Fishing The Fly Scotland Forum

Ben Dixon

Robs line weight question
« on: 19/02/2013 at 18:56 »
Hi Ben,
Not sure I grasp what you mean regarding being shorter thus lighter

Take a 5wt trout line for example, approx 140 grains at 30' to "load" most #5 rated rods. Think about a SA ED line (head 67'4" in a #5) the weight of the head is 276 grains and it feels right on most rods rated #5 when all of it is being cast.  Condense that 276 grains into 30' and it would feel very heavy indeed, likewise, stretching 140 grains over 67'4" would feel very light.  Does that make sense?

Cheers

Ben

Rob Brownfield

Robs line weight question
« Reply #1 on: 20/02/2013 at 09:40 »
Take a 5wt trout line for example, approx 140 grains at 30' to "load" most #5 rated rods. Think about a SA ED line (head 67'4" in a #5) the weight of the head is 276 grains and it feels right on most rods rated #5 when all of it is being cast.  Condense that 276 grains into 30' and it would feel very heavy indeed, likewise, stretching 140 grains over 67'4" would feel very light.  Does that make sense?

No, because what you have just told me is that 1 ton of lead weighs more than 1 ton of feathers  ??? unless you are talking about spey casting, then it makes sense because I realise its all about the belly giving the weight, and a shorter line would concentrate the weight more.

If you aerialise (because you talk about the SA line I presume you are) 140 grains at X feet and 276 grains at Y feet, you are still loading the road with the respective weights. Just coz its longer cannot mean it is lighter, it weighs what it weighs if flying through the air.

Ben Dixon

Robs line weight question
« Reply #2 on: 20/02/2013 at 11:17 »
No, because what you have just told me is that 1 ton of lead weighs more than 1 ton of feathers  ??? unless you are talking about spey casting, then it makes sense because I realise its all about the belly giving the weight, and a shorter line would concentrate the weight more.

If you aerialise (because you talk about the SA line I presume you are) 140 grains at X feet and 276 grains at Y feet, you are still loading the road with the respective weights. Just coz its longer cannot mean it is lighter, it weighs what it weighs if flying through the air.

Ton of feathers weighs no lessthan a ton of bricks Rob.  Not got time to re-explain this just now mate, thought I was clear first time around, will come back to it later  ZX2  :z4

See Rio's lines on their website, the THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF OF THE HEADOF A LONG BELLY WILL BE MORE THAN THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF HEAD FOR A SHORT BELLY THAT WILL WORK THE SAME ROD!  Think about it Rob.......

Cheers
Ben

Rob Brownfield

Robs line weight question
« Reply #3 on: 20/02/2013 at 12:42 »
Ton of feathers weighs no lessthan a ton of bricks Rob. 


Thats my point. Just because something is bigger in volume does not mean it is bigger in weight and visa versa..

Anyway, I will try the line..if its too heavy, its too heavy.

Ben Dixon

Robs line weight question
« Reply #4 on: 20/02/2013 at 12:58 »


Thats my point. Just because something is bigger in volume does not mean it is bigger in weight and vice versa..

Anyway, I will try the line..if its too heavy, its too heavy.

If that really is your point Rob, I'm very worried ZX2
We are not talking about densities here. it is the weight of line relative to the length

Again, in case I was not clear enough second time around I'll use DH lines, you may find the comparison easier to grasp. 

Go look up weights for Rio Power Spey in a 10/11, then do the same for the Uni Spey and AFS in the same size.  In the order I listed them, you will see a decrease in head weight as the length decreases, they all still work a 10/11 rod at the lengths they are designed to be cast.

From memory a power Spey 10/11 weighs 825 grains at 71', a 10/11 AFS weighs 640 grains.  If you stick a 640 grain (8/9) power Spey on your 10/11 rod, it will feel far too light likewise, if you stick a 10/11 (640 grain)AFS on your 8/9 rated rod it will feel too heavy.

If this still makes no sense, get Cas to read the whole thread and maybe she'll explain it to you   :z4


Cheers

Ben

Iain Cameron

Robs line weight question
« Reply #5 on: 20/02/2013 at 13:03 »

... most of the rods in the UK at least were being used as short two handed rods by anglers chasing salmon or sea trout on smaller rivers or on the larger rivers in low water conditions therefore, it makes sense to line them for that purpose.  The aim was to produce a line that would cast well two handed on 10'6" - 11' 6" rods and allow delicate presentations on long tapered leaders with small flies, also lump gear about, cast well over a range of distances and, be manageable on that length of rod for Spey casting in confined spaces.  ....
....

Really looking forward to this hitting the market, anyone want to buy a Beulah Elixir from me?

