[sva01]

Has anyone seen the new issue of Flyfishing & Tying Journal? It contains an article about an experiment done by Robert Russell and Ted Richter about sink rates for spey lines. They explain how they set up their experiment and measuring device, what rod and line combos they used, etc. In their testing they discovered very little difference in depth between Rio's type 3 and type 6 heads. They got a couple inches deeper,with the 6, but not enough,in their opinion, to warrant the extra casting weight. What I found to be the most interesting is that they came to the conclusion that by doing upstream mends, casting slightly further upstream, or even taking two big steps down as the fly started it's swing, they were adversly affecting the depth of the fly at the end of the swing.
I quote them here: "We tried every technique we could think of to get down deeper, and the more we tried the shallower we ended up. We could affect the depth and speed of the fly during the first half of the swing, but by the time the fly reached the gauge, it had ridden up in the current." They felt that they got the deepest results at the end simply by casting at a 45 degree downstream angle and just letting it swing.
I guess I'm just interested in hearing others thoughts on the conclusions that they drew from their experiment. It seems to go against commonly accepted theories.

 

[sinktip]

Imteresting results but I would agree with Peter that I don't want my fly at its deepest on the hangdown. On the hangdown, I want the fly rising slowly to the surface. This results in less lost flies and also seems to provoke takes from even winter fish.

In a perfect world, the fly would sink mid-stream to a point approx. 1' off the top of the substrata and then continue this relative depth as the swing brought it into the downstream position. In other words, it would remain 1' off the bottom no matter the topography of the bottom. Now that would be a fish getter!

I did find the type 3 vs. type 6 results interesting though. I have long suspected that there was little diff. betweent he two. Now the comparison of the Type 8 to the Type 6 is another story. The type 8 tips flat sink.

 

[fredaevans]

Great Thread and folllows comments by Ed WARD at one of the Sandy 'Claves.' His comments were to the effect that folks would be very surprised at how shallow even a heavy head will sink their fly.

His preference was just a couple of feet of T14. Personally, I don't use heads very often, then it will be a sinking leader attached off the end of a couple feet of 30# 'butt section' below a dry line. This run of line works very much like the RIO compensator, but has very little cross section for current to push to the surface.

Given a choice, I'll just go to a longer leader on a dry line and increase the weight of the fly. Again, a situation of redused 'leverage cross section' for the current to work on.

My .02 cents.

Correction to the above; should have said "Ed Ward!!" Sinktip, thanks for the correction.
Fred
:>)

 

[Gary W]

This is why, when I want to get down to dogmatic salmon, I always fish a full sinker. All the line in the water cuts down below the faster flowing surface water. The only problem being, you still get the fly lifting slightly with the belly going deeper, and when you start the retrieve on the hang you often snag the bottom.

Just gives me an excuse to tie more flies!!!

I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happens for the full swing unless we could film it on every swing in various conditions.

Tight Lines,
Gary

 

[flytyer]

I agree with Peter's analysis and I also want my fly to rise up in the water as the fly moves to the dangle since rivers nearly always are deeper furthur out in the current and shallower closer to shore. This helps keep the fly in the zone of the fish and not hanging up on the bottom.

However, I take exception to the claim of the study's authors about the type 6 having "extra casting weight" because when I weight my RIO type 3, type 6 and typ 8 15' sink tips, they weigh within a few grains of each other. Hence, it makes me suspicious when a "study's" authors make the statement that the increased casting weight is not warranted for the simply fact that there is no extra weight with a faster sink tip of the same line weight. Likewise, having the type 6 run only a few inches deeper on the dangle compared to the type 3 is hardly evidence that the type 6 is not running significantly deeper earlier in the swing. As Peter so aptly described the reason for this, the river hydraulics acting on the line causes the sink tip to rise in the water column.

Also, the water I use a type 3 in without hanging up is water that I constantly hang up in with the type 6. And there are times after a freshet and resultant increase in water height during summer that I will put a 15' type 2 tip on so that my fly rides a few inches lower than it would with floating line and long leader. But I wouldn't use at type 3 tip at these same times because my fly would be riding too low.

 

[sva01]

Add one more thing:

To compound this effect, the deeper the sinktip drops, the more of the thicker, floating belly is pulled under the water, magnifying the lift "wave" that flows down the line once maximum current pressure is reached.

Peter-
You got me thinking here. I know it's common knowledge that I'm able to achieve better depth by removing tip 1 & 2 of my Windcutter and using the Big Boy tips. By taking out the thicker compensator of Tip 2 I wonder what running the Big Boys would do to the "lift wave" that you describe. Would I be able to slow down the swing of the fly as it "turns the corner" by using the thinner diameter Big Boys? Would it also stand to reason that the fly would in fact stay slightly deeper on the dangle by using this setup?
I'm sitting here thinking about February water temps and lethargic fish and thinking that if I can slow the whole process down it would give them that much more time to get moving and CRUSH MY FLY! :Eyecrazy:

 

[Willie Gunn]

I quote them here: "We tried every technique we could think of to get down deeper, and the more we tried the shallower we ended up. We could affect the depth and speed of the fly during the first half of the swing, but by the time the fly reached the gauge, it had ridden up in the current." They felt that they got the deepest results at the end simply by casting at a 45 degree downstream angle and just letting it swing.
I guess I'm just interested in hearing others thoughts on the conclusions that they drew from their experiment. It seems to go against commonly accepted theories.

