Walter & Group........
Note my attachment on Spey tasks for the MCCI exam.
From Al Crise's Group messages (in line with our recent discussions on rod
characteristics) :-
Walter & Gordy,
I see a lot of different concepts being provided as support for not
up lining a rod. I may be confused but, Walter, I think you make great points
for a lot of things but not necessarily against up lining.
A few of concepts-
One of my colleagues is W.Powell's granddaughter and I read that he
believed all rods were capable of handling a three line weight designation. A 6
weight is really a 5,6,7 weight. I think that the variations in line weight and
head length make this even more true today. Line design has become complex
enough that knowing the line used is a critical element.
Many line weight designations on rods are a result of casting testers
saying they thought the rod they test casted was an "X" line weight. As I teach
my students, the first thirty feet of fly line is standard (sort of) all else in
fly fishing is opinion.
The intent of the tools may change the line weight. I own a custom 2 weight
bamboo - it requires a DT or TT in 2-3 weight to hold up on tight casts without
a lot of flex distorting the rod leg beyond 35 feet. If you try to cast
much less than 30 feet with these lines a crisp haul is nearly
mandatory to tighten the loops. Early rotation with this rod and you had better
be throwing a 3 fly rig or a big indicator. My one-ounce outfit is very similar.
I would not want to throw anything but delicate flies with these, though.
I think Bill Hannemann's Common Cents System is intriguing. It has
some rough spots but demonstrates a way to compare rod actions if not predict
how an angler may 'like' or 'dislike' any particular rod. Something similar,
if followed by rod companies would raise fury in the
industry but, might simplify the initial evaluations to the benefit of the
consumer. I don't advocate it as the ultimate selection criteria but, see some
potential usefulness.
One of my friends is pro-staff for a well known rod company. Their rods are
works of art. They cast and fish beautifully, too, until there is more than a
relatively small amount of wind or a need for a quick, authoritative series of
mends. Even manufacturer's reps for this company recommend using a
line weight less than designated on the rod. They go from tip movement to
35% of the rod bent over about two ounces of force. I own some rods from this
manufacturer and I am glad I have them. I fish them in a narrower range of
circumstances. Nearly every manufacturer has a rod that has similar traits.
All rods have limits as do all casters. I practice with a variety of rods
so I can handle the broad range of gear that arrives with students. They usually
want to cast their own gear and a serious instructor will be able to find a use
for almost everything from E-glass to the stiffest graphite. If it is a
struggle, I give them a situation to use their ancestral buggy whip or broom
stick and allow them to "borrow" one of mine for the rest of the class. I try to
always preserve the honoring of the tradition that an heirloom rod represents
regardless of functional use. I have so honored a rod from my family with a
respected place on the wall in my home.
I up line rods in a beginner class to enhance the tactile experience for
students acquiring a new skill. For the previously unmentioned rod company "up
line" is a relative term. I also think that putting on a very long belly line is
a form of up lining for some rods when casting beyond 45 feet.
I caution everyone not to go up too many line weights lest they be injured
or enhance rod breakage on big casts. Most of the casting injuries I treat
relate to going to heavier outfits or longer belly lines wihout adequate
discretion for getting used to the increased demands.
The same way a dedicated instructor will ready themselves for a variety of
gear, so I find it challenging to mis-line a rod with the wrong line, too light
or too heavy, and see how quickly I can adjust my casting to generate credible
casts. I think it is a good way to acquire versatility and a bit of analytical
stimulus.
So I fundamentally agree, Walter, that the important match is the outfit to
the angler and the line designations offer a starting point for a not too simple
task. If there was a simple rule-of-thumb like going up two line weights,
someone would release a different line or rod design to confound the
assumptions.
Respectfully,
Gary Eaton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: As Gary says, you can, "up line" any
rod by using a long belly line. All you have to do is to have more than
30' of line out of the rod tip. With these lines, every extra 5 to 6 feet
of line out of the rod means that you are casting with a line of one more
designation. Example: If I cast 30' of a #6 line on my fly
rod, I may be close to the best wt. that rod can handle. Many modern rods
will handle this 30' plus another 5 - 6 feet of line very well. This means
that when I do this and cast with, say 36' of this same line, I'm really
"uplining" by one designation or handling the weight of a # 7 line.
