Windcutter -- Extending the belly? - Spey Pages
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-07-2000, 10:28 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: SinktipDate: 2/7/2000 7:28 PM
I am currently fishing a 9/10/11 Windcutter on a Sage 9140-4. It casts well and will shoot a mile but once you get past the length of the head (54') you have to shoot line. I was wondering if anyone had tried to extend the belly of this line by adding 10 to 15'. If so, were you pleased with the results? What size line did you use? Did you place it at the rear taper or loop it in behind the initial 15' looped section? I know it would be easier to just switch to a DT or even an extended belly line such as an Accellerator but since I alread am out the bucks on the Windcutter, I thought I would experiment a bit with it.
ISC Archives is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-07-2000, 10:57 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: Per StadighDate: 2/7/2000 7:57 PM

What's the problem with shooting line?

Per

ISC Archives is offline  
post #3 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-08-2000, 12:08 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: SinktipDate: 2/7/2000 9:08 PM
Per:

It is just a convenience issue for the most part. I feel that I can work through a run faster and with better rhythm if I don't have to strip and shoot. Also, on those rare days, like two weeks ago, where the air temp. is around 26 degrees and the guides are freezing shut, it much is nicer to not have to shoot any line. Finally, there is the mending issue. I can mend with the running line out by using a tight line method but it doesn't seem as effective as mending from the belly. (I look forward to your piece on mending)

More than anything, I am just in the tinkering mood. The Windcutter length works fine for most of my winter fishing as I rarely want to cast further than the belly and leader length. Then there are the occasional distant lies and broad tailouts though where extra length would be nice.

Duggan
ISC Archives is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-08-2000, 12:44 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: Per StadighDate: 2/7/2000 9:44 PM

Hello Duggan,

I get the picture. The ice thing is a good argument for fishing with a fixed length of line. I guess you can take any piece of  say 10 weight level floating line and loop it into the RIO. For testing it is good enough to just tie loops straight into the core. On most of my heads I use that simple loop anyhow. The best one is to make a one turn overhand knot were the coating starts (I normally strip 3" of coating off). The one sticks the core end in through that first knot and makes another overhand knot around the coated part. When pulled tight these two knots will inter lock and should sit tight up gainst the coating. I notmally make the loop about 1/2" long. Nothing is stronger in the system than the line's core....

I'll be back on the mending soon.

Good luck,

Per

 

ISC Archives is offline  
post #5 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-08-2000, 07:56 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/8/2000 4:56 PM
I would proceed with caution when extending the Windcutter as it already has a much thicker (heavier) belly section than a longer-bellied line--in the Windcutter the grains needed to effectively load the rod are concentrated into 54' as opposed to say the 70'-80' or so in the Accelerator/Mastery Spey-style long-bellied lines. Putting addtional belly (or too much additional belly) could seriously overload your rod.
ISC Archives is offline  
post #6 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-08-2000, 08:16 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: SinktipDate: 2/8/2000 5:16 PM
Thanks Dana. I actually had wondered about that factor. I guess I will learn to live with it until I go to another line type.
ISC Archives is offline  
post #7 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-08-2000, 11:50 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/8/2000 8:50 PM
Hmmmmm, doing a little more thinking. If I was going to mess with the Windcutter I would be inclined to add belly to the front end of the line, and make sure that the new section is lighter than the main line. Here's my call:

1. use a thickness guage or micrometer and measure the diameter of the main belly.

2. measure the thickness of each section of the front taper so you know how the taper is constructed.

3. loop in say 10' of DT level line that is 1 or 2 sizes lighter than the main belly--I'd be inclined to go 2 sizes down because the main belly of the Windcutter will be very heavy. You could find the place on teh taper of the Windcutter where the taper dimensions match the new belly section to create a smoother transition of energy through the line.

4. loop the rest of the Windcutter taper to the front of this new section.

5. make some test casts PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT THE ROD IS DOING. THERE IS A VERY REAL DANGER THAT YOU COULD BLOW UP YOUR ROD SO BE CAREFUL! Try it with dry line and tips.

6. Let us know what you discover!
ISC Archives is offline  
post #8 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-09-2000, 12:46 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: Per StadighDate: 2/8/2000 9:46 PM

Dana,

I have done some hmmm-ing at my end, as well.

