advice with casting .....please.....

[caddis_fly_1]

I have Sage VPS 6 wt lined with XPS 6wt WF that I use for larger trout and bass rivers and the occasional lake bass fishing. I have become pretty good at casting most sizes of flies (both trout and bass) and in most weather conditions.

Recently, I bought a St. Croix Legend 8 wt lined with 7wt WF Orvis Wonderline. Let me tell you all my troubles….

I am having a harder time casting flies with the heavier rod, than with the lighter 6wt. It seems that the St Croix has much more action in the rod and it "whips" the line forward. It also seems like it takes the rod much longer to load. Also, it seems like I lose power in the cast sooner, and am unable to dbl haul the line as far with the cast. The line ends up coiling out in front of me; if it does not catch my ear or hat.

The result is, I am unable to cast the same fly as far with the 8wt as I can with the 6 wt. I also, have much less control and accuracy with the heavier rod. Shouldn't this be the opposite?

Can anyone offer any suggestions as to what my problems are, and how to correct these problems?

[pato]

I am FAR from a casting expert, so I am sure others advice will benefit you more. One prob could be that you have the rod underlined. An 8wt rod with 7wt line is proabably not loading properly. my .02

------------------
Pat
Life makes more sense standing alone by a lake at high elevation with a fly rod in hand.
John Eldredge

[Scott Swartz]

You will want to get an 8 wt line on the 8 wt. rod before passing judgement on how it really casts. Even then you will experience a difference in rod action between a Sage and a St. Croix and that may just take a little time to get used to. Take some time to cast the new rod with the correct weight line and give us a report.

Scott

[GonetoSeed]

I will add that some people think the heavier weight St Croixs Legends are nderrated and in this case the 8 may in fact have intrinsic power closer to a light 9wt. BTW, this is not a criticism. St Croix does this because they believe that anglers who buy their faster action 8 wts will be intending to cast distances significantly greater that the AFTMA standard 30'. So, with the 7wt line you may be closer to 1 1/2 to 2 weights underlined, especially at distances around 40-50'. One of the new lines that are actually closer to "8.5wts" may cast better (e.g., RIO). At distances < ~ 45' it may even cast better with a 9 wt.

[This message has been edited by GonetoSeed (edited 08-28-2003).]

[caddis_fly_1]

Thank you all for the advice. It is certainly something I am going to try. Would you suggest that since the rod may be closer to a 9wt, to go ahead and put 9wt line on the reel instead of 8?

I could use the 7 wt line on the 6 wt rod in some situations, correct?

[edwin]

caddis,

I recommend exactly what you just said.

------------------
Some go to church and think about fishing, others go fishing and think about God.
- Tony Blake

[Scott Swartz]

I would agree with putting the 9 wt. line on only if most of your casting and fishing are going to be at 50 feet or less. If you can cast father and will use this rod to fish big water then you should put the 8 wt line on that the rod is rated for. It will load better at short distances with it up-lined to the 9 wt. but your long distance casts will will suffer from overload.

Scott

[GonetoSeed]

Very recently, the custom and hobby rod building communities have been introduced to a technique for easily, independently and comparatively measuring the intrinsic power of blanks and therefore better matching line wts for specific fishing conditions\techniques. This has been necessary because of the manufacturers trend to being more subjective about their ratings and moving from the AFTMA "standard". It is becoming more difficult to rely on the manufacturers to provider comparable numbers.

I asked if anyone on Rodbuilding.org had run the numbers on this rod. No one had on the 8 wt, but two responses for the 7 and 9 wts respectively were posted. In each case, these rods were underrated (relative to the the AFTMA "standard") by 1 nominal wt. The conclusion was that this is probably the case for the 8 wt as well - in intrinsic power it is a heavy 8\9 wt. This view also is in line with the perception that St Croix is targeting the higher wts of this series at anglers who intend to routinely cast further than 30-45'. The rule of thumb has alway been to underline a rod if longer casting distances are necessary for the fishing application.

All this means that Scott is as usual correct. At distances 45 to 60', the rod should cast better with an 8 wt. You would have to be booming it out > 60+' for the 7 to load it. For distances < 45', then a 9 wt should work better.

For the 6 wt, it depends on the blank, but in general, if you are fishing it close in, the 7 wt should work.

The caveat as usual is to test cast with different wts and brands if possible. Unfortunantely, the line manufacturers are also straying from the 30' standard. Some are making the first 30' of the tapers heavier than the standard in order to "better load the fast action rods". Interesting marketing. The blank - fast, mod or slow - responds to the actual weight of line outside the tip top. It has no clue if its 30 ft of a good old standby (and less expensive)9 wt or a new improved "8 wt with special taper" that just happens to weigh the same in grains as the 9 wt, but cost more.

[This message has been edited by GonetoSeed (edited 09-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GonetoSeed (edited 09-05-2003).]