I imagine as a small scale retailer that you are driven very much by demand but I have wondered about WFF specialist tapers..
For small stream salmon and seatrout specialist like myself a specialist Skagit taper would be a godsend (7m head with the full AFTM rating within that 7 metres). Ideal for tossing out very heavy doubles in heavy undergrowth.
Cheap single handed spey lines like the Rio Steelhead or the Rio iLine...
It would probably only be me that bought them though...
Quote from: Malcolm on August 14, 2012, 02:04:46 PM
I imagine as a small scale retailer that you are driven very much by demand but I have wondered about WFF specialist tapers..
For small stream salmon and seatrout specialist like myself a specialist Skagit taper would be a godsend (7m head with the full AFTM rating within that 7 metres). Ideal for tossing out very heavy doubles in heavy undergrowth.
Cheap single handed spey lines like the Rio Steelhead or the Rio iLine...
It would probably only be me that bought them though...
Most people who use them make their own. There is quite a lot of info on the net about it.
Scandi and Skagit Heads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJC5yECWh50#ws)
http://forum.skagitmaster.com/index.php?topic=892.0 (http://forum.skagitmaster.com/index.php?topic=892.0)
http://www.flyfishingoutfitters.com/fly_line-spey_flylines-skagit_spey_fly_lines (http://www.flyfishingoutfitters.com/fly_line-spey_flylines-skagit_spey_fly_lines)
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 14, 2012, 05:57:00 PM
Malcolm I'm surprised you mention skagit lines at that point, best spey casting line will always be a DT,
That depends entirely on how you cast and what you are trying to achieve. DT's are no use at all for some purposes.
You can not shoot a DT very well at all. This is one main reason for using Skagit and Scandi heads.
http://www.deneki.com/2010/10/switch-rods-scandi-heads-and-polyleaders/ (http://www.deneki.com/2010/10/switch-rods-scandi-heads-and-polyleaders/)
spey casting with scandi line (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9YlEfVV1S8#ws)
Scandi Short VersiTip Film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DJRPRyej2s#ws)
RIO Scandi Short VersiTip Fly Line on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/26883721)
TL
MC
One thing which is governed by tradition and is completely pointless nowadays is using a 90 foot double taper line on a single handed trout rod. The ONLY reason for a double taper was so that one could switch the line around after one end got soggy and started to sink, ( and also heavier and harder to cast). This reason no longer obtains.
There is no disadvantage at all in using a half line on a single handed trout rod. Indeed, quite the opposite.
TL
MC
With further regard to Spey casting and variants thereof: the only part of the line which allows the cast is the D-loop. ONLY the line in the D-loop powers the cast. The shorter the rod the more difficult it becomes to Spey cast a DT any distance. A short head which is usually about 30 feet,(but could even be twenty or less), can be cast a long way even on a short rod, because the weight of the head loads the rod more efficiently and one can also easily shoot a lot more line. This is impossible with a DT. It is also impossible to shoot a DT any distance, you have to aerialise a DT to reach any distance.
You can use short heads on a switch rod ( Known as a "switch" rod because you can "switch" between Spey casting and overhead casting), but you can not use a DT in the same way. It just does not work. Switch rods are also usually shorter anyway.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 14, 2012, 05:57:00 PM
Malcolm I'm surprised you mention skagit lines at that point, best spey casting line will always be a DT,
having tried a few single handed spey lines I'm not sure they are any better than a home made shooting head, but turn over will always be limited by the lack of a rear taper, your stuck with one length of Dloop.
Alan,
The point of the Skagit - and I have built my own is to lift very heavy flies where there is almost no backcast not even enough for a conventional D-Loop. If you want to learn about their uses can I suggest this excellent article by a guy called Simon Gawesworth. You may have to read it slowly 2 or 3 times as it is quite dense but it is worth it. http://www.rioproducts.com/skin/summit/pdf/Understanding_Spey_Lines_2012.pdf (http://www.rioproducts.com/skin/summit/pdf/Understanding_Spey_Lines_2012.pdf)
At he moment I often use a compromise - an 8 or 9 WF line on a 6/7 rated rod.
However this is quite separate to this thread which is all about what people find popular and why and clearly for normal trout fishing a lot of people like DTs for these purposes. By the way I already own 2 (or is it 3) Wildfisher WF lines and they are as good as I need for ordinary fishing. I'm not a DT fan.
Quote from: Buanán on August 14, 2012, 07:17:49 PM
Thanks for that, I may try that with my partially cut DT, cut it down 30' more and try that loop arrangement and see how I get on. Your right of course, I don't use this line in a standard single hander fashion, rather in wild windy weather where the best I can manage is a switch or roll (I don't know which) and that works a treat, especially when a back cast just gets blown forwards or as sometimes happens, blown flat, in a hurricane :lol:
A switch cast ( also called a "jump-roll"), is just a variation on a dynamic roll cast;
http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm (http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm)
Fly Casting DVD Video ROLL CAST / Switch Cast Excerpt from 'Casts that Catch Fish' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFDPIn0L0Uw#ws)
Switch Cast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ijfU4cG7As#)
Roll Cast vs Switch cast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAYcl1LSNeg#)
has nothing to do with a "Switch rod" by the way, which can be used in various ways;
HD - "Switch Rod Casting Techniques" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cztAzursnms#noexternalembed-ws)
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 14, 2012, 11:17:08 PM
i have seen an 84 year old spey cast a 5 weight WF into the backing by shooting line, you have to shoot with a WF because too much line lifted and it collapses, Craig(buster) manages about 80' as would Malcolm, but with a DT you can lift way more line than the head of a WF, and i find a DT shoots not too bad, just a bit less than the average WF.
spey casting a WF needs critical balance, you pick up at exactly the same optimum weight point for the rod, less or more can catch you out, this is not an issue with a DT, you can cast any amount of head as long as you have enough weight to bend the rod, no advantage in distance competitions but when fishing you cast different distances with greater ease.
having said that i mostly use a triangle taper, best of both worlds.
You can only lift way more line if the rod allows it. If you have a head which is matched to the rod then that will cast optimally. Both WF lines ( which are simply shooting heads with integrated running line) and DT's are only roughly matched to rods. Trying to use too much overhang with a WF line or a shooting head will collapse the cast.
The distance you cast with a head is primarily governed by the amount of power you use. the distance you can cast with a DT is primarily governed by the amount of line you can aerialise.
With a rod which will cast 30 grams, there is a huge difference in a line of ninety feet weighing 30 grams and a head of twenty feet weighing 30 grams.
If all your rod loading is in the D-loop you can lift and cast a lot heavier fly and a lot further using a very small D-loop.
If you are using a DT then you can not lift or cast such a heavy fly because the line wont carry it, even if you are capable of aerialising the whole line.
You can cast a ten gram weight any distance ( up to the distance you are capable of castimg)on any rod, The distance is due to the power you apply when casting.
You can not normally cast a DT very much further than you can aerialise it.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 12:00:36 AM
couple of things i find a bit strange in there, i can cast a dt further than i can aerialise just shooting it in the normal way so I'm scratching my head on that, and fairly recently a dt won a distance comp, can't imaging he was carrying 120'.
but i need to disagree on the distance cast with a WF being related to power, i personally use the same power to cast 70 as 35' for the simple reason that I'm aerialising the same head of line, its just a longer shoot, more power distorts the rod and makes it harder, more precision perhaps.
Shooting casting line will NEVER go further than shooting backing line or running line. The line you aerialise is what drags the other line behind it. Casting line is a lot heavier than either backing or running line.
The distance a line ( or any other mass) travels is directly related to the force applied to it. It is not possible to cast any given mass 70 feet using the same power which is required to cast 35 feet. That is a physical impossibility;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1c.cfm (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1c.cfm)
You are confusing something or other there.........
TL
MC
QUOTE
mike its not that confusing if i aerialse or just lift 35' of a snowbee xs and let go it shoots to 70' in one cast, no skill involved and little effort going forward.
if i lift 35' and cast 35' its the same cast, i have aerialised the same length of line, same effort, the only thing that changes is trajectory, any more effort would give me a tailing loop cos it doesn't need it.
there is also a very important difference between a shooting head and a wf, the rear taper marks a pretty big difference in use, i.e. carrying more line...not something you can do with a shooting head, they are very different beasts functionally.
UNQUOTE
Lifting or aerialising 35 feet of any line is not at all the same thing as shooting it to seventy feet.
That depends on the shooting head, a few of my heads have a rear taper spliced in in order to improve turnover, prevent hinging and "loop end kick", and improve loop formation among other things.
Makes no difference to carry as such. The reason you can not carry much overhang with either a WF line or a head is that the running/backing line will not transmit the energy required to maintain the loop.
Also, when Spey casting, you have no carry at all. The only thing you have is a D-loop. It is the power applied to the D-loop which propels the line. The more power you can apply the more backing you can shoot or the heavier flies you can lift. This is what Skagit and Scandi heads are used for. If the head is matched well enough to load the rod properly you can lift and cast heavy flies, or cast a lot further with lighter flies. You can not do either with a DT.
I fear we are at some sort of cross purposes here.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 01:39:36 AM
the bit we differ is in power application, for me the lift, be that a spey cast or overhead supplies enough energy to complete the cast(the rod bending stores it) i don't add much forward, the line already has the momentum to carry itself.
you appear to be using energy to propel the line forward, i would argue that no matter how much extra effort you use forward it has very little effect and looses you control,
it comes as a shock to many that the momentum of the line itself is what gets it there, moving it forward with massive force is much the same as moving it forward with little....because its moving the same distance.
this sounds a bit weird but i could show you real easy.
The only thing that supplies any energy at all when casting is the person doing it. In order to cast further you need to apply more force.
The same thing applies when throwing a stone, in order to get it to fly farther you need to apply more force.
Momentum is mass times velocity. You can not change the mass on a shooting head, you can only increase the velocity, and to do that you need to apply more force. Things are more complex if you are extending a full line as you also change the mass but the same principles apply.
Those basic facts are unassailable.
If you don't accept them for some reason or other, then we will simply have to agree to disagree. I can't see any point at all in any further discussion unless one can agree on basic facts, and it seems we can't.
There are many more factors, variables, and conditions, at any given moment in a cast to be taken into consideration, but those basic factors always apply.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 14, 2012, 11:17:08 PM
i have seen an 84 year old spey cast a 5 weight WF into the backing by shooting line, you have to shoot with a WF because too much line lifted and it collapses, Craig(buster) manages about 80' as would Malcolm, but with a DT you can lift way more line than the head of a WF, and i find a DT shoots not too bad, just a bit less than the average WF.
spey casting a WF needs critical balance, you pick up at exactly the same optimum weight point for the rod, less or more can catch you out, this is not an issue with a DT, you can cast any amount of head as long as you have enough weight to bend the rod, no advantage in distance competitions but when fishing you cast different distances with greater ease.
having said that i mostly use a triangle taper, best of both worlds.
Alan,
Distance casting with a spey line is a completely different topic to casting short distances, in heavy vegetation, with a heavy fly. It's just not relevant. Creating a D-loop with 60 feet or more of a double taper is useless: the D-loop would be snagged up.
The purpose of the Skagit is so that I can pick up 5 or 7 metres of line with a heavy fly and shoot another 5 to 10 metres of line. That's just not possible with a double taper. The heavy line creates too much resistance. Before going any further would you try this: put a heavily leaded size 6 goldhead wooly bugger on your 5 weight, put 7 metres of line beyond the tip and spey/roll cast. The chances are the fly won't even leave the water. If it does it will be a wide open lob. Try the same thing on the same rod but this time with a size 12 line. Much easier.
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 11:36:47 AM
this is indeed where we differ, throwing an object is one movement from a to b, a cast relies on the line already having momentum, movement continues from lift to lay and energy is contained from lift to lay, you can make the loop unroll faster, you can force the rod to bend further, you can even force the rod through the air faster, this will only add 2' to a 70' cast because most of the energy you use to cast is imparted in the lift, and is more efficiently contained by perfect tracking and aerodynamic loop than any amount of force, this is not defying the laws of physics its understanding them,
if you try to force anything against air resistance you get diminishing returns,
the reason I'm still going on about it is that every casting instructor in the country bangs their head against the wall with this one, the 2 biggest misunderstandings with beginners is using too much force and trying to force the line to do it.
I agree that beginners using too much force, ( and applying it incorrectly anyway) is a major problem. But that does not alter the basic facts.
The force required to propel any given mass 35 feet is considerably less than the force required to propel the same mass 70 feet.
How the force is applied, and the general efficiency of the cast will affect how the cast ends up,but to cast twice the distance still requires more force.
Momentum is mass times velocity. When a line stops on the backcast for instance it has no momentum. Movement is required for momentum. Momentum is achieved by applying force. The greater the force the greater the momentum.
The problem for beginners is the inappropriate use of too much force.
TL
MC
Quote from: Mike Connor on August 14, 2012, 10:47:42 PM
A switch cast ( also called a "jump-roll"), is just a variation on a dynamic roll cast;
http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm (http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm)
Fly Casting DVD Video ROLL CAST / Switch Cast Excerpt from 'Casts that Catch Fish' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFDPIn0L0Uw#ws)
Switch Cast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ijfU4cG7As#)
Roll Cast vs Switch cast (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAYcl1LSNeg#)
has nothing to do with a "Switch rod" by the way, which can be used in various ways;
HD - "Switch Rod Casting Techniques" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cztAzursnms#noexternalembed-ws)
TL
MC
Thanks Mike, it's a short roll cast that I'm doing with the heavier lines in very windy conditions. I'll be trying to sort out the switch/jump roll cast during this afternoons wander.
Quote from: Buanán on August 15, 2012, 12:38:35 PM
Thanks Mike, it's a short roll cast that I'm doing with the heavier lines in very windy conditions. I'll be trying to sort out the switch/jump roll cast during this afternoon wander.
It's a problem nowadays just sorting out what is what with all these "defined" casts and descriptions. I don't think most people care much as long as whatever they do works for them. It is of course useful to watch various casts so that you have at least an idea of what you are trying to achieve.
When I first started there were basically two casts in trout fishing, overhead and roll casting. All the other stuff was just seen as variations. In the meantime I have lost count of the casts which are defined and described :)
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 01:07:42 PM
if you recall we were talking about the differences between double taper and weight forward lines, with a dt 70' is a longer cast than 35', with a dt the extra distance is shot rather than cast, no extra force is needed to let line shoot, if the aerialised head of the line is loading the rod all you need to do is alter trajectory.
I think we have been talking about different things and that is causing confusion. I think the above may be a typo?
The techniques for casting a full line are different to the techniques required when casting various heads, and this also depends on how they are cast.
However, if you want to shoot a head further you need more force to provide the momentum. Simply aerialising a head and letting it go wont propel it much further than what you have aerialised.
A fully aerialised head is EXACTLY the same as a lead weight ( ignoring things like drag on the backing etc). If you cast a lead weight, you need more force to make it go further. How you apply force is important, but you have to apply more force to cast further. There is no getting away from that.
TL
MC
While I agree with you that many people vastly overestimate the force required to cast, and too much force is invariably detrimental.
Force is required to cast, and more force is required to cast further.
There is nothing else I can say if you don't accept that.
Force is defined as anything that causes an acceleration on an object when applied. Without an applied force an object can not accelerate. That is a physical fact, it can not be refuted. Although you may of course refuse to believe or accept it.
TL
MC
Very considerable problems can arise with these things. The main reason that beginners have problems with applying too much force is that they confuse the application of force itself and the method of application, so they end up applying the force incorrectly.
They know intuitively that to make something go further ( a thrown stone for instance), more force is required, and they try to do the same thing when using a rod and line. There are some people who can cast intuitively, ( which means they instinctively know how to do it correctly), but the vast majority have to learn. This is further complicated by the use of "general" language to describe things.
In order to describe things accurately the only safe way is to use mathematical concepts. Most people think they know what acceleration is , but most actually don't. What they "know" is invariably some generalised conception of "going faster".
Acceleration however, is defined thus;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l1e.cfm (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l1e.cfm)
Forces are defined thus;
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1aa.cfm (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1aa.cfm)
and there is a great deal more to it if one wishes to be precise.
This makes casual discussion of such things extremely difficult, and often results in confusion.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
the nature of these things :lol:
Mike im not saying force in not used, i was just saying if you arialise the head of a WF line you can shoot it to 70', no extra effort required than casting to 35' or whatever because you have only cast 35' and let go, the extra effort is letting it go rather than casting 35'...by not letting it go.
Well, I disagree. Simply aerialising a head wont allow you to shoot it to 70 feet. But there is little point in repeating things.
As this is apparently seen as crap I wont bother posting any more on it.
TL
MC
More crap follows, look away now.
Whist the physics quoted is correct in every respect, casting cannot be explained by basic application of force (energy).
Try this-
Take a piece of split shot and see if you can throw it 75 ft.
Stick in a rubber balloon, inflate the balloon, tie off and see if you can throw it 75ft.
Stick it in a cricket ball and see if you can throw it 75ft.
Stick it in a golf ball and see if you can hit it with a driver for 75ft.
Make it into a pellet and fire it from an break action air rifle, can it make 75ft?.
The energy (force) required to move that mass of lead 75 ft remains the same (gravity and air resistance being taken as constant) in all cases.
Of the above challenges the one that makes the 75 ft for the least input of energy on your part, is the air rifle.
