Reply With QuoteScandi is probably the more difficult. I read a great quote in regards to skagit type set-ups : "Don't know how to spey cast, but you wanna catch a steelie? Here, try this"- Dec Hogan. Pretty much says it all.
Which is more difficult
I was wondering what peoples opinions were as to which style of spey casting is more difficult to learn; skagit (sustained anchor) or scandi (underhand)?
I am tending to say that skagit is a little easier to learn as I find timing is a bit more flexible. By this I mean that the heavy skagit line can bail out poor timing to an extent and let a decent cast go. I have not found this to be the case with scandi casting.
Scandi is probably the more difficult. I read a great quote in regards to skagit type set-ups : "Don't know how to spey cast, but you wanna catch a steelie? Here, try this"- Dec Hogan. Pretty much says it all.
I'd tend to agree with that. Skagit casting (the basics) is dead easy as long as you go slow and don't try anything silly. Skandi casting can be a real pain in the butt - so much more can go wrong since the usual casting rhythm is faster. And when things go wrong, they can be potentially dangerous! Wind is my main foe, as is the single spey river left when the anchor point is a bit too far left, and the hook comes up somewhere around my face or my crotch... I've hooked my leg a few times, my chest, and my hat, but nothing vital yet...
One thing you can do is take the middle road. Get a "skandi" line like the elixer or AFS, but go a bit heavier than usual... take a ~13' for 8wt, lots of rods will with a skandi line like a load somewhere between 350 and 450 grains - go to the heavier end, somewhere around 450-480 grains, and you will be able to do the usual skandi touch and go casts, but since the head has enough mass, you can also do some skagit style water loaded casts as long as you aren't asking the head to toss a really massive fly, or a super heavy tip.
So far, with my set up, I have a 12'6" for 7/8 that seems to have a relatively wide grain window. I began learning to cast with a 62' short belly spey line (2D snowbee) but I cut it back to be 50' long to accommodate poly tips up to ~150 grains. In all I think I'm tossing between 500 and 600 grains depending on the tip I have on. If I choke up on the line and only use ~40ft of the head, I can perform water loaded casts like the double spey, but I prefer the single with nearly the whole head out. If I run into a problem, I bail into the perry poke and restart from there. The line seems to act like a light-ish, longe-ish belly skagit in some applications, but I can still manage many of the usual traditional spey casts one would expect with a short belly spey line, as well as the touch and go casts.
My second line is a 360 grain snowbee skandi line that is supposed to be the exact match for the rod. I guess that once I have a decade of casting experience I might agree, but at the moment, I find the line very tricky. Flies larger than #4 are challenging to cast, even if unweighted. I have a really hard time with any sort of poly tip heavier than ~80 grains. That being said, I don't think that this line was designed to handle either weighted flies or tips. Being so light, it does well with slim #8 and #6 spey flies or small, aerodynamic dries as long as my timing is on and my tempo is neither too fast nor too slow. It is the most challenging line I have, but I think that once I get it mastered, it will be very rewarding for summer work in tight quarters with the added bonus of being a very capable line for overhead or under hand casting off the beach or wherever I have lots of room for the back cast.
My next line will likely split the difference - the Elixer 450gr 35' head should be able to do some water loaded casts, handle all but the heaviest tips and most of my large weighted tube flies, but also be able to delicately deliver a 14' clear poly tip and an unweighted spey fly for summer work with touch and go casts.
If I were to do this whole line/rod matching thing over again, I'd not hesitate in getting a line that splits the difference between skagit and skandi and go with a heavier than recommended skandi line designed to take poly tips so that I can do both styles. Beginners will enjoy being able to fall back to water loaded casts if one gets frustrated with the timing of touch and go casting. Those more expert may enjoy being able to handle nearly all sizes of fly and nearly all sorts of sink tips with a variety of casting styles to suit conditions - windy, tight or wide open.
Links to both the Elixer and AFS lines below, as well as a few other options one might consider. It seems that Beulah recently changed their lineup to give a wider range to options. Rio has plenty of products, as do other manufacturers like Airflo. Royal Wulff triangle taper lines also look intriguing. If you want to get adventurous, you could always start chopping linesee the shooting heads DIY link.
http://globalflyfisher.com/fishbetter/shootingheads/
http://www.beulahflyrods.com/product...nes/elixir.php
http://www.flyfishusa.com/lines/rio-afs.htm
http://www.flyfishusa.com/lines/rio/...ead-scandi.htm
http://www.flyfishusa.com/lines/wulff-tt.html
http://www.snowbee.co.uk/fly-fishing/fly-lines/
Last edited by btree; May 29th, 2011 at 11:03 AM.
"Our tradition is that of the first man who sneaked away to the creek when the tribe did not really need fish." ~ Roderick Haig-Brown
When talking about grain windows it is important to consider the length of line that is being discussed. One rod can have grain windows that go from 450-700 grains. When one hears this there will be some obvious confusion, that's a huge window! Where does this come from? Picture a D-loop. When you push forward into a forward stroke only roughly more than half of the line will actually load the rod. So when if you have a 700 grain long belly line of 70' only 35 feet or so will load the rod, compare this to a 450 grain 35' scandi head where only 17-18' of line loads the rod. Now you might say, well then if you half the line weights you would get a 350 and 225 grains there is still a big difference. This is where tapers come into play. Scandi lines have most of their mass in the last half of the line, this is also true with long belly lines but not to the same extent. With this information in mind the weight actually loading the rod are roughly 375 for long belly and close to 350 grains for the scandi head. Now that is pretty close. Hope this clears things up a little when talking grain windows. If you see a hole in this poke away! I love talking spey, and if I am wrong I would rather know than not.
Hey, thanks for the explanation there TieFlier - it makes sense to me. That explains why with my single handed rods, overhead I prefer a matched line, but with roll casts I prefer a line that is +2wts higher (ie. an 8wt line with a 6wt rod). Probably also explains why I've been having a tough time doing touch and go casts with that 360 grain skandi head line and why I'd prefer to go with something ~100 grains heavier for spey casting and underhanded casting.
I'd be interested in hearing from some of the casting instructors on the forum here.
"Our tradition is that of the first man who sneaked away to the creek when the tribe did not really need fish." ~ Roderick Haig-Brown
Skagit lines are probably the easiest lines to cast if your goal is just to accomplish fishable casts . Casting skagit lines well is a whole different story .
I prefer , and believe that scandi casting is easier , and has a shorter learning curve to it .
Snowbee rates their scandi lines for overhead casting - not for spey casts . I have a 6/7 Torridge and ordered the 6/7 scandi lines and they are way too light for making spey casts .Originally Posted by btree
bthomas,
Thanks for the info - I figured as much, but I do spend a bit of time off the beach and an now in the land of plentiful fall coho, so I'm looking forward to being able to use it there. As well, I might be looking at using that skandi line with a switch rod later.
"Our tradition is that of the first man who sneaked away to the creek when the tribe did not really need fish." ~ Roderick Haig-Brown
Between the two styles I think I much prefer skagit. I say this because most of the fishing I do is in very tight quarters and five feet of back cast room seems generous to me, compared to my usual haunts. With the skagit short line I have I can manage to cast far and somewhat accurately under these conditions. I tried to do the same with a scandi line last night and had a bit of a rough go with it. I could still get my line in the water but not exactly where I wanted it and I kept getting my back cast caught it the small shrubs behind me. In a more open river I can see scandi being a very nice style to spend a day fishing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks