Overloading the fly rod

Gordy,

I was reading Bruce Richard’s book “Modern Fly Lines,” in his book he states that over loading the rod will have a tendency to open up the loop. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts and the group’s thoughts on this subject.

Lou

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lou ... You are timely in asking this question. Rick Whorwood and I have been discussing that very thing this evening.

Here is how Rick and I look at it.

All rods are made to throw a tight loop with a range of line weights. Some have greater range than others. When we speak of overloading a rod, most of us are looking at that as casting with a grain weight which exceeds the rod's capacity to form a good tight loop with a competent caster at the helm carrying average lengths of line. When literally overloading the rod, it becomes difficult or impossible to maintain a nearly straight line path of the rod tip. Either the rod tip travels in a more convex path thus yielding a wide loop or the caster reacts by using more power during the stroke which can make the rod tip bend way down and then return, forming a tailing loop.

This is very different than overlining a rod, which is the use of a fly line with a greater rating than that of the rod.

Some casters find that with some rods, it is easier to form the desired loops when they overline the rod ..... but that is not overloading it, since they are able to make a good efficient tight loop by doing this.

We've been taught that rods are rated as to how they best cast a particular fly line weight with 30' of line out of the tip. In the real world, however, most modern rods are rated on the basis of how they cast more line than that, because that is the way most casters fish.

Obviously, a caster who is using a 7 wt. rated rod with a #7 line is actually casting with a true 7 wt. line when only 30' of line is carried. For each additional 5 - 6 feet of line carried, he is casting with the grain weight of one additional line designation .... so if he's carrying 50' of line, he's really casting with an eleven (11) wt. line. Most modern fly rods will allow a good caster to do exactly that and maintain a straight line path of the rod tip and a good tight loop when one is desired.

(The formula I quoted, above, is an approximation. It will vary with the mass profile of the fly line.)

Distance tournament casters underline their rods greatly. They do that because they carry great lengths and therefore great grain weights of line in order to gain distance. Steve Rajeff is well known to cast a 10 wt. or 11 wt. line on a # 17 rod for max performance. If he carries 75' of line while false casting, he's flinging the grain wt. of a # 17 line.

Now, let's say that I use a 9 wt. line on this same 7 wt. rod. I might well elect to do that if I need to make a short quick cast to a moving fish .... say 35' out from me. I'll, technically, be casting with an 8 wt. line and all will likely go well.

Let's consider what will likely happen if I take that same outfit (#9 line on a 7 wt. rod) and cast more distance while carryine 50' of line. Here is where I probably will have trouble maintaining that straight line tip path ... because I'm really casting a 13 wt. line as far as its grain wt. is concerned. That #7 rod will react differently as I'll have trouble maintaining SLP and my loops will suffer. THAT is overloading the rod.

I have spent time trying to, "rate" various fly rods with Steve Rajeff and other casters much better than I. True science takes a back seat to the rating of each as we simply try lines of various grain weights with average fishing lengths of these lines carried to see which one yields the best loops with average casting effort. I may find, for example, that with a particular rod, I can't load it well with a # 6 line, and I can't easily make perfect loops with a # 8 line. I can easily make nice tight loops with the #7 line...... so I'll label that rod a likely # 7. I'll, "confirm" this only if several good casters come to the same conclusion as they cast.

We'd get closer to a more scientific way of doing all this if we rated rods as the the grain weight of line then handle best. As far as the rating of the fly lines, I'd love to see a move to Bruce Richards' suggested method ( Modern Fly Lines, p. 94) where heavier rods are rated on the basis of greater lengths of line carried.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~