Spey Pages banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So according to the charts if your using a skagit at say 540, a recommended weight on a scandi would be 510 or so right?

So I tried said scandi and it's to light...

Matter of fact i have TWO different maker rods...one a burkie 7133 and one a B&W 12'4 that both love the 540ish skagit...

Both rods cast the 510 but on both the 510 scandi is light and doesn't turn over all that great....

The burkie really likes the nextcast 45' 7/8 fall fav.

The B&W REALLY likes the nextcast 45' 8/9 fall fav.

The B&W is a much faster rod then the burkie 7133 if that mattes and my 7133 is the strongest one I have tried...( in that I tried another one and it liked lighter lines...mine is almost a cross between a 7133 and an 8133)

Now on both rods (both 3 piece rods by the way) they will cast the 510 and it's weak....On the burkie I have some odd 45' nextcast that is 553gr. and it likes that more but still tends to crumble at the end if there is much wind....
the 570 feels better and casts very nice...turns over well and flies well..

On the B&W the 7/8 casts but feels like it's not loading the rod well, crumbles like the 510 scandi....but put the 8/9 45' on there and it's a dream....casts ridiculous distances with that set up...

SO....I'm really confused by this? Now the only thing I can think of that makes any sense is I pretty much just single spey and snake roll all my casts. Does this mean I am adding the weight of the tips to the line then?

So while both rods like the 540 skagit the burkie likes tips on the lighter side, say up to the medium mow tips....while the B&W will throw any tip, likes um all and will chuck the heavy ones a freaking mile.

I'm aware of casting "Off the tip" of a rod versus deep loading it.. i'm also aware of what actually works in fishing conditions.....so look for a line that will work in wind etc.

Any thoughts or ideas on this????
 

·
JD
Joined
·
3,612 Posts
casting style vs line weights

In T&G casting, (single spey & snake roll) the whole line, including whatever sink tip/poly leader, becomes an active part of the D-loop, contributing to rod load. Therefore, add the weight of the "tip" to that of the line.

Skagit casts (DS, Circle Cast, Pery Poke) on the other hand, utilize the sustained anchor method wherein the sink tip is allowed to sink just below the surface in order to provide a more positive anchor. As such, the "tip" is not an active part of the D-loop, but instead becomes a part of the payload. That is why, in Skagit casting, the weight of the sink tip is not included when referring to head weights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,937 Posts
When casting the rod bend is a result of two main features. Fly line is obvious and it is the top half of the D-loop fly line mass which has the most influence and then gradually the line which forms the belly of the D-loop and little comes from a line which is close to the water. There is not significant difference if it is T&G or SA anchor. Simply SA casts can cause more bend because often Skagit belly is heavier and when SA anchor holds better caster tends and needs to use more force

About half of the rod bend is a result of rod Moment of Inertia. High quality light blanks bends less and old technology and heavy blanks bends more.

Third what cause rod bend is rod air drag but its effect is much less than those other two!

Esa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
I've never cast the 7133 Burky but I have a hard time believing a 510 scandi would be too light for it. I have the 8142 and a 480 Rio Steelhead scandi with a 15' mono leader is killer. That rod also likes a 7/8 WA45 and WA55 and a 575 Skagit.

My guess is you just need a little time to get used to the feel of casting the scandi. I know after I've spent a long time fishing with skagit heads my floating line technique is a bit rusty.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
I am certainly no authority on casting and equipment but am currently going through some similar dilemmas myself. Many of my preferred rod/line matches don't necessarily align with the various charts or common wisdom. But, given the vagaries of the infinite combinations of rod/line/casters I am inclined to use the ones that work FOR ME. If the heavier lines work better for you then I think that is what you should go with and not worry too much about what line the rod is supposed to like. That said, I try to be completely open to change and the possibility that my tastes, casting stroke and consequent line preferences may change through time and experience. That's part of what makes this game so interesting. Hope I didn't digress too far into the weeds.

CT
 

·
JD
Joined
·
3,612 Posts
When casting the rod bend is a result of two main features. Fly line is obvious and it is the top half of the D-loop fly line mass which has the most influence and then gradually the line which forms the belly of the D-loop and little comes from a line which is close to the water. There is not significant difference if it is T&G or SA anchor. Simply SA casts can cause more bend because often Skagit belly is heavier and when SA anchor holds better caster tends and needs to use more force

About half of the rod bend is a result of rod Moment of Inertia. High quality light blanks bends less and old technology and heavy blanks bends more.

Third what cause rod bend is rod air drag but its effect is much less than those other two!

Esa
OK, checking back through the archives, you'll find that Peter-S-C published his theory and a spread sheet file on the top half of the D-loop years ago. Nothing new to those of us who have been around the block a few times.

The original post asked "any thoughts on this" Obviously, ours differ. I do not intend to get involved in a pissing match over the various theories involving the intricacies of the cast.
 

·
Scandit sublima virtus
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Line charts are compiled by people with opinions, and as such require a grain of salt to be palatable. I like the way Airflo made recs, with separate columns for Timmy and Dec. That really reflects reality.

Common wisdom has its flaws, too, because parameters shift as line tapers advance and rods evolve. Sometimes, "take the weight of your preferred Skagit head, drop 30-50 gr and you're green" won't work.

I think 510 is probably an OK head for the Burkie but a 540 would be required on the BW. If you've paid all the endless dues for scandi technique, 510 could be a great head for the Burkie but you'd probably be more comfortable with the 540 from the sound of it. Skagit-Scandi lining transitions can be rough because there's a steep divide in casting dynamics, which is negotiated with highly variable success by individual casters. Too often I, and other casters, have tried to solve a scandi problem by processing it through a skagit brain.

This will sound off the wall, but try it before you give up on the 510. Put a 10' Versileader, 3.9 or 5.6 ips on it. Then try it on the Burkie using a relatively compressed stroke and T&G technique. You might be surprised. Some rods don't like that head naked, they want a bit of poly weight and stick to really go. This is especially true with more aggressive heads like Powertapers and many of the compacts.
A second off the wall suggestion would be to try a 480 on the Burkie. Some scandi rods have a hidden keyhole in the action at the very bottom of their grain window that makes them feel like an entirely different rod!

If it were me, I'd:
Forget the scandi head for the BW and use the FF45. Call me lazy.
Try a 480, 510, and 540 on the Burkie, all in one session, with both mono and poly leaders on each. That's how I dial when I get into the zone you're describing. Surprising things can be found.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I've never cast the 7133 Burky but I have a hard time believing a 510 scandi would be too light for it. I have the 8142 and a 480 Rio Steelhead scandi with a 15' mono leader is killer. That rod also likes a 7/8 WA45 and WA55 and a 575 Skagit.

My guess is you just need a little time to get used to the feel of casting the scandi. I know after I've spent a long time fishing with skagit heads my floating line technique is a bit rusty.

Mark
JD thank you, i've had this little nagging voice in the back of my mind saying that but wasn't sure if it was that or my imaginary friend Chuck...

Mark, I'm not a skagit guy but did go back to them this year for a bit..mostly use the nextcast 45 to 70's....i've owned this 7133 for awhile and yesterday was the first time i put a skagit on it LOL...When Nate was still at burkie he used to tell me my lines were to heavy but when he tried mine he agreed it likes the 7/8s etc.

With the 510, (which in actual weight is 501) (( a scale is a great thing as not many of my lines are what they say they are)) I scale down my cast quite a bit and while the line goes out, it has no pop and doesn't turn over worth a damn...now i also suspect the line itself as it seems to have a permeant kink...but that said, going up to the 553gr. nextcast (which i'm not sure is a light 7/8 or a heavy 6/7?) it was an improvement and turned over but the actual 578gr 7/8 cast all the casts well, turned over the fly and was almost second nature...

I'm wondering if a 540 scandi might be a good one to try? I am going to get one and see?

Kind of funny about the skagit on the 7133, damn that line works well LOL..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,027 Posts
Different strokes for different folks.

I like RIO's charts because they (darned near every two hander, and now 'switch rods) ever made and the chart(s) (pages and pages) have a "A" and a "B" recommendation. Better caster tend to go with the "A," those who like/want a bit more 'oomph' go with the "B."

http://www.rioproducts.com/spey-central/spey-line-recommendations/
 

·
JD
Joined
·
3,612 Posts
Hey Spaz

Line charts are compiled by people with opinions, and as such require a grain of salt to be palatable. I like the way Airflo made recs, with separate columns for Timmy and Dec. That really reflects reality.
:)

I looked, but was unable to find that chart. How about a link?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Give it a go for a bit longer

My experience is that your casting style has more to do with the performance of the rod/line match than anything. The "perfect" match in the hands of a lousy caster is hard to watch. Not saying your a lousy caster, just my observation from water's edge after someone's just introduced themself and thier newly purchased "perfect" setup more than a few times.

