Spey Pages banner

Gaelforce Equalizer: 54' vs. 63' Lines

17K views 57 replies 11 participants last post by  jonken 
#1 ·
I didn't see a thread comparing the two versions, so I thought I'd start one:

I'm in the process of testing the 54' and the 63' Equalizer side-by-side.
The lightest version of the 63- is the 7/8 which is 662 grains and is pushing the grain window on my Meiser (450-750gr.) by the time I add a poly leader.

I do prefer the 63'. In tight quarters, I can just bring in some of the head (not too much since you need enough mass for turnover), but enough to turn the 63' into the 54'.
I have been using both pairings with the integrated line. I have no doubt that a thinner diameter running line would allow me to cast further, but the integrated running line is very smooth and if I do want to bring the head in a bit to modify my casting (due to tight bank or smaller bucket), than it's nice to have one integrated system with no possibility of knots getting hung up in the guides.

I do have a question for Bruce or others familiar with the line...

I notice that 63' has a two tone color transition (going from yellow, to green, and finally to the orange running line), whereas the 54' just has the yellow transitioning to the orange. I am curious as to the difference?
For those using the line, where is your holding point. I tend to hold somewhere in the "green" transition on the 63'.

A few additional thoughts:

1. Without any cutback on the tip, the line will throw the heaviest polys.
2. I presume, with a bit cut back, one could have an all around line, similar to the original Delta, capable of throwing weighted sink tips in excess of 110 grains. (I threw the heaviest versileader which is in excess of 100 grains and it casted very well. I even used a weighted tube just for practice and line testing. It performed very well and when moving to a lighter fly and poly leader, it REALLY flew.
3. I like my Deltas, but the Gaelforce seems to aid in better turnover and more powerful casts with better delivery.
4. The Gaeforce throws Lazer-tight loops which requires me to be extra careful to not get my leader hung up in line during the cast.
5. The far bank doesn't seem all that far anymore. :grin2:

Poppy's line demo program is excellent. I can't recommend the Red Shed Fly Shop enough. He and Dale are as nice as they come and they're even wise enough to send a handy tool to wind the line back-up.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
If you want to understand where the difference between Spey lines comes after obvious head length and weight measures the weight difference between rear and front half has huge effect. Coiling both halfs and weighing them on a cup is possible to do very accurately after some practice holding the rest of the line horizontal six inches away in hand so that length mark comes three inches out of cup rim. Thick line sections can be so stiff that you can change scale reading either pushing down or lifting up but watching the reading it is possible to "null" this effect.

When Spey line/head has 70% of its weight on rear half it is very easy and efficient to Spey cast but there also comes difficulties to make the line loop straighten when casting to head wind.

Esa
 
#20 ·
Finally someone is talking about a more nuanced part of line balance. Dead weight of a line does not tell the whole picture that takes into account rod action and response.

Remember the AFS Floating heads? The back half to front half difference is 20% (60% to 40%). This was always a good start to get the loops dynamics of lines of vogue designs. When I dropped that differential to 10% for the same rod, the loop dynamics suffer. That is characteristic of the AFS dual sink heads, which needed 10% for a heavier front taper to properly sink tip first.

I have played around with this differential and found that faster rods typically need higher differentials. Conversely the differential is less when the rod flexes deeper*. Or else you will find over-stroking to make up for anemic loop dynamics, diverting energy away from the translation speed needed for distance.

* I suspect with deeper action rods, the rod sections and their respective weights takes over some of the function of the driver part of the line. To prove it out, I built a 73' head that is basically a long front taper connected to only a 20 feet -but thicker than usual- rear taper, around 712 grains. It works with the slower action of my 18'2" rod. This driver-less approach gets me a lighter line that gets a chunk of its distance from a deeper rod action.
 
#5 ·
Have you weighed and measured the Gaelforce line? Just to see what you're actually casting. By comparison with an Airflo - an Equalizer 63 weighs as much as an 8/9 or 9/10 Delta Long...


The Delta Long 7/8 are under 600 grain. I have three - the heaviest is 585 grain 63 feet or IOW an AFFTA standard 8 weight mid belly.
 
#6 ·
Thanks for the responses. I've asked a moderator to fix the title.

I did not weigh the Gaelforce, but I do expect them to be accurate as advertised - 660 grains or so. I really prefer the loading of the original Delta 7/8 or the Delta2 8/9 off my rod (HC 15' 6/7/8). Not because I like these lines better, but because of their lower grain weight. Both 7/8 and 8/9 Deltas are less than 600 grains so the 63' Equalizer is heavier by a meaningful margin. The Deltas can be casted slow or fast -- into the cork or off the tip - whatever I prefer.

However, when fishing a 15' rod, I find the Deltas to be too short for my liking. The 63' Equalizer, in the 7/8 series, is the lightest grain weight made at that length. If they made one just under 600 grains, I'd probably own 3 of them to share with friends! The Meiser has a very forgiving grain window and I've been using two-handed rods for many years. I feel like I understand the nuances of a cast when fishing a heavier line.
My timing and mechanics on the Gaelforce, simply because their length and grain window, require me to be more precise. But I'm okay with that. I think it's making me a better caster. The Gaelforce lines are excellent CASTING and FISHING lines. Yesterday, I spent some time in heavy winds and they still performed well - even using the lighter grain weight.
 
#8 · (Edited)
On the other hand - I find that lining a rod with a lighter lines requires a better technique, and heavier lines are easier to cast: Technique trumping equipment. The Gaelforce is more comparable to a Delta Long and heavier by comparison. Perhaps that is the reason they seem easier to cast?

I would assume fly casting and fly fishing as one in the same. How about you?
 