Now, if I carry, say 54 feet of line while false casting this same outfit,
I'm really casting the grain weight of a # 10 line !
This may or may not overload this rod, depending upon it's design and,
"power". It does NOT mean (as Walter pointed out) that this # 6 rod is
really a # 8 rod and certainly not a 10 wt.
The # 8 and # 10 rods, will have a higher RANGE of line weights than the #
6 which thay handle well.
The shooting tapers don't have, "bellys" .... only shooting line of very
little mass behind them ..... so you can't increase the load on the rod by
increasing the length of line carried significantly.
The reverse is also true: If I false cast with about 15' of my
#6 line out of the tip of my # 6 fly rod, in effect I'm casting with a 3 wt.
line ! The fact that I can do that by, "tip casting" relates to the range
of line weights which that rod is capable of handling.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Troy Miller:
Walter said
“…if I was to find that the 3 weight
rod I've purchased for small fish on
small streams so that I can make delicate dry fly
presentations is in reality a 5
weight rod and I have to go through all kinds of contortions with line selection
and leader design to get those delicate casts
I would probably be a bit
annoyed with the rod
manufacturer.”
Please don’t get the
idea that this has happened overnight. The
manufacturers have not collaborated against us and
arbitrarily reassigned new line weight
values. But you do have to admit, with our ego-based selves, we love to
talk about casting to the backing with a 5 weight, or landing a 10 lb brown on a
3 weight. It’s quite fashionable these days to try to wear Lee’s shoes and
catch the biggest fish on the lightest equipment. JMO, but I think this
has led to a gradual morphing
of what inherent power flyrods possess today, compared to the rods that I
used 30 years ago.
And I’m not even opening Pandora’s “modulus” box. Grandpa
used a 6 weight to cast a
#16 BWO to a trout at 40 feet and enjoyed the heck out of
it. I cast the same terminus with a modern 4 weight to that trout, and
feel smug about it. In reality, I think the only real difference is that
Grandpa had bigger forearms than I do… J
Marketing hype abounds
in EVERY market type in America. My computer
operates 10,000 times faster than the 286 machine that I bought in 1990.
Does that mean that I can get 10,000 times as much work done? Of course
not. Technology is great, but not just for technology’s sake. I only
care about it if it can do something tangible for me. Otherwise, we’d have
to all of our possessions every couple years… I still enjoy the daylights
out of fishing the very first flyrod my Mom bought me in 1971. I’m
exceedingly careful with it,
because I already consider it an heirloom that I hope my son will treasure when
he inherits it. I want him to look at it and say to his best buddy
flyfisherman, “And this is what started the whole thing with
my Dad…”
I’ll stick my neck out
here, and say that if you take a 6 weight TCR out fishing, and you’re planning
to cast small to medium
sized poppers to smallies on
Sylamore Creek in Arkansas (max casting distance = 50 feet, most will be 30 to
40 feet), then you’ll probably wish you hadn’t strung it up with your standard
WF6F. Cuz you’ll have to pound the rod to death to make it work for
you. Load it up with a 7 or 8, and you’ll enjoy the day fishing. I
know this is an extreme example, but I believe most of the industry is
headed that way (with a few
notable exceptions such as Winston’s trout rods).
I think a solid basic
understanding of rod design and construction should be on the manifest for any
aspiring MCCI. And Don Phillips book “The Technology of Fly Rods” is the
best reference manual I know of to give you, the instructor, complete and
correct fundamentals of what you need to know. Find
it, buy it, read it, and know it. Don’t get bogged down in some of the
heavy physics (unless you want to). It is FASCINATING reading unless
you’re already a rod designer. It tells EVERYTHING you
need to know in order to
understand how you can make a slow action rod out of a high modulus material, or
conversely, a fast action rod out of low modulus material.
FWIW, my opinion
again.