What Do You Think Of the New Spey Line Standards? [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: What Do You Think Of the New Spey Line Standards?


Smolt
09-22-2004, 02:35 PM
Take a look at the article appearing at:

http://www.flyfisherman.com/spey/speystandards/

What do you think?

Greg Pavlov
09-22-2004, 08:30 PM
I had hoped that the spey world would consider changing the basic line class
designations, either by adding a letter (such as "6S") or doubling the numbers
(suchas "66"). It is not clear at times now what a rod or a line is intended to
be. And as two-handed overhead casting takes root, this will become more difficult to discern.

Skilly
09-22-2004, 10:03 PM
Its a great step in the right direction.

No more blind bowling??? I hope.

Skilly

loophitech
09-28-2004, 10:52 AM
Thank you Scientific Anglers for stepping up to the plate and all other parties involved. I like the "blind bowling" analogy.

Vinnie

juro
09-28-2004, 11:38 AM
Typo?

The listing mentioned long belly line head length to be 60-70 and a grain measurement to be 85'.

This is clearly a typo, but can I assume long belly means 75-85ft head? (split the difference theme of other ratings)

If so, where does this put the Grandspey and XLT?

Am I the only one to see this or did I miss something here? :confused:

JDJones
09-28-2004, 12:09 PM
Typo?

The listing mentioned long belly line head length to be 60-70 and a grain measurement to be 85'.

This is clearly a typo, but can I assume long belly means 75-85ft head? (split the difference theme of other ratings)

If so, where does this put the Grandspey and XLT?

Am I the only one to see this or did I miss something here? :confused:
You are not alone in noticing the typo.

And as to where the XLT & Grand Spey fit in, the important thing I think, is consistancy.
I applaud everyone who had even a minute part in bringing this about.
It may not be the perfect answer, but at least they are trying. And it is a big step in the right direction.

juro
09-28-2004, 12:19 PM
In case it did not come thru in my post, "ecstatic" would be a proper word to describe how I feel about this standardization. Consistency is absolutely important, couldn't agree more.

I will drop Bruce Richards an email directly. Any excuse I can come up with to correspond with him is a good excuse, his insights into casting have been among the most influential to me in my study of flingin' a line. His analysis of casting and the way he describes it was like a revelation and has been a major influence to me. I highly recommend reading anything and everything he writes on the topic of casting.

However my point was to ask if anyone could clarify the definition of the extended belly lines, not to detract on it. Of course since the internet does not yet allow mind-reading, I should have said so specifically :)

So JD, you noticed the typo earlier. Until we master this mind-reading thing can you share what you found out about the long belly situation? (the point of my question)

sean
09-28-2004, 12:45 PM
The way I understand it:

Long bellies are measured as any line over 70' with the grain measurement taken at 80' if they are over 80'.

JDJones
09-28-2004, 12:49 PM
Hey Juro,
What makes you think I am any better at mind reading than you? :Eyecrazy:
I just know several of us have noticed the typo. I think Sean has a handle on it.

juro
09-28-2004, 01:17 PM
Thanks Sean, JD -

Unfortunately this is not conducive to "consistency" for lines with varying lengths over 80' like the ones I pointed out.

Therefore there is room for some further clarification in this area of the proposed standard in my opinion.

However the rest of the definition is nothing short of a Godsend.

.02