#7 ·
I didn't see a thread comparing the two versions, so I thought I'd start one:
I do have a question for Bruce or others familiar with the line...

I notice that 63' has a two tone color transition (going from yellow, to green, and finally to the orange running line), whereas the 54' just has the yellow transitioning to the orange. I am curious as to the difference?
For those using the line, where is your holding point. I tend to hold somewhere in the "green" transition on the 63'.
Hi,

I have done some measurements with my Gaelforce 63' 8/9 (708 grain) line. The yellow part is about 56-57' with an weight around 670 grains, Having the yellow part around the rod tip is my sweet spot (+- 50 cm) on the rod Meiser MKS 15' 7/8 (500-850) I use. The back taper starts about 2 meters before color change to green and continues about 3 meters after it. Observe I only used my eyes looking for the back taper..

Have fun casting/fishing the Gaelforce lines.. ;)
 
#10 ·
I would add something to this thread if I could but you pretty much nailed all of the good stuff Read1t48 :)
I guess the only thing is that if you are using the full line as in not cut into a head try pulling the color change (bright green head part) three inches into the tip top for the super sweet spot ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Read1t48
#11 ·
That's exactly what I've been doing. But the neighbor on the far side of the river is tired of climbing his ladder to take my fly out of his bushes. And the year round kayakers are hogging his bank to watch mesmerizing casts :grin2:

The fish, likely directly below my feet, are also happy. Oh well. To each his own.
 
#23 ·
Zack Williams recommended I try cutting my 54 into a head and I've been loving it. It took me about 3 days of looking at it before I took the plunge with the nippers. I don't see much fishing sense in casting much further than this thing will shoot now, although I'm sure Bruce would prove me wrong on that! I've demoed the 63' and love that one, too. Probably add it this fall. For reference I'm fishing it on a CW special CX 15' 7/8/9.
 
#29 ·
Zack Williams recommended I try cutting my 54 into a head and I've been loving it. It took me about 3 days of looking at it before I took the plunge with the nippers.
I had to laugh when I reread this as I have been staring at my integrated 54' line and thinking the same thing. Bruce even told me what to do, but still cannot bring myself to cut into it. Maybe this afternoon. Need to do it sooner or later because there is one rod I want to switch between a heavier head and this one. Did you weld yours or tie a knot in the core?
 
#24 ·
So to keep this thread alive, I have a couple questions for Bruce or others...

1. If Poppy or me were to do a cutback and weld, would you do it somewhere in the transition color (the green) or right at the back of the head?
2. Do you or Poppy have a "chopped" line available for a quick test run?
(I really do like the integrated system for ease of mending. The running line casts well, but I'd be curious to try a chopped line BEFORE doing it to mine. Lol. I know... some guys want to have their cake and eat it, too). I'm just reluctant to chop a $100+ line.

3. Is the green portion identical to the orange running line to simply aid in identifying the loading point or do the two sections actually weight differently? Just curious.
4. Do you know if James and the team have a plan to make an Equalizer like line for longer, lighter-lined rods?

Regarding the head portion inside the rod...
When placing part of the head inside (just for trial and curiosity purposes), I did notice that it weighed the rod down -- which totally makes sense because of the weight of the "head" portion. So I agree with your statement about not wanting to bring the head in. I would, however, frequently bring some of the transitional green-colored portion into my rod guides and that was helpful; this made me think a chopped line would be somewhere in this transitional area.
 
#30 ·
I have done many kind of loops but thread wrapping about three inches of strong braid both sides of the line is easiest and strongest and slim as well. When line is thick I cut some of the coating away where the braid goes and line diameter does not increase. I coat thread using PU (wader repair) glue.I also use thread wrapping when I join line sections which is another red wrap in photo.

Esa
 

Attachments

#31 ·
Nicely done Esa :smokin:
I've been trying the wader repair stuff that comes with the breathable waders from Patagonia on the PVC coated lines that don't weld. Seems to work well so far. I've been doing the Rio braided loops though with two Nail Knots of flat Dacron. A thin coat of that wader repair with a shot of UV and the final outcome seems to be a smooth finish and very pliable ... much nicer than the Loon UV Knot Sense I was using before.
On the PU lines I still do a welded loop though. I sort of like the clean "factory look".
Both methods work well for me and I have confidence in both.


Mike
 
#35 ·
Distance is easier - mono or a thinner running section reduces fiction through the guides. Other than that...

Easier distance and control over the head/line while under tension on the swing. You will also notice that it will feel lighter to the rod as well as faster recovery of the rod as well as being able to adjust the amount of overhang to suit your casting ability.
Easier control???

Think of the control a double taper offers one the entire length of the line compared to a WF compared to a head that is attached to thin running line or monofilament. That a rod's recovery is somehow hampered or bogged by a fly-line... contentious at best.
 
#34 ·
Easier distance and control over the head/line while under tension on the swing. You will also notice that it will feel lighter to the rod as well as faster recovery of the rod as well as being able to adjust the amount of overhang to suit your casting ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: troutless and coug
#53 ·
Finally got the courage up last might to the chop the integrated line. I welded a loop instead of exposing the core, but it really cast like a dream this morning. I liked the 54' line on this particular rod before, but it seems to cast even better as a head. I was using monic yellow as the running line. Thanks for the help and advice!
 
#48 ·
Sorry gents, I would never take that contraption to the river ... let me rephrase that, I would never be caught on the river with that contraption.
Maybe for "home use", deep inside the Spey Cave, but never in public :hihi:
My "hose coiling technique" works very well, with no twists and creates a compact coil of line that can fit nicely inside my line wallet sleeves.


Mike
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top