Understanding Fly Lines

[lhomme]

Depends how long the head is and much 'fly line' you have outside the rod tip. With 4ft of mono shooting line outside the rod tip it's a 'challenge'!

I would go even further and say it's impossible, but when all conditions are met it is possible to roll cast any head. And shoot running line in the process.

 

[andygrey]

Someone upthread explained that the Orvis Clearwater was a good beginner's line. Being 1/2 a size overweight and also 'head-heavy' (short front and rear taper) I suppose it's a micro shooting head really.
View attachment 33198
I have to say, I quite like the idea of this line, it looks like you should be able to fish that close in and also chuck it 50' feet (+leader) fairly easily. Should to be good at roll casting too. It looks like a decent general purpose small water/river line to me.

I know the delicate presentation thing is supposed to require a longer front taper but for most of us I reckon turning over the entire leader is more important.

Just thinking out loud really.

Not only do I like this line for beginners but I also use it in a 4wt (urrr...4.5 weight!) for the majority of my river fishing now. Easy to roll cast at short range but doesn't become unwieldy at longer 'river' distances. As far as the front taper goes, yes it's a bit abrupt but a bit matched to a fairly thick butted leader good turnover and presentation is achievable.
The taper is fairly standard for a WF, it's just 'overlined' a bit. I've cast a 6wt version to the backing on more than a few occasions but it's a lot harder work than a GT90 or Arrowhead as it hinges like a bugger with over 15 or 20 feet of the running line outside the rod-tip.

 

[ohanzee]

Yeh, I didn't mean an actual shooting head, doubt you could roll cast a real shooting head

Depends, I watched Klaus Frimor do exactly that when Loop's SDS multi tip kit came out, he was using 5 weight shooting head 'tips' with a single dry fly, he was roll casting with ease and delicacy, the final tip he put on shot 90' without much effort.

The catch with a shooting head is rear taper, or rather lack of it, without a rear taper you are restricted to picking up one set length of head...or less of it, and my experience is you need a long enough head to form a good long stable loop before letting go, and when you do it whizzes and can crumple if you don't slow it down to roll out, but the potential is just the same as an overhead cast.

 

[Tangled]

This has now been stickied.

Still adding to it if you have anything you think needs saying

 

[taffy1]

Found this on Mike Barrio's website.

 

[rusty]

AFTMA, or whatever, is supposed to be a standard but it is abused.
Is there a regulatery body? It sounds unlikely. Are there any controls in place?
AFTMA ratings are shown on packaging but contents often do not comply.
How can a line have two ratings eg #7/8?
The laxity of the system is used as a confidence trick.
I have condemmed rods by using lines way outside the stated rating.
Rusty

 

[Tangled]

AFTMA, or whatever, is supposed to be a standard but it is abused.
Is there a regulatery body? It sounds unlikely. Are there any controls in place?
AFTMA ratings are shown on packaging but contents often do not comply.
How can a line have two ratings eg #7/8?
The laxity of the system is used as a confidence trick.
I have condemmed rods by using lines way outside the stated rating.
Rusty

Is the AFTMA standard out of date?
Some regard the whole standards system as outdated and defunct because the system was designed in 1959 before weight forward lines and differing line profiles were available.

Surprisingly, the first section of a fly line - the level section - is excluded from the 30’ measurement, yet it IS added weight. How much you won't know because it's not on the box. Some lines have as little as 6”, some a few feet.

For an extreme opinion on this, see

5 problems with fly line design and the broken AFTM system.

Fly line design has been lacking for over 30 years starting with the outdated AFTM system. Why don't companies change their head length in single hand ranges? Wy do companies only list the weight of the first 30' of a line? All these issues are questioned by designer Tom Bell in this modern...

sunrayflyfish.com

5 problems with fly line design and the broken AFTM system.
Fly line design has been lacking for over 30 years starting with the outdated AFTM system. Why don't companies change their head length in single hand ranges? Wy do companies only list the weight of the first 30' of a line? All these issues are questioned by designer Tom Bell in this modern...

Actual line weights
It's a commonplace claim that some, possibly most, manufacturers create lines that are overweight, often by more than one weight.

