# Loomis NRX+ Line Pairing



## G_straus822 (Feb 18, 2016)

My buddy just picked up the same 8wt and actually paired it with a 7wt airflo line and it casts great.


----------



## Toad (Dec 13, 2020)

Don’t know how much the airflo weighs, but it is very interesting how different casting strokes can affect the action of a rod like that. I try to keep mine as slow and smooth as possible.


----------



## numbskull (Jan 30, 2019)

Casting strokes do not affect the action of a rod, they only affect the result someone can achieve with the rod.
Your experience with the NRX+ likely means you need to work on your backcast......and perhaps your haul timing. Using a heavier line (or different rod) is just a crutch. Been there done that.

No need to take my word on it.........here is the opinion of one of the world's foremost flycasters, Paul Arden, from the SL forum 

"The manufacturers are driven by sales and lines that are heavier fit the stiff action rods that their customers can’t cast using their fixed casting stroke with correctly weighted lines. It’s simple really, they bought the wrong rod and are in serious need of some casting practise/tuition. The band aid fix is to sell them a heavier line."


----------



## Wata (Jun 24, 2020)

I love the NRX+ but agree it is a 1/2 size heavy. I think the S.A. Amplitude Infinity Salt line is perfect for it. The first 30' weigh about the same as the Grand Slam (225 vs 235) but the Infinity has a ten foot longer head so the Infinity loads better on longer casts.









Amplitude Infinity Salt Fly Line | Scientific Anglers


HALF-SIZE HEAVY LINE The first series of lines to feature the revolutionary AST PLUS slickness additive, the Amplitude series will shoot farther and last longer than any other line on the market. It’s slickness down to a science. Amplitude Textured Infinity Salt is technical, versatile...




www.scientificanglers.com


----------



## Toad (Dec 13, 2020)

Wata said:


> I love the NRX+ but agree it is a 1/2 size heavy. I think the S.A. Amplitude Infinity Salt line is perfect for it. The first 30' weigh about the same as the Grand Slam (225 vs 235) but the Infinity has a ten foot longer head so the Infinity loads better on longer casts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great suggestion. Bet the total head weight of the Infinity 8wt weighs about the same as the total head weight of the Grand Slam 9wt. I am going to give it a try. Thank you.

To numbskull’s comment, I figured someone would chime in to claim user error. I don’t think that’s the issue, but thank you for the input. Each person’s body moves differently and therefore each person’s casting stroke is different. It follows that certain rod/line combinations will perform better for some casters than others.

The same is true in golf. Two guys can have the same club head speed and hit it the same distance, but one may need a much stiffer shaft than the other. The reason is that a quick tempo swing with an abrupt transition will cause the shaft to flex more than a more rhythmic swing with a smooth transition.

For me, I know I’ve found a good rod/line combo when I can cast a 100-foot line into the backing without much physical effort or any violent movement. I don’t care how heavy the line is, that can’t be done without good fundamentals.


----------



## birdyshooter (Sep 17, 2019)

Since, we're talking golf and fishing. I'll chime in. The fishing industry is lock step with the golf industry right now. There are no standards anymore. A modern 5i is yesterday's 3i. They've jacked the lofts to get the average hack 10 more yards to make them feel there is some new and improved technology at play and with that willing to fork over their hard earned money. Same applies in fly rods. Today's 8wt is yesterday's 10wt. Add to it line manufacturers are producing lines heavier than standard specs and it's a dog chasing its tail. For sake of brevity..... line it with whatever you feel it needs. There really is no right or wrong. You do you, I'll do me and we will all be happy.


----------



## Toad (Dec 13, 2020)

birdyshooter said:


> Since, we're talking golf and fishing. I'll chime in. The fishing industry is lock step with the golf industry right now. There are no standards anymore. A modern 5i is yesterday's 3i. They've jacked the lofts to get the average hack 10 more yards to make them feel there is some new and improved technology at play and with that willing to fork over their hard earned money. Same applies in fly rods. Today's 8wt is yesterday's 10wt. Add to it line manufacturers are producing lines heavier than standard specs and it's a dog chasing its tail. For sake of brevity..... line it with whatever you feel it needs. There really is no right or wrong. You do you, I'll do me and we will all be happy.


100%


----------



## birdyshooter (Sep 17, 2019)

Long story short, my next rods will be Scott Tidals in 6wt and 8wt. I feel they are the best options for slinging standard weight lines.


----------



## numbskull (Jan 30, 2019)

Toad said:


> Each person’s body moves differently and therefore each person’s casting stroke is different. It follows that certain rod/line combinations will perform better for some casters than others.


All true, but neither support your original conclusion that the 8wt NRX+ is some sort of dog with an 8wt SA Grand Slam line (and by inference even worse with a true to weight line???). To the contrary you are describing a belief that exactly describes the user error Arden sees most often......."a fixed casting stroke".

Look, if on any given rod you can cast the same line in a 9wt twenty plus feet further than an 8wt it most definitely reflects user error with the lighter line rather than some sort of rod design issue. The best casters report only a very few ft of gain when going up a line weight. Consider also that an elderly 90lb woman (Joan Wulff, say) could effortlessly use that same NRX+ 8wt to throw an entire 5wt line. How is that possible if the rod won't "load" with an 8wt line ?????

I apologize for being a prick here. You're new to the site, I'm sure you cast better than I, and I understand your desire to demonstrate your experience and "street cred". I just find conclusions based on random subjective opinions near useless. To suggest that the NRX+ won't perform well with its specified line weight is just simply untrue and misleading. 

Let's leave it at this. 
The 8wt NRX+ is a superb and powerful rod.
It can easily handle a heavier line if one's casting style or fishing situation requires it.
The trade off is that if you plan to use it with a true to weight line or plan to underline it you might want to test cast it first.

And welcome to the site.


----------



## Toad (Dec 13, 2020)

numbskull said:


> All true, but neither support your original conclusion that the 8wt NRX+ is some sort of dog with an 8wt SA Grand Slam line (and by inference even worse with a true to weight line???). To the contrary you are describing a belief that exactly describes the user error Arden sees most often......."a fixed casting stroke".
> 
> Look, if on any given rod you can cast the same line in a 9wt twenty plus feet further than an 8wt it most definitely reflects user error with the lighter line rather than some sort of rod design issue. The best casters report only a very few ft of gain when going up a line weight. Consider also that an elderly 90lb woman (Joan Wulff, say) could effortlessly use that same NRX+ 8wt to throw an entire 5wt line. How is that possible if the rod won't "load" with an 8wt line ?????
> 
> ...


You mischaracterized most of what I said and put some words in my mouth, but that’s fine, pal. I didn’t come on here to argue with you and certainly not to “demonstrate my experience and ‘street cred.’” I came on here to share my thoughts and hopefully learn something. You’re the one trying to prove you know it all. 

I do agree with you on one point, though: You really are a prick.


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

Do any of you have or have had both the NRX and NRX+? How do they compare in your opinion having had both? Are they relatively similar? Obviously I would need to go cast the +, but, just curious.


----------



## numbskull (Jan 30, 2019)

Toad said:


> I do agree with you on one point, though: You really are a prick.


Ah, yes indeed. 
But I, too, come here to learn and hashing out a difference of opinion is a good way to do it. 
I'm sorry if that offends you and I'm sorry if you feel I have mis-characterized your posts in some manner.
All the best.


----------



## Toad (Dec 13, 2020)

numbskull said:


> Ah, yes indeed.
> But I, too, come here to learn and hashing out a difference of opinion is a good way to do it.
> I'm sorry if that offends you and I'm sorry if you feel I have mis-characterized your posts in some manner.
> All the best.


All good.


