HillTop

Extra Fast Sink for TH Rod

Rate this topic

60 posts in this topic

Mike- fishing both.  I'm not a huge fan of the crabs- boring fishing- but it is effective.  water up to about 15 feet- sand bottom- bright sunshine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it can get a bit repetitive twitching a crab over the bottom but when you get a take it is pretty cool.

 

In Maine we fished them over both sand and rough ground. 

 

15 feet is an interesting challenge.

 

mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Killiefish said:

I generally don't either, but the UST heads' taper is unusual for a "scandi" (more like a hybrid taper).  The front section is often higher density than the rear (for the float/Int/sink or Int/sinkX/ sinkY versions).  They cast more or less like a long-ish shooting head.  These are not delicate delivery heads to begin with - as Red mentioned they are unlike most scandi heads in this regard.  The sinking ones cast better than level T material of the same length.

I have three original UST and they have most rear biased weight distribution of any Scandi I have which count is approaching 100 ;)  Even UST Intermediate/S5 has 68% mass on rear half and Floating/S1 has 70%. Later SA began making Shorts and recently Sliding Density UST which I have not bought. Perhaps yours is those? If SA have change the UST worse they do not intrest me anymore. 

 

Esa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 9:48 PM, SSPey said:

Sinking lines are the way to go to fish deep.  The specs you posted are for 30’ heads.  If you buy 700-850 grains at 30’, and trim it down to a lower weight, you’ll end up with a short line that won’t carry distance.  

 

 I suggest buying 35’ of T-14 (find a place that sells by the foot).  35’ of T-14 = 500 grains. Seems underlined, but fast full sink lines load rods far deeper than intermediates and floaters.  You’ll be able to get by with fewer grains in the full sink.  As an example, I have a rod that I like with 425 grains intermediate overhead, and it throws 330 grains of T-11 great.  

 

SS,

 

Not sure I understand your logic.   If a rod casts well with with "xx" amount of grain weight for a given length of head why would it cast better with a sinking line at a significantly lower grain weight just because it's a full sink?     If anything a sink line is typically smaller in diameter, offers less resistance to air when casting and on a very micro level, should load the rod less not more.  Needed grains that a rod handles well are just grains and the type of line, floating, intermediate, or sinking should make no difference if I follow what's been preached on this site over the last few years.   Can you explain the physics of your statement ?

 

Thanks,

HT
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Oliver said:

Yes it can get a bit repetitive twitching a crab over the bottom but when you get a take it is pretty cool.

 

In Maine we fished them over both sand and rough ground. 

 

15 feet is an interesting challenge.

 

mike

 

Mike,   I suspect you know the stretch of water we fish that might be fun to bounce a crab along.   That water is pretty deep at the beginning of the trek but thins out in some places to maybe 5 or 6 feet deep.   Current can rip pretty well there and as evidenced by some of the sand pockets you see at low tide thinking possibly a good spot to pick up a few fish with crab flies.

 

HT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Killiefish said:

I generally don't either, but the UST heads' taper is unusual for a "scandi" (more like a hybrid taper).  The front section is often higher density than the rear (for the float/Int/sink or Int/sinkX/ sinkY versions).  They cast more or less like a long-ish shooting head.  These are not delicate delivery heads to begin with - as Red mentioned they are unlike most scandi heads in this regard.  The sinking ones cast better than level T material of the same length.

Yeah thought about buying some T material to play with but can't get the grains to length ratio I'm looking for and like the idea of the heavier UST lines that have some taper to them thinking they would cast better.  Being able to trim them a little to fine tune is appealing as well.    I think worth the investment to experiment with.    

 

HT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Okay, another question regarding fishing deep and needing fast sinking lines to bounce flies on or near the bottom.    When selecting a line setup does one take into consideration the weight of a fly when said flies intended to be fished are very large and/or heavily weighted ?     ie:   Should the grain weight of the fly be taken into consideration with the grain weight of the shooting head when talking about cast-ability and keeping grain weight near an optimum weight for your rod "sweet" spot ?   Or, in other words, go with a lighter line to compensate for throwing heavier than run of the mill flies like Deceivers, etc.
 

HT

 

Edited by HillTop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Esa,

 

My UST hover/intermediate heads in 10/11, 9/10, and 8/9wt all have 66% of their mass in the rear of the head. 

 

But the sink5 heads I have are different. The 10/11 UST in sink 5 has 22 grams in the rear half of the head and weighs 42 grams overall. 

 

So they're different. I've thrown very bulky musky flies on that sink 5 head 90' dead on into a headwind on my pac bay TH. Turns those flies over good when the line bangs on the reel. 

 

I have a 750 grain UST which has 28 grams in the rear half and 20 in the front half which is a more typical scandi layout but still a lot of punch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HT,

 

Just match your TH to the same mass line as your intermediates and floaters. That's how I do mine and I've never had an issue throwing clousers to very large musky flies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

5 hours ago, The Graveyard Shift said:

Mike I have used just level T with a shooting mono similar to Lazer.  As @titleguy said it takes getting used to the release.  You can get some good distance and because it is so thin and heavy nothing gets down faster than T-17.  There was a deep structure area last year I was really worried about losing fly lines so I cut my own Level T-17 heads because if I hung them up it was cheap to break them off in comparison to losing a fly line.  Its a good option for getting deep the bad thing is I found I don't like the sensitivity of the mono shooting line compared to a low stretch fly line core. I am sure I missed some hits, but I also lost two heads in that area which would have been two full fly lines if I was using those instead. Every approach has positive and negative attributes.

 

Dan,  

 

I'm experimenting with a custom running line right now.     I like the OPST Laser line for how well it shoots but have had some difficulty with it easily tangling and knotting up.    It's mono core and should be stretched before use but I'm usually lazy and don't stretch it like I should but it's got some body to it and it flys through the guides better than a conventional running line.    My custom experiment, done on only on a couple feet of material so far, is taking 20lb monofilament  folding it over and twisting it like is done to make twisted leaders (similar to furled leaders).   This method takes the set out of the mono and the mono tends to want to lay nice and flat/straight.    Also by twisting the mono it tends not to take much of a set after being spooled on your reel.  Really nice for leaders too.     I then take the twisted mono and using it as the core in for 200lb Spectra Braid, (by PowerPro), I'll stuff the braid with this twisted mono.    It fits nicely inside the Spectra Braid which has near zero stretch as it's selling point.  Then I just smooth out the Spectra, whip a couple of loops on either end and then I coat the entire braid with diluted Liquid Fusion penetrate and to seal the surface (fill the pores to minimize grit accumulation and keep it smooth).  I love the initial sample I did.  It has some nice rigidity to it yet it's flexible enough to be somewhere near the Laser line in structure but tends to want to lay straight due to the twisted mono.  The finished diameter is about 40 mils.  (0.040") Comparable to many commercial running lines. 

 

Planning on making up a full length runner this weekend of ~ 100 feet to see how it casts.     The other idea I played with for this setup is after I finish the line per the above, I then twisted about 15 feet back on itself in a like fashion to making the twisted mono,  in essence doubling the diameter and using this new 15 foot end as my "handling" line, (ie: connect this end to my shooting head),  since I strip my shooting head in to just outside my tip top this will give me a more manageable line for casting, ie: a better grip (due to the larger diameter), and tactile feel (braid is now twisted, having a textured feel ),  for handling the line prior to shooting my next cast. 

 

If I can get this done this weekend and it looks promising and if I can find the time to also get over to your meeting next Wednesday I'll bring it along.

 

HT

 

Edited by HillTop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

29 mins ago, HillTop said:

 

Dan,  

 

I'm experimenting with a custom running line right now.     I like the OPST Laser line for how well it shoots but have had some difficulty with it easily tangling and knotting up.    It's mono core and should be stretched before use but I'm usually lazy and don't stretch it like I should but it's got some body to it and it flys through the guides better than a conventional running line.    My custom experiment, done on only on a couple feet of material so far, is taking 20lb monofilament  folding it over and twisting it like is done to make twisted leaders (similar to furled leaders).   This method takes the set out of the mono and the mono tends to want to lay nice and flat/straight.    Also by twisting the mono doesn't take much of a set after being spooled on your reel.  Really nice for leaders.     Then I take the twisted mono and using it as the core in for 200lb Spectra Braid. (by PowerPro), I'll stuff the braid with this twisted mono.    It fits nicely inside the Spectra Braid which has near zero stretch.  Then just smooth out the Spectra, whip a couple of loops on either end and then I coat the entire braid with diluted Liquid Fusion to seal the surface (fill the pores to minimize grit and keep it smooth).  I love the initial sample I did.  It has some nice rigidity to it yet it's flexible enough to be somewhere near the Laser line in structure but tends to want to lay straight due to the twisted mono.  The finished diameter is about 40 mils.  (0.040") Comparable to many commercial running lines. 

 

Planning on making up a full length runner this weekend of ~ 100 feet.    The other thing I played with doing is after I finish the line per the above, I then twisted about 15 feet back on itself in a like fashion to making the twisted mono,  in essence doubling the diameter and using this new 15 foot end as my "handling" line, (ie: connect this end to my shooting head),  since I strip my shooting head in to just outside my tip top this will give me a more manageable line for casting, ie: a better grip (due to the larger diameter), and tactile feel (braid is now twisted, having a textured feel ),  for handling the line prior to shooting my next cast. 

 

If I can get this done this weekend and it looks promising and if I can find the time to also get over to your meeting next Wednesday I'll bring it along.

 

HT

 

HT we had to move the meeting to Tuesday next week.  There was a last minute conflict at the estuary center.  Its Tuesday 3/19/19 at 8pm.

 

Honestly that whole sequence is mind blowing to me I have never thought about making a running line like that. 

 

Looking forward to seeing final product.

Edited by The Graveyard Shift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, The Graveyard Shift said:

HT we had to move the meeting to Tuesday next week.  There was a last minute conflict at the estuary center.  Its Tuesday 3/19/19 at 8pm.

 

Honestly that whole sequence is mind blowing to me I have never thought about making a running line like that. 

 

Thanks for the heads-up on the meeting.......

Now you probably understand why I don't sleep at night...... :)

HT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HT I am very interested in this line you have spun up and anxious to hear how a full length performs. 

 

I have some hollow 80lb Dacron (ice fishing line) that I've been meaning to stuff with 20lb mono to give it just a bit of bone, so it's not completely limp. I still need to sit down and do it some rainy day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HillTop said:

 

SS,

 

Not sure I understand your logic.   If a rod casts well with with "xx" amount of grain weight for a given length of head why would it cast better with a sinking line at a significantly lower grain weight just because it's a full sink?     If anything a sink line is typically smaller in diameter, offers less resistance to air when casting and on a very micro level, should load the rod less not more.  Needed grains that a rod handles well are just grains and the type of line, floating, intermediate, or sinking should make no difference if I follow what's been preached on this site over the last few years.   Can you explain the physics of your statement ?

 

Thanks,

HT
 

 

 

I can't explain the physics definitively (and honestly there's so much speculative b.s. in fly casting explanations given online) ...  but I know from my time casting sinking lines - which is a lot - that I get more rod load, more easily, using sinking lines than I do with comparable floating lines ... comparable meaning same linear density (grains / foot and the same overall length). 

 

on the speculative b.s. front, if I had to speculate why, it'd be the energy that goes into overcoming air resistance vs rod load - same point you raised - but a different vantage point.  My vantage point is the caster, which is what I understand the best. 

 

Consider 2 casts with equal input from the caster, exact same casting stroke, same power applied by the caster.  One cast uses a fat floater, and the other a skinny sinking line.  The fat floater has more air resistance, more of the caster's energy goes into overcoming that air resistance, which leaves less energy for rod load.   Flip it around for sinkers - less of the casting energy is wasted overcoming air resistance, and more goes into rod load.  I'm not sure where else the energy would go, besides bending the rod and moving the line.  

 

An alternative and perhaps simpler way to think of this is when making false casts.  Skinny sinking lines develop more line speed for the same amount of caster effort (again, less energy is lost to air resistance), which imparts more load to the rod when "false" casting (even if just one backcast).     

 

 I want to stress that I've noticed getting more load (for the same effort applied) especially when using today's really skinny sinking lines, the T-type stuff, in heavier weights and in comparison to full floaters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that on delivery cast the thinner sinking line cause less rod bend because its wind resistance is lower.

 

When lift out of water sinking line cause more rod bend because its water drag is higher although it is thinner but when it sinks its surface ”sees” more water molecyles. 

 

Esa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.