| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bamboo |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 01:45:14
There seems to be no objective information or measures in selecting the proper tapered leader for a tapered WF floating line.
Checking everywhere on line there does not seem to be any logical procedure for selecting a "LEADER" starting with the size of a fly hook and working backward to any wt. fly line. Nor going forward from any fly line wt. to the fly hook.
For an example:
Fly line is a WF tapered 6 WT. ending taper diameter measures 0.034".
Tapered leaders are 1/2 that diameter at apprx. 0.018 which means no smooth velocity transfer.
I want to toss a VERY small dry fly with a 6 WT. line using a 12' tapered leader. (built-in tippet).
Using a 6 WT. in this example there are no charts that suggest what I should use for a leader for trout well under 3 lbs., or a very small fly, or anything close to the diameter of the fly line for a nice roll presentation. Same situation for any fly line WT. vs fly hook size. No charts or suggestions.
There are no examples of what a size 24 fly looks like compared to a size 20 or even 18. etc. Another big problem when you have a box of mixed fly's.
Any help on sorting out this situation where I do not guess on the leader and fly for a fly line when (JUST THE PRESENTATION)is the issue and nothing else? Thank you. Larry |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| JKissane |
Posted - 25/08/2009 : 07:39:07
Not to fill up the forum with junk mail on the topic, but this is an article I wrote sometime back on the subject of leader length vs rod length. As to the relationship between line wt and fly size, common application has been to equate small flies and lighter lines, but that isn't necessesarily rigid. I've used a 6 or 7 weight rod with small #16 flies before and been quite successful, but it usually involves a leader with a total length 12 ft. or more to separate teh fly from the end of the heavier line - for the sake of a stealthy presentation.
There's a renewed interest in what are called weight forward leaders, too - leaders with the same line profile as weight-forward fly lines. These might be useful on smaller water, when you cannot use as much line as might be necessary to load a rod in the casting stroke, a weight forward leader may get the fly out further I've not tinkered with the idea for a while, and as long as what I was doing worked, seldom saw much use in changing things too much.
Leaders, Rod Length and Reverse Logic
By Joseph A. Kissane
When it comes to leaders there are numerous ongoing debates – materials, recipes, etc. One issue that I’ve looked at both from engineering and anecdotal evidence is overall length. In the simplest sense, more is better, with some exceptions. Having beaten the issue of fighting drag to death in previous writings, I will spare you the repetition of the details of that discussion. With respect to drag, though, it stands to reason that the longer the most flexible segments of the line-leader system are, the more readily it will generate slack that fights the effects of drag – and hence my premise that more is better.
Some time back, I watched my younger brother fishing through the heat of an afternoon. When he stopped for the day, he remarked that as time passed, the fish either became more selective, or whatever hatch they were feeding on died off, and then they suddenly started back up again. But I was watching him in terms of his leader, being the strangely obsessive person I am. He would catch a fish or two, check his fly, and if it still looked ok, he would check the knot connecting the tippet and fly, because he knew his brother, the leader obsessive, was watching. When he detected a bad knot, or when the fly had been abused enough by fish or his casting loops, he would pull the fly off, and re-tie a new one (replace the fly or retie the knot, often both). As this process repeated itself, he was gradually shortening the tippet, inch by inch, as the afternoon wore on. Then he reached a point where the tippet was short enough that he though it needed replacing, and he would restore it to its original 24 inches or whatever. Miraculously, the fish would again enthusiastically begin to strike his fly. He attributed their renewed interest to a new hatch or their having had enough time while he replaced the tippet and fly to regain their confidence after being spooked by his landing a previous fish. I expect, although I cannot say for certain, that the fish, in abruptly rejecting his fly, were responding to the fact that his leader was being shortened to the point that it was unable to produce a sufficiently natural drift. Then, when he added new tippet, he restored the functionality of that portion of the leader, and the fish were no longer put off by drag.
One of the great myths of fly-fishing is that a good starting point for leader length is to approximate it by the rod length. My friend Steve Schweitzer, who has compiled the largest collection of leader recipes known to man, has included this idea in his discussions of leaders, and while there is a clear relationship between rod length and leader length there is little cause to equate the two. Rod length is a factor in line speed – the longer the rod, the greater the speed of the line moving in a casting stroke, by virtue of the length of the arc path it travels. The geometry of the arc makes it so – as you move your arm back and forth, the tip of the rod is moving faster than the midpoint, which is moving faster than the handle. The farther from hand the tip of the rod is, the faster the tip moves because it moves a greater distance along its path during the stroke. Part of the rationale behind determining leader length is that you should be able to control the leader during casting, and control is based on speed. The longer the leader, the greater its weight, and the more line speed you will need to control it. If you cannot keep the line moving fast enough, it will drop below the trajectory of the rod tip, causing trailing loops, “wind knots” and a host of other calamities. So the longer the rod, the faster the line (and consequently the leader) move, and therefore the longer the leader may be. It is not a clear-cut relationship, but it is a good starting point.
