Hi, Group.....
In line with the little quiz which I sent a few days ago, I'm forwarding, here, some personal communication between me and Bruce Richards....with his permission.
Scroll down and start with the original message. A great deal to be learned here, which goes way beyond what has been taught in recent years.
Gordy
From: bwrichards@xxxxxxx
To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Fly line designation
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:03:38 -0400
Gordy,
Actually, there isn't much cooperation between rod and line companies when
we design our products. Not that there is a problem, just that it isn't
very necessary. There are so many variables in play when designing either a
rod or line that all we can really do is pick an "average" set of
conditions and design around that. In reality we have to design around our
anticipated customer, his/her abilities, applications, etc. To take the rod
he/she might use into account doesn't work because the options are so
great. That said, the differences in the rods are really not that great
that it makes a big difference. High end casters certainly can tell the
difference in rods, but we are also those most capable of quickly making a
stroke adjustment to compensate.
If both the rod and line companies design with the same customer and
application in mind, the products work together well. Problems arise when
inexperienced casters wind up with products designed for accomplished
casters (TCR rod for a beginner, for example).
Feel free to share any of this and my previous note on line weights with
the group.
Regards,
Bruce
Scientific Anglers/3M
4100 James Savage Rd.
Midland, MI 48642 USA
Tel: 989-496-1113
Fax: 989-496-3374
"Gordon Hill"
<hillshead@xxxxxx
m> To
bwrichards@xxxxxxx
09/26/2005 07:37 cc
PM
Subject
Re: Fly line designation
Bruce....
Thanks. This puts the whole thing in perspective.
Of course, I am aware of your enthusiasm for designating lines for heavier
rods at increasing lengths......I thought that made good sense. It would
take a lot of cooperation with the rod manufacturers, however.
We got a message that Bill Gammel is fine, and Tom was anxious to get back
to work for the newspaper as soon as possible for obvious reasons.
Gordy
From: bwrichards@xxxxxxx
To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Fly line designation
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:03:47 -0400
Hi Gordy, very glad to hear "the girls" didn't do much damage at your
place. We were all thinking about our friends in the Keys and Gulf coast.
I
don't know that Tom's life will ever return to normal, as he knew it......
Haven't heard from Bill Gammell, hope they are all OK.
In 1997 we introduced the GPX series of lines, that are made 1/2 size
heavy. This in response to many anglers thoughts that rods had gotten too
fast. Also, Cortland made a good number of their lines at least 1/2 -1
size
heavy, and we determined that the only anglers who preferred their lines
over ours we those who liked slower rods. So, we made those lines 1/2 size
heavy, and let that fact be known on the packaging, in ads, and in our
catalog. Cortland never acknowledged it, but based on the inconsistency of
their weights, I suspect they didn't do it on purpose......
We also make some other lines 1/2 size heavy, like our Concept beginners
lines. Beginners don't throw a straight line and do better with more
weight
since slack reduces rod load. Also, those line have short heads. We also
make a couple other low end lines 1/2 size heavy, for the same reason.
Recently we changed our Ultra series Bonefish and Tarpon lines to be made
1
full size heavy. These lines also have very short 33 ft. heads. Just as
with shooting tapers, wise casters would upline 1-2 sizes with these lines
to give the rod the resistance it was designed around. Less savvy anglers
(most Ultra customers) didn't know to do that and were not always happy
with the way their lines loaded, so we helped them by making the lines the
weight they should be.
There is a problem with the current line rating system that I am working
on
fixing. Most 7 wt. and heavier rods are designed around standard WF lines
with heads 40+ ft. long. They are designed to carry 40-45 ft. of line
before shooting, typical fishing casting for 7+ wt. rods. Obviously, at 40
ft., a line with a 40 ft. head weighs a lot more than one with a 33 ft.
head. Both are accurately rated as 7s, but one with the long head loads
the
rod as designed, the short head line feels (and is) light. I'm working to
get 7 wt. and heavier lines weighed at 40 ft. instead of 30, that would
solve the problem and only change lines with unusually short heads. I
explained all this in much more detail in my book, but have simplified my
suggested solution considerably.
I hope this helps Gordy, nice to hear from you!
Bruce
Scientific Anglers/3M
4100 James Savage Rd.
Midland, MI 48642 USA
Tel: 989-496-1113
Fax: 989-496-3374
"Gordon Hill"
<hillshead@xxxxxx
m> To
bwrichards@xxxxxxx
09/26/2005 04:46 cc
PM
Subject
Fly line designation
Hi, Bruce.....
I understand that Sci. Angler has come out with one fly line which has the
grain wt. of its first 30' slightly in excess of its size designation.
Can you let me know about that ?
Of course, up to now, we've been teaching that all standard fly lines of a
given size designation have the first 30' within a given grain wt. range.
If this one is different, I don't want to be surprised by one of the
students bringing it up without Tom and me knowing about it.
We had a close brush with Rita, as we did with Katrina. No direct hit, so
we "dodged the bullets".....we did, however, have winds over 80
MPH......and the water was 2' above my dock. No real damage,
however.....just a nasty mess, and the storms pushed the fish away.
Gordy