The reason they do this, it is said, is to make it easier for beginners to load their rod, to feel the weight of the line in the cast, to feel the rod bend. It's also said that the increasingly powerful - ie stiffer rods - need this.

Trident measured the weights of 43 WF#5 lines:

“In rough numbers, only one-third of the lines tested are “true” 5-weight lines (134-146 grains) according to the standard and about another third are “within the margin of error” (126-152 grains). Also interesting is the fact that zero lines weighed in below 140 grains.”

Fly Line Shootout, Review, & Buyer’s Guide

We tested the most popular freshwater fly lines in the industry and crowned a winner. Plus weights, measurements, taper diagrams, and much more.

www.tridentflyfishing.com

We tested the most popular freshwater fly lines in the industry and crowned a winner. Plus weights, measurements, taper diagrams, and much more.
www.tridentflyfishing.com www.tridentflyfishing.com

It does seem odd that there's a standard that isn't a standard isn't it?

 

[PaulD]

'sunrayflyfish.com
5 problems with fly line design and the broken AFTM system.
Fly line design has been lacking for over 30 years starting with the outdated AFTM system. Why don't companies change their head length in single hand ranges? Wy do companies only list the weight of the first 30' of a line? All these issues are questioned by designer Tom Bell in this modern...
sunrayflyfish.com sunrayflyfish.com'

Perhaps someone will post his topless video where he rants about Cortland lines. He is the Donald Trump of fly lines.

 

[rusty]

I accept that the AFTMA has it's limitations. Lots of people rant about it but noone seems to come up with an effective alternative. If they did, a new standard would be established and adhered to.
However, in the meantime I think the ststem that has stood the test of time should be ahered to rather than used to mislead, in some cases. Maybe complementary information is the way forward but noone has put up a workable alternative to that either.

Since the sytem is based on the number of grains of wheat we should move to grams.
Some fly rods now show the 30ft load in grams, eg Guideline.

The information we need is-
1. Weight in grams of the first 30 ft.
2. Weight of the WF head in grams and length in ft.

Rusty

 

[James9118]

Tangled, do you know what 'confirmation bias' is? You seem intent on ignoring the information that is presented to you that doesn't fit your perceived view of what's going on.

Firstly, and I don't know how many times this has to be said, AFTMA as an association do not exist anymore (so it's more than out-of-date, it's dead). AFFTA are the association that now hold the standard for fly line weights, reel seat size etc. REPEAT AFFTA, f'ing AFFTA!!!!

Sunray is in the game of selling overweight lines to duffers who can't cast well - you'd probably love his lines. However, just because he writes #5 on a box that contains a line that weighs as a #7 according to AFFTA, do not kid yourself you're using a #5 - you're definitely casting a #7.

You seem obsessed with 'rod load' without truly understanding it. The force that the caster inputs bends the rod. According to Newton, force = mass x acceleration. Therefore, hopefully you can see that force (and thus the bend in the rod) is not solely dependant on the mass of the line. I can bend a rod deeply or hardly at all with the same amount and weight of line. I could also easily go more extreme and produce a deeper bend in the rod by casting a lighter line but with a greater acceleration rate.

As a friend of mine often says, if you feel the need to put more weight (i.e. a heavier line) on your rod than you want to use, then you've bought the wrong rod!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the AFFTA system, it's just a very simple tool to differentiate different masses of lines into categories for sale to the public. No more, no less.

Incidentally, if someone asked me to cast a #5 line as far as I could I'd pick a rod that had been rated as a #10 - what does that tell you about rod loading?

James

 

[Tangled]

Tangled, do you know what 'confirmation bias' is?

Sure do.

You seem intent on ignoring the information that is presented to you that doesn't fit your perceived view of what's going on.

What information?

Firstly, and I don't know how many times this has to be said, AFTMA as an association do not exist anymore (so it's more than out-of-date, it's dead). AFFTA are the association that now hold the standard for fly line weights, reel seat size etc. REPEAT AFFTA, f'ing AFFTA!!!!

Calm down dear.

