Line Comparison

(Gressak) #21

Interesting. Thank you.

Looks,like the invisibraid might be similar to #4 ll. If that is true then these fibers must be denser than floroucarbon. Which i think is good news…because actual diameters may pair up in weight. Interesting…

The difference between the flouro 2.5 and 3 are also intersting. The uptick should be 20 percent in both diameter and weight but is not. It is only 10 percent.

The guestimate for th diff in #3 flouro ll and invisibraid is about 30 percent…which is more than i would have guessed.

I will seek out some lighter stuff and see how it casts.

0 Likes

(David Walker) #22

Well of course the distance you want to target will determine choice of rod and line length. As well as just personal preference.

I do think the scale of your diagram is misleading. Or maybe it is more correct to say - it does not match the previous casting diagram. Where the area at a distance, that he could cast to with the 3.6m rod and 6.9m line is narrower than the width of the area that he could cast to with the 3.6m rod and 5.3 meter line. (the lengths of the shaded boxes below the x-axis)

The 6.9m line could hit an area 2.5m wide, (or 3.5m wide if you include the red area. That the author judged not an effective area to fish) The 5.3m line could hit an area 5m wide. Two times as wide. The overlap area is about 1.7m wide, 5.5 m ~ 7.2m. Your blue area should perhaps be 2x the width of the yellow area.

However, the width of the area would be quite different with a different choice rod length and line length than the author used when drawing his diagram. A 4m rod with a 4m line for example would probably cover a much different area.

But we have similar conclusion, a shorter rod with shorter line appears to be more versatile. At least under similar conditions.

Using the assumptions in the casting distance drawing you can drop a fly in an area 2x wider with the shorter line than with the longer line. Or as you say, a shorter line helps avoid obstructions in the back cast area (unless you have a really good tower cast or roll cast) and it may be easier to expand the area that can be fished by walking. Shorter rod and line is only a limit if you want to target a likely fish lie on the other side of the stream, and the water is to deep or to swift to walk close enough to hit it with a shorter rod and line. You just have to let it go and target different points that may hold fish that your fly can reach.

0 Likes

(Gressak) #23

David it is not to scale or proportional but rather a general illustration.

Consider a 4m rod and a line that is 1.5 times the length of the rod. That is 2m of excess line and tippet. My note is that an angler cannot effectively fish any water close because there is too much line to efficiently manipulate the fly and set the hook. Most likely one would have line spilled on the water.

I am just expressing my general preference on a 1 to 1 ratio of line to rod. It is very location specific. If i am fishing on a higher bank or on open water i will go longer especially if casting space is not an issue.

Much of this note is in response to Peder’s note that he has moved to longer lines…where i have moved to shorter. I suspect that some of that choice is environmental.

If my illustration did not have trees and bushes behind the angler. The angler could hit both zones with a longer line by stepping back 3m.

0 Likes

(Peder) #24

@Gressak and @dwalker , thanks to both of you for your thoughts and important. As Gressak said earlier, this had been both amusing and intellectually entertaining. I think this discussion elucidates the complexity of scientific inquiry, regardless of how plebian or technical.

Instead of considering every possible variable, we’d have to agree on them, but hey, that’s just my thought. This thread took a slightly different shift than I’d expected, but it’s been fun nonetheless.

That’s very similar to what I thought after weighing them out. I’ve been looking at a couple of very similar lines online that I might get to experiment with, both in looking at their weights but also their casting and visibility. I could be wrong, but it seems (from comments here and many blog posts from many places) that the ideal is a very thin line with high density. If I understand correctly, this reduces drape/otsuri but enables the line to cast more easily. I don’t believe there is one “ideal” line and undoubtedly there are folks out there thinking this discussion is a tad crazy, but I think it’s fun to experiment. This is a rabbit hole that I don’t mind sticking my head into.

0 Likes

(Gressak) #25

Oh i agree.

This journey may also be a dead end or lead to something wonderful.

Both you and david have corrected the path of my thinking of this topic.

