Spey Pages banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
While I know that it depends a lot on the taper, I was wondering whether anyone ever tried to work out the approximate weight changes with increasing line length to properly load the rod.

E.g. if your your rod loads well with a 45' line @ 550grain, how much should a 55' and 65' head weight to load the same rod...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,138 Posts
While I know that it depends a lot on the taper, I was wondering whether anyone ever tried to work out the approximate weight changes with increasing line length to properly load the rod.

E.g. if your your rod loads well with a 45' line @ 550grain, how much should a 55' and 65' head weight to load the same rod...
A 65' taper of 550 gr. would "load" a rod same as 45' taper.

Generally speaking - a longer line with more material will weigh more.
 

·
Broken Down Spey Freak
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
I would expect as much as 100-150gr to step up 10ft in length depending on which line manufacturer. Maybe a bit less. But I would ignore the weights for the most part. If you were to compare a scandi to a long belly for a given rod there would be a significant difference in weight and would require a different technique to cast. The same would be true across manufacturers with different taper designs. How they cast would depend and the type of rod action and your casting style. Many of the current/recent rods these days are more tip flex for casting skagit lines. Ideally a full flex action would be better suited for longer lines. Long lines can be casted on tip flex rods but would requires a different technique or some adjustments. Rod length is also a major consideration for longer lines.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,937 Posts
Testing is only good method to find "proper" load. Rod bend increase when casting distance increase. Line weight has interesting function when "proper" weight bends rod less than lighter or heavier line.

Esa
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,565 Posts
Also again, it’s NOT just total weight as a function of length, but the taper. I know I like a much heavier NextCast 55 footer on a given rod, with its beefy and boring (possibly less efficient) completely level butt section than I do for a 55’ vector that has a much more evened out and continuous taper. But the best weight keeps going up as the lines get longer. Casting has a large linear density (wt/length) component that enters into the casting equation, so that is probably a big part of it. So yes, scaling the weigh in linear proportion to the length for a given style line might be a good back-of-the-envelope rule to try.

So in the OP’s case: 550 * 55/45 = 672 and 550 * (65/45) = 794. These seem a bit too much, as expected, so we need someone to propose a small negative nonlinear correction term.:)
 

·
All Tangled Up
Joined
·
677 Posts
While I know that it depends a lot on the taper, I was wondering whether anyone ever tried to work out the approximate weight changes with increasing line length to properly load the rod.

E.g. if your your rod loads well with a 45' line @ 550grain, how much should a 55' and 65' head weight to load the same rod...
Well, why do you want to know ?

For a given taper design, it's a relatively straightforward exercise in integral calculus to figure this out, but, why?

For lines that have level back tapers -- some of the more recent NextCast lines, many comp lines -- it is even more simple : measure the head at the back, convert to gr/foot (tables in Al Buhr's book), multiply by # of feet in length change.

In my experience, this is a useful thing to know pretty much only if you have customized a line for a given rod, worn out the line, and then want to cut exactly the same line to the same specs as the first line. Even then it's only an approximation, due to manufacturing variation.

You can get approximations from the AFFTA tables for line weight class vs. head length. That's probably the most general thing you'll find.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top