Walter & Group...
From Shaun Ash. My comments in his text in italics. G :
I have always gone to a sinking line when the wind got up my thinking
was not only the thinner profile but as it will sink in water which
has a greater density the air it should travel better against the wind
and be less effected as it runs out of energy.
Good reasoning, Shaun.... Thing is that the thinner profilc will cut through the wind more efficiently. Al Buhr was absolutely correct in that a MORE important reason is that the greater mass / diameter (density) of that line will travel farther in the wind even if the diameters of the two lines happened to be the same.
As I see it :-
Another "fundamental" : The quality of the presentation is largely determined by the rate of turnover of the leader loop.
And: The rate of turnover of the leader is determined by the rate and completeness of dissipation of energy.
Examples: Casting with a long gradually tapered leader usually results in early dissipation of energy and a soft presentation.
Casting with a short rapidly tapered leader (or no taper) usually results in failure of complete dissipation of energy as the leader loop rapidly unfurls leading to a hard presentation.
Caveat : I've taken the leader out of the context of the system including the fly and fly line. All this is much more complicated than it appears.
"Fundamental" : The design of the leader must be in part relative to the design of the fly line and the weight and bulk of the fly.
One example: The long gradually tapered leader being used with a fly line which has a long gradual taper for its tapered forward section. Here we'd end up with very poor line/leader control.
Another : It wouldn't make sense to use a long gradually tapered leader when fishing a large heavy bass bug fly. The weight and bulk of the bug will make it crash down anyway, but the angler would have very poor control from an accuracy standpoint. G.
Here is a question when I was fishing in New Zealand a old fisher said
he uses a WF line weight down for his rod ie a 5# on a 6# rod because
ots thinner and he transfers the power more effective with the thinner
line is this a weight or density issue as both where weight forward.
I think if we were to actually do some testing that the difference in thickness between a WF5S and a WF6S would not be enough to make a significant difference with respect to wind resistance.
Not having done it, I suspect that the #6 sinking line would probably travel more effeciently than the #5 sinker because of the greater mass. G.
With leaders Peter Morse was doing a rigging session in tassie and
mentioned that he likes to match the stiffness of the but leader to
the stiffness of the line again to add energy transfer.
Peter and I discussed that last year at the Loveland Conclave. I told him that I had done that for years. HOWEVER:
1. In matching the butt section stiffness to that of the end of the fly line, you will end up with a very flexible butt section.... not a stiff one.
2. One of the "fundamentals" of leader design includes the fact that the mass profile of the leader is of overriding importance (over stiffness) in determining the turnover efficiency.
3. Peter's thought that matching the stiffness of the butt section to that of the end of the fly line for smooth transfer of energy is, I think, correct. It is another factor, though subordinate to that of mass profile.
Gordy