I intend on pickin up the 30 or 40# version of the invisibraid. By the numbers and your weights i am hoping it is a winner. Is so…i will send you some.

What this could buy us is an inexpensibe highly visibible level line without stretch or memory.

This is not necessarily for everyone…but i fish low light a lot…my eyes are going…and visibility of line is a big feature. Also as noted in my other thread I am not a fan of any memory coils.

1 Like

(Gressak) #26

Not to mention the weather has not been condusive to fishing. I went out yesterday…it was 24. I dropped 4 fish and made the mistake of dunking my arm in the snow melt a couple times to retrieve a fly. My native american name is now ice arm. When i cam off the river it was 28.

I will take discussing lines over an ice block arm any day

0 Likes

(Peder) #27

Indeed, it could be either one. At least for me, regardless of the destination, the journey is fun. As you say in your next post, it’s wicked cold here too. It was 7F (-14C) when I took the dog out this morning and is still only 13F (-10.5C) now more than 3 hours later. This beats freezing outside.

You might be stretching it tad to say that I’ve corrected your thinking. Maybe posited some new points to consider, but don’t know if I “corrected” anything.

I like the idea of finding an inexpensive, highly visible, LL without memory (I suspect that stretch and line memory may be correlated - though that’s a different rabbit hole :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:).

1 Like

(Gressak) #28

Nope… you guys have called out a couple of my comments and assumptions. I embrace that sort of thing. Sometimes brainstorming needs a little bit of baloney to help branch or even refocus solutions. I am the master of introducing phoney balogna.

Fyi…
Furled leaders do not have memory but they do stretch.

1 Like

(Peder) #29

That’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in investigating these other lines as options, they have very little to no stretch to them.

0 Likes

(David Walker) #30

Probably the thing to do if you one wanted to pursue this kind of Gedankenexperiment would be to create an Excel spreadsheet. Wherein you could plug in different heights for the rod butt end of the rod, accounting for different heights of the angler or if kneeling down, different lengths of rod and line, and different angles of the rod. For angles it might be at with the fly in the water. Say 30˚ to 75˚. Make some assumptions, of your choice, about where you would want to call it a red zone, that is points where you could land the fly or pull it to, but would be points where the cast would likely spook the fish due to to much line hitting the water, or an angle with to much line sag, or where hook sets would be poor. (while a spreadsheet like that can make quick calculations for changing criteria, once it is set up, I prefer old style slower way of drawing it out, it just always seemed to me that process helps me think about it better. Kind of the thing where research shows people remember things longer when written out by hand than when typed into a word document) However, while I find doing this sort of thing interesting, at the moment I have other interest taking priority for my time.

You’d probably discover some surprises about the size of the area on the water the water that you could cover with different combinations of rod & line lengths and rod angle. And end up making some changes in your set up.

otoh, you might find from the theoretical idealized water coverage that would be the best set up for what you want to do is a 4.5m rod with a 6m line, only to find out in practice it doesn’t work for you because you lack the skill to cast a 6m line anywhere near to full extension of the line.

Anyway, speaking of line stretch. And to add to the complexity of line choices. The other day I posted a link, in the horse hair line thread, a DT TiF S 1 Episode 1 video. Where Go Ishi was interviewing Yamada-san from Aikyamagou. A little later in the interview after the bit where he was making a horse hair line.

Yamada-san tells about teaching beginners how to tenkara fish. And he describes how they have two problems with hook setting. 1)they are to aggressive, swinging their whole arm high, instead of doing a faster wrist movement, and 2) surprise hook sets, aka poor timing. His recommend cure is to tell the students to use a thicker tippet.

Now just how and why would using a thicker tippet offset these beginner hook set problems? I have to admit I can’t really tell much difference between using 5x or 4x tippet. Though I can sense a difference during casting of a 1m ~ 1.5m 6x or 4x tippet. Casting a 4x tippet to full extension is easier than 6x. But not a difference in the hook set. What is accomplished by using a thicker tippet is something I’ve been pondering, but not yet any idea why Yamada-san recommends it.

