If I tested a St Croix 13' 3 pc Avid Fly 8/9wt Spey blank and it had an ERN of 9.05 (72 pennies), using the CCS lure weight formula to convert that ERN to the upper and lower limits, it comes out to roughly 3/32 oz - 3/16 oz. However, one of Tom's responses said to use the line rating as the numerator and 16 as the denominator - I wind up with a lure weight of 9/16. Which way is more accurate and would this 8/9wt Spey blank make a decent float/drift rod? I really want a 3 piece and the choices appear limited. Thanks.

*********************************************************************************

Re: Lure weight vs. fly line wt. ????
Posted by: Tom Kirkman (Moderator)
Date: August 29, 2005 07:33AM


There is no conversion from fly line weight to pound test - they're different things. Fly line weight is weight, not break strength, so the closet you can do is convert it to casting lure range.

Make the fly line number your numerator and with the denomator as 16. That will give you, in ounces, the casting lure weight. Or something fairly close. Keep in mind that commercial fly line number ratings are mostly subjective and not based on any particular standard or criteria. The same rod could be labeled as a #5 by one company, and a #6 by another and they'd both be correct.

The ERN doesn't give you a line weight so I'd stay with the high and low the equation gave you. The line weight thing is fine if you have a line weight rating (but owing to the fact that not all fly rod manufacturers rate their rods the same way, this is only a starting point). However, because of the length of that rod, I suspect it could easily handle casting a half ounce if required.

I would try a salmon/steelhead blank if it were made, although your spey rod might actually make a decent float rod.

................

Im not really sure about all the CCS data as Ive just been reading it all and trying to soak it all in. In saying that the rods I built in the early 80's for steelhead fishing were all built on fly blanks. There were no "steelhead rods". My favorite was a 10' 6" 7 wt lamiglass. Maybe some of the forum users will remember the big bell ferrule which was glued on seperately? They worked great for me, cushioned light line briliantly and had the right lenth to keep the line off of the water. The only thing was that you couldnt bully fish and make them do what you wanted them to do. I also built a loomis 9' 11/12 mega which was I was told by Loomis to be the same blank as thier 4 power steelhead rod. That was quite a few yrs after the lamiglass days though. I would say go for it. Youll probably find that it works out ok

Tim,

You could consider a purpose built rod blank for float fishing. The UK has some of the very best float rods in the world . !3 feet is a good length and one with a hollow tip would suit more situations than spliced solid carbon tips. Cheaper and better than a fly blank. A top line float rod blank should be had for under $150 Look at Harrisons Advanced Rods in the Uk. They have a web site. Good rods. The GTI blank in hollow tip. is the one to look out for.

Mike O.

(Fly Line Weight) / (16 ths) = ( Wt / 16 )-ths ounce Lure Rating
That is as convenient as it gets,
and close enough for the majority of cases,
especially considering that line & lure ratings
are actually slightly arbitrary to begin with. -Cliff Hall+++