|
Walter & Group....
Attached : THE ROD, by Jerry Puckett.
Here are some responses to Lewis Hinks' question on the rational behind marking fly rods and fly lines with multiple designations :
From Mark Ozog :-
personally think the rod maker labels dual weights with the idea that the rod will appeal to a greater market share. Most of these rods tend to be on entry level rods so I think the manufacturers labels it so that the beginner fly fisher feels they can use it with either line weight and in different situations.
Mark Ozog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Robert Peet :-
It is my understanding that a Mfg may label their rod as a 5/6 line so as to say its ok to load up with a 5 wt for tighter/ faster loop & tight casting say...under some tree limbs. At other times a slower "more gentle" cast with the 6 wt line may be called for.
A in-between line such as a GPX which is 1/2 line weight heavier than the stated line weight.
As an instructor I really find it educational to have a student cast lines that are +2 to -2 line weights from what their rod calls for. This usually results in their discovering the "real feel" of their rod and buying a line that suits their stroke, style, and increases the "addiction factor" of just making a beautiful cast.
>From this I go into balanced leaders but that topic is not for this question.
Catch and Release
Robert Peet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Andrew Connell :-
Well I guess there was a time when we would have said that the lower number was a DT line weight and the upper number a weight forward line weight as we are adding more mass the longer the line we cast with a DT and with a WF we very quickly reach the maximum mass at 30'-40' in most cases as the back of the head is reached, so somewhere in the middle there is a balance.
I've only seen dual ratings on lines that seem to be used for spey or switch rods and see them as a guide to rods they "could" be used on, at the end of the day most people using those rods would likely look at grain weights and head lengths rather than line designations.
I look forward to the answers on this one.
Cheers,
Andrew Connell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Bob Rumph :-
Hi Gordy & group,
In response to the questions from Lewis, who I had the pleasure of meeting at the Marlboro show. Hi Lewis.
I have always labored under the impression that the rod manufactures are simply rating their rod as equally capable of handling either a 5 or 6 wgt. line. And it would follow, that the line manufactures would be suggesting that their line will cast equally well on a 5 or 6 wgt. rod. If this sounds too simplistic, it may be our fault for overcomplicating issues. I do think Lewis may be correct with his assumption that these particular lines may actually come in at a 5.5 wgt. in an intentional effort to cover both rod wgts.. If I am incorrect on this, please someone set me straight.
Regards,
Bob Rumpf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Jim Penrod :-
Hi Gordy,
That is an interesting observation. It would be of interest to get one of the dual rated lines and weigh the first 30 feet. If the manufacturer is following the standards it would seem that it could be the appropriate weight for a five or six weight or inbetween as Lewis said. However, that would seem to fly in the face of the accepted standards. I would certainly be interested to know what exactly a dual weight line is. It is easier to understand how a rod can be rated in a dual manner which I think is more dependent upon the caster's ability, intended use, external conditions, etc.
Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will Turek answers Lewis:-
Lewis,
Interesting question. Specifically, about which line(s) are you speaking.
As far AFFTA is concerned, there is no such thing as a dual rated line. Rating = grains @ a specific length. As each point on a line is a unique pt, so must the grain weight be at that point. So physically, it is an impossibility to equal to different weights at the same pt in length on any line (assuming the lines are identical, which we know is not necessarily true - I think the acceptable manufacturer variance is 2% or so).
As far as marketing or personal preference goes... well, you said it yourself we have been under and over lining rods for a long time and will continue to do so.
Line ratings like rod ratings are a starting place to gauge the amount of weight necessary to bend a rod. After that, it's up to you to decide how much bend you want in a particular rod. That might also mean how much effort you want to expend bending that rod.
A 5/6 rod, like a 5/6 line is both and neither at the same time. I think the more interesting question is which came first - the rod or line rating. Or put another way, do line manufacturer's build lines for rods or rod manufacturer's build rods for lines. Chicken or the egg. And have these roles changed over time with improvements in both materials and design of rods and lines.
More to the point, and without weighing a dual rated single hand line, I might guess that a 5/6 line is 10 grains heavier than a five and 10 grains less than a six. (there are 20 grains difference between the two line wts). And that a 5/6 line might work fine on a stiff 5 and soft 6 wt rod. However, it might work just fine on soft 5 for someone that likes a deeper bend in the rod, and stiff 6 for someone that likes to cast off the tip. (The assumption being only the first 30 feet of the fly line is being cast - as this is the AFFTA measure of grain wt.).
5/6 rods, like 5/6 lines are confused of their own purpose and therefore should be avoided (said with tongue in cheek ; )
Slightly different story with spey lines/rods as they accommodate a much greater grain wt variance than single hand rods - generally speaking. But the dual line rating serves the same purpose. More load or less on the rod - the reason behind the Rio A and B rating system (not sure if they still use that...) Ex. 5/6 Rio PowerSpey = 420 = AFFTA spey short belly 6wt. 5/6 = deeper bend on 5wt spey or less so on 6wt spey. Do you want to cast from the mid-butt or off the tip might be another way to put it? Of course, there are soft 6wts are well... and one could go on and on and on and on given all the variables that affect bending a rod.
Bottom line is that line and rod ratings are a guide, nothing more. We need to start somewhere and that somewhere is the AFFTA standards. Not perfect, and some might argue arbitrary or less useful with the development of increasingly stiffer rod actions BUT it's the system of measure we are stuck with. So we work within it and around it as it suits our individual purposes towards achieving specific casting objectives.
Will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Heritage sends his opinion :
I have always been a bit suspicious about multi rated rods. I always assumed the lower rating was for weight forward lines because once the head is aerialised that is pretty much it as far as rod loading goes whereas if we used a DT we could aerialise the whole line and could be casting nearly three times the weight. In my full on distance days I often used a DT to practice carrying line and broke several rods in the process because of this.
I usually steer clear of rods with dual rating because I cannot use them in competition. I also prefer to make my own mind up as to which weight the rod likes best. It has to be remembered that rod rating is not an exact science, it is simply one (or several) manufactures testing casters opinion that that particular blank is most suitable for such and such a line.
Of course it would also depend on what type of fishing you intend to use the rod, for close in work I might be tempted to use the higher weight to load the rod better for short casts, or, for fishing at range I might use the lower weight line rated for the rod .
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Davison discusses the duel rating of Triangle Taper lines. Note the link :-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From John Hand :-
|
Attachment:
THE ROD.doc
Description: MS-Word document