How is Rio Grande different than just over lining?

[dean_mt]

I intend on casting a few different lines on my 9'6" XP 5wt tomorrow. I've been reading about the Rio Gold, Grande and SA GPX.

If the Grande is rated 1.5x heavier than standard, how would it be different than simply lining up one weight? I realize that the Grande has shorter heavier front taper, so aside from that I mean a 5WT Grande is really a 6.5 right?

I think this is goofy marketing. Isn't it just a way to convince users to over line their tip-flex rods to make casting a little easier?

If you like the aggressive taper of the Grande but want an actual 5WT line on your 5WT rod, then you'd have to use a 4WT, which would actually be a 5.5WT. Which is actually in line with the SA GPX, that is a half size heavier and makes more sense to me. O yeah, and how's on second?!

 

[gatortransplant]

If I'm not mistaken, a 5wt Rio Grande would actually weigh out at 5.5wt rather than 6.5. While it is certainly an instance of uplining the rod, it is not as drastic as buying a full line size heavier? Or so I thought Otherwise, I'd be equally confused!

 

[newby]

The last version of Rio Grande was a 1/2 line wt heavier to help load fast action rods. The newest version, though, is a full line wt heavier. So a 5wt Rio Grande line is more like a 6wt line.

 

[dean_mt]

The last version of Rio Grande was a 1/2 line wt heavier to help load fast action rods. The newest version, though, is a full line wt heavier. So a 5wt Rio Grande line is more like a 6wt line.

Right, one size heavier not 1.5.

But my question remains, how is it different than simply over lining, though I assume I already know the answer...it isn't!

 

[billyspey]

Grand is closer to 3/4 heavier and GPX is 1/2 heavy. That is the way my shop tell,s me. I use the grand as a bass bug line on a sage XP in a 691 and a 790 XP

 

[newby]

Grand is closer to 3/4 heavier and GPX is 1/2 heavy. That is the way my shop tell,s me. I use the grand as a bass bug line on a sage XP in a 691 and a 790 XP

Your shop is pretty close, but here is what the RIO website says about the Grand line, verbatim.

"The RIO Grand is a full line size heavier than the industry standard, and features more weight distributed towards the front of the line to easily load faster action fly rods."

From: http://www.rioproducts.com/fly-lines/freshwater/trout/rio-grand/

Basically you are over-lining a rod when you buy a newGrand line matching the rod's weight.

 

[MoscaPescador]

Just to add to the confusion, Rio Gold is over-weighted by almost a half line weight.

The 30 foot line weight for a WF5F Gold is 146 grains. 30 foot standard for a 5 weight line is 140 grains. 30 foot standard for a 6 weight line is 160 grains.

Dennis

 

[dean_mt]

I did not know that, Rio does not make note of that on it's site.

So the way to get an honest 5 wt from Rio is to buy a 4 wt Grande!

 

[Guest1]

Just one more example of what I keep saying about standards scmandards..

 

[woodrivertroutbum]

Probably for people that don't really know they can upline a rod. I think they should all just me measured in grains personally. Then the rod makers (some already do this) can mark on the rods the range that works well for that specific rod.

 

[Guest1]

I had a free preview of a bunch of outdoor channels a couple of months ago on TV. I was watching a fly fishing show, but only paying about half attention, when I hear during a commercial "Our line is a full weight heavier that the industry standard." After I got done choking :faint: , I run itnto the livingroom to see who would use "afull line weight heavier" and "industry standard" in the same sentence, But I missed the culprit. I have heard people say this is to load fast rods. Ahhhhhh no.

The problem is that there is a confusion that fast and weight are related, they are not, hence the TWO terms.

