Any casting differences between WF and DT lines?

[tpcollins]

Would a DT10F line be harder or easier to cast than a WF10F line? I realize fly line weight is supposed to be based on the first 30', but my WF lines start to taper down to a smaller diameter for the last half of the line.

Just wondering if DT is a constant heavier line throughout the entire mid section and only tapers at each end? Thanks.

 

[Jackster]

Just wondering if DT is a constant heavier line throughout the entire mid section and only tapers at each end? Thanks.

Yes. If I have your question right at one tip it tapers up to a constant diameter of the running line and then tapers back down to the other tip.

 

[Guest1]

I realize fly line weight is supposed to be based on the first 30', ........... a constant heavier line throughout the entire mid section and only tapers at each end?

Jackster got your answer for you. What you said about the "first 30 feet" is something I find really fuzzy in line construction. In a DT line, as you said " a constant heavier line throughout the entire mid section" is correct. However you have very much the same effect with the heads of a WF line. You know what the first 30' weighs, but that is almost never the whole head. Once the whole head is up in the air, what do you have? Who knows. I wish they would add the info to line lables on the box. Head length and weight. Someone said it would be going to a new system, but it's the system used in spey lines.

I'm sure I was of absolutely no help here.

 

[wjc]

I wish they would add the info to line lables on the box. Head length and weight.

Everybody does. I wrote Cortland and Sci Anglers to get total head weights on their tarpon tapers in 10 ,11 and 12 wts. Posted them on one of the forums, but can't remember which one.

Rio lists "head wt" on their website, but it is wrong and is only the first 30'. Elsewhere on their website they list the identical wt for the first 30'. I haven't written them yet for the true head weights.

The AFTMA method is absolutely moronic, but a great way to sell more lines by keeping us guessing and buying lines that don't work with our rods.

 

[bigjim5589]

As far as ease of casting the same weight line in either type, it would more likely depend on the fly you're trying to cast, the length of the cast & the wind conditions, and assuming that the leader & tippet combination you're using is correct. Really too many variables to say one way or the other, and would more depend on the factors involved. In specific situations & conditions, one may be better than the other, that's why they make both types. Neither may be ideal for all situations however, so what you choose, will always be a compromise, but should be selected for the majority of the fishing situations you'll see & the majority of the conditions you'll likely encounter.

For example, if you're primarily a dry fly trout angler, you may find the DT line to work best for you, but might want to also have a WF line if you sometimes use streamers. Either line type could be used for both, again depending on the variables I previously mentioned.

Myself, because I'm primarily a bass & saltwater angler, all my lines are WF's.

 

[Guest1]

The AFTMA method is absolutely moronic, but a great way to sell more lines by keeping us guessing and buying lines that don't work with our rods.

That's what I have been saying. Then you add on what rods really should be rated at, but are are not rated at. Most rods are stated to be at least one weight under what they really are. Two weights is fairly common and I've even seen a few that are three weights off. Winston on the other hand seems to want to go the other way. My 10wt. BIIX is really a 9.8 but they have a few that are a weight off. Sage is probably the biggest fibber in the market. Even the Cabela's Three Forks rods are off by a weight. The 5 is a 5.9 and the 6 is a 7.1. Toss compound taper heads of who knows what weight heads...... No wonder there are new casters that have so much trouble. I'm sure there is more than a few of them that stumbled on rod/line combo's that sabotaged them before they ever got started.

 

[Fly2Fish]

Don't know if this is relevant to your situation (never cast a 10-wt.), but the DT would certainly be easier to roll cast. It would probably give you a more delicate presentation as well, but don't know if that matters with a 10-weight.

 

[randyflycaster]

Weight forward lines are better for casting in the wind and for getting a lot of line out there with very few false casts.

In terms of carrying more overhang and making the longest possible casts, the DT would be better.

However, for saltwater - very windy conditions - I prefer the WF lines.

Randy

 

[wjc]

Like Randy said, you'd want a wt forward of one type or another for saltwater and most fishing you'd be using a 10 wt for.

But wt forward heads vary incredibly as to total head wt. Some of them are only 30 ft long and others are 47 as can be seen here with the Crystal PE http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/fly-cast/201249-fly-line-head-weights.html#post341447 . So the AFTMA method only counting the weight of the first 30 feet is absurd when the entire head is meant to be outside the tip for most casts. 17 feet of head in the Crystal PE is not counted as weight in the line weight rating.

With the SA MEd 7 wt line, 37 feet of head weight is not counted.

So even if you already know what line wt works perfectly for you on a rod in one sytle of line from one manufacturer, change the head length (even using the same manufacturer) and you are back in the dark all over again.

Someone said it would be going to a new system, but it's the system used in spey lines.

Exactly. And it is also how shooting heads are labeled. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell any. The guys using shooting heads were just chopping and splicing their own till they worked right for them, then weighed them.They weren't about to waste money on something that had an arbitrary number attached to it.

But you never will see any change until a great many flyfishermen start bad mouthing them. Just as you never see any change in our korporate govt until masses of people start protesting.

