I am in the market for another 5wt line and was going to shy away from the Perception and stick with the Gold because of the 1/2 line weight difference. I'm looking at the Rio website and I can't really see the big difference people are talking about.
Head length is 47' Head weight is 221 grains
Head length is 36' Head weight is 175 grains
Ignoring any difference in tapers (I'm assuming negligible weight differences) then the Rio Gold's head weighs 4.70 grains per foot and the Rio Perception's head weights 4.86 grains per foot.
That's a difference of .16 grains per foot, or 4.8 grains over 30 feet. That's not much of a difference really.
If the Perception is going to cast about the same as the Gold then I would go ahead and grab it at $10 more if nothing more than the tri-color looks kick @$$ on a reel, especially with the chartreuse backing on it.
Can someone tell me where I'm wrong here???
---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------
I'll add the fact that RIO's website DOES NOT say the Perception is half size heavy, while it does list the Grand as a full line size heavy.
If you look at the AFTMA chart, you see that each line has a +/- range. And the rating is based on the first 30' of the line. So all the different tapers and head lengths create different characteristics, though I don't know what they are.
For example, a 5 wt is considered 140 grains +/- 6. So a line that weighs between 134 - 146 gr in the first 30' is officially a 5 wt. The Rio Gold is 146 gr, so the very heaviest 5 can be, and I guess you could consider that "half a line" heavier, or 5.5. Unfortunately Rio does not have the chart online for the Perception line - which is stupid if you ask me.
The do have the chart for the Grand line and that weighs in at 155 gr in the first 30'...for a "5 wt" line. Using the range noted above (134 - 146 gr) for a 5 this line is not a 5! It is a "light" 6 wt. A 6 is considered 160 +/- 8, or 152-168. So the Grand is a full line size heavier. Which only greatly confuses the whole fly line thing.
Isn't a 5 wt line that is one size heavier just a 6 wt? Why in hell do they call it a 5 wt?
When buying a new 5 wt line for my Sage XP I considered the heavy 5 wt (Gold) or a light 5 wt ( which is a 4 wt Grand). So silly!
So it seems to me that choosing a new line is really more about the taper, because the weight designation is becoming arbitrary.
Good job, Dean. And yes it does seem farcical! Please line makers, label it like it is...5.2 or 5.9...is this too hard? Also, this is the front 30' so extended head, long front taper all have a bearing on how the line will load a rod. I can tell you one thing though after trying several RIO and Airflo lines, the Gold is just right for your XP.
Ok, despite Dean and Polar's dissatisfaction about line ratings, I'm not going to go off on the the line manufacturers again for using am archaic, and clearly meaningless, moronic method of labeling lines so that no one has a clue as to what WF lines work on what rod.
After all, that results in more mis-matched line purchases, in turn resulting in 2 lines being bought instead of one. However, between e-bay, and fly fishing "buy sell trade" forums, most mis-matched lines get sold at a huge discount or given away, and that hurts rather than helps the line manufacturers anyhow.
It also results in 8 wt rods being rated at 10.9 wt rods by the CCS rod weighting system. This is because the rod builder knows, "OK, this rod will be used for bonefish, bass, steelhead, etc. so it's got to be able to cast the entire 52' head of an 8wt line (rated by its first 30 ft weight) plus overhang.
It also has to cast a bass bug line one and half times heavier than the archaic 30' system designed for level and DT lines, but labeled a "heavy" 8 wt. by the line manufacturer.
The 30' thing is the root problem. Weight, not taper, is the determining factor in what a rod's rating should be. However that "weight" should be the weight of line that is most likely to be cast - (ie the whole head).
A "cast" to a downtown bonefish 30' or so away is more like a sidearm flip while kneeling on your heels in water to your belly button wishing it was to your nipples. But that is not the preferred method of fishing for them. Even though it happens to all of us ocassionally who wade for them, we don't want a rod that is deeply bent with 30 feet of a 50 foot head out the tip.
A rod will bend the same pulling 300 grains through the air whether that weight is stretched out 30 feet or 60 feet behind the angler. To the rod, it is simply accelerating 300 grains.
The solution for line manufacturers is very simply - do what you do for spey casters - list head weights by grains for us (like you do for them), and list the running line on that WF integrated line in grains per running foot (like you do for them). Rod manufacturers could then list rods by a "grain range", "grain envelope" or whatever catchy new word their marketing geniuses come up with.
If that is too hard for them to figure our, or they determine we single-handed fly guys are too stupid to understand what spey guys have known for centuries , line manufacturers could simply keep the same numbers and change the range of those numbers to reflect whole head weights with reasonable overhang in the case of WF lines. In other words, use weight ranges that represent reality not fantasy.
So the problem is the line manufacturers. Rod manufacturers are basically in the same boat as we are - at the mercy of misplaced, archaic "convention" perpetuated by a niche industry that either thinks it's making more money because of it, or that is universally controlled by idiots.
But I'll admit I do get tired of going to manufacturer's web sites and reading that a 12 wt. line is a little heavier than "standard" then see that it falls well within the 14wt category, as is the case with the Rio Tarpon Short. The only way to know it is because that particular head is exactly 30' long. But the kicker is that it is not too heavy for 12 wt rods - it is the 30' system that's whacko.
Then I look at the Rio Technical Tarpon and see that the 12 wt at the magical 30' spot is 390 grns - but that head is 60' long (at least) and there is no indication whatsoever of the weight of exactly half of that head.
So I look at the line profile to make a guestimate, and see that all the tapers in that head are not listed in the approximate 60' that makes up the head. Nor is the wording on the drawing consistant with the wording on the scale below. Whoever illustrated that drawing would have flunked Jr. High Shop class.
He was clever though. When he got towards the end, and saw he was going to be one box short of the number of line segement lengths he was describing (because a dimension was missing on the drawing), he just skipped over the missing one and split the final line segment into two boxes on his illustration. Then he separated that single drawing dimension out into two dimensions that added up to the one in that final drawing segment and called the second one, not on the drawing, "The Tip Length".
That way he then had the same number of boxes in his illustration as are segments in the drawing, including the one missing the dimension. And his math also added up to the same total length as on the drawing with the missing dimension.
In fact, on second thought, he should probably run for congress and get onto some kind of buget oversight committee where he would be truly appreciated.
So I went with an 11 wt Cortland Liquid for that 12 wt rod since I already had its total head wt from Cortland, which I had previously emailed them for since that's top secret info. there too just like at Sci Anglers.
Spending scarce money on expensive fly lines is no simple task.
You went all the way from "I'm not going to go off on the line manufacturers again..." to "So the problem is the line manufacturers...that [may be] universally controled by idiots."
Now that is a great rant!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
I had a flashback to Dennis Miller. "I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but..." . ROFLLMAO. I agree completly. I could hang everyone in my neighborhood twice with all the fly lines I've accumulated over the years. One solution that might move us in this direction would be if rod makers would include reccomendations. Not by brand, as that would just lead to payola, but by grain wait and taper profile.
I think you should pay more attention on the line profile between the Gold and the Perception since the grain count isn't much different.
In my case it is between the Power Fly and the Perception.
I tested out the 7wt Perception that I intentionally picked to replace the Power Fly 6wt for my Vapen 6wt, since I thought the vapen needs that 0.5 heavier weight line. Although the 7wt perception has more grain weight than the 6wt Power Fly, the line profile canceled it out and made me work harder to control my loop.
Yes, the Perception can fire a Clouser minnow #6 out to the 50ft but will twice more false casts and double haulings than the Power Fly. I always strip my steamers up to 5ft and recast. I had to shoot all 36 ft head out before I can actually feel the rod bending.
The Perception is almost like a DT line instead of WF line, If you are fishing dry fly the perception is the ticket. I feel that the Perception best for full flex to medium. Medium fast if you want to push the envelope farther. The roll cast with the perception is as easy as using the Gold. My Orvis Access IV reel looks like a rainbow with the perception line on it.
So, other than paying attention to the grain weight, I suggest you to pay attention to the line profile too.
It is remarkable that between misrepresented AFTMA line designations, actual grain weight for how many feet of line, compound taper designs distributing weight in differing sections of the lines taper at differing distances from the tip of the line plus variation in post-head rear tapers ranging from 3' to 25' (is this rear taper part of the head...it does have mass) and lets figure in stiffness ratio, surface treatment and stretch or lack there of, that we can ever figure out the right line for equally varied rods. With researched and brand cross-referenced calculations we can generally come up with a few lines that will match a new rod to our intended application. Like most of us, I have to go through this process at least a couple of times a season and what boggles me but also delights me is that if you find 4 lines that match a given rod well, how different the rod feels and performs with lines of different designs. It is further curious how some rods fish fine with most lines correctly matched to them while a temperamental few refuse to reveal their attributes without the precisely optimal line match-up. Having realized your ideal rod/line combination though yields substantial dividends whether presenting a dry fly with a 4-weight or wafting a crab pattern precisely in front of a tailing bonefish with a 9-weight.