----------



## Wata (Jun 24, 2020)

K3anderson said:


> Do any of you have or have had both the NRX and NRX+? How do they compare in your opinion having had both? Are they relatively similar? Obviously I would need to go cast the +, but, just curious.


The + is clearly better imo. The regular NRX is a little soft in the tip. The + is accurate short but also has the ass to put it out there.


----------



## Seymour fish (May 13, 2018)

Wata said:


> I love the NRX+ but agree it is a 1/2 size heavy. I think the S.A. Amplitude Infinity Salt line is perfect for it. The first 30' weigh about the same as the Grand Slam (225 vs 235) but the Infinity has a ten foot longer head so the Infinity loads better on longer casts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wata, I found the 9 to prefer a 9 wt Infinity. 260 at 30’, and 330 at full head.


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

Wata said:


> The + is clearly better imo. The regular NRX is a little soft in the tip. The + is accurate short but also has the ass to put it out there.


Do you have both?


----------



## Wata (Jun 24, 2020)

K3anderson said:


> Do you have both?


I have an 8 in the + and have fished the 9. I don't have the regular NRX but have fished it in 7, 8, and 9 weights. 

Its hard to describe but to me the + feels like a laser pointer. It goes wherever I want it at any distance. The older NRX is very good too I just prefer the +


----------



## K3anderson (Jan 23, 2013)

Wata said:


> I have an 8 in the + and have fished the 9. I don't have the regular NRX but have fished it in 7, 8, and 9 weights.
> 
> Its hard to describe but to me the + feels like a laser pointer. It goes wherever I want it at any distance. The older NRX is very good too I just prefer the +


Thanks, but, looking for comparison from someone who owns both.


----------



## Seymour fish (May 13, 2018)

Wata said:


> I have an 8 in the + and have fished the 9. I don't have the regular NRX but have fished it in 7, 8, and 9 weights.
> 
> Its hard to describe but to me the + feels like a laser pointer. It goes wherever I want it at any distance. The older NRX is very good too I just prefer the +


Agreed. The accuracy of the + is uncanny. Tried most available appropriate lines and found the Infinity to throw the highest loops. The 9+ is a “9-3/4” judging by standard AFFMA.


----------



## Seymour fish (May 13, 2018)

Wata said:


> I have an 8 in the + and have fished the 9. I don't have the regular NRX but have fished it in 7, 8, and 9 weights.
> 
> Its hard to describe but to me the + feels like a laser pointer. It goes wherever I want it at any distance. The older NRX is very good too I just prefer the +


BTW, lmao ! Preaching to the choir. The 9+ has been demoted with acquisition of an old Hardy proaxis 9, an absolute Beast with a 9 Infinity. It’s what the GLX crosscurrent should have been. “Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name”


----------



## skinnydip (Mar 27, 2016)

I have both and like the the plus better both in an 8 and 9 weight, also have the cross current in both sizes as well. they are all great rods but i feel successively better in both range, accuracy and little effort. The plus loads a little quicker and fish same lines on all of them except crosscurrents which have airflo but not by design. Really splitting hairs on the nrxs but both a step above the crosscurrents... just my opinion


----------



## Wata (Jun 24, 2020)

Seymour fish said:


> The 9+ has been demoted with acquisition of an old Hardy proaxis 9, an absolute Beast with a 9 Infinity.


Not a knock on Hardy but you must be smoking to demote the Plus. Unless the Hardy has your preferred dogleg? HA!!!


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

I have used the 8wt NRX 1 pc since the rod was introduced and this year won the 8wt NRX+ in a raffle. I use SA amp grand slam lines on both rods now, but have not compared the two on the same day. Rio redfish was on the NRX most of the years. The NRX+ is a little easier to cast. More forgiving. Both great rods. I have the NRX+ in 6, 8, and 10. Always in a search for better tools.


----------



## Seymour fish (May 13, 2018)

Wata said:


> Not a knock on Hardy but you must be smoking to demote the Plus. Unless the Hardy has your preferred dogleg? HA!!!


The dogleg is a “feature” cherished by many.


----------



## Cory Michner (Jan 28, 2020)

sjrobin said:


> I have used the 8wt NRX 1 pc since the rod was introduced and this year won the 8wt NRX+ in a raffle. I use SA amp grand slam lines on both rods now, but have not compared the two on the same day. Rio redfish was on the NRX most of the years. The NRX+ is a little easier to cast. More forgiving. Both great rods. I have the NRX+ in 6, 8, and 10. Always in a search for better tools.


How do you like the 6 weight NRX+? I was considering getting a 7 to replace my CCGLX 7 weight, but as strong as those rods are I feel like a 6 might be more fun fishing skinny water reds in Texas.

To @Toad , thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts - I own the CCGLX's and the NRX's, and casting the new NRX+ felt that it had the best attributes of both.


----------



## Seymour fish (May 13, 2018)

Seymour fish said:


> The dogleg is a “feature” cherished by many.


The durability of “plus” is legendary, almost self-healing.


----------



## Snakesurf (Jun 18, 2019)

I have a NRX 8wt and use a Cortland Liquid Crystal Flats taper line. Works well. I just recently purchased the SA non textured Grand Slam for another rod, but I have not used it on the NRX. I am not used to casting that type of taper on a line, so it feels different than the Cortland and I seem to be having the same problem you are but with a different rod. I will use it on the NRX and see how it goes, then report back. I have been told by others on this site that I can’t cast worth a shit, but I still seem to catch fish with an average cast of 80’ on most all my rods with 60’ being pretty easy. I am thinking it is just the taper. Chin up, will report back with the results.


----------



## Snakesurf (Jun 18, 2019)

OK, I just tried the NRX with the SA non-textured Grand Slam. It was about 50 F and no wind at all. I am not a master caster (more like a masterbaiter) but I consistently get 80' on a cast with not much effort. The line I have been casting mostly is the Cortland Liquid Crystal Flats Taper. I put the SA Grand Slam on my NRX 9' 8WT and was pushing it to get 80'. I could not get much more than 85' with the new SA line. With my Cortland line ( is what I have been using) it was 90' + a little with just a little push. I have conclude that the SA Grand Slam line is trash. Naaaa, I think because it is new and just haven't cast it very much I am not used to the taper and the line seems like it is too stiff from being new and the fact that it was cold. I was thinking of stretching it out a little and maybe cut off about 2' of the head / tip. It does seem to be very accurate casting especially in the 60' range, really easy, and that is my typical sight casting anyway. It picks up well and holds a tight loop, when I can actually get a good cast. I paid $100 for the line so I am going to make it work.


----------



## numbskull (Jan 30, 2019)

Perhaps you are aware of this already but, if not, this may help. 

The head on the GS is about 6ft shorter than on the Cortland. If you try to carry the same amount of line with the GS as you do with the Cortland (presuming you are carrying the whole 46' head of the Cortland and then a few feet outside the rod tip) it won't cast well. Exactly like if you try to cast a shooting head with too much overhang. 

Before you cut the line you might want to try casting it with a bit less overhang. Measure off 40', put a mark on the line, and see how it casts when that mark is about 2-3ft outside the rod tip. Your stroke will be a bit faster and arc a bit less than with the Cortland but given the extra mass of the GS it likely will shoot a bit further. I suspect that cutting the GS will only make things worse rather than better.


----------



## Snakesurf (Jun 18, 2019)

numbskull said:


> Perhaps you are aware of this already but, if not, this may help.
> 
> The head on the GS is about 6ft shorter than on the Cortland. If you try to carry the same amount of line with the GS as you do with the Cortland (presuming you are carrying the whole 46' head of the Cortland and then a few feet outside the rod tip) it won't cast well. Exactly like if you try to cast a shooting head with too much overhang.
> 
> Before you cut the line you might want to try casting it with a bit less overhang. Measure off 40', put a mark on the line, and see how it casts when that mark is about 2-3ft outside the rod tip. Your stroke will be a bit faster and arc a bit less than with the Cortland but given the extra mass of the GS it likely will shoot a bit further. I suspect that cutting the GS will only make things worse rather than better.


Numbskull,
I thought about that (cutting 2 foot off) so am not too quick to do it, although that loop in the end pisses me off, so that will probably go. I have 5 different 8 wt rods because I have actually been building fly rods for over 30 years. I have tried many different blanks over the years including brands like Sage (first brand to use) G Loomis, TFO, MHX (surprisingly good), North Fork Composites and Batson / Rainshadow. I use my own guide spacing and have developed different unconventional rod types with unique guide types and configurations. Basically, I experiment with the blanks, guides and grips. I have a few rods that I used all ceramic running guides and tip top. One of them is built on a NFC F-890-4 (Gamma Beta) 9’ 8 wt. I used Fuji Torzite KW 16, KW 10 strippers and the last of the Ti framed SIC L Frame 3-7 mm and 7-6 mm running guides (12 total) and a Torzite Arowana 6mm Tip Top. It has a 7.25" all natural cork grip with a natural cork and composite cork fighting butt and an Alps HERA7WL2 reel seat and came in at 4.3 oz total weight. It originally cast the Cortland line like magic. I broke the tip and sent the rod back to NFC so they could match another tip section. They sent me back what looked like a slightly thicker tip section and the mid-section below the tip. Total weight after the repair was 4.35 oz. I guess they could not match up the ferule for just the tip. I put it back together and it no longer cast the Cortland line as good as the original.

I built a second rod on the same blank but this time using Seaguide Titanium Double-foot TiLBG guides with silicon nitride RS rings, 16 mm and 10 mm and Heavy REC double foot snake guides #5, and the rest #4 to a large fly tip top, 10 guides total + tip top. I also left off a cork ring to make the grip right at 7”. The total weight came out to 4.1 oz, the same as the G Loomis NRX 9’ 8 WT.

Thanks to this exchange of information, I found that the repaired all ceramic guide NFC blank can cast the SA Grand Slam line to the backing knot with a little effort but not the more conventional NFC build. The conventional build is very similar to the NRX but with slightly different guide spacing. Don’t know about the NRX+ because I have not cast it.

My take from this is that this line will benefit from a rod with a stiffer tip and perhaps a 5 guide configuration on the tip section. This would include the 9’ 4pc 8 wt Scott Sector and a few other brands. Sorry for the long winded report, but this really interested me because I had purchased this line.


----------



## numbskull (Jan 30, 2019)

Cool post. I’m building a 6wt Sexyloops HT 9 ft rod at the moment. Thought long and hard about using TKTTG runners but chickened out because I feared 5.5 or 5's might be too small to handle knots (even with the larger I.D of torzite rings) and this rod will see saltwater use. Have you built any 6wts with ceramic?

As for the GS doing better on a stiffer tip rod it would not surprise me. The shorter heavier head will likely cast more like a shooting head than the longer lighter Cortland (although I don't know the total head weight of either) and good casters who throw shooting heads for distance seem to like stiff rods (I assume because of the shorter/faster arc used). These guys can throw an energized backcast and typically would prefer to underline rather than overline a rod (which slows things down). 

I do own a Scott Sector 8wt. I don't feel it is a stiff rod for its weight class. I like it with long headed lines but that has much more to do with my casting style (and limitations) than the rod itself.


----------



## Snakesurf (Jun 18, 2019)

The SA Grand Slam claims " Overweighted by .75 sizes to load rods quickly; use designated line weight for your rod". So it make sense that a stiffer rod or a size over will work. Numbskull, didn't want to hijack this thread so I started a Conversation with you.


----------