Will you give me a refund on the Beulah Elixir you flogged me first... :-)
(It's a very nice line, I've been happy with it, so if the Barrio Switch improves on it, then that'll be great)

Nice post Ben - very informative, and sounds like you & Mike have been very clear about the objective - a line for light double-handed work. Grand.

cheers
iain

Loxiafan

Robs line weight question
« Reply #6 on: 20/02/2013 at 13:17 »
Jeez I'm glad I fish for trout, my heid is hurting wi a' this grains, grams, heids, belly's  :z4

Ben, when you told me the GT90 was a "light line", is this in reference to the point you are making here - if so, even I can understand it.....just !  :z4

L

Ben Dixon

Robs line weight question
« Reply #7 on: 20/02/2013 at 13:42 »
Hi Linsday,

The total weight of the head on the GT90 #5 will be greater than the total head weight of the SLX #5 but, over the first 33', the SLX #5 will weigh more than the GT90 #5.  That is probably what I was getting at when I told you the GT90 was a light line.  The GT90 is a true to standard AFTMA #5 line and as such weighs approx 140 grains over the first 30'.  Does that answer your question?

Cheers

Ben

Iain Cameron

Robs line weight question
« Reply #8 on: 20/02/2013 at 13:47 »
using my lunchtime to do some brain training...

I think (??) it boils down to comparing the grain weight per foot (which gives a common measure, getting away from the concern about comparing elephants and shoelaces...)

Rio chart at http://www.rioproducts.com/skin/summit/pdf/Spey%20Weight%20Chart%202013.pdf

For 10/11 rated lines:
Powerspey: 850 grains, 71 foot head - average grains per feet is 11.9
uni spey: 750 grains, 64 foot head - average grains per foot is 11.7
AFS: 640 grains, 40 foot, 16 - average grains per foot is 16

(average grain weight per foot ignores the obvious differences caused by tapers etc)

So yes, the overall head weight decreases (850, 750, 640) for shorter heads but the average weight per foot (11.9, 11.7, 16) rises. Science fact!

I guess this is where the confusion arises (head gets lighter overall, but each foot of the head is heavier)

i'm getting back to work now...
iain


Loxiafan

Robs line weight question
« Reply #9 on: 20/02/2013 at 14:17 »
Hi Ben,

Thanks for that reply, that was exactly my understanding about the GT90 being a 'light' line !  :z16

Cheers,

Lindsay

Rob Brownfield

Robs line weight question
« Reply #10 on: 20/02/2013 at 14:51 »
using my lunchtime to do some brain training...

I think (??) it boils down to comparing the grain weight per foot (which gives a common measure, getting away from the concern about comparing elephants and shoelaces...)

Rio chart at http://www.rioproducts.com/skin/summit/pdf/Spey%20Weight%20Chart%202013.pdf

For 10/11 rated lines:
Powerspey: 850 grains, 71 foot head - average grains per feet is 11.9
uni spey: 750 grains, 64 foot head - average grains per foot is 11.7
AFS: 640 grains, 40 foot, 16 - average grains per foot is 16

(average grain weight per foot ignores the obvious differences caused by tapers etc)

So yes, the overall head weight decreases (850, 750, 640) for shorter heads but the average weight per foot (11.9, 11.7, 16) rises. Science fact!

I guess this is where the confusion arises (head gets lighter overall, but each foot of the head is heavier)

i'm getting back to work now...
iain



Totally get that for DH, but not overhead as used in the first explaination.

Ben Dixon

Robs line weight question
« Reply #11 on: 20/02/2013 at 15:06 »
Totally get that for DH, but not overhead as used in the first explaination.

So this would differ when casting overhead would it?  It applies for all lines Rob, why wouldn't it?


Rob Brownfield

Robs line weight question
« Reply #12 on: 20/02/2013 at 15:23 »
So this would differ when casting overhead would it?  It applies for all lines Rob, why wouldn't it?

Ok, because I am presuming that to cast, the whole head needs to be out the tip ring...so a longer, heavier head will load a rod more than a shorter, lighter line, when all the head is out, because it is in the air, not laying on the water.

If you are talking about only the first 30 feet, then yes, I can see how it would work.

Ben Dixon

Robs line weight question
« Reply #13 on: 20/02/2013 at 15:37 »
Ok, because I am presuming that to cast, the whole head needs to be out the tip ring...so a longer, heavier head will load a rod more than a shorter, lighter line, when all the head is out, because it is in the air, not laying on the water.

If you are talking about only the first 30 feet, then yes, I can see how it would work.

Dude,

If you are serious about trying to understand it, go start a new thread in the casting section and I'll try to help you out with it tonight when I get home.  We're just jamming up the switch thread here!!

Ben

Hamish Young

Re: Robs line weight question
« Reply #14 on: 20/02/2013 at 17:49 »
Your wish is my command - new thread created  :cool:

 




Barrio Fly Lines - designed in Scotland - Cast with confidence all over the world

Barrio Fly Lines

Designed in Scotland

Manufactured in the UK

Cast with confidence all over the world

www.flylineshop.com