Understanding Casting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,456
Ok, one last go.
Patience!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...FA8476BE6A02C4CDAEF5FA8&view=detail&FORM=VIRE Here's a great caster (Flip Pallot) showing that even good casters mess it up sometimes.
Thanks for that.
This is a totally unintentional tail (in fact I'm surprised they didn't edit it out as the film is about casting well - not fault finding). Anyway look at the cast at 1min 31 secs. This finishes looking like this:

View attachment 43709
I'm sorry I don't understand your point. That still shows exactly what I expect a natural tail to look like. It's not a tailing loop, it's a concave dip in the line as per text book in a really tight loop..
Now look at the size of the dip in that fly leg and then go back to look for the dip in the rod tip path. Also remember what I said about a late tail (in the leader as in the photo above) arising from an early fault in the casting stroke.

But I'm not disputing the existence of tails! I'm questioning whether they are materially amplified beyond their original cause (dip and recoil in rod tip path) such that the fly leg crosses the rod leg twice and that they are the majority cause of what we call tailing loops by everyday casters.

This video shows the dip in a really tight loop in exactly the way I'd expect. Even though it's a tight loop, the rod legs do not cross.
There are a few other tails in the video if you watch carefully.
There are quite a few, but what is it that you think I'm wrong about that this demonstrates?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
Patience!

Thanks for that.

I'm sorry I don't understand your point. That still shows exactly what I expect a natural tail to look like. It's not a tailing loop, it's a concave dip in the line as per text book in a really tight loop..


But I'm not disputing the existence of tails! I'm questioning whether they are materially amplified beyond their original cause (dip and recoil in rod tip path) such that the fly leg crosses the rod leg twice and that they are the majority cause of what we call tailing loops by everyday casters.

This video shows the dip in a really tight loop in exactly the way I'd expect. Even though it's a tight loop, the rod legs do not cross.

There are quite a few, but what is it that you think I'm wrong about that this demonstrates?

Watch what happens to the leader at the end of the cast, is that ok for you?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,456
We have not got to closed loops yet.
Jesus H. Christ. Do you want me to quote you all the times closed loops have been "got to" in the last 50 posts? Really?

Read what's written for god's sake. Get out of the other nonsense threads your spending your time in, read what's written and try to understand them, then reply thoughtfully in more than 10 words. If you can.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
That still shows exactly what I expect a natural tail to look like. It's not a tailing loop, it's a concave dip in the line as per text book in a really tight loop..

Can you explain what this means? in one sentence you are seeing a 'natural tail'? what is a natural tail? but it's not a tailing loop?(presumably because you don't see it it cross) and also where a concave dip in the line is text book in tight loops?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,456
The authors feeling that 80% comes from the rod is not always correct - in that, the stated % can be made to vary very widely and still produce a useful cast.

The author says that the % varies according to the length of the cast. The longer the cast the more the 'spring' contribution, to an estimated maximum of 20%.

As far a I'm aware, he makes no comment on effective or ineffective casts being dependent on the proportion of leverage to spring effect.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
Jesus H. Christ. Do you want me to quote you all the times closed loops have been "got to" in the last 50 posts? Really?

Read what's written for god's sake. Get out of the other nonsense threads your spending your time in, read what's written and try to understand them, then reply thoughtfully in more than 10 words. If you can.

And don't get shirty, we all know who it is that doesn't understand here.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,456
Can you explain what this means? in one sentence you are seeing a 'natural tail'?
I'll do my best.
what is a natural tail?
It's a tail thrown during a normal fishing cast. ie unintentionally, not one thrown by someone trying to demonstrate a tail.
but it's not a tailing loop?(presumably because you don't see it it cross)
Actually because it does not cross
and also where a concave dip in the line is text book in tight loops?
Can't make sense of this.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
I'll do my best.

It's a tail thrown during a normal fishing cast. ie unintentionally, not one thrown by someone trying to demonstrate a tail.

Actually because it does not cross

Can't make sense of this.

Which text book says a concave dip in the line is 'as per text book in a really tight loop'?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,456
And don't get shirty, we all know who it is that doesn't understand here.
You're pushing my patience by not reading but commenting anyway.

Don't be too sure about who's understanding what here either. If this was fully understood and fully explained there could be no argument about it. It's not and there is.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
You're pushing my patience by not reading but commenting anyway.

Don't be too sure about who's understanding what here either. If this was fully understood and fully explained there could be no argument about it. It's not and there is.

There isn't, it's just you arguing with some pretty experienced expert casters, and they have explained but you seem to think you know better, despite needing spoon fed video footage and explanation at every single term.

You may think there is something else going on but there isn't, you just come across as unable to process the information you consistently request.
 

James9118

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
2,331
Location
North Wales
Patience!

Thanks for that.

I'm sorry I don't understand your point. That still shows exactly what I expect a natural tail to look like. It's not a tailing loop, it's a concave dip in the line as per text book in a really tight loop..


But I'm not disputing the existence of tails! I'm questioning whether they are materially amplified beyond their original cause (dip and recoil in rod tip path) such that the fly leg crosses the rod leg twice and that they are the majority cause of what we call tailing loops by everyday casters.

This video shows the dip in a really tight loop in exactly the way I'd expect. Even though it's a tight loop, the rod legs do not cross.

There are quite a few, but what is it that you think I'm wrong about that this demonstrates?
Genuinely FFS!! You don't seem to recognise that the dip (in the fly leg) is moving and growing in the direction of the rod leg. If you play the video on a few frames you see the point of collision.

You also fail to understand that a dip in the fly leg (sometimes referred to as a tailing tendency) is exactly the same as a dip that causes a collision. I can point to probably 10 plus posts where you've been told this but you're simply not taking it on board. We're not interested in what you consider to be a tailing loop because, frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

The picture shows a typical, late, unintentional tailing loop. This was caused by an uneven application of force during the casting stroke. Whether it collides with the rod-leg is immaterial - even if it doesn't it can still result in knots in the leader. The dip in the fly-leg (the tail) is initially caused by the path that the rod tip takes, imparting momentum into the line in different directions. The dip then continues to grow because there's nothing stopping it from doing so Newton's first).

Now it's obvious that you don't understand what a tailing loop is. In fact I have no idea what you mean by "that still shows exactly what I expect a natural tail to look like. It's not a tailing loop". A natural tail - WTF is that? It's a tail, or a tailing loop, or a tailing tendency or a transverse wave - it all the f'ing same and has the same cause.

Again, straight fly-leg - NOT A TAIL, TAILING LOOP, TAILING TENDENCY etc.
Growing dip in the fly-leg - HIGH LIKLIHOOD IT's a TAIL, TAILING LOOP, TAILING TENDENCY etc.

It's clear that videos showing the dip obviously growing isn't enough - you tell me what evidence you need.

James
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,892
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
The author says that the % varies according to the length of the cast. The longer the cast the more the 'spring' contribution, to an estimated maximum of 20%.

As far a I'm aware, he makes no comment on effective or ineffective casts being dependent on the proportion of leverage to spring effect.
You don't accept estimates - only verified facts And only results, from an approved standard test.

Was just indicating that the author satisfies neither of your acceptance criteria; so why are you using his view to support (or not) a view?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
You don't accept estimates - only verified facts And only results, from an approved standard test.

Was just indicating that the author satisfies neither of your acceptance criteria; so why are you using his view to support (or not) a view?

I got blistered once for suggesting that the 80/20 thing was a variable range, although I'd put it far less than 20 and ultimately not important to ever be mentioned, never has so much brain space been wasted on something that matters so little.
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,892
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
I got blistered once for suggesting that the 80/20 thing was a variable range, although I'd put it far less than 20 and ultimately not important to ever be mentioned, never has so much brain space been wasted on something that matters so little.
Far too much credance is given to the properties of the rod when it comes to casting form.

I would suggest that better casters are the ones with stronger legs, from sports that involved using them a lot.

Good casting starts at ground level (from the feet, upwards) progressively, and with fluidity to the tip of the rod.

The total useful casting process taper (if you will..), is from the ground up. The higher up the body, the cast starts the less effective it is.

Anything that inverts that flow/proggresion (energy taper profile) between the ground and the tip of the rod has an "even, to better" chance of creating anything we might consider a mis-cast.

Casting form; its all in the body language.

🙃
 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,332
Far too much credance is given to the properties of the rod when it comes to casting form.

I would suggest that better casters are the ones with stronger legs, from sports that involved using them a lot.

Good casting starts at ground level (from the feet, upwards) progressively, and with fluidity to the tip of the rod.

The total useful casting process taper (if you will..), is from the ground up. The higher up the body, the cast starts the less effective it is.

Anything that inverts that flow/proggresion (energy taper profile) between the ground and the tip of the rod has an "even, to better" chance of creating anything we might consider a mis-cast.

Casting form; its all in the body language.

🙃

The ideal caster is triangular? :unsure:
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,892
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
The ideal caster is triangular? :unsure:
Yes, why not? ...caster's feet to the tip of the rod.

I think that is a good basic picture to have in mind, and progress from there.

Start at the base, and work upwards.

All the relevant component parts of the cast are then included in the analysis of that all inclusive framework, relative to casting movement, energy generation and its flow.

🙃
 

geenomad

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
658
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Rod as lever and as spring.

What I said in a little more detail and context.

"Let’s now consider the relative contributions of the rod as a lever and the rod as a spring to casting a fly line. A few years back a real physicist named Grunde Løvoll ran the numbers. What he found was that by using a flexible fly rod instead of an inflexible fly rod a good caster managed to get about 20% more tip speed. In other words the spring effect was good for an extra 20% of tip/line speed over a broomstick rod that didn’t bend. Line speed is what we use to beat gravity. Speed comes from the Force we apply which puts kinetic energy into the fly line. It follows that more speed implies more Force.

It is a bit more complicated than this but, simply stated, on a longish cast about 80% of we get from a fly rod is due to leverage and only about 20% is down to energy stored when the rod is bent and then released when it unbends. The exact proportions of lever effect and spring effect don’t really matter to us. What matters is that leverage is by far the major contributor. [My emphasis}

Each cast has an energy “budget” to do the job of propelling the line to reach our target. In making budget, the proportion of leverage to spring storage and release of energy changes depending on the type of cast we are making. However, for most people and most of their casting, the rod as a lever accounts for most of the energy put into a fly line. Allow me to explain that a bit more.

The bow and arrow cast is exceptional in that we use spring energy more than leverage but of course that’s a very different beast from a standard overhead cast. With short overhead casts, just the leader and a metre or two of fly line, the rod may not bend very much so unbending contributes very little to line propulsion. As we lengthen the cast the rod will bend more and so contribute more spring energy when it unbends. However, it’s probably not until we go seriously long that spring energy will make a meaningful contribution and even then it’s only about one fifth of the total energy budget. Given this it makes no sense to me to talk about rod loading as the engine and therefore our primary objective when casting a fly line. Leverage is the primary engine of a cast and our objective is using it to best advantage."

If you want my primary source: <http://www.flycastinginstitute.com/e-libraryfiles/FCI_E-L_Rod_Cast_102507.pdf>

Oh and Grunde was on my advisory group for the Einstein Series, the primary objective of which was to provide an accessible and accurate account of the mechanics of fly casting for the few people who are interested in and can be aided by, understanding the relevant physics.

Cheers
Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top