Want slightly more distance

karlsson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
324
Location
Denmark mostly..
Guess its different for everyone, never felt a rods action change because upligning or downlining or just extending another yard of line out.
Mass is king, a lineweight higher of the same line will give slightly more distance, airflo knew it when they came out with their 40+, Rio knew it when they made the outbound, sunray knows it when he makes lines that are essentially 3 lineweights higher according to the standard than the number he writes on the box.

Cheers
Lasse
 

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
1,734
Some simple physics can be applied her. The aim is to get as much speed and energy into the line on the forward stroke. For the acceleration, force = mass times acceleration, so more force = more acceleration. But also for the same acceleration you need to put in more force for a given mass (weight). The greater the acceleration, the faster the line will be travelling at the end of the forward stroke. However, you also need to put as much energy into the line to maintain the speed and get the distance. Energy = mass (weight) times speed times speed. So for a same speed, the heavier line should travel further. However, from this, the speed of the line is more important. A line speed of 2mph has 4 times the energy of a line speed of 1mph, 3mph: 9 times. So technique is all about getting the maximum speed of the line at the point when you shoot the line forward from the same amount of force. You can overcome poorer technique by using more force.
 

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
1,967
Location
South Northants
You can overcome poorer technique by using more force.

No, you can't 'overcome' poor technique by more force. Poor technique is . . . poor technique, and commonly, more force results in poorer technique.

Applying more 'force' may well get the line to a distance - but it's a distance that would have been achieved with less effort with a more efficient technique and it's a distance that won't significantly increase without improvement to technique.

Hence Karlsonn's reference to the 'popularity' of a number of well known 'overweight' lines.
 

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
1,734
No, you can't 'overcome' poor technique by more force. Poor technique is . . . poor technique, and commonly, more force results in poorer technique.

Applying more 'force' may well get the line to a distance - but it's a distance that would have been achieved with less effort with a more efficient technique and it's a distance that won't significantly increase without improvement to technique.

Hence Karlsonn's reference to the 'popularity' of a number of well known 'overweight' lines.
You can overcome poor technique by using more force, as you've said yourself at the start of para. 2. Go to any lake and you see this all the time. I am using the term 'overcome' so you can get distance by using more force, rather than getting the same distance with better technique and less force. The latter means you don't get so tired, and arguably less likely to get RSI. So we are actually saying the same thing, mine was just an abbreviated way of saying it.
 

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
1,967
Location
South Northants
You can overcome poor technique by using more force, as you've said yourself at the start of para. 2.
. . . but you clearly performed your usual 'trick' . . . ignoring anything that compromised your own opinion.

The end of that sentence said . . ."but it's a distance that would have been achieved with less effort with a more efficient technique and it's a distance that won't significantly increase without improvement to technique."

How does that sit with your assertion . . . "The latter means you don't get so tired, and arguably less likely to get RSI." Force = Effort
 

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
1,734
. . . but you clearly performed your usual 'trick' . . . ignoring anything that compromised your own opinion.

The end of that sentence said . . ."but it's a distance that would have been achieved with less effort with a more efficient technique and it's a distance that won't significantly increase without improvement to technique."

How does that sit with your assertion . . . "The latter means you don't get so tired, and arguably less likely to get RSI." Force = Effort
Sorry but I don't understand your point. They are completely compatible. The "latter" referred to the last part of the previous sentence "getting the same distance with better technique and less force". That is what latter means. So the latter fits with less force = less effort = less tired and less RSI.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
42,553
You can overcome poorer technique by using more force.

Nope.

I'd say casting to about 70' is about as effortless as lifting the line and letting it shoot, I have argued in the past that with an average head of line out and letting the line shoot on its own its actually hard for the average line to land closer than its just designed to.

Adding more force to that doesn't achieve much, you need to feed line out, carry more, track and time it in order to cast further.
 
Last edited:

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
1,734
Nope.

I'd say casting to about 70' is about as effortless as lifting the line and letting it shoot, I have argued in the past that with an average head of line out and letting the line shoot on its own its actually hard for the average line to land closer than its just designed to.

Adding more force to that doesn't achieve much, you need to feed line out, carry more, track and time it in order to cast further.
I just use my observation. I was watching someone on my local lake casting 100' or more. He was using a 13ft double handed Spey rod with a shooting head, letting his line land on the ground behind him then giving an almighty wham forwards. This was on a 6 acre trout lake with most fish around 2lb.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
42,553
I just use my observation. I was watching someone on my local lake casting 100' or more. He was using a 13ft double handed Spey rod with a shooting head, letting his line land on the ground behind him then giving an almighty wham forwards. This was on a 6 acre trout lake with most fish around 2lb.

A 13' spey rod lifts enough head of line to cast 100' without effort, like I say, the hard thing for him would be lifting the same head of line and casting less than 100'.
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
4,192
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
Is it considered safe to use a 13ft double handed Spey rod with a shooting head on a pond :unsure:


have they had a risk assessment


.
 
Last edited:

PaulD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
1,967
Location
South Northants
I was watching someone on my local lake casting 100' or more. He was using a 13ft double handed Spey rod with a shooting head, letting his line land on the ground behind him then giving an almighty wham forwards.
Far less 'wham' would be required with a 7ft spinning rod and a light weight . . . or appropriate fly fishing tackle.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
1,949
Location
Scotland
Good casters I know don't overpower their casts. They look really graceful. Never seen any of my instructor friends slamming their delivery casts.
 

karlsson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
324
Location
Denmark mostly..
Nope.

I'd say casting to about 70' is about as effortless as lifting the line and letting it shoot, I have argued in the past that with an average head of line out and letting the line shoot on its own its actually hard for the average line to land closer than its just designed to.

Adding more force to that doesn't achieve much, you need to feed line out, carry more, track and time it in order to cast further.
Nope.

It's harder to get it to land closer, but not impossible, and a testament to us all using far more effort than is actually needed in throwing a string around our heads.

And yeah, adding more effort does make the ting go further, and if the effort is applied right alot further!

Cheers
Lasse
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
42,553
Nope.

It's harder to get it to land closer, but not impossible, and a testament to us all using far more effort than is actually needed in throwing a string around our heads.

And yeah, adding more effort does make the ting go further, and if the effort is applied right alot further!

Cheers
Lasse

And yes, we can all take a length of line that too little effort can't cast, then use too much effort and cast it, well done.

Point remains, without technique in casting a line its going nowhere, any beginner can demonstrate that.
 

W.Andy

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2021
Messages
19
Location
France
Nope.

It's harder to get it to land closer, but not impossible, and a testament to us all using far more effort than is actually needed in throwing a string around our heads.

And yeah, adding more effort does make the ting go further, and if the effort is applied right alot further!

Cheers
Lasse
That's a very nice PUALD you pulled in the video, is that 5wt SA Med line? Which rod wt you using? Man the best I can cast with PUALD with 6wt rod and 5wt med is only around 28 meters and it really frustrated me sometimes, anyway love your posture, think I learnt something from it.
 

geenomad

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
605
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Today seems to be the day I post about casting mechanics. Here's my attempt at explaining and resolving the "more force for more distance" paradox.

We have probably all watched big guys thrashing around like windscreen wipers only to deliver pitifully short casts. If you watched the video of Lasse casting you are bound to observe a long cast without any obvious heaving. How to reconcile these two situations? The answer is technique matched to the physics.

Force equals mass times acceleration, Newton's second law is elegantly simple and it's true significance is only grasped by understanding that the equation is about Force being applied in a single direction with the mass being accelerated in that direction. Another layer is unwrapped when we grasp that during a fly cast Force is applied in a variety of directions and thus the Force that goes in the intended direction of our cast is a net Force - ie the Force left after deductions are made for Force which was not applied in the intended direction of the cast.

Re-consider the windscreen wipers. Much heaving produces little net Force in the intended of the cast. Most of the effort in the forward cast went somewhere else - it went up before it went ahead and it went down as well as forward. This up and down stuff not only deprives the cast of forward propulsion, it actually subtracts from the forward propulsion because it opposes the force going where we want it to. Heaving usually generates less rather than more force in the intended direction of the cast - force is dispersed.

Re-consider Lasse's cast. Au contraire most of the force he is applying is going where he wants it to and so far less force goes where he doesn't want it to. Good technique maximises net Force in the intended direction of the cast. It concentrates the F which accelerates the mass.

Summing Up.
If (and only if) your technique is good enough you will apply force efficiently so more force will mean greater distance.

If your technique is significantly faulty and inefficient the result will be the opposite - more force will mean more of a stuff up and quite possibly less distance overall.

Grace is economy of effort. Heaving is uneconomical.

Cheers
Mark
 

easker1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
7,370
Location
Highlands
I have found that if I cast with out considering the Back cast (loading cast) I ain't going no where, with out a decent back cast, a decent forecast is almost impossible, and no matter how much force you apply it won't improve it, because you will have a tendency to overload the rod, easker1
 

karlsson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
324
Location
Denmark mostly..
That's a very nice PUALD you pulled in the video, is that 5wt SA Med line? Which rod wt you using? Man the best I can cast with PUALD with 6wt rod and 5wt med is only around 28 meters and it really frustrated me sometimes, anyway love your posture, think I learnt something from it.
Hi Andy

No, its a cheating setup, a rod that says 5 and a line that says 5 but really is a 7.. Rio single hand spey 😊 thing is, a MED 5 will do similar, but requires a bit more technique.
I'm very glad you got something out of the clip! Makes me happy 😊

Cheers
Lasse
 

Latest posts

Top