Many real distance casters like the rod to be well over the line weight. i.e. a 5 wt. line on a rod with a 7 ERN. (ERN being what the rod really is in wt.) So if you have a designer that really is into distance casting he is likely going to design a fast 7 wt. he calls a 5. I doubt that there was a single rod in most competitions that use a 5 wt. to do it, that had any rods there that were actually a 5 wt. They all said 5 on them but I can slap a label on a chicken that calls it a duck and that does not make him a duck. The reason being is that they carry a lot of line in the air and a 7 will load with a 5 line when you have a carry of something like 80'.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you really ought to check and see what your rod really is before you go deciding on forking out a bunch of money on a line. You also need to decide how you are going to use it. Also if the danged line companies are going to start an arms race in misinforming us what a line weighs because the rod makers do it, we are going to have to get a grain scale and a sack of new pennies and test everything, completely disregarding everything from the line and rod makers.

Also with lines, you are only talking about the first 30 feet. I have single hand lines with heads as long as 70' + on them. This line will behave differently than a line the same weight but a 40" head, once you get a lot of line carried in the air.

I know this seems like a lot to take in for a beginner (no single person in mind here) and it's kind of a shame. They should add to the labels of lines the head length, total head weight, and stick to the industry standard for the first 30', also on the label, so we don't have to guess.

Also, all rods have a grain window. That is the weight, top end and bottom end that a rod can work within. The grain window is large on a single hand rod, being quite forgiving. In a two hander it is much less forgiving with a much narrower grain window. One reason why two hand guys use the grain window of the rods, not the weight so much, and use the total head length and weight. Something that would not be that bad to do with any rod.

 

[fishiowa]

Probably for people that don't really know they can upline a rod. I think they should all just me measured in grains personally. Then the rod makers (some already do this) can mark on the rods the range that works well for that specific rod.

That would make way too much sense

 

[duker]

Learning a lot from this thread.

Diver Dan, I really like your posts on this subject. Is there a way to determine what the ERN of a particular rod is? What about the grain window? Is it just a matter of casting with different lines/different weights to find out how your rod casts with those different lines and weights? Is simply relying on the manufacturers' designations for a particular rod a mistake--i.e., using a 6-wt. line on a 6-wt. rod and assuming that's okay?

Also, I wonder how much of this is subjective--not all people cast the same way, and it seems to me that preferences for particular rods, models of rods, and weights/brands of lines are personal to the person using them.

Thanks.

Scott

 

[Guest1]

Is there a way to determine what the ERN of a particular rod is? What about the grain window?

Actually there is. If the rod has been tested before it may be on the database in the links. If not it can be easily done by you at home with stuff you have right there. Here is a link: http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/fly-rods/309359-rod-weights-common-cents.html
By the way, you don't really need to know the grain window for a single hand rod. They are all very wide and forgiving. If you do as I suggest, you will be well within it and have no problems.

Also, I wonder how much of this is subjective--not all people cast the same way, and it seems to me that preferences for particular rods, models of rods, and weights/brands of lines are personal to the person using them.

There is some amount of subjectivity to it because of skill and casting style. Also what your intended use is. For example, I have one rod that is rigged up about 2½ weights under what the rod actually is. But it has a head that is over 70' long and is intended just to cast far. I have rods that are rigged up at what actually should be, rod wt. vs. line wt. @ 1:1. I don't really like overlining and for me don't feel it is a needed thing to do.

For a real beginner, underlining by two or better rod weights would probably give them a serious headache. You may need to work your way into that one. So that is where any subjectivity comes into play. If you were to try and put dinky little flies at a spot really close to you it may be OK to go up a wt. but I live on big water using big flies so the overlining thing is not going to be good for me.

This is why I say, test your rod, then decide what you plan to use it for. Get the right line based on knowledge not labels.

 

[newby]

I had a free preview of a bunch of outdoor channels a couple of months ago on TV. I was watching a fly fishing show, but only paying about half attention, when I hear during a commercial "Our line is a full weight heavier that the industry standard." After I got done choking :faint: , I run itnto the livingroom to see who would use "afull line weight heavier" and "industry standard" in the same sentence, But I missed the culprit. I have heard people say this is to load fast rods. Ahhhhhh no.

The problem is that there is a confusion that fast and weight are related, they are not, hence the TWO terms.

What's sad is that a industry giant like Rio uses wording that propagates this myth (fast and wt being related).

 

[duker]

Thanks Dan. I found your thread on rod weights right after I posted my question--should have searched first. Will your method work with Canadian pennies?

As I said earlier, I'm suspicious of over-lining but I guess I should use your method to determine the ERNs for my rods to at least make sure I'm using lines that are within the proper range.

Scott

 

[Guest1]

Thanks Dan. I found your thread on rod weights right after I posted my question--should have searched first. Will your method work with Canadian pennies?

As I said earlier, I'm suspicious of over-lining but I guess I should use your method to determine the ERNs for my rods to at least make sure I'm using lines that are within the proper range.

Scott

You can get a very accurate scale and do a conversion. How good are the Canadian mint at uniformly making penny blanks?

Another thing you could do is use any weight you have handy, dimes nickles whatever, wiegh that when you get the rod bent to the right point and wiegh it, then divide it by whatever they say a penny weighs in the link.

Hey, maybe you can do a CN/US chart when you figure it out. I'll do some research and find out what CN pennies weigh.

I just looked and like ours, it depends on the year. Use the one you think makes the easiest conversion and stick to a single weight. Here is the chart;
If you use 1982-1996 CN pennies with no corrosion, it is a 1:1 swap.

Years

Mass

Diameter/Shape

Composition



2000-present *

2.35 g

19.05 mm, round

94% steel, 1.5% nickel, 4.5% copper plated zinc



1997-1999 *

2.25 g

19.05 mm, round

98.4% zinc, 1.6% copper plating



1982-1996

2.5 g

19.1 mm, 12-sided

98% copper, 1.75% tin, 0.25% zinc



1980-1981

2.8 g

19.0 mm, round

98% copper, 1.75% tin, 0.25% zinc



1978-1979

3.24 g

19.05 mm, round

98% copper, 1.75% tin, 0.25% zinc



1942-1977

3.24 g

19.05 mm, round

98% copper, 0.5% tin, 1.5% zinc



1920-1941

3.24 g

19.05 mm, round

95.5% copper, 3% tin, 1.5% zinc



1876-1920

5.67 g

25.4 mm, round

95.5% copper, 3% tin, 1.5% zinc



1858-1859

4.54 g

25.4 mm, round

95% copper, 4% tin, 1% zinc

Unit of mass utilized in the CCS, composed of a common U.S. one cent piece minted after the year 1996. Each of which has the mass of 38.61 grains or 2.50 grams. This gives you a method for conversion to Canadian pennies.

 

[duker]

Wow! Thanks for doing that Dan.

Scott

 

[dean_mt]

Wow! Thanks for doing that Dan.

Scott

When the ice finally melts up there, I reckon we won't be hearing much Dan!

Seriously, that is great stuff Dan. I may try the common cents method since I have I bought an unmarked 11' blank that the seller claimed to be a 3/4 based on this method.

Anyway, I've done a little further research on AFTMA line designation and grain weights. This is a good chart:

AFTMA standard fly line weights
(grains per first 30 feet (9.1 m) of line)
Designation - Weight (grains) - Acceptable range (grains)
1wt 60 54-66
2wt 80 74-86
3wt 100 94-106
4wt 120 114-126
5wt 140 134-146
6wt 160 152-168
7wt 185 177-193
8wt 210 202-218
9wt 240 230-250
10wt 280 270-290
11wt 330 318-342
12wt 380 368-392

Rio give a full chart of every line on their website, which is really quite nice of them. It is really helpful when compared to the above to see where their lines fall. The Rio Grand line definitely falls into the line weight designation of one higher, but not exactly by a full line weight (using grains). For example, a Grand 5 WT line is 155 grains in the first 30', so it lands at the light side of a 6 WT line. This is true of all the lines within the Grand family.

The only S.A. line that I can find a chart for is the GPX, which works out because it is the cousin of the Grand - heavy, short, aggressive tapered head. A 5 WT GPX is 150 grains and rightly described as a half line heavy falling right in between a 5 and 6 WT.

Rio Gold on the other hand, is within range of the weight designation, but at the top end. A 5 WT Gold line is 146 grains, the maximum allowable for AFTMA standard. And it holds true for each weight in the Gold line.

So I don't that line manufacturers are sending out misinformation, particularly not Rio who has all the technical info on every line listed at their website. I think it get convoluted when Sage builds a taper with a Rio Gold or Grand line in mind, so they call it a 5 WT considering that it will cast optimally with a Rio Gold 5 WT line, which is a little heavier than the standard but withing the range. I think it's good that there are lines of varying grain weight, since there are more tapers to rods than we can imagine. If you use system Dan explained, determine the ERN of your rod, most likely it isn't going to fall squarely in the middle of on of the rod weight designations and you can pick the line weight (in grains) most closely suited i.e a heavy 5wt or light 7wt or what ever it is.

Plus, after all that, personal preference is still the factor that cannot be measured. But it's an important one.

I'm off to determine the ERN of my XP...

 

[charged]

I keep a chart of all the fly lines I've ever owned.

This first fly line presented that is relative to this post was sold as a WF-7-F. Per my calculations it measures as a WF-8.8-F, with an actual 219.1 grain wt. The line is a Rio Grande.

I purchased a grain scale, and perform my own measurements on each line I own (I then mathematically equation each fly line to a representative Aftma standard). I've found All manufactures vary from Aftma standards, and believe this contributes greatly to why we all prefer different lines for our own individual rods.

I wish manufactures would list actual grain weights on the sales boxes we purchase, but that would also most likely result in an increased cost in production quality control standards. I have a handful of Rio lines, and have found they are all heavier than aftma standards, some more so than others.

Here are the others, all weighed on the same scale using the same method.

Sold as a Rio 4wt line, My measurements WF-4.2-I, 114.2 actual grain wt. ,Rio Lake Auqualux Midge Tip
Sold as a Rio 6wt line, My measurements WF-7.6-F, 186.7 actual grain wt. ,Rio Selective Trout
Sold as a Rio 9wt line . My measurements WF-9.8-F, 251.6 actual grain wt. ,Rio Saltwater Taper

When I measure rods I take the dead center of CCS method and use that as my baseline. When I measure lines I take the dead center of the aftma standard, and use this as my baseline measurement. This is how I then come up with the decimal points. (So in my own measurements a line that is a 6.8, is actually closer to a true 7, than a line that would weigh in at a 7.3).

When I first started measuring this sort of stuff, I devised a system that made sense to me, and it was not originally intended to share with others. Using this method, you can see the "Rio Lake Auqualux Midge Tip" line posted above is very close to where the Aftma standard says it should be.

I hope what I did hear makes some sort of sense, if not I will try to clarify. All I'm trying to imply, is don't trust the box. Most of them regardless of the manufacturer will have a tendency to fool you! Do yourself a favor and buy yourself a scale, this is the only way to eliminate the doubt.

When comparing the CCS rod standards to the Aftma line standard, and considering my own casting style. I find that I usually prefer a line that is about .5 of the way up in the scales. (in other words, if I have a 7 wt rod I would most often prefer fishing a line that weighs in at a 7.5 in my own aftma decimal pointed calculations).

All these numbers can be fun, and may reveal some predictable tendencies. The only way to know for sure is to fish the combo in question, and see first hand if its a match! For me, the numbers just help reduce the risk of a undesirable match.

"Rods / lines / reels" are not cheap. the more information we consumers can share, the less we will all need to spend.