The geometry of the casting stroke and rod length relating to the maximum leader length is one line of evidence (no pun intended) – the analytical approach. There is also the anecdotal approach. Rather than use a rationale that places the emphasis on rod length determining leader length, consider putting the emphasis closer to the fish – so that leader length requirements determine the rod length. A favorite debate of mine is that we should focus our efforts on the aspects closer to the fish than the rod and reel, and we will maximize our return on the effort and the dollar. Imagine putting as much effort into selecting leaders and flies as we do in selecting a rod that may cost close to $500. You can buy a lot of flies and leaders before you approach the cost of a top-end fly rod. The relationship is never quite that simple, and it is much easier to justify the expense on a thing of beauty, like a fine fly rod. But considering the symmetry of an argument often results in a better understanding of its components.
If you have the occasion to see or read about fly fishing in Europe, you will see that they typically use rods of 9 feet or longer – often up to 12 feet, and that does not even consider the Spey rods of 15 or 16 feet. Whether they actually think through this reality or not, it is true that the leader determines their rod length – even if they just seem to go with what they have used for decades; i.e. what has been proven to work. They often fish with more than one fly on a “cast” (their term for the leader and its flies) and the more flies, the longer and, by virtue of more flies and leader material, the heavier the cast. Consequently the longer the rod must be to readily generate the speed necessary to cast the cast. Their fly fishing culture has been built around using multiple flies and the result is that rods there are quite long by our standards – and the length of the rod is a function of the leaders (casts) that are used.
So, if you forget that you have invested hundreds of dollars in fly rods of various lengths, and consider instead what the appropriate leader lengths will be for the location and conditions you will be fishing, you select the rod based on leader length. If you are fishing a large river, with windy conditions and multiple complex currents, you may consider a long (12 foot) leader with a stiffer butt section that will allow you to handle these conditions. That will require a longer rod, maybe even that 10-footer that you never thought you’d use except from the float tube. If, on the other hand, you plan on fishing a small spring creek there are other considerations. High line speeds make for greater impact when the cast lands on the water – not a very stealthy approach for a small creek. Densely overgrown brush (or any other obstacles to casting longer line) may make it awkward to handle a long leader, so you may have to shorten your leader to 9 feet, while slowing your casting stroke to keep impact to a minimum. So your rod selection could be affected and you might use the 7-1/2 footer you bought for just such an occasion. Then again, you might want to use a 9-footer and just flick little short casts with the wrist onto the creek, but to load the rod, you might have to have so much line out that you have to stand around the bend of the creek to get it out.
And what of the exceptions? Heavy flies or windy conditions often require stiff leaders. Regardless of the length of the leader/fly arrangement, the weight and/or air resistance is what determines the need for line speed to keep the trajectory on course. And the weight and air resistance are dependent to some extent on the leader length. Nymphs and streamers are often best fished with shorter leaders, but the weight of a nymph or streamer, maybe with a split shot involved, again may be easier to manage with a little more leverage and line speed from a longer rod. Thinking about it more, a short stiff rod might be something useful for using heavy nymphs on small creeks, such rods are rarely seen, probably because many of us enjoy casting almost as much as we do catching fish, and casting with a broom pole is no fun.
Much of this sort of thinking has been done for us by the sellers and designers of rods. They correctly market short little rods for spring creeks and long rods for bigger waters, and either assume we understand the logic involved, or that we will accept their wisdom on the matter. It used to be a safe assumption that someone would know what they were doing before they made such investments, but the world has changed and people with money seem to be buying more toys than they know how to use. Regardless, it makes sense to have longer rods on big waters, so we can cast longer lines and cover more water without having to wade all over creation to get within range of the various potential lies. But long-distance casting, pretty as it is to behold, is not as controlled as shorter casting, and it results in more line on the water, and more opportunities for unwanted drag. Then again, we sometimes try to out-think the marketers, whether out of suspicion or just plain inquisitiveness, as we fly fishermen see ourselves as intellectuals. We can sometimes outsmart ourselves by trying to buck the system, and then again, sometimes we learn why things are the way they are. And if you have an arm like a starting pitcher, you may not care about rod length so much, because you can make 400 casts of 60-feet without a worry. But most of us like to have enough arm strength left at the end of the day to raise a toast to our successes, or those of our prey in avoiding us. So is leader length a function of rod length, or is it the other way around? Watch the egg and ask the chicken when it hatches.