I've already started. Your turn next Dan.

Cheers,
Jim

 

[dryhollow]

I'm not sure why they even make DT lines heavier than a seven weight...

never understood that

 

[silver creek]

Realizing that any labeling system must be easy enough to be understood by a beginning fly fisher, what system would you suggest to designate both the line(s) and the rod(s) which are designed to cast them?

 

[Ard]

I have cast Weight Forward or Rocket Taper, and Double Taper lines as well as Level lines. I would tell a beginner to buy / use a DT line for the simple purpose of not confusing that person. After the person had become proficient at casting and familiar with the feel of DT line I would say that they could then buy / use different line designs and find what suits their style or rod best.

I cast about the same with any line, of course there are subtle differences but I often believe we do too much hair splitting. Heck, I remember when level or DT were all the sporting goods stores had. You had to look for or order a Rocket Taper line. For the readers under 40, Rocket taper was what WF lines were called in the late 60's - about 1983 or so. At least where I lived in North Central PA.

Ard

 

[wjc]

Realizing that any labeling system must be easy enough to be understood by a beginning fly fisher, what system would you suggest to designate both the line(s) and the rod(s) which are designed to cast them?

I think the entire head wt. on weight forward lines should be printed on the package. If the manufacturers want to stick a number on it in addition to the head weight then that number should reflect the entire head wt, not just the first 30 feet of it.

Rod manufacturers could then either specify the rods as they do now, by one or more line wt numbers, or a weight range.

Cheers,
Jim

 

[glcaddis]

Re: I'm not sure why they even make DT lines heavier than a seven weight...

Not many line makers do make DT8 and higher. The ones that do are usually catering to the Spey crowd who like the long belly line for certain kinds of fishing.

 

[oarfish]

Heck, I remember when level or DT were all the sporting goods stores had. You had to look for or order a Rocket Taper line. For the readers under 40, Rocket taper was what WF lines were called in the late 60's - about 1983 or so. At least where I lived in North Central PA.

What a way to make a guy feel a little senior Ard but you right, I still have a few of new boxed rocket tapers, well there not new any longer.

Rick

 

[dabluz]

I wonder how many potential fly fishermen were turned off because they had fly lines that did not match their particular rod. Add to that the fact that most fly fishermen do not have the budget to buy different lines in order to get the best match for their rod.

I once had a rod made of boron. That was at least 20 years ago. It was a rod sold by the company called "Indian Bay" .... a company known for selling very inexpensive fishing equipment. I used a rocket taper line on this rod. Anyway....short casts were next to impossible but when came time to make longer casts, the rod started to shine. It was a very stiff rod. If I knew then what I know now, I would have used a heavier line on this rod. However, I lost half of the rod in a bad thunderstorm. I was in my canoe and a guy offered to tow me with his boat and motor. The tip of the rod fell over board and he couldn't hear me telling him to stop. In any event, I doubt that rod part floated and it was getting dark. I didn't pay much for the rod but I sure would like to try that rod out again.

Who knows, maybe my Fenwick Eagle would feel better with a heavier line. I'm anxious to try it out with a Rio Gold fly line I recently bought.

 

[fredaevans]

Maybe I've missed this in the above but the 'difference' between WF and DT lines is pretty straight forward .. as is the calcualtion of the grain weights (assuming the manufacturer doesn't 'lie').

The 'Maths,' as the Brits would say, really is pretty simple and I'll try to keep it that way as I'm doing the numbers off the top of my head at 0315. (Yes, my work day starts at that time of the morning.)

Soooo, the line (first 30' feet) is 300 grains (lets skip what the forward/back taper does to the number, I have no clue). So that's 10 grains per foot. With a weight forward line all you've got is the '300.' With a Double Taper you keep getting more as you pull off more line. Each additional 12 inches is another 10 grains. 60 foot of line in the air that initial 300 is now 600.

You no longer have a 'x' rated line you have one close to double that number (again, I'm not going to look up the exact).

Which is the better line, for what combo of reasons? Your call.:fishing:

 

[wjc]

Well, I have an update on the Rio head weight contradictions on their web site. Whether it was due to all my snivelling and whining on multiple websites for 2 years I can't say for sure.

I would guess the answer to be yes, because, instead of just fixing the mistake, they simply eilminated the entire page and with it, the only sink tip line that I really like.

Maybe some day I'll learn to keep my mouth shut - though likely that will only come after I become worm food.

 

[EastTexas]

Sometimes you don't choose the flyline it chooses you!

I tested identical 4 WT outfits at Orvis Day - one w/ DT the other WF; to my surprise I casted better & further w/ DT even on a windy day!!!

When it's time to replace my 5wt & 6wt lines they will be DT's

 

[Ard]

I hear that East Texas,

All my fly lines are DT except the long belly Spey lines. I've always been satisfied with DT but have tried WF lines all the ways back when they were known as 'Rocket Tapers'.

Like anything else you can not have an educated preference or opinion unless you have conducted experiments contributing to that preference etc.