  1. I would not be all that worried about overloading the rod. I yet have to blow a rod due to that. (possible warning about the 15110 Sage we always have discussed.) Knowing that I can whack 850 grainers out with my 15 footers it just doesn't make sence.  Some 10' of extra line cant make that big a difference, can it?
  2. I am more worried about wether that 14 footer will cope with the extra weight from a pure casting point of view. Only trial and error can tell. I agree on adding to the front section.
  3. Possibly we have something really interesting anyway, although it will not solve our friend's problem. By attaching 10 or even 15 feet of line to a Windcutter it would become  a great line for a rod one line class heavier. I never really liked the Accelerator as it is hard to get the mend past that "power hinge" (talking of a one piece floater now). An extended Windcutter might be the perfect answer.

Does it make any sence?

Per

PS. e-mail me about that rod!DS 

ISC Archives is offline  
post #9 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-09-2000, 12:57 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/8/2000 9:57 PM
Perhaps additional line might create a good set up for the 15' or 16'+ 10/11/12 weights such as the Sages, Scotts, Thomas&Thomas, Daiwa, etc.

In thinking about those 14' Sages I was concerned that they already bend quite deeply into the butt section in my experience, and those Windcutters are very thick--I would hate to see someone snap their rod by adding additional belly of the same weight as the main section of the Windcutter. Some Spey rods seem to have considerable "backbone"--while others do not, so yes some experimentation is in order. Adding line off the front end though could create an interesting line with a "step taper" that allows for perhaps a smoother delivery and enhanced mendability (is that a word?).

There ya go gettin' me thinkin' again!!!
ISC Archives is offline  
post #10 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-11-2000, 05:23 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: el_loco_altoDate: 2/11/2000 2:23 AM
Now that I got some good tips on my casting, I too am at the limit of my Windcutter head and am forced to shoot line for more distance. I spoke with a few people about extending the taper on my Windcutter 7/8/9 (for a Scott 1308/3), and it was suggesting by experienced several fishers of this rod that replacing the tip section of the Windcutter with a longer tip cut from a TT 8/9 spey taper would do the trick (rather than extending the belly and risk overloading the rod).

The front taper on the Windcutter tips line is 16.5' long. If I can obtain a TT taper (used?) for cheap, then I'll try splicing the front 35' for starters, and will shorten from the back until it feels right. e
ISC Archives is offline  
post #11 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-11-2000, 07:20 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/11/2000 4:20 PM
Just a note about adding the front of the TT Spey: be sure to get a micrometer or thickness guage and match the TT to the Windcutter otherwise you could get a hinging problem.
ISC Archives is offline  
post #12 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-11-2000, 07:53 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: AndreDate: 2/11/2000 4:53 PM

Dana,

By measuring the OD of the various line one might splice. Are you looking to achieve the same diameter to prevent hinging? I always thought the line weight/density was the more important factor, or with dry lines are the diameters close enough?

(I haven't done much splicing)

andre
ISC Archives is offline  
post #13 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-12-2000, 01:58 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/11/2000 10:58 PM
Well, this is kind of an interesting subject--different materials in the line construction will have a profound impact upon the deceptively simple process of "cutting and splicing". And each new line combination will have to be tested. But when combining lines for a full floating taper, a good place to start is by ensuring that the taper and main line are "identical" in profile, then test casting and making modifications as necessary.

In Combs's book he mentions the importance of having the new sink tips one or two line sizes lighter than the main line to prevent hinging. I have not found this to be the case with custom Spey lines. For example, I loop 12 weight sinking line to a 10 weight floating belly without any casting difficulty. Perhaps any hinging would be more pronounced in an overhead cast, but since I don't overhead cast much, I don't notice the problem.

Anyways, food for thought
ISC Archives is offline  
post #14 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-12-2000, 02:17 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/11/2000 11:17 PM
Oooops! What I meant to say was that at the splice point the profiles need to be pretty much the same, or perhaps the forward portion could be a line size smaller (I'm talking floating lines here). Thus with the "continuous taper" (it isn't really "continuous") of the TT Spey, at the point at which you will splice it to the Windcutter the diameter of both lines should be pretty close.

I don't know if I'm making any sense here--it's been a looooooooong day...
ISC Archives is offline  
post #15 of 29 (permalink) Old 04-06-2000, 11:29 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: J_DDate: 4/6/2000 7:29 AM
Rio made me a 35ft mid section to replace the std 15 ft section on my Windcutter 9/109/11. Cost=$25+shipping. That extends the head out to 74 ft (about the same as an accellerator). Works for me with the 9140-4 . I suppose you could under line one line size, and add 35 ft in addition to the std 15ft to get a head of 89ft. However, you might not have enough line mass for big winter flies. Talk to Marlin Roush @Rio
ISC Archives is offline  
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome