Rod ratings I believe to be different in Europe and North America which would explain the difference. Purchase a line based on the grain weight you are use to casting or recommended for your rod. Normally a good suggestion for traditional spey head would be to start at your skagit head combined with tip weight.

How did you find the gaelforce line on your 9/10 rod?

 

I'm getting used to it but finding it difficult to feel the load and timing. I do think I might potentially be better off with a weight up for the rod in question. I have a Gaelforce EMT shooting head setup for the same rod that's heavier than the spey line (617gr at 40ft against 585gr at 54ft) for the same rating, and predictably, the shooting head is a lot easier to cast!

One of the reasons I ask is because it seems to be such a disparity across the spectrum of line weights and ratings. I'm tempted to try the 10/11 version of the same spey line (646gr at 54ft). The rod has a scandi weight range of 525-570gr so it's a bit of a mish mash of figures!

 

i know how you feel, I think I would ask on here what people would recommend for your rod. I have now fished the same rod and line a zenith 13ft 6in with Rio 9/10 or a Gailforce since Hardy launched the rod, just hope I don’t break the rod Or will end up like the ostrich.

 

Ah I'll be continuing with the setup I have for the time being. Using it yesterday when it went right it was excellent, just need to keep working it out. I just find it really interesting the wide range of weights as to what constitutes a given 9/10 spey line in the same head range.

 

I just find it really interesting the wide range of weights as to what constitutes a given 9/10 spey line in the same head range.

Weight distribution within the length of the head plays a large part.

 

I think you would find the 10/11 version of the 54 Gaelforce a better choice. It would most likely give you more feel with the rod if that is what you are after. Rod grain weight ranges are suggestive. Depending on the caster and their abilities with your rod. Some may like lighter lines and some may need a little heavier to make it work.

I have the same Gaelforce 54 @ 585 grain. I have not used it in the past season. But like you I was confused about how to purchase with varying weights across manufactures. Then after checking with some folks using the line on a similar or same rod as me to get recommendations. The suggestion in the end was to buy for grain weights. So I use the line on a rod rated 678 with a full grain window of 450-700.

Why not post a "What Gaelforce 54 do you like for (list your rod)". There must be others out there using the same setup.

 

The Gaelforce 54’ speylines are all overrated for weight, in their labelling.

Ie if the box says 10/11, I would consider it to be a 9/10, that would be suitable for most 14’ rods.

On the other hand, I find the 63’ speylines to be correctly labelled and true to weight.

 

Agreed, the 54’ lines weigh about the same as an equivalent rating AFTM Shooting Head would.

The 63’ lines are significantly heavier, even though there will often be a very similar length of line outside the rod tip when casting.

I’m not sure about anyone else, but I find the 63’ lines considerably more forgiving of my casting ability than a 54’ of the same AFTM rating.

 

There's a scab I havent picked for a while...

 

Get picking
You have a way with words that is easy for all to understand. 😉

 

Had the 54ft out again today for a cast. Blowy cross wind so was just focusing on throwing it back and forward to get a sense of the timing. It requires a lot more control of the acceleration and stop both backwards and forwards, and a good pronounced movement to throw back a D loop as well. I was getting more consistent alright but it's still challenging me. Now I did email the manufacturer for their take and it was the 9/10 they recommended, but it did seem strange to me that a 54ft head is lighter than the 40ft shooting head in the same line class.

Out of curiosity, anyone using a 10/11 Gaelforce on a 9/10 rated Guideline Nt8 13'9? I'm tempted to pick one up to try get more sense of it, but then I do have the shooting heads for easier casting too. That said, trying the 10/11 could be a good excuse for a 15ft rod in the future too...

 

Ever since I began trying to find correct line matches to various 2 hand rods it's come obvious to me that it can be as much a challenge as figuring out how to catch the fish. In my own circumstances I have to own and use a rod long enough to have tried 'the wrong line' several times before I can develop a mental picture (if it can be called such) regarding what I may actually need. While things vary between line manufacturers most provide a diagram of the head profile. If the total grain weight of the head is accurate then I can apply my best guess when selecting one to try. Right now I have an untested RIO Long Head that states being an 8/9 - 66ft, 690gr and I intend to give it a whirl on my Gaelforce 13'9" 8/9 Destination.

Granted that this is a lot of head for a rod just under 14 but if it loads proper with the way I cast I'm hopping to be happy with it. All the lines that we dismiss after trial are I guess what fuels the classifieds providing a bargain to others. I do wish there was some perfect formula, a sort of one size fits all fly line. That would be nice but I believe the rub comes in that we all have different height and cast styles that play into what works or doesn't. I'm still a bit over 6'4" in height with long arms therefore I can get away using a longer head than any of my shorter fishing friends. I also notice that the depth we wade into the rivers has a dramatic relationship to line selection. I have lines that work on some rods as if I were a far better caster than I am provided I am only shin deep and have perfect anchor water available for timings sake. When I wade to my crotch everything changes making me think that I need either more or less weight in the line for proper load. I have learned to acquiesce and don't attempt the same distances of cast when I'm essentially 3 or more feet shorter.