I don't have matching lines for each rod I own, most lines are middle of the road and crossover to rods having up to two manufacturer weight designations. To make the cast work on the heavier line/lighter rod combo, I simply slow and length my casting stroke. In other words, if you smoothly accelerate the casting stroke using a longer casting stroke, a line that one might typcially classify as too heavy will cast beautifully. Opposite is true for and "underlined" rod. Shorten and quicken the stroke and an otherwise "underlined" match will cast beautifully.

So I don't buy a rod that matches my casting stroke, I buy and use a rod that has an "action" the feels good to me and use a line that accentuates that good feel. For me, I like the rod to do all the work. So the less I do and the more the rod performs is what works for me. And I have two rods that perform best for me having the same scandi and skagit weight line. So go figure... charts-schmarts.

Now more to the point of the OP. You're obviously experienced enough, so I'd say just give it a chance and spend more time with it but ultimately ignore the charts and trust your feel. Some of my favorite rods almost weren't...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
I have the 7133-3 Burkheimer and it loves the Nextcast FF 45' 6/7 which is 510 grains. Its my favorite rod to cast because it throws beautiful loops with this line! Very nice setup!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Line charts are compiled by people with opinions, and as such require a grain of salt to be palatable. I like the way Airflo made recs, with separate columns for Timmy and Dec. That really reflects reality.

Common wisdom has its flaws, too, because parameters shift as line tapers advance and rods evolve. Sometimes, "take the weight of your preferred Skagit head, drop 30-50 gr and you're green" won't work.

I think 510 is probably an OK head for the Burkie but a 540 would be required on the BW. If you've paid all the endless dues for scandi technique, 510 could be a great head for the Burkie but you'd probably be more comfortable with the 540 from the sound of it. Skagit-Scandi lining transitions can be rough because there's a steep divide in casting dynamics, which is negotiated with highly variable success by individual casters. Too often I, and other casters, have tried to solve a scandi problem by processing it through a skagit brain.

This will sound off the wall, but try it before you give up on the 510. Put a 10' Versileader, 3.9 or 5.6 ips on it. Then try it on the Burkie using a relatively compressed stroke and T&G technique. You might be surprised. Some rods don't like that head naked, they want a bit of poly weight and stick to really go. This is especially true with more aggressive heads like Powertapers and many of the compacts.
A second off the wall suggestion would be to try a 480 on the Burkie. Some scandi rods have a hidden keyhole in the action at the very bottom of their grain window that makes them feel like an entirely different rod!

If it were me, I'd:
Forget the scandi head for the BW and use the FF45. Call me lazy.
Try a 480, 510, and 540 on the Burkie, all in one session, with both mono and poly leaders on each. That's how I dial when I get into the zone you're describing. Surprising things can be found.
I must have been typing my reply from before when this came up and i missed it, yes I'll try that....I have never been a huge fan of polyleaders but i think i can scare some up...
 

·
Scandit sublima virtus
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
:)

I looked, but was unable to find that chart. How about a link?
Sorry, I should have been more specific. How they used to rate the lines online.

Probably those charts are long gone, but I bet Rajeff Sports has a cached version available to them with old recs for older lines.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,713 Posts
Probably those charts are long gone, but I bet Rajeff Sports has a cached version available to them with old recs for older lines.

http://www.rioproducts.com/RIO-Spey-Line-Recs.pdf

http://www.airflofishing.com/airflo_us_downloads/Airflo_Spey_Compatibility_Chart.pdf

I have used these charts a lot, not only for selecting possible lines but for calibrating personal preferences by comparison with the recommendations and then (cautiously) extrapolating to other rods that are similar. I don't believe these charts were actually made by someone at rio or airflo actually actually carefully testing each rod and line combo, and even if they were that still would not be the full answer for you. But they are interesting charts to look at.

FWIW I personally find the Rio online line "computer" to be annoying and next to useless. I'd rather see all the option laid out in full gory detail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
so i didnt read all the responses but i think this all comes down to every rod and caster are different. I had a scott that liked a 540 skagit and a 510 scandi but my main rod now is a burkie 7127 that likes a 420 scandi and skagit... I think the key is just getting a broad idea and trying any lines you can, for me thats the only way to know! 1st world problems right?!? haha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
I picked up a 7134 Burkie last fall and fished it with a 485 scandi head. I liked the match quite a bit but feel a 450 scandi might even work better for my stroke. So, in a nut shell I think it has a lot to do with the caster.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top