Best regards,
Joe
Although prequalified by virtue of their brain size, trout have no politics. |
| JKissane |
Posted - 24/08/2009 : 15:22:32
quote:
Originally posted by bamboo
OK, You are right technically of course.
I am here, (standing alone), preparing to wrap a 1930-40 era 8 1/2 foot heavy cane for 2/0 & 1/0 snakes with a large MOI even without the 2 WT. C line on the rod which is partially balanced at the wrist with an ancient Perrine (braking) automatic reel #50. Wrist casting 30 plus feet is the goal on small clear water streams & clear lakes if there are any left around Yuba City.
Meanwhile you are effortlessly & comfortably, casting a zero weight graphite 90 feet across a class III river for Steelhead with a 6 WT. line. 
Granted, me and my bamboos are a thing of the past. But that is all we old folks have left. 
Son in law, I, and a guest had a shoot-out in the front lawn Friday last. His super light graphite with big eyelets was very nice. Easy to control with a 4 Wt. line and he was getting out at least 25% further than I with a 4 WT. rod and the same line. It would be easy to switch over to graphite....but I am stubborn. If it doesn't have 2/0 snakes it 'aint a fishing pole.
His rig cost over $400. My stuff cost well under $25 at the local swap meet or antique shop.
BTW- Ever see an 8 1/2 foot 3 piece cane (3.5 WT.) with only 4 snakes on it? I have one to restore and am anxious to try that out. It is original with stickers and all, and in great condition made by Abbey & Imbrie if I remember correctly.
-Larry
Hi, Larry,
I just found your inquiry, and a couple of things come to mind.
Firstly, there are a lot of ways to think about the appropriate size of leader to match with a line and a fly. If you're in a critical situation - (stupid of me, what fishing situation isn't critical?), it is best to have a good energy transmission from the fly line to the leader. This is best achieved by having a sound solid connection between the two materials, and having a smooth transition in them from the line to the leader. I used to be too much in a hurry to bother with a good connection and used loops - but having seen far too many fish spooked as the bulky loops hit a calm water surface, I've tossed that out the window and went back to nail knotting leader butt sectons onto my fly lines, or on smaller ones using a Zap-a-Gap or super glue connection. This involves removing the outer vinyl coating of the line for about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch and exposing the inner braid. You can use a solvent to soften the material, and peel it with a fingernail. Open the braid carefully with a needle, into the portion where the vinyl is still present a bit (1/8 inch, if you're lucky.) You then cut the end of the butt section with a razor to an angled point, pull the needle out and feed the leader butt as far up into the line as you can. Put a drop of cyanocarylate glue (Zap-a-Gap or Super Glue) and let it wick up into the braid, while carefully maintaining pressure inward on the leader to keep it inside the part of the line where the vinyl coating is still present. Hold for several minues to allow the glue to set. Test the connection after about an hour. Keep the line straight for a few hours or it will harden with a curl at the connection.
Ideally, the butt section should be 2/3 the diameter of the line +/- some amount, to account for the fact that nylon is stiffer than the average fly line. You can verify the appropiateness of the size qualitatively by holding identical sized loops of each (the line and the leader material) side by side between your thumb and index finger, and pushing dwn on the loops. The leader material should be softer - i.e. more easily deformed than the loop of the line. Commercial leaders are often far too stiff in teh butt sections, in my estimation, and I often cut off a foot or more before I find what I want. If I'm making up a leader, I do the same thing inmatching sizes, and I sometimes use a product called Amnesia Line that has very little memory and is easily straightened. But it is only sold in terms of breaking strain, not diameter, so you have to use a micrometer - its sold in 15, 20 and 25 lb breaking strain. It has the added feature that it is available in red or fluorescent green to use like a drag/strike indicator. My book has a couple of tables in it as guidelines, and generally something around 0.020 or 0.021 inches in diameter works well with a 6 weght line - but it depends very much on the line properties and tapers - and that variety is growing every production year. (Thanks for the plug, by the way, Magnus.) Then you construct the leader as you would otherwise own to the tip section.
Now, as to sizing the tippit to the fly, there are numerous tables that suggest how to do this, and the most common seems to suggest using something 5X or finer for anything smaller than a 16 hook.
The spreadsheet/database in Leadercalc has a variety of ways of doing what you seem to want to do - and you can search the formulae by tippit size once you've decided what size fly you're using.
And then there is the issue of fly size. Just as there seems to be a continuum on line weights developing in spite of standardized sizes, there is also an enormous variety of hooks out there that are or are not follwoing established conventions. If you can find a copy of Datus Proper's wonderful book What the Trout Said, I recommend you read its very good discussion of what hook sizes should be, versus what they are. He was pretty thoroughly disgusted with the inconsistencies in the matter, I think.
All in all, it seems we fly-fishermen have a remarkable reputation as having paid lots of attention to detail over the hundreds of years the sport has existed, but what I've found is that we still don't hold to many of the supposed conventions, be they line weights, leader diameter measurements, hook sizes, rod stiffness or fly patterns. A newcomer probably has as much difficulty with all of that as he might with catching a fish - perhaps more. But if catching fish were simply a matter of applying the right equations and solving them simultaneously, it would be Algebra, and not a sport.
I hope this helps, and that you're not nodding off reading it.
Regards,
Joe
Although prequalified by virtue of their brain size, trout have no politics. |
| Carlos |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 11:26:13
Wow. That is a very technical approach.
I fish streams and brooks which are very overgrown. The stiffest rod I have is a Sage TXL 7' #4. Otherwise I use one of the two #2 a 5' Hardy Glass or a Superfine 1oz 6'6".
For me it is the connection as well. I use a Sage quite taper line, nail knotted to a 5' braided leader (Rod Dibble's from Spiderplus). The tippet is 4lb (I think leaving hook and line in a fish that has snagged is vbad so I won't go lighter) of the lowest diameter I can find. The braided leaders are incredibly soft and turn over wonderfully ...... can look disturbingly big on the water but anything from 3' of tippet degreased (or a sinking tippet) works fine.
Tippet length is totally dependent on conditions and flies. It is all about ease of turn over and some manly desire to show I can turn the longest leader in the world over.
http://www.wandlepiscators.net/ |
| bamboo |
Posted - 07/07/2009 : 02:39:56
OK, You are right technically of course.
I am here, (standing alone), preparing to wrap a 1930-40 era 8 1/2 foot heavy cane for 2/0 & 1/0 snakes with a large MOI even without the 2 WT. C line on the rod which is partially balanced at the wrist with an ancient Perrine (braking) automatic reel #50. Wrist casting 30 plus feet is the goal on small clear water streams & clear lakes if there are any left around Yuba City.
Meanwhile you are effortlessly & comfortably, casting a zero weight graphite 90 feet across a class III river for Steelhead with a 6 WT. line.
Granted, me and my bamboos are a thing of the past. But that is all we old folks have left.
Son in law, I, and a guest had a shoot-out in the front lawn Friday last. His super light graphite with big eyelets was very nice. Easy to control with a 4 Wt. line and he was getting out at least 25% further than I with a 4 WT. rod and the same line. It would be easy to switch over to graphite....but I am stubborn. If it doesn't have 2/0 snakes it 'aint a fishing pole.
His rig cost over $400. My stuff cost well under $25 at the local swap meet or antique shop.
BTW- Ever see an 8 1/2 foot 3 piece cane (3.5 WT.) with only 4 snakes on it? I have one to restore and am anxious to try that out. It is original with stickers and all, and in great condition made by Abbey & Imbrie if I remember correctly.
-Larry
|
| Magnus |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 12:56:20
quote:
Slow antique rods are more fun as you know. AA's of 50 to 63 and IP's below 4.5 on 8 1/2' rods where 30 to 40 ft casts are the stream menu.
...errr....don't count me in on that Larry. All my favourite rods are modern fast rods - some stiffer than others.
Like a bunch of other guys I know I spend far too much time trying to make a line go faster, farther longer - something that simply isn't practical with bamboo or glass.
Gimme a carbon rod with AA 70+ ERN 7-ish and a #6 line and I'm happy.
Since you have a technical bent this might interest you http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/swingweight.shtml
http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/swingweight.pdf
Use the same methods on a cane or glass rod and you can see where the advantage of carbon lies.
Magnus |
| bamboo |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 00:33:28
Hi Magnus.
