Around 60 years ago when fiberglass fly rods were hot stuff the American Fly Tackle Manufacturers Association (AFTMA) abandoned the old fly-line (and fly-rod) labeling nomenclature and shifted from rods and lines designated "HDH", "CDC" and the like and adopted the 1 wt., 2 wt. . . . 7 wt., 10 wt. etc. fly line identification system. The AFTMA ceased to exist 40 years ago but its line/rod rating system trudges on. It would be nice if fly rod builders, casters, and manufacturers and fly line manufacturers had a new standardized rating system which specified more than just the weight of the 1st 30 feet of line.

Maybe refer back to this. [www.rodbuilding.org]

I read the link referenced and agree fully with Tom that the standards are just fine. The fly fisherman needs to understand the relationships described by Dr. Hanneman. I started fly fishing about five years ago and realized early on that you cannot depend on the manufacturer's ratings, neither lines nor rods. They need to logically match. I started to rate every rod I built with the numbers from the CCS system. This gives me a very good starting point on the line to use with the rod. I even wrote the ELN on each rod for reference. When I buy a line for any of the rods I build, I start with the ELN from the CCS charts and only buy lines that match the grain weights for the first thirty feet, more for longer planned casts as noted in the other posts. I then test cast the line to ensure it meets my expectations. I totally ignore the manufacturer's ratings, I go with the 30' line weights. I was at a fly show and asked a manufacturer for the weight of the first thirty feet of his line and explained my logic, he looked at me like I had three eyes. He couldn't provide the weight, so I didn't buy the line. The new system is the combination of CCS and AFTMA ratings for rods and lines. It really is a very good starting point. I've bought some high priced 8 weight blanks and brought them home only to find out they were really 10 weights. Very disappointing. These were from two highly respected manufacturer's that are often praised on this site. Yes they make beautiful blanks, but as with everything else, let the buyer beware. For Tom, maybe you could set up a booth at the next show with a CCS setup where anyone can bring a rod and check it's CCS ratings. Although, I'm not sure this would go over well with some of the manufacturer's, since their ratings would be exposed.

This is what Tom wrote in the thread linked above:

“But that's what the AFTMA system was - a matching numbering system. Switching to weight in grains wouldn't change anything because the rod manufacturers would simply under-rate the rods, again, so they could each claim to have long casting rods. It's exactly the same thing - AFTMA simply assigned a whole number to a specific number of grains.”

That was insightful as some strong “personalities” steered the industry in that direction back in the late 1980’s. I was working in a Montana Flyfishing shop and met some of those guys at trade shows and conservation events in Montana and Washington. I never really got the long casting mythology. I remember when the “Realtor Runs Through It” movie was out, hearing quite a few guys bragging about casting 150 feet. That was truly special talent when fly-lines maxed out at 90 feet. Even if you scale casting distance back to reality, it’s nearly impossible to effectively fish at the distance that decent equipment allows moderately experienced fly anglers to cast. There are usually multiple velocities of current across those distances to manage in mending. The portion of a 90 foot cast that you are in an effective zone, with a proper drift, is often minimal. Then, there is actually seeing the fly or strike indicator. Finally, there is the challenge of properly setting a hook with that much line on the water. In many dozens of float trips on great western trout and steelhead rivers, I’ve seen fish caught at maximum casting distances less than a handful of times. It usually seems like those far casts are across flows rather than upstream when wading or downstream when floating.

I realize you can go to longer switch and Spey rods to maximize casting and line control at long distances. For me, that becomes fatiguing fairly quickly. If you have some wear and tear on shoulders and elbows, that is a lot of rod and line to constantly manipulate. I’m not saying that extreme casting distances can’t buy a wading angler a fish they otherwise couldn’t have reached. Those scenarios certainly exist, such as long pools and runs when steelhead fishing and flats fishing for spooky fish. However, they come at a pretty high cost for efficiently and enjoyably fishing moderate distances. Short range accuracy, hook sets, and playing fish require some rod properties that are counter to getting that last few feet of casting distance. These are my opinions, yours may differ. Some of you might be much better at mending line at those distances.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2020 02:34AM by Kendall Cikanek.

I prefer to hear how “soulful”, exotic and lively the blanks and rods are LOL!!! Phil ya gotta find something new to whine/complain about....

You caught me, Tom! But before plopping down my $120 for a new fly line I would like to know the weight of the first 20' of my $130 line I will aerialize, the weight of the first first 25 feet, the first thirty feet, the first 35 feet. That's stuff I would really like to know, and maybe other flycasters would rather know how much weight they will carry with how much overhang.

You caught me, Tom! But before plopping down my $120 for a new fly line I would like to know the weight of the first 20' of my $130 line I will aerialize, the weight of the first first 25 feet, the first thirty feet, the first 35 feet. That's stuff I would really like to know, and maybe other flycasters would rather know how much weight they will carry with how much overhang.