See it here, it runs about 90 seconds before moving on to a different topic.

0 Likes

(Gressak) #31

A guess is thicker tippet is more rigid introducing less slack. But going to 4x for a beginer might result in a broken rod

1 Like

(David Walker) #32

Maybe. I couldn’t hear a recommended size. Only thicker.
Which would also seem to go in the wrong direction, being also stronger.

0 Likes

(Gressak) #33

Yeah like buying 4 lb spinning line it is twice as thick as 5x tippet

0 Likes

(David Walker) #34

Well, if a lighter line has less line sag than a heavier line. Another way to reduce line weight, besides just using a lighter weight line, is to just change the ratio of line and tippet lengths for the total length of the line you want to use.

Really long tippets seem to be popular with a lot of experienced people, or maybe they are just old school people, probably for various advantages more than just reducing the amount of line sag. But casting a line with a really long tippet requires better casting skill because the end of the line is so light. I know this because I try it from time to time. Believing I can’t improve my casting skill unless I push past my comfort level once in a while.

That is why the guy on the Master of Tenkara site, and I never did learn his real name. Discussed two lines that were 5.3m total line length.
Line A : 4.5m line + 0.8m tippet, 85% / 15%
Line B: 3.6m line + 1.7m tippet, 68% / 32%
But in he was also using a 3.6m rod, so total line length was 1.47x rod length.
Which is as long as I like to use routinely use with a 4m rod. Mostly I don’t fish a line longer than 1.38x rod length.
With a 3.6m rod I probably wouldn’t to use a line any longer than just under 5m, including tippet length.

Anyway, point is you could fish a 3.6m rod with 4.0 m total line length. And try different ratios of line / tippet.
3.4m line + 0.6m tippet, and another one with 2.72m line + 1.28m tippet.
Or ratio in between and see how it goes.

I’m not a record keeper, but I would guess about ~ 80% of time I fish just to fish. The other ~ 20% of the time I am experimenting with longer lines than I normally use or lighter lines. The horse hair line fits into experimental category. Or maybe just some new kebari pattern idea. Just something new to try or do, once in a while. :smile:

1 Like

(Gressak) #35

I wanted to update and refresh this thread.

Been busy fishing and testing lines. Practical implementations.

I have purchased and fished spiderwire invisbraid 50 #. Peder weighed it and it think a 4.5 m segment is a couple of tenths of a gram heavier than 3 LL. It casts well. Even my 7 year old daughter was able to cast it. I feel it is noticeably thinner than 65# even if spiderwire’s spec sheet claims it is only 2 hundredths of a mm thinner. It feels thinner than that and I doubt I could even tell the difference of 2 hundredths.

Peder decided to try a thinner version of spiderwire…spiderwire stealth 40#. Stealth is interesting it is both thinner than invisibraid of equivalent weight. It also comes in more colors and seems to have fused strands over the invisibraid’s looser strands.

40# stealth is .33 mm
40# invisbraid is .35 mm
3 LL is .285 mm

6m of 40# stealth is .7g
6m of 3 LL is .8 g.

3 LL is 14% heavier than the 40# stealth.

Peder sent me some lengths to test. So far, I casted the 4m or my 2.8 m rod. It casts very well in low to no wind. I did not try it in wind yet. Peder purchased the high vis yellow. It is nice and visible.

I have a purchase in transit of the 50 and 65 # stealth in translucent. I found these on amazon of under 6 dollars a piece. One is 125yrds the other is 200 yards. For that price how can I not try it.

I will probably eventually pick up more of the 40# as I think the fact that it so light I would like to fish that when conditions can support it. I will also fish it on some of my softer rods. For me anything in the ballpark of a 3 LL is pretty darn good.

Again the lack of memory and visibility are absolute huge advantages of this line. The diameter is a trade off…but they are all under 1 tenth of a mm and in the case of the 40# it is around a 5 hundredths of a mm.

I have been exclusively fishing the invisibraid. Between that stuff and the stealth I think Peder and I are getting somewhere very close to perfection.

I have a bounty of LL and furled leaders that I may consider selling soon. The only thing that I see LL being good for at this point is having a line that the fish may not be able to see. My eyesight is going so, having a visible line is everything.

1 Like

(David Walker) #36

I’ve played around with similar type lines a few times in past years. The biggest concern I found was that type of line is wicked strong. Lines that were more than strong enough for fishing with were so thin they were difficult to cast and I was concerned they could easily cut your hand should you hook onto a big strong fighting fish.

To get a line of the same type that had enough weight to easily cast, and be thick enough I wasn’t overly worried about it cutting my hand, got into lines that were crazy high pound test.

Many were a dark color and hard to see, but with some shopping around you can find some brighter colors or a type of stealth labeled line that is multicolored, bright colors that change color every few feet.

That being said, I like experimenting, that’s how something new that works well is discovered. :smiley:

0 Likes

(Gressak) #37

I fish these lines in the salt with 50-60# leader. Although you can be cut with these lines…if you do take care…it can be avoided.

Now with tenkara…there is little chance of being cut. Tippet strength is not strong enough for it to be a concern…especially with trout.

0 Likes

(David Walker) #38

Ah, well I hold the opinion that a thin line doesn’t cut you by pressure but by the speed the line crosses your finger, and the tippet doesn’t break till the line is held tight and not moving. So I will avoid it or remain cautious about it. It’s only a little trouble for me if you’re correct and it’s no worry at all.

0 Likes

(Gressak) #39

Yes braid has more tooth than mono…but most of these modern braids have a smooth coating.

You will need to trust me that there is no issue of injury here. If long lining…a trout just can not put enough speed or force on the line to cut the angler.

Shoot me your address. Once we get the sizes dialed in i will send you some to try for yourself.

0 Likes

(David Walker) #40

Sure, thank you for the offer.
I played around with similar lines 4 or five years ago. It was an interesting experiment, but I found nothing I wanted to keep using. But you can always learn something just by trying something new. If it works then you’ve found something that works. If it doesn’t work, well, you’ve learned first hand why it was not a good idea by your own experience.

I played around with Sufix 832 line, light green color. It worked fairly well. Cortland Cam-o-flage line, it was multi-color line, apparently no longer made. And some Calcutta Ultra-braid, the smaller diameter line was so light it was difficult to cast, the larger diameter line was crazy strong, but it could be cast. The best arrangement was making a tapered line out of different size lines. But the braid sucked up too much water. Becoming heavy, however, it could be cast on a windy day. I made a couple of the tapered lines, basically using an old diagram Sebata Yūzō-san has online.

ukeikai Sebata Yūzō-san Tenkara [tēpārain-hen]

Later, I found on ebay the same shooting line he used in his diagram, it was ok, but not anything that I liked much.

Oh, and if you’d like to find tables of standard line diameters this phrase works well
釣り・ラインの号数・標準直径表 fishing line issue number (gō-sū) standard diameter table

These are good:
https://ms-fishing-style.com/ozgglb/linestandard

http://fishingrig.net/tips/line_lb_gousuu.html

This one also has links inside to download pdf files, One for fluorocarbon & nylon line, another pdf for PE line.

https://angler.prummy.com/2017/07/4349/

There are other tables that might appeal to you more.

Or you can just calculate the diameters for different sizes, and usually get the same numbers for most sizes. 1 号 = 0.165mm is the reference size. Just use the cross section area = 0.02138245 mm^2 as you reference number.

Example diameter of 4 号= 2 * sqr (4 * 0.02138245 ÷ pi ) = 0.330 mm .
So you can find numbers real close to standard for odd sizes like 1.2 号, 3.5 号, etc.
Or you can take the line diameter off your braided lines and figure out what 号数 (gōsū) number it is close to.

0 Likes