No problem on Part II. I was solely thinking on measured diameters, not density(mass)differences. That should have occured to me but it didn't.
Your 2/3 rule should be a good alternate. It avoids my trying to determine "specific gravity" with a floating fly line... 
I too, like you, prefer the old school right way and have a mind-set on super light stuff tossing a very light fly properly. Anyone can throw an anchor rope with a fly on the end.
All my my recently collected rods are 3.5 to 4 Wt. in bamboo or fiberglass with one exception....a Sears Fiber of 6 Wt. It presents a small #16(?) fly good enough on a 4X tapered leader with a WF6F line, but I don't feel the load in the rod which is bad.....(to me). So it'll be just an emergency ride along rig while I focus on the 3 to 4 Wt rods for the delicate fishing experiences that are soul satisfying when a trout breaks water on a bite. 
I looked at hook sizes at the tackle shop. You are sure right. I was hoping to find a chart on line which would give me gap(gape) measures to size# but I see that is out of the question now.
Slow antique rods are more fun as you know. AA's of 50 to 63 and IP's below 4.5 on 8 1/2' rods where 30 to 40 ft casts are the stream menu.
Thanks for the in-depth overview Magnus. We're not hard headed. Just persistant from modern experience & old conviction. |
| Magnus |
Posted - 04/07/2009 : 08:46:26
Part 2
Hooks and flies.
quote:
There are no examples of what a size 24 fly looks like compared to a size 20 or even 18. etc. Another big problem when you have a box of mixed fly's.
There are simply no easy abstract answers to that. Even if you have a vernier gauge and a set of hook sizes you need to know which hook brand and model you have to say definitively which size the hook is.
In practice - #24 is far smaller than #18 - if your matching the hatch simply compare the fly with an insect.
Fishing flies that small I'd be on a 'soft' rod (low stiffness) probably using a line #5 or less - more likely a #4 or #3 line.
Tippet size would be fine (thin) - partly because it needs to get through the eye of the hook, partly because thick leaders tend to 'kill' small flies - they drag to easily and make the fly look clumsy and 'unnatural'. http://www.maineflyfishing.com/leader/tippet.htm - gives a fair guide.
Bear in mind nothing is hard and fast. Years ago I was struggling to cast a light line and present a small dry fly - just too damened windy. The guy next to me was casting easily, hooking and landing fish. I was trying to fish with a very soft slow #3 rod and line - he was on a powerful (Loomis GLX) 9ft 6in 8-weight outfit. With hood casting and fish playing skills it works. On the other end of the spectrum I know anglers who 'trout set' when a 100lb tarpon eats their fly - very powerful #12 rod - 30lb leader - the tippet pops line 8x.
Magnus |
| Magnus |
Posted - 04/07/2009 : 08:30:06
Hi Larry
Me again 
I'd suggest a couple of books.
Drag Free Drift by Joe Kissane
Joe is a member of this forum and drops in occasionally.
DFD is very much an engineer's approach to leader design - material characteristics and includes a lot of the physics by way of explanation. Meaning, its a technical and slightly esoteric book but if you are that way inclined (I am) it has a load of information.
Modern Fly Lines by Bruce Richards
Bruce has just retired as the line designer for Scientific Anglers. His book is again technical but explains the subject pretty clearly. Some things I know Bruce would change but still very useful when trying to understand the physics and what that means to lines. MFL is now out of print but used copies surface from time to time and I hear it mat be reprinted.
Anyway - the upshot of all that is  In the transition from line to leader, mass (more specifically linear mass or linear mass density = kg/m or lb/ft) is the most important factor. To achieve continuity the leader butt needs to be around 2/3 the thickness (diameter) of the tip of the line because nylon is more dense than floating fly line. Less diameter and the tip of the fly line will tend to kick over - more and the leader will tend to stall.
Into the leader and the taper works in much the same way it works in a fly line. As the line tapers, the mass reduces and the engery is conserved to some extent. If there was no air drag on the line (and no fly attached to the leader) the speed of the free end of the line in the loop would increase as the mass reduced - we'd apply the formula for Kinetic Energy = half the mass times the velocity squared. So as the mass reduces the velocity rises - rather a lot.
In the real world we have air friction and bushy flies which are slowing the whole thing - conservation of energy and taper means the speeds are slowed less than they would have been.
Baffled? So...if you can get hold of Joe Kissane's book it comes with a CD of suggested leader tapers - called LeaderCalc - which will help with understanding and making your own leaders.
Magnus |
|
|