Despite your personal protestations, AFTM and AFTMA are still used more in line advertisements and discussions than AFFTA. So in the article I say this

All things Standard
You may see at least three line standards referred to:
The AFTM (Association of Fishing Tackle Manufacturers) System
The AFTMA (American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association)
The AFFTA (American Fly Fishers Tackle Association)

They're all the same thing, but even though it's out of date now, you'll probably see AFTMA used most.

You seem obsessed with 'rod load' without truly understanding it. The force that the caster inputs bends the rod. According to Newton, force = mass x acceleration. Therefore, hopefully you can see that force (and thus the bend in the rod) is not solely dependant on the mass of the line. I can bend a rod deeply or hardly at all with the same amount and weight of line. I could also easily go more extreme and produce a deeper bend in the rod by casting a lighter line but with a greater acceleration rate.

Obviously. Where have I ever said anything different? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the AFFTA system, it's just a very simple tool to differentiate different masses of lines into categories for sale to the public. No more, no less.

In that article I'm just reporting what several people involved in the industry are saying about the system. And, btw, it's in the annex as a by-the-by.

 

[Tangled]

Perhaps someone will post his topless video where he rants about Cortland lines. He is the Donald Trump of fly lines.

I did say it was an extreme opinion...

 

[PaulD]

The information we need is-
1. Weight in grams of the first 30 ft.
2. Weight of the WF head in grams and length in ft.

Rusty

Like this?

 

[James9118]

Tangled, AFTMA is only used because people are too lazy to do their own research to find that the association no longer exists. Instead they find threads like this and assume it's still a thing - it's not, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's only threads like this, and people like you, that keep the defunct name in people's minds.

Confirmation bias, as in you've found the biggest clown in the fly tackle manufacturing world, who wants to sell you his overweight lines, and you quote him as an authority. How much searching have you done for contrary evidence? Incidentally, Sunray say that the AFFTA system is obsolete, but what do they use on their website when people are ordering their overweight lines (or on the line boxes themselves)? [Which is the crux of the AFFTA discussion - why are they still printing a specification number on their products when they don't stick to that very same specification?].

Your comments in the casting section make it clear you have little idea of how the rating estimate of rods is carried out against the AFFTA specification of line weights. You author these 'understanding' threads, yet you clearly don't understand yourself.

 

[original cormorant]

AFTMA, or whatever, is supposed to be a standard but it is abused.
Is there a regulatery body? It sounds unlikely. Are there any controls in place?
AFTMA ratings are shown on packaging but contents often do not comply.
How can a line have two ratings eg #7/8?
The laxity of the system is used as a confidence trick.
I have condemmed rods by using lines way outside the stated rating.
Rusty

Yes there is a "regulatory body" the AFFTA - google it - It filled the void when the AFTMA folded 20 odd years ago.

I have never known LINES sold with two AFFTA ratings. Some are sold with grain weights and the angler then has the responsibility for matching the line to his rod.

A couple of days ago on a different thread I posted the following comment
"The AFFTA (please get it right) standard is a benchmark which everyone accepts is inadequate because of the overwhelming complexities but most also accept that it's better than nothing ."
Treat that as a starting point.

There are frankly too many misapprehensions on this thread to comment on them all. The latest piece of tangled thought I 've noticed is
"Surprisingly, the first section of a fly line - the level section - is excluded from the 30’ measurement, yet it IS added weight. How much you won't know because it's not on the box. Some lines have as little as 6”, some a few feet."
Read the standard - the first level section of up to 6 inches is excluded from the 30ft - anything over 6 inches is part ot the front taper of the line.

Edit - I'm guilty of something here, I've just looked at the standard and there is no mention of how long the level tip can be. I do know that I have read that upto 6 inches of level tip are excluded, perhaps on a manufacturers website.

 

[andygrey]

I am frequently guilty of misquoting the number and order of A's, F's, T's and M's when discussing whatever organisation currently has its acronym at the top of the line weight table.
I do believe however that the actual weights to line rating haven't changed...
Anyway, in the name of some semblance of professionalism I'll write AFFTA on the back of my hand every day until I remember it off by heart!

 

[Tangled]

Tangled, AFTMA is only used because people are too lazy to do their own research to find that the association no longer exists. Instead they find threads like this and assume it's still a thing - it's not, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's only threads like this, and people like you, that keep the defunct name in people's minds.

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about this. There's not much I can do about that except to explain very carefully to you what I've actually done in the article and why. I explain that all three acronyms refer to the same standard - which is hardly lazy. I do that because it deals with the real life problem of the industry still using the old terms. That is not my fault. Get over it.

Confirmation bias, as in you've found the biggest clown in the fly tackle manufacturing world, who wants to sell you his overweight lines, and you quote him as an authority. How much searching have you done for contrary evidence? Incidentally, Sunray say that the AFFTA system is obsolete, but what do they use on their website when people are ordering their overweight lines (or on the line boxes themselves)? [Which is the crux of the AFFTA discussion - why are they still printing a specification number on their products when they don't stick to that very same specification?].

I see from this little rant that you haven't actually read the article have you? I do actually point out that it's an extreme opinion, it's there as an interesting outlier opinion. You know, the opposite of confirmation bias. Read the article.

Your comments in the casting section make it clear you have little idea of how the rating estimate of rods is carried out against the AFFTA specification of line weights. You author these 'understanding' threads, yet you clearly don't understand yourself.

Instead of making these non-specific personal attacks which is water off a ducks back to me, you could try reading what's written, then offering improvements and corrections. I'm more than happy to correct errors and misunderstanding. Or include new information. I put it up front that I do not regard myself as an expert, I'm just gathering information to help people.

 

[Tangled]

There are frankly too many misapprehensions on this thread to comment on them all.

Well that's a damn shame because those misapprehensions will stay there unless they're pointed out to me. I don't make this stuff up you know, everything I say is from other sources.

The latest piece of tangled thought I 've noticed is
"Surprisingly, the first section of a fly line - the level section - is excluded from the 30’ measurement, yet it IS added weight. How much you won't know because it's not on the box. Some lines have as little as 6”, some a few feet."
Read the standard - the first level section of up to 6 inches is excluded from the 30ft - anything over 6 inches is part ot the front taper of the line.

And this is one of the things I've got from another source. So if it's wrong I'll certainly change it, can you point me to the wording?

 

[James9118]

Tangled, you start post #367, posted today with the words "is the AFTMA standard out of date" so clearly you're not learning anything because you're asking about an organisation that disappeared 20 years ago, this is despite being told this many times by many contributors.

I have read the article (the Sunray one) in depth, many times. The fact is it's just part of the Sunray marketing. We all know that we can chuck a tennis ball further than a ping-pong ball, and Sunray know that people rate fly lines based on how easily they can cast far. As such, putting a #7 line in a box and selling is as a #5 is a sure way of hood winking people into thinking the lines are great.

Oh, I don't rant, you couldn't be further from the truth. I do know BS when I see it though. Unfortunately you're gathering information and editing it according to your own confirmation biases. You've admitted that your not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, so how do you know that your edits are correct or even useful?

 

[Tangled]

Tangled, you start post #367, posted today with the words "is the AFTMA standard out of date" so clearly you're not learning anything because you're asking about an organisation that disappeared 20 years ago, this is despite being told this many times by many contributors.

The post yesterday was a chunk from the full article, read the article - the understanding article - if you're actually interested in getting your accusations right.

I have read the article (the Sunray one) in depth, many times. The fact is it's just part of the Sunray marketing. We all know that we can chuck a tennis ball further than a ping-pong ball, and Sunray know that people rate fly lines based on how easily they can cast far. As such, putting a #7 line in a box and selling is as a #5 is a sure way of hood winking people into thinking the lines are great.

I meant read the understanding article, if you did, you'd see that the reference to Sunray is as an extreme opinion. And it's not my opinion, it's there to be inclusive and as a straw man to discuss.

Oh, I don't rant, you couldn't be further from the truth. I do know BS when I see it though.

The evidence above contradicts you. If you want to help rather than just protest randomly, provide something that will make the article more accurate.