Understanding Carbon Trout Rods

loxie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
908
Tangled, please explain what the normal casting distance is, to which you refer: it seems understanding that, may be key to your dilemma..?

You raised the notion to its existence, yet continue to ignore that direct question!

Do you fear the pain of learning?

Maybe you do need to read Scotty Peck after all? He will certainly help you with that.

🙃
I really don't think he can answer. I'll have a go instead. 10 to 100 feet.
 

ed_t

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
5,532
Well I hadn't really thought of that! I don't suppose it matters much. My point was really that there is no such thing as normal casting distance.
Had one today slowly lifting the rod tip when the line was in. Always good practice to slow lift the rod.

Had fish in the past when unhooking in the net, put the rod down and another kamikaze hits another fly: no cast required. What distance is that?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,177
I'll happily answer genuine questions on the OP.
 
Last edited:

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
1,128
Normal casting distance is from far enough away that the fly is wet, to near enough that we can still reach the fish...
 

loxie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
908
Had one today slowly lifting the rod tip when the line was in. Always good practice to slow lift the rod.

Had fish in the past when unhooking in the net, put the rod down and another kamikaze hits another fly: no cast required. What distance is that?
I remember mackerel fishing 20 years ago and I had to cut the dropper off. The small boat was low in the water and it was a flat calm evening. The mackerel were all around us on the surface and you couldn't get your flies back. as I was unhooking one and went to get the other, double hook ups were standard, a new one would take the fly a foot off the gunnels. How far is that!!
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
44,205
I'll happily genuine questions on the OP.

I think what is effectively a very good comprehensive guide reads a bit odd from this point....

''The answer is a very strange one, they appear to be doing it because.....''

I'm not saying this because of the current discussion, it just changes from authoritative and advisory to opinion and conjecture and it stands out to the reader, a guide to understanding shouldn't cast doubt or leave confusion, nor be a platform for opinion.

Also, ''A slow rod flexes more and naturally creates a larger line loop which is associated with better presentation but less distance. In the right hands fast rods can create tight loops that propel a heavier fly further''.

You might want to draw a distinction here in that there are close to none in the world of carbon rods, the Scott G series is as close to the traditional 'through action' and the 'slowest' I know of, I don't know of others made today.

Also, a big one, I'd dispute that ''fast rods that create tight loops propel heavier flies further'' the size of the fly is relative to the line weight, not the action of the rod, if anything big flies are easier cast on a rod that bends smoothly.
 
Last edited:

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
12,779
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
I think what is effectively a very good comprehensive guide reads a bit odd from this point....

''The answer is a very strange one, they appear to be doing it because.....''

I'm not saying this because of the current discussion, it just changes from authoritative and advisory to opinion and conjecture and it stands out to the reader, a guide to understanding shouldn't cast doubt or leave confusion, nor be a platform for opinion.
So he lost it on several points then.
Many pages ago.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
6,177
I think what is effectively a very good comprehensive guide
Thanks for taking the trouble to read it again.

reads a bit odd from this point....
''The answer is a very strange one, they appear to be doing it because.....''

I'm not saying this because of the current discussion, it just changes from authoritative and advisory to opinion and conjecture and it stands out to the reader, a guide to understanding shouldn't cast doubt or leave confusion, nor be a platform for opinion.

We'll just have to disagree on that. A guide to understanding needs to point out any points of controversy and ongoing debate as well as what is settled.

Also, ''A slow rod flexes more and naturally creates a larger line loop which is associated with better presentation but less distance. In the right hands fast rods can create tight loops that propel a heavier fly further''.

You might want to draw a distinction here in that there are close to none in the world of carbon rods, the Scott G series is as close to the traditional 'through action' and the 'slowest' I know of, I don't know of others made today.

I'll add a sentence to indicate that they are unusual these days.

Also, a big one, I'd dispute that ''fast rods that create tight loops propel heavier flies further'' the size of the fly is relative to the line weight, not the action of the rod, if anything big flies are easier cast on a rod that bends smoothly.

I'm going to reword that, it's a bit sloppy. I agree that if you want to cast a heavier fly using a heavier line is obviously the best advice - mass moves mass.

But I'm interested in why you think a more open loop will cast any fly further than a narrow one?
 

Rhithrogena

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
1,128
I think what is effectively a very good comprehensive guide reads a bit odd from this point....

''The answer is a very strange one, they appear to be doing it because.....''

I'm not saying this because of the current discussion, it just changes from authoritative and advisory to opinion and conjecture and it stands out to the reader
I'm with you Alan, it's a very good piece, but drags on a bit with all the explaining of the ambiguous/subjective areas. Maybe if these parts were added as more appendices, the main body would read more easily?
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,146
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
Is that what he said?
Are you understanding anything?

You still don’t get it do you! 🤣

I think I worked it out?

Perhaps Tangled is not saying that he understands any of it. He is simply attempting to document in one place, what he thinks people that do understand it all, might agree with, for a reason we can’t understand - but he does...😀
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,146
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
He is saying that he doesn’t understand open, closed and tailing loops now? (been fishing how long...)

He doesn’t think variances in normal casting distance affects anything all that much, though that is from no line out, to into the backing... (eeek!)

And this guy is trying to write an authoritative piece... about understanding fly fishing rod performance....

FFFS (second F = Flying..).
 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
44,205
We'll just have to disagree on that. A guide to understanding needs to point out any points of controversy and ongoing debate as well as what is settled.

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of controversy, just the way it's framed, generally in presenting opinion or debate it's a refreshed section at the end, just fits more naturally and makes it more interesting for the reader.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
44,205
But I'm interested in why you think a more open loop will cast any fly further than a narrow one?

Not what I meant if that's what it sounded like, but a tail wind would be an example, a big loop catches the wind on the way out, and also a heavier line with very consistent line tension is a hard loop to stop, the surface area presented to a head wind is just one factor.
 

Latest posts

Top