Taylor Anomaly Z (Graphene Rod) sneak peak

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
601
Reaction score
130
I agree , a few little grains of weight are all but imperceptible. However, as I referred to, weight distribution is more apparent. If I take the same 9'/#5 and cast it with Gold, Tech Trout, Trout, Infinity and Cortland Omni-Verse, all close in weight as well as design concept, I not only feel the differences between them but often observe it visually in loop formation as their mass placement and the rods tip responsiveness impact one another. Sometimes it is not immediately obvious and takes time, sometimes it is crystal clear immediately. Taper taper taper. Sometimes it is splitting hairs...GS 8'4"/#4 like Trout better than Tech Trout, T LL 8 1/2'/#4 like Tech Trout better than Trout; in a vacuum either would be fine with either.
You are correct, it's all about the taper. These lines could probably vary a full weight, if not two (and I bet they do in the manufacturing variance), and we would still have the same opinions of them due to their tapers. I just see so many guys writing about 146 grains vs 150 grains vs 140 grains, and they need to be writing about 5.5 foot front taper versus 12 foot front taper and notating those differences.
 

South Fly Fishing

Well-known member
Messages
142
Reaction score
152
Location
Wanaka, South Island, New Zealand
You are correct, it's all about the taper. These lines could probably vary a full weight, if not two (and I bet they do in the manufacturing variance), and we would still have the same opinions of them due to their tapers. I just see so many guys writing about 146 grains vs 150 grains vs 140 grains, and they need to be writing about 5.5 foot front taper versus 12 foot front taper and notating those differences.
If you're referring to my post
Premier Gold (146), or Elite Perception (150) would be fine for that stillwater work.
then I obviously wasn't clear enough as you missed my point. Those lines are similar in weight and either are suitable, as the difference we were discussing was color of the forward section. My previous post to that one discussed the different tapers. I think we're all on the same page here, although I've found that a half line weight change of a similar taper is actually quite noticeable when pushing the capabilities of the line, such as with a heavy nymph set up.
 

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
601
Reaction score
130
M
If you're referring to my post then I obviously wasn't clear enough as you missed my point. Those lines are similar in weight and either are suitable, as the difference we were discussing was color of the forward section. My previous post to that one discussed the different tapers. I think we're all on the same page here, although I've found that a half line weight change of a similar taper is actually quite noticeable when pushing the capabilities of the line, such as with a heavy nymph set up.
Nope, wasn’t referring to your post. Mostly just speaking to the nature of the discussion on this site in general as of late. People really over-complicating things that don’t need complicated. We have a handful of excellent trout lines these days and even the poorest match of #5 line to #5 rod will still fish well.

I opened this thread to read about the rod in the title. I suppose by page 6 we are free to shift the topic to nitpicking between excellent trout lines.
 

bevanwj

Well-known member
Messages
215
Reaction score
78
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
M


Nope, wasn’t referring to your post. Mostly just speaking to the nature of the discussion on this site in general as of late. People really over-complicating things that don’t need complicated. We have a handful of excellent trout lines these days and even the poorest match of #5 line to #5 rod will still fish well.

I opened this thread to read about the rod in the title. I suppose by page 6 we are free to shift the topic to nitpicking between excellent trout lines.
Good luck finding a thread on this forum that after six pages remains true to the original topic of discussion. If you think this one strayed too far off course you should check out the Scott Centric thread! :LOL:
 

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
601
Reaction score
130
Good luck finding a thread on this forum that after six pages remains true to the original topic of discussion. If you think this one strayed too far off course you should check out the Scott Centric thread! :LOL:
Sadly, I think I’m a contributor to the thread derailment in that one. 😂
 

pati

Well-known member
Messages
366
Reaction score
214
You are correct, it's all about the taper. These lines could probably vary a full weight, if not two (and I bet they do in the manufacturing variance), and we would still have the same opinions of them due to their tapers. I just see so many guys writing about 146 grains vs 150 grains vs 140 grains, and they need to be writing about 5.5 foot front taper versus 12 foot front taper and notating those differences.
Hi Steveid,

I do agree about the prominence of the taper but I only partially agree to your point on weight: as an example, I particularly like Wulff’s TT lines and have them in 3,4,5,6 and 7wt, now with most of the 905 rods I tested I always have a very strong preference for using TT4F over TT5F but more importantly I was never indifferent to the line size used.
As you say there is not much difference in weight between the two but I am certain most of us will have a preference for either TT4F or TT5F and only a very tiny minority in a blind test would think it is the same line.
 

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
601
Reaction score
130
Hi Steveid,

I do agree about the prominence of the taper but I only partially agree to your point on weight: as an example, I particularly like Wulff’s TT lines and have them in 3,4,5,6 and 7wt, now with most of the 905 rods I tested I always have a very strong preference for using TT4F over TT5F but more importantly I was never indifferent to the line size used.
As you say there is not much difference in weight between the two but I am certain most of us will have a preference for either TT4F or TT5F and only a very tiny minority in a blind test would think it is the same line.
As always, select the line you like for the environment/rod/conditions you are going to fish.

However, I seriously doubt that you selecting lines that are 20 grains difference in head weight is going to make you catch any more or any fewer fish or change your presentation capabilities enough to matter.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
13,415
Reaction score
2,961
Location
-
As always, select the line you like for the environment/rod/conditions you are going to fish.

However, I seriously doubt that you selecting lines that are 20 grains difference in head weight is going to make you catch any more or any fewer fish or change your presentation capabilities enough to matter.
steveid, I concur on line and rod relative to conditions and technique. For pure, single dry fly casting/presentation though, the combination of grain weight, distribution and taper design in the line, in my experience, significantly effects the rod's traits and presentation acumen. I have cast quite a few rods that were OK with a recommended line, switched lines and they woke up with a big smile (on my face for them). Sure, I have plenty of lines spooled up which facilitates my experimentation, but every rod I sample gets a minimum of 4 lines tried on it...more if necessary. I'm currently fishing a new rod I really like and its line, MEDT, seems just right, however, I do not have a RIO Tech Trout in its size to try on it and, now that I'm writing this, I'm going to order one today.
 

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
601
Reaction score
130
steveid, I concur on line and rod relative to conditions and technique. For pure, single dry fly casting/presentation though, the combination of grain weight, distribution and taper design in the line, in my experience, significantly effects the rod's traits and presentation acumen. I have cast quite a few rods that were OK with a recommended line, switched lines and they woke up with a big smile (on my face for them). Sure, I have plenty of lines spooled up which facilitates my experimentation, but every rod I sample gets a minimum of 4 lines tried on it...more if necessary. I'm currently fishing a new rod I really like and its line, MEDT, seems just right, however, I do not have a RIO Tech Trout in its size to try on it and, now that I'm writing this, I'm going to order one today.
I keep SA Infinity, and Trout, along with Rio Gold in 4 and 5 weights on hand in a Kanban system. When one comes out of the box and gets assigned to a reel, I generally order another one to keep NIB. When I'm on trips, the spares come with me. This way I always have lines to test with that I like fishing with, I can generally switch reels to line a rod differently should I choose to do so, and I have backups on hand if the need arises.

I don't have any MEDT. I might need to get one of those to test.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
13,415
Reaction score
2,961
Location
-
Today's smooth trout is quite similar to earlier MEDT. I have also found RIO Tech Trout and Cortland Omni-Verse useful in trials and the T T has triumphed particularly on lighter, more delicate rods quite often now.
 
Top