from danblanton.com

Re: "over" lining
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Bulletin Board]
Posted by Dan Blanton on 2010-02-19 12:10:10 in reply to Re: "over" lining posted by Dave Sellers on 2010-02-19 10:15:51

Dave,

I agree, 'over-lining' should not be used to describe what is really taking place - which is 'up-lining'. The rod is not over-loaded unless in collapses with a normal cast extending from 40 to 45 feet of line and pushing a normal amount of 'speed-up-and-stop' energy.

I haven't used the term 'over-lining' in more than 20 years because it's simply a misnomer. I've also tried to encourage people here on the board and in my articles to use the term 'up-lining', by example.

I also agree with a lot of what Dan says, but he's obviously not been reading my posts very carefully. I've always maintained that you should 'line up' for the presentation. Example: if you are making short casts, under 40-feet, then you should up-line by at least one with a standard, full length line, WF or DT. If you are making longer tosses out to 80 feet or so, then used the rated line or up-line by one.

When I teach total novices to cast, I always up-line by two so they can indeed feel the [load] better - to quickly learn how to recognize when the rod has been loaded properly, and to gain enough rod flex to cast the line.

Now to Dan's comment on what people usually do, both beginners and vets, when test-casting a new rod at a show or shop: He's right. However, that is not how I personally do it. If anyone has ever watched me test-cast a fly rod, I start out first by making casts under 30 feet to see if I can easily make the cast by just loading the rod's tip. You don't need the entire rod to make short casts; but you do need to know how to work the rod properly. Then I extend the cast to around 30-feet and so on until I make the long, shooting cast that usually goes 90-plus feet, even with a trout rod. This is how I rate a rod's performance and it's actual line rating. If it can't make those sort casts easily with the rated line, then it's not properly rated and should be re-classed upward as appropriate.

Now, here's where Dan is also right: most beginners can't make the rod work properly with short casts even if it's rated correctly. Add to the problem a heavy, wind resistant fly and some wind and you've got big troubles on the flats or anywhere else. Up-lining will solve most of these problems but it won't correct poor casting execution - not completely - it will only help. But even for expert casters, up-lining for all-round flats casting/fishing will most often result in better performance in all conditions and for all presentation requirements. Today's rods just will handle up-lining much better than rods of George Smith's era (George knows this too - grin - since he admits it).

As for shooting heads: the standard is to always up-line by two (some will disagree with this too) as has been explained here and elsewhere dozens of times. Most modern rods can handle true heads and 'integrated heads' much heavier than that, especially if they are dense, sinking lines with small diameter.

All this said, the major varying factor is the caster's ability or lack of it. If you can't cast well, no rod will be lined properly for you. Learn to cast well both long and short; wind or none; with floater or sinker; and with a big or little fly, weighted and unweighted.

Like Lefty has always said, "A good rod won't make a bad caster good."

Dan

"1 person likes this"

Interesting post George...I follow Dan's Bulletin Board too...lots of good cutting edge info.

I have had an ongoing love affair with shooting heads since the 60''s. I have made a number of hybrid heads with different lines with different sinking characteristics. Also heads with a floating tip to keep flies deep, but off the bottom. Fun stuff.

Your comments about uplining got my attention. I have often up lined by lengthening the head. For instance my favorite rod for fishing Pyramid Lake for big Cutts was a 9 1/2 foot IM6 rod built for me by Walton Powell. As I am sure you know the standard technique at Pyramid is to wade out as far as you can, stand up on a ladder and cast as far as you can to cover the most water. The rod casts a wf7 beautifully...but for that type of fishing I used a 40 foot #8 shooting head....fairly easy to aerilize forty feet of line from a platform above the water. I used the same rod for steelhead on the Feather and American rivers. The line I used for this was a 30 foot 300 grain sinking head. Much harder to handle a long line while standing belly button deep in fast water....

I have also used the same rod on the Deschutes for dry fly fishing during the October Caddis hatch with a WF6F and turned and around and fished an 8 wt sinking head with said rod the next day.

The evolution of graphite rods has made it possible to do this. Even the best of the Glass rods, in my experience don't have the casting characteristics for this kind of versatility.

Wow. What a great article. Thanks for sharing George.

i don't know about all of that stuff, but i sure cast better with a heavier line, at short distances. that's what i like!!

We determined in a deep discussion at Lake Hawkins that there were few problems that moving up about 5-7 line weights wouldn't solve in fly casting.

I still wonder why we have to up-line all of our rods to get them to work the way a fly rod is supposed to. If all of the top casting gurus are up-lining, doesn't that tell us something about what the mfg's are turning out? Shouldn't they adjust to the market instead of of trying to force their customers to adjust to what they're making?

Fundamentally, we up-line rods when the rods are too fast(not flexing deep enough into the taper). So why aren't the mfgs making more rods with a fuller flex taper instead of continuously pushing the envelope further and further out to the tip?

I know the answer to this question. But I don't like it. I think it should change. And if enough of us demand a change, it will change.

I really enjoyed the article too George. I can never feel the rod load up...so maybe I should go up a line or two to compensate until I can feel the loading up better. When I broke my five weight, and got the Albright 4 wt...I put the five weight line on there, simply because I did not want to buy another line, and had heard about uplining...I think it did help a little...but can't say I feel a major difference at all. My casting did seem to increase a little, or maybe it was just in my head...who knows. I agree with thoughts about uplining...why not just have either upline the rod, or the line, then later just have them both rated for what they should be...say a 5wt line now would be called a five weight later, but feel like a six or seven weight....hmmm...it is early and I hope I am making sense.

I hate to say it, but I think the manufacturers are putting out exactly what the people want. I hear so much talk about using rods rated lighter than the flies they are tossing to go after big fish, but those same rods are usually up-lined. People are wanting to prove something using a 3 wt. rod to toss size 6 and 8 flies. Of course they are up-lining to a 5 wt line. Manufacturers response....paint 3 on the side of a 5 wt rod. LOL

Couldn't agree more. There are places for stiffer rods but what's going on now is just too much. I mean, why would anyone want a short, fast 2wt? Unless of course you want to use your 2wt for bass in heavy cover.

I love my six foot 2wt, and yes I will be uplining it with a 3wt line this year!

OK, so then you have a 6' 3wt.

It seems like a marketing deal to me too. Everyone wants the fastest rod and since we're the ones that buy them, the companies give us what we want. Eventually we'll end up with rods that don't load past the 2nd guide from the top. I wonder what will happen to make the pendulum swing the other way. In ten years will we all be talking about how wonderfully slow our rods are? Maybe the smart rod maker will start a retro kind of trend based on that: "Remember when your fly rod took it slow and easy? Here at Brand X Fly Rods we* still build them like that one rod at a time."

I still think that the fiberglass/graphite composite that the Mini Mags are made out of should be used in some more traditional style rods. It feels like a great compromise to me and seems to work pretty well with a decent range of line weights.






*In our manufacturing facility that we share with 9 other rod companies in deepest, darkest, most-communist China.

Not yet but I will.

yep, you fellas have pretty much got it figured out too.