I would have thought the above was obvious and has been written about in this country(UK) for hundreds of years.

The steeper the downstream cast the less effect the current has so the quicker it sinks.
Let us think for a moment. A cast a right angles to the bank the current acts on the entire length of the line moving the fly very fast, a cast paraell to the bank the current will have little effect and the fly sinks, (getting snagged whilst lighting up)

To get a fly down the technique is to cast a long line at a narrow angle, a long line is needed to cover the water.

I am not at all surprised that cahnging a 15ft sunk tip from 3 inches /second to six inches /second means little or nothing in a strong current. Has anyone times a swing?

 

[sva01]

Off the subject...

Willie-
If you notice in my second post I quoted a portion of Peter's response. I noticed that you quoted me in your post. My question is, what do you do to copy a quote into your post? Mine came out looking much worse than yours. I'm new to the site and am still trying to figure some things out. Thanks!

 

[Willie Gunn]

Willie-
If you notice in my second post I quoted a portion of Peter's response. I noticed that you quoted me in your post. My question is, what do you do to copy a quote into your post?

Hit the button bottom right maked "quote"
You can remove the parts you do not need

I took the liberty of tidying up your post, you had inadvertainly deleted a [.

 

[Willie Gunn]

That's assuming you allow a belly to form and the line to be dragged on the cross-current cast. I wouldn't say that is true if you maintain a drag free drift through mending or other means.

I defy you or anyone to obtain a drag free drift for more than 25% of the swing, unless you are using a 15ft rod with a 15ft cast. Any line lying on the water will be affected by it.

 

[Nooksack Mac]

Watch the birdie

On a bright summer day many years ago, I stood on a high roadside bank above the Toutle River and watched an angler on the opposite side working a red/white wet fly through the run. The water was clear and the light was optimum. Nothing took the fly, but for those minutes I was able to see how the fly behaved under water as I never have before or since.

As for the thousands of casts I've made with sinking flies, in all kinds of currents, with all manner of sinking tips, as well as floating lines, virtually always the fly has been out of my sight. Always I've had to guess how the fly is behaving. Even when the fly grabs bottom, it's usually hard to tell whether it's in bedrock or something protruding above the bottom.

My point is what someone mentioned earlier: how good it would be to have ample film/video of different flies drifted with different sink tips, different mends, different current speeds, etc. This would be a purely technical instructional tape, with no entertainment value, but a world of relevant information. Some of the world's talented underwater cinematographers must want a break from filming great white sharks. Rio and Scientific Anglers: are you interested?

 

[Gary W]

Peter-s-c,

I presume that you are talking about a cast almost straight across the river and a large upstream mend. I have tried this with a full sinking line and it does allow the fly and tip/line to sink more. However, I believe that it does so initially because the fly and line will dead drift for a while until the line slips far enough downstream for the current to start taking effect on the belly of the line.

The problem here is, you have no control over the shape the belly takes under the water, and therefore no control over the speed of the fly. If you cast at a shallow angle downstream, your fly immediately goes into fishing position and continuous mending across the drift is made easier, thus allowing you to slow the fly and control the depth. In stronger currents, faster and slimmer tips/lines and, more importantly a slimmer, heavier fly may be used.

As I have stated before, I do not think that sink tips work in heavy flows as the floating line sits up providing a lever point for the sink tip to swing up in the current.

When fishing through this season, anybody I know that was getting fish in spring and autumn on tips lines were using heavy flies. Mostly people would say "a fast sinking tip will do on this beat/river", attached to which they had a long leader and a slim brass/copper or loop tube. I think the heavy flies were obviously doing a better job of getting down than the tips themselves. I too was having some success, but I was using a full sinking line and lighter flies. I prefer this approach because the current pushes a lighter fly around more, creating a more acceptable illusion of a shrimp/baitfish/swimming living thingy.

Willie Gunn,

Do you prefer to use multi-tip lines or full sinkers when coditions dictate that you should be getting your fly down a bit?

Tight (Deep) Lines,
Gary.

 

[Willie Gunn]

Peter-s-c,

Willie Gunn,

Do you prefer to use multi-tip lines or full sinkers when coditions dictate that you should be getting your fly down a bit?

Tight (Deep) Lines,
Gary.

Gary,
I don't know. I used to use nothing but sinkers and intermediates, I was led into the sunktip land by the folks on this board. I am beginning to think I was right all along and now with help from Ian Gordon (Reel Spey) I am leaving the dark side and reverting to full sinkers and intermediates.

Peter- S- C
I too was thinking this. I will start a new thread to discuss this