REALTIME FLOWS    U. Kern: n/a cfs    L. Kern: 1341 cfs    E.W: 312 cfs    U. Owens: 108 cfs    L. Owens: 496 cfs   09/02/19 1:15 PM PST

The Debate Over WF and DT

For topics that don't seem to have a home elsewhere.

The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby Waterborne » August 2nd, 2011, 8:59 pm

http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/wfvsdt.shtml

DT vs. WF - Which is really better?
by Bruce Richards

Few fly line subjects have been discussed more than which is the better taper, double taper (DT) or weight forward (WF). The answer is, neither is inherently better, but one may be better than the other for you.

A lot of generalizations are made about these two tapers based on outdated or incorrect information. We've all heard that DT lines are more delicate, give better control, roll cast better, etc. In some cases some of these things are true, but not always.

Delicacy of delivery is determined by the mass of the front part of a fly line. This is determined by line diameter (which relates directly to mass), and taper length. A line with a small diameter tip and a long taper has much less mass up front than a line with a large tip and short taper. Don't be mislead by taper length alone, a line with a long front taper but a large tip diameter will not deliver delicately. A DT and a WF line with the same taper and tip diameter will deliver the same.

For many years most DT and WF lines were made with the same tip diameter and front taper length so there was no difference in how they delivered, although many claimed there was. Today, some of the DT lines are actually designed to be used specifically for spring creek type fishing and do have longer tapers and/or smaller tips.

Anytime a line (or any product for that matter) is designed to do one thing very well it usually has a shortcoming somewhere else. Lines that are designed to be very delicate have little mass in the front to carry larger or heavier flies, and don't handle windy conditions well. It takes a better caster to throw the kind of loops it takes to make these lines perform their best. And no, DT lines aren't more “accurate” at normal fishing distances, that is entirely in the realm of the skill of the caster. Good consistent loops and practice are where accuracy come from.

It is very true that DT lines are easier to control and roll cast at longer distances than WF lines. At shorter distances there is no difference. The key to line control and roll casting is that large diameter line belly must be in the rod tip. If small diameter running line is in the tip it is nearly impossible to transmit enough energy through it to the belly to make the line do what you want. What many people don't consider is that WF lines control and roll cast as well as DT lines at the distances most people fish.

Most WF lines have heads that are 35-40 ft. long. Add a 9 ft. leader and the distance to the fly from the end of the head is 44-49 ft. To that, add the length of the rod since roll cast normally end with the rod parallel to the water and pointed at the target. That is the distance at which DT and WF lines control and roll cast the same. There aren't many typically trout fishing situations that require roll casts longer than that, and not many casters who can roll cast that far. What this all means is that DT and WF lines work pretty much the same at the distances we fish most of the time.

Certainly if someone fishes a big river that requires a lot of long distance roll casting and mending he or she should consider a DT line or a WF with a long head. Rods longer than 9 ft. are almost a necessity also, roll cast distance and mending performance is directly dependent on rod length.

Everybody knows that WF lines are better for distance than DT lines, but is that really true? Well, yes, but the difference isn't as big as you might think. Certainly WF lines shoot better because of their small, light running lines. But remember, this benefit starts at 44-49 ft. when the running line is in the rod. If you will be making a lot of long casts it is certainly a little easier to do with a WF line, but don't think that DT lines won't shoot, they will, just not as far. With the advent of new slick coatings like AST DTs shoot better than ever.

For most people it probably doesn't make a lot of difference which taper they use. Most of us fish at distances less then 44-49 ft. which is where WF's start to shoot better, but lose line control. Most of us don't have the need, or the ability, to roll cast longer than 45 ft..

So, how do you decide which is right for you? If you do mostly small fly fishing at short to medium range there is no reason not to get a DT line. There is always the budget issue, DT lines are essentially 2 in 1 so are less expensive over time. If you are consistently throwing long casts you will be able to make them with fewer false casts with a WF line, but lose the ability to do long roll casts and mends, if you ever need them, and are able. For most of us it doesn't make much difference which taper we use most of the time, make your decision based on how much short distance fishing, or long range fishing you do.

Bruce Richards bwrichards@mmm.com is one of the world's leading authorities on flycasting, flylines and imaginary saltwater tactics. He is an inventor of flycasting machines, a flyslinger of some repute and of course, an active Board member. What Bruce doesn't know about flylines, probably isn't worth knowing. In fact some of what Bruce *does* know about flylines you probably wouldn't want to know either.
He also gives swimming lessons.



Another newb question to stir the pot... If the above is pretty accurate, WF is not needed for close quarters, small stream fishing?

Your thoughts?
User avatar
Waterborne
 
Posts: 251
Joined: July 12th, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Ghetto Mesa, CA

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby midger » August 2nd, 2011, 9:24 pm

Richards pretty much hit it on the head as far as describing the differences between a DT and a WF line. For most of the fishing we do on small streams in Socal a DT line will perform well and, as stated, you get a 2 for one--ie both ends of the line have the same 30 foot taper so you can flip them over when you wear out one end, damage one end, or on smaller rod/reels, cut the line in half and only load one half of the DT line at a time, allowing for more backing and saving wear and tear on the second half of the line.

I use mainly weight forward lines on rods sized 6 and up because I expect to be throwing longer casts and I'm not as concerned with roll casting. I use DT on the rods weighted 5 and down.

To each their own though. There are so many specialty lines with varying tapers and specific abilities for different types of fishing that if you do your homework and know what type of fishing you'll be doing, you're sure to find just the right line.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the differences though. A fairly proficient flyfisher can make any of the lines work fine on their rod.
"Should you cast your fly into a branch overhead or into a bush behind you, or miss a fish striking, or lose him,or slip into a hole up to your armpits-keep your temper; above all things don't swear, for he that swears will catch no fish."
User avatar
midger
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:47 am
Location: Idaho

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby NorcalBob » August 2nd, 2011, 9:41 pm

You can use either a WF or DT line for close in fishing. Your choice, don't agonize over it. On most lines (but not all), the tapers are pretty much the same over the first 30-35 feet. I gave up on DT lines a long time ago, because (unless you cut them in half), a DT line takes almost twice as much space on a reel spool and you have to go with a larger sized reel. IMNSHO, kind of dumb to use a 6WT sized reel for a 3/4 WT line. The major advantage with a DT is you can "swap ends" and basically get two lines usage for the cost of one. The major advantage with a WF line, is you can knock off a 60' cast if you need to. Most of you SoCal guys don't ever need that kind of distance (unless you fish stillwater). A lot of us NorCal guys have to throw 60' casts to rising fish on the Lower Sac/Hat/Fall/etc. It's very difficult to get over 50' with a DT line.
NorcalBob
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 pm

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby fly addict » August 2nd, 2011, 9:52 pm

Last week at the LBCC I was casting with a Certified Master Casting Instructor. We were talking about the merits of a WF versus DT. I had a DT line on my rod; the master was easily able to keep over 80’ of line airborne with the setup. With a regular WF line that had a normal head of 50’ that would be very hard to do without 'shooting the line'!
Mark
Here is another article that talks about the pros and cons of DT versus WF by John Juracek.

WHITHER THE DOUBLE-TAPER?
May 18, 2011 — 1:54 pm | Posted by John Juracek in Essays & Opinion
While scanning the internet the other day (it is runoff season) I happened across an article titled “Why Fish Double-Taper Fly Lines?” A website reader had wondered what these lines were for, noting that he didn’t know anyone that fished one. The article’s author then opined that he himself had never fished a double-taper, either. Seeking an answer, the question was passed along to some other folks.
To my mind, however, Why fish a double-taper? isn’t the telling question. Rather, what we should all be asking is, Why fish a weight-forward? Indeed, considering the relative merits of each taper, it’s long struck me as odd that the weight-forward has so effectively supplanted the double-taper as the de facto line choice for most anglers today (I refer only to floating lines).
After all, double-tapers were the standard in this sport for ages. Weight-forwards are comparative newcomers, specialty lines that arose in the quest for distance. But somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty to thirty years ago this paradigm changed, and weight-forwards took over the world. They shouldn’t have.
From a practical point of view, the only advantage a weight-forward line has over a double-taper is the ability to cast long distances—say, over 85 feet. But even this advantage carries a caveat. To wit, you must use a line-size heavy enough so that a double-haul cast can exploit the difference in weight between the line’s head and running line (the heavier head essentially drags along the lightweight running line, adding distance to the cast). To me, this means using 6-weight lines or heavier. Anything lighter and there simply isn’t enough weight difference between the head and running line to gain substantial extra distance, double haul or not. (Weight-forward fives are borderline in this regard; two, three, and four-weights...hmm...why are they even made?)
While a weight-forward line may have a theoretical distance advantage over a double-taper, the fact that the extra distance is attained by shooting the running line can be somewhat limiting. Actually, in certain kinds of fishing it can be a real problem. For instance, when gulper fishing (surface fishing to cruising trout in lakes) long casts are often integral to success. Such casts increase the number of chances possible at a given fish, either before the fish swims out of range or before it spooks by coming too close. But to attain distance I don’t want to have shoot line. Inaccuracy results from that. And if I do make a bad cast or a fish passes up my fly, I don’t want to have to strip in a bunch of line (to get to the head) before I can make another cast. Too much time wasted. No, I want be able to pick up my line at any moment, make one backcast, and lay it right back down. Especially at distance. A double-taper allows me to do that.
Another limiting issue for weight-forwards is that they do not mend well when fished at distances longer than their head lengths (the thin running line cannot effectively maneuver the heavier head). Although typically this is of more consequence to steelhead and salmon fishermen, it still comes into play in many types of trout fishing. Double-tapers, in contrast, mend exceptionally well.
A double-taper line also permits you to reverse your line when one end wears out. In effect, you get two lines in one. In this day and age, with some fly lines costing upwards of $100.00, I think that’s a nice benefit. It’s especially nice when you realize that you don’t give up any performance to get it.
It’s been noted as a disadvantage of double-tapers that they take up more room on a reel. Which means that for a given reel you’ll have less backing than if you used a weight-forward line. This is true. But having less backing isn’t the same as having no backing, and any adequately sized reel will provide room for enough. (I think most of us know how infrequently backing is needed for trout fishing.)
There are other considerations between the two tapers that could stand further discussion, but here’s the bottom line. I can imagine just one kind of fishing situation—fresh or saltwater—where I would opt to use a weight-forward line instead of a double-taper (and it would be a long belly weight-forward, which doesn’t really count since the benefits of such a line are more akin to those of a double-taper than a true weight-forward).
The situation entails the following: Long casts—at least 85 feet. The need for a heavy line—7-weight at a minimum. Single casts at sighted fish or multiple casts if fishing blind—the point being that in either case the amount of time between casts isn’t important (so there’s no penalty for the extra time it takes to strip in the line before making another cast). Finally, it’s a situation where no line manipulation is necessary after completing the cast.
Is there real world fishing like this? Sure. Think, perhaps, of chasing tarpon. Or certain permit fishing. Maybe trout fishing with streamers in a big river or reservoir. There are other kinds too, and if you engage in any of them by all means stick with a weight-forward line. But if you find yourself in more conventional waters—especially in pursuit of trout—you might consider the double-taper. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to forget that there are good reasons these lines were made in the first place—reasons I dare say hold up to this day.
Make Fly Fishing Great Again!
User avatar
fly addict
 
Posts: 2560
Joined: August 3rd, 2008, 1:57 pm
Location: In your honey hole!

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby NorcalBob » August 3rd, 2011, 7:24 am

I can count the number of people who can throw a DT line 80' on my fingers! :gun:
On a good day I might be able to hit 60'. :grouphug:
Joe Average Angler will be lucky to hit 40'!!! :booty:
And please, do tell me, why would you ever want to hold 80' of flyline in the air? :comfort:
NorcalBob
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 pm

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby briansII » August 3rd, 2011, 8:18 am

Well, there you have it. Two well known, accomplish fly fisher people give you the definitive answers on WF vs DT. A longtime fly line designer, accomplished caster, all around fly fisher meets Yellowstone guide, casting instructor, artist, and all around good guy. Both explain conclusively which line is best, and why.

.............so which one was best again?? :? I think the most important thing we learn, is you can get a twofer with a DT line. :lol: I would like to see a show of hands on who consistently turn their DT lines around to use the other side. :?

Like many things fly fishing, it's a personal choice. Folks can get pretty adamant about their preferences. I lean more toward Mr. Richards statements, than Mr. Juracek's, but would not argue any points he makes. Personally, I fish more WF than DT. I have about 50/50 WF, and DT lines on 2wt and lighter lines. I have 0 DT lines on 3wt and up. To qualify what I prefer. Some of my trout fishing requires casts as long as I can make. I'm also throwing a good amount of streamers.

If we are talking non trout. Shooting heads vs full fly lines? ;)

briansII
User avatar
briansII
 
Posts: 4902
Joined: September 3rd, 2008, 12:39 pm
Location: Central Ca.

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby briansII » August 3rd, 2011, 8:36 am

NorcalBob wrote:And please, do tell me, why would you ever want to hold 80' of flyline in the air? :comfort:


Because you can? Because it looks cool? ;) ;)

Watching competitive casters carry a lot of line(long belly WF) is a pretty cool thing to see. Humbling, when you try an emulate it. :oops: I have a 9' 2wt, and watched someone cast the full 90' WF line on it. :o It took him a while to get everything right to do it. It would take me a lifetime....and then some.

Mere mortals are going to have a harder time making long casts with a DT. Forget about NEEDING to make. If you do not CARE to make long casts, doesn't really matter what line you choose......IMHO of course.

briansII
User avatar
briansII
 
Posts: 4902
Joined: September 3rd, 2008, 12:39 pm
Location: Central Ca.

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby fly addict » August 3rd, 2011, 9:26 am

NorcalBob wrote:I can count the number of people who can throw a DT line 80' on my fingers! :gun:
On a good day I might be able to hit 60'. :grouphug:
Joe Average Angler will be lucky to hit 40'!!! :booty:
And please, do tell me, why would you ever want to hold 80' of flyline in the air? :comfort:


Like Brian said, because you can! I guess that is the difference between masters and the rest of us mere mortals. Some people think of them as the Jedi of the casting world. And this week there will be dozens of them competing at the ACA National Casting tournament, hosted by the Long Beach Casting Club.

Mark
Make Fly Fishing Great Again!
User avatar
fly addict
 
Posts: 2560
Joined: August 3rd, 2008, 1:57 pm
Location: In your honey hole!

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby Sasha » August 3rd, 2011, 10:04 am

Meh, DT, WF who cares. The real question I would like to see answered is what color of backing casts the furthest. Maybe Yellowstone can do a backing shootout and put that debate to rest.
User avatar
Sasha
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 10:42 pm
Location: The 208

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby 1mocast » August 3rd, 2011, 1:27 pm

fly addict wrote:
NorcalBob wrote:I can count the number of people who can throw a DT line 80' on my fingers! :gun:
On a good day I might be able to hit 60'. :grouphug:
Joe Average Angler will be lucky to hit 40'!!! :booty:
And please, do tell me, why would you ever want to hold 80' of flyline in the air? :comfort:


Like Brian said, because you can! I guess that is the difference between masters and the rest of us mere mortals. Some people think of them as the Jedi of the casting world. And this week there will be dozens of them competing at the ACA National Casting tournament, hosted by the Long Beach Casting Club.

Mark
You might look great throwing 80' of line....BUT the fish don't care if it is DT, WF, clear floating, shooting head, sink tip, full sink, YADA, YADA, YADA...

There are no rules; Use whatever works for you.
Dead emoji's due to Photobucket. :(
User avatar
1mocast
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 10:26 pm
Location: Cuidad de Los Angeles

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby highflyer » August 3rd, 2011, 2:51 pm

Angie uses only shooting head line!

:)

Alan
highflyer
 
Posts: 117
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 8:16 pm

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby NorcalBob » August 3rd, 2011, 3:15 pm

My buddy is an FFF CMCI (Certified Master Casting Instructor). That's the top rung! He also a former tournament caster who's won so many events it's obscene. He is one of the best and prettiest casters I've ever had the pleasure of fishing with. Sometimes I actually stop fishing just to watch him and marvel about his casting ability. He can outcast me any day of the week. He has more casting talent in his little pinkie than I have in my entire body. And every time we go fishing, I outfish him 3:1!!! And that's a true story!
NorcalBob
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 pm

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby briansII » August 3rd, 2011, 3:55 pm

NorcalBob wrote:My buddy is an FFF CMCI (Certified Master Casting Instructor). That's the top rung! He also a former tournament caster who's won so many events it's obscene. He is one of the best and prettiest casters I've ever had the pleasure of fishing with. Sometimes I actually stop fishing just to watch him and marvel about his casting ability. He can outcast me any day of the week. He has more casting talent in his little pinkie than I have in my entire body. And every time we go fishing, I outfish him 3:1!!! And that's a true story!


....and I bet you don't let him forget it. :lol: :lol: Guess the lawn doesn't take the place of water. ;)

Hey Bob. It's been warm, windy and rough, but I've been finding some fish "out there". I'll be back at it this weekend.

briansII
User avatar
briansII
 
Posts: 4902
Joined: September 3rd, 2008, 12:39 pm
Location: Central Ca.

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby hip » August 3rd, 2011, 7:09 pm

briansII wrote:
NorcalBob wrote:My buddy is an FFF CMCI (Certified Master Casting Instructor). That's the top rung! He also a former tournament caster who's won so many events it's obscene. He is one of the best and prettiest casters I've ever had the pleasure of fishing with. Sometimes I actually stop fishing just to watch him and marvel about his casting ability. He can outcast me any day of the week. He has more casting talent in his little pinkie than I have in my entire body. And every time we go fishing, I outfish him 3:1!!! And that's a true story!


....and I bet you don't let him forget it. :lol: :lol: Guess the lawn doesn't take the place of water. ;)

Hey Bob. It's been warm, windy and rough, but I've been finding some fish "out there". I'll be back at it this weekend.

briansII



Yeah are best defense to our egos for not being able to cast as well as these guys is to point out that casting and fishing are two different disciplines. :lol:
But deep down inside we all wish we could be as good as them even when we are a better fisherman then them.

Then there are the guys who can cast and fish and nothing tops that.... :bananadance:

For me I only have pure admiration for these folks :rockon: jon
Somebody just back of you while you are fishing is as bad as someone looking over your shoulder while you write a letter to your girl.
Ernest Hemingway

Image
User avatar
hip
 
Posts: 445
Joined: August 26th, 2009, 1:12 pm

Re: The Debate Over WF and DT

Postby unskunkable » August 3rd, 2011, 8:06 pm

Sasha wrote:Meh, DT, WF who cares. The real question I would like to see answered is what color of backing casts the furthest. Maybe Yellowstone can do a backing shootout and put that debate to rest.



This old,tired debate again? Chartruese is best for distance, Orange is best for accuracy, Blue(unavailable since Gargamel gained control of the last known source) is best for everything. White is only good for people who waste their time with the outdated DT line since it does nothing well..... :funnyup:
unskunkable
 
Posts: 289
Joined: November 16th, 2008, 6:19 pm
Location: Sun Valley, CA

Next

Return to General Fly Fishing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron