm59]

Simple question to which I hope someone has a simple answer.
Taking a standard no10 DT floating line which in theory , although I'm not so sure in practice , is rated on the weight of the first 30' of line beyond the rod tip , how much extra line beyond the rod tip does it take to increase the loading on the rod equivalent to one or more line sizes up?
Answer in dumbo terms please , as anything beyond spherical trigonometry or celestial navigation is beyond me.
Regards.
BtB.

[scotview]

My dear rpsalmon & springer,

have either of you had time to analise the data submitted by petersc ?

My only comment on his analysis is that he considers force on the rod as a multiplier of mass times acceleration.

The only humble comment that I may put forward is that initially Force equals mass times acceleration, however I think that as the rod speed levels out the force on the rod tends to the dynamics equation:

Force =1/2 of the mass times velocity squared. A classical Newtonian equation

Other than the above minor dynamics subtlety I think his analysis is pretty bl**dy good.

Would either of you wish to put forward your thoughts?

Additionally, if either of you have not yet carried out such a rigorous study of line & rod dynamics I would be inclined to be pretty reserved in your response,

best regards,

Scotview

[petersc]

Thanks Scotview

Yes, I agree that on longer strokes, the acceleration drops off and velocity becomes the issue. On my own long stroke, it accelerates when I'm pulling with the bottom hand, it levels out in the middle, then I get a bit more acceleration at the end when I push off with the top hand.

However, on my Underhand, it's acceleration from beginning to end thanks to the very compact stroke of this style. One day I'd like to get my hands on an accelerometer so that I can verify what is happening at various stages of the casting stroke.

In the model, I didn't get into the difference between these scenarios in an effort to simplify things and keep the focus on the rating model.

Cheers

Peter

[scotview]

well rpsalmon or springer,

what do you think of petercs' reply.

In my humble opinion he is an order of magnitude above of either your uninformed opinions!!

Please resume with ONE SALMON BOARD.....what we have is much too precious to throw away,

I'm waiting on you both to capitulate.

[petersc]

ibm59 said:

Simple question to which I hope someone has a simple answer.
Taking a standard no10 DT floating line which in theory , although I'm not so sure in practice , is rated on the weight of the first 30' of line beyond the rod tip , how much extra line beyond the rod tip does it take to increase the loading on the rod equivalent to one or more line sizes up?
Answer in dumbo terms please , as anything beyond spherical trigonometry or celestial navigation is beyond me.
Regards.
BtB.

BtB,

Don't know if this will be of any help as I'm not 100% sure what you're after, however, I use this spreadsheet to help me calculate DT weights by line rating, front taper, and length.

Pick your line weight, alter the front taper to suit and see the weights produced by length. If none of the supplied line lengths do the job for you, then change one to whatever you'd like.


www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/DTcalculator.xls

Cheers

Peter

[scotview]

rpsalmon & springer .....................I'm waiting on your weighty and considered reply on the thesis of line & rod dynamics.

I await with eager anticipation

[rpsalmon]

I made my initial reply against your remark in the other thread. I am sure I'll get a chance to look at it over the next week since it doesn't look as though we'll get much rain.

[rpsalmon]

I have just remembered about this document on a Casting Weight Model, a document that could have been shortened to 1 ½ pages max.

The basis of the system is an undefined idealised cast of undetermined energy by an average angler of limited casting ability. In stating such you will immediately identify that I don't think much of the system, partly because there is no "easy to understand system" actually stated but also because the principal of designing a system around poor casters is flawed from the start. You merely create another set of questions such as how differently would a “quite poor angler” cast as opposed to a “rather poor angler”.

Casting weights of rods are best judged by expert casters. Weights of heads are best judged by scales. How much force is applied in a cast using whatever tackle is up to the angler, on the spot and on the day.

I became astonished to read, I think it was the penultimate paragraph, that the author agrees that the various factors of casting/line/lift/energy are up to the angler and that if he has a reasonable amount of experience he should be able to adjust. Since that is the case there is no need for this suggested “system”.

Today I was told that Partridge state an ideal head weight in their salmon rod literature, the person (a sales rep) also informed me that at least one major manufacturer (he wouldn’t say which) was going to start stating a suggested casting weight for their rods. (I didn’t inform him of my views so he was acting on his own volition.)