Now that I'm finished typing I haven't the foggiest idea if what I've wrote actually addressed the original post but I enjoyed saying something anyway

 

I think it's a meandering sort of subject! It still seems difficult to pin down exactly why things are so variable.

On the line profile and composition point, I'd wager that in the case of the Gaelforce for example, there's a lot less back end weight to the head, relative to a line like that Rio. I suspect the additional 125gr is largely concentrated towards the rear, and probably makes it a much easier line to cast. I find with the Gaelforce, relying on the loop you might dangle backwards alone won't lift the line for me. I need to properly flick the loop back, have a limited anchor, and power it forwards to get any sort of lift and decent cast. Since you'd have potentially more water contact with the line and still have the mass related energy to lift it with that construction, I'd wonder what the effective weight you're casting with it, and whether it's substantially different.

 

I think it's a meandering sort of subject! It still seems difficult to pin down exactly why things are so variable.

OK, here's your starting point.

How does anyone, manufacturer, novice or expert caster decide what a 10wt rod is and then how much should it differ from a 9wt and an 11wt?

Once you establish a way of measuring this then create some kind of standardisation that all rod manufacturers agree to follow you might have half a chance. I havent seen it yet.

 

At least with the give AFTM type line ratings for single hand rods there's a bit of standardisation. Once you get outside that bracket it's all bets off though it seems like.

Is the answer you're getting at that each rod and caster combination is far more different than the capability which the rod rating would theoretically indicate?

 

At least with the give AFTM type line ratings for single hand rods there's a bit of standardisation. Once you get outside that bracket it's all bets off though it seems like.

Even the AFTM system on single handed rods is crap and the same problem exists in measuring the rods, one companies 7wt is anothers 8wt.

Is the answer you're getting at that each rod and caster combination is far more different than the capability which the rod rating would theoretically indicate?

No, not really.

There needs to be a starting point and the fact is there isnt. Until all rods of a given line rating have a similar loading window then confusion will reign.

For example, say Hardy make a 15' rod rated 10wt and its more of a 9wt and Bruce and Walker make a 10wt which is much more an 11wt but they are both being sold as 15' - 10wts how are you going to find a line that works well on both?

 

Is the answer purely trial and error? At least with the lines the head can actually be weighed, and someone can make a judgement about whether a line weight is appropriate for its rating.

That suggests to me that selecting a line for a rod based on weight in grains is preferable, but then you still have to figure out what the rod likes in the first place. Handy enough if you have a selection of lines or heads I suppose, but difficult to get right the first time out.

 

Is the answer purely trial and error? At least with the lines the head can actually be weighed, and someone can make a judgement about whether a line weight is appropriate for its rating.

That suggests to me that selecting a line for a rod based on weight in grains is preferable, but then you still have to figure out what the rod likes in the first place. Handy enough if you have a selection of lines or heads I suppose, but difficult to get right the first time out.

Dave,
if you're looking across the whole spectrum, from relatively short Scandi shooting heads to full length Spey lines, you need to bear in mind the shape and dimensions that each creates.
As an interesting and informative project I suggest taking a 38-40' Scandi head and weighing each 10' section from butt to tip. You will find that the last 10' section is very light compared to the first. The comparison of each section will give you a good idea of how the line is profiled.
Then repeat the exercise with a full Spey line, and compare and contrast the results.
And remember that in both cases it's the top half of the D-loop that accounts for most of the loading of the rod. In the initial stages of the forward cast the lower half is broadly static and therefore not part of the loading equation.
If you change brands between each pair the truth of what Springer is saying will rapidly dawn upon you!

 

I fished with a 1981 Hardy Salmon Fly 13'9" for many years and although it has line #9 on the butt it never came alive until I got hold of an 800 grain / 51.8 gram Javelin line with a 55 foot head. All of the 9 lines I ever tried failed.

 

I agree that for spey casting, the taper/weight distribution within a fly line is key for the reasons outlined by MCXFisher. What I would like to see from all manufacturers, is head length, grain weights and a TRUEFUL taper/weight distribution diagram along the lines of those produced for our forum by our well known member troutcontrol. These have been enlightening to me, as to why some of my lines cast better than other on a particular rod. Unfortunately some of the diagrams shown by the manufacturers on advertising/fly line boxes can only be described as pure fiction.

 

Definitely enough worms out for the time being!

So far I've tried this rod with a 40ft 617gr shooting head and it leathers it out. Very easy to load, feels a hair heavy but very nice. Then the 585gr 54ft head feels light at the moment but that could be technique too, and when I properly throw it back it does load. I did find a 10/11 in the same line in Ireland so if I try it and don't like it I don't think I'll lose any real money at this rate. If it's a question of weight distribution then a different line in a similar weight will probably be easier altogether, but worth a try!