Walter & Group.......
```````````````````````````````````````
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Rick....
I don't have
anywhere near all the answers............
Jake Jordan
did a lot of personal testing as well as research on this subject. A lot
of the info I have, came from his testings, some of which I repeated just to be
sure, using various abrasion devices and Tom White's line
tester.
I don't have
proprietary ratings / descriptions, etc. though I'm aware that they do
exist. I suspect that a Google ride through information on the internet
might provide some interesting information, but I have not done
that.
Perhaps some one in the Group has looked into this in
more detail and will share the info.
Some plain,
"real world" testing of nylon and fluorocarbon has been easy.
Examples:
As you know,
I string great lengths of both mono and fluorocarbon from poles on my 150' dock,
to keep the gulls away. They are exposed to the tropical sun. (I used
samples of fluoro from manufactures, rather than paying $$$ for this expensive
stuff.) The nylon mono degrades to the point of having only a fraction of
its original strength and clarity within 6 months. That was true with
multiple brands. During the same time, the fluorocarbon looses hardly
measurable tensile strength, and doesn't change
clarity.
I tried
keeping the stuff in the freezer for a couple of years, and noted no
changes. However, even nylon mono kept on the shelf in my den lost
very little strength on the tester both with and without knots when I tested
stuff I bought 15 + years ago.
Several years
ago, when going for IGFA records (I've gotten over that phase), I tested various
brands of mono and found that there were great inconsistencies .... not only
with respect to tensile strength relative to the labels, but also
within the same bulk spool ! That was true even with one brand of
so-called, "IGFA Spec. Tournament line". (This stuff was never actually
sanctioned in any way by the IGFA.) We, also, found problems with quality
control even with some very popular brands.... .... an entire spool of nylon
mono found to have tensile strength of less than half it's rating; whereas, most
nylon mono is rated below its actual measured lb. strength.
When I tied
the knots as I constructed leaders and THEN kept them for 3 years, the knot
strength did diminish quite a bit.
Commercial fishermen stake their livelihoods on the use of
what they feel are the best fluorocarbon materials for their open ocean long
lines. Of course, they are looking at cost effectiveness, which is how
they measure and come up with the, "best" stuff. I couldn't translate that
into effectiveness of material for fly leaders.
Toads have
not appeared as yet.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From
Dusty Sprague, after our conversation on the subject of matching lines and
shooting tapers to rods :-
Gordy,
Good talking with you this morning.
In Fly Fishing in Salt Waters, March/April issue, Nick Curcione's
article "Adding Weight", prompted Bruce Richards to elaborate
on shooting heads and line weights. He's provided an excellent
description that you might pass on to members of your masters study
group.
From Bruce's comments in the same magazine's May/June issue:
"Fly rods are not designed to cast just 30 feet of fly line. They are
desgiend to cast the typical amount of line normally cast with that particular
rod, which is 35 to 45 feet for most rods 6-weight and heavier. And they
are desgiend to cast weight-forward lines that have 40- to 45-foot heads, not 30
foot shooting tapers. So these rods are designed to cast the
inudstry-standard 30-foot weight plus another 5 to 15 feet of line belly.
Thirty feet of an ST weighs the same as 30 feet of a comparable-sized WF line
but, after that, the WF gets heavier -- the ST does not. So if a rod is
designed to cast 40 feet of a WF-8 line, that is considerably more weight than
30 feet of an ST-8. And that is the reason why people recommend using an
ST-9 or ST-10 on an 8-weight rod rather than an ST-8."
Dusty
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: I Learned from Bruce's
note.
We know that when matching lines to rods, there are many other factors to
consider, as well :-
1. For distance casting, match the rod with a fly line of lower
designation. ( If you are using a 6 wt. rod and are false casting with 55'
of line out of the rod tip, you are actually loading your rod with a 9 to 10 wt.
line.)
2. For casting quickly to fish which suddenly appear nearby, use a
line of greater designation.
3. When casting a very heavy fly (like a weighted permit crab fly),
use a line of greater designation. Some anglers do better when they cut
the forward taper back a certain distance for this application.
4. Some good casters find that they can cast more efficiently in the
wind when using a line of greater designation, despite the fact that this line
is more wind resistant.
5. Other factors being equal, it is usually easier to cast a sinking
line when conditions are windy. (A combination of greater density yielding
thinner line for the weight, and greater concentration of energy, etc.)
6. If you want to flip a bulky bass bug for a, "crash landing" to get
the attention of a lunker bass under dense cover, it helps to use a fly line of
1 or 2 designations heavier than called for by the rod label, and combine this
with the removal of the last 20" to 24" of the tapered section. (Works
especially well when used with a short non-tapered leader.)
7. When using a very long leader, it will turn over better if you use
a line designation greater than that of the rod.
Gordy