Because you have used a tool.
Rod and line are a tool, rod acting as lever and spring, line carrying momentum through the complex process.
The energy required to propel that weight of fly and line that distance remains the same (the minimum), casting requires the expenditure of much more energy than the task requires, the design of lines and rods aim to reduce the energy expended by the angler to the minimum.
So DF or WF?
Quote from: Inchlaggan on August 15, 2012, 06:44:18 PM
So DF or WF?
Never seen a WF rubber balloon or even DT come to think of it. But the type of balloon model makers twist and shape into donkeys and stuff might be good. You can make them any shape you like. Even long belly multi-compound front and back tapered if you are really good at it. If you don't catch anything with them you can even make them look like a fish and pretend you are as good as Stan. Everyone is at it. Add a few mirrors and a bit of smoke and they could be the next big thing in fly fishing. :D
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 10:47:53 PM
come on Mike this is daft, would you cast a shooting head by aerialising it beyond the head?
Yes, that is what I invariably do.It is the only efficient way to haul a head for distance. The head must be completely outside the rod tip. I have at least one meter overhang as a matter of course when casting heads for distance, and have used more on occasion, but this is very difficult to do and the timing becomes very critical indeed. I also double haul as a matter of course when fishing most heads.
I don't think that is what you really wanted to know. But as I wrote there is no point in further discussion unless one can agree on some basic matters.
You need more force to cast 70 feet than you do to cast 35 feet. Force is what translates to line momentum. The momentum ( of a head) is what governs how far it travels when you let go. The greater the distance you wish to cast, the greater the momentum required, and the more force is necessary. I can aerialise a head and let it go and it will just drop to the ground. I can aerialise a head and then double haul it a very long way, I can also increase my stroke length and power application and cast it even further.
Without doing any of these things it will merely fall to the ground when I let it go, it might pull a few feet of backing with it, but what that effectively means is that you used more force than required to aerialise it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy)
There is absolutely no point in discussing various aspects of casting unless the relevant parameters are known and accepted. It is merely confusing and frustrating, and apparently it even annoys some people, who apparently consider it crap, but obviously read it anyway, or they don't bother reading it and just call it crap because they don't understand it, and don't want to.
TL
MC
Quote from: Mike Connor on August 15, 2012, 11:03:47 PM
There is absolutely no point in discussing various aspects of casting unless the relevant parameters are known and accepted. It is merely confusing and frustrating, and apparently it even annoys some people, who apparently consider it crap, but obviously read it anyway, or they don't bother reading it and just call it crap because they don't understand it, and don't want to.
Could not agree more. I'm enjoying reading this stuff. Just to state it's "crap" adds nothing constructive, is provocative and is not the way we do things here. I missed that post but it has now been removed.
Mike is absolutely right Alan. With A WF line and a 5 line it is quite straight forward to cast to any given distance from 30 to 100 feet+ if you have the strength and ability to do so - both are important. What governs the distance? It is the energy that you put into the line. If I intend to shoot 10 feet of line that is what I do - by adjusting the force. If I want to shoot 60 feet of line - shooting head, WF or DT I still need to adjust the force. By your argument the head would fly forever.
Quote from: Alan on August 15, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
i was just saying if you arialise the head of a WF line you can shoot it to 70', no extra effort required than casting to 35' or whatever because you have only cast 35' and let go, the extra effort is letting it go rather than casting 35'...by not letting it go.
Any line no matter how thin creates resistance (drag) in many forms: skin drag, form rag, wave drag to name a few. There is drag against the rod rings and against air - counteracting that drag isn't free. What does differ is the amount of extra effort - a DT creates much more drag than a WF or Shooting head.
Moreover there is a law of decreasing returns. The increase in force required in order to cast (with the same outfit) is exponential as the faster the line travels the greater the drag. This is a general rule not just for fly lines but for many things - for example in order to double the speed of an olympic rowing boat the effort required is approximately cubed.
With regard to the original topic : the purpose of a short heavy head when Spey casting is to lift heavy flies ( and usually a sink tip), easily. This can only be done if the rod is loaded properly and the line is heavy enough and has sufficient momentum to actually carry the flies concerned. The short heavy head loads the rod immediately, as all the weight is in the D-loop ( assuming you do it correctly). Such a loading could otherwise only be achieved by extending a long less heavy line in an overhead cast.
Heads are used for a lot of things, and how you use them depends on what you are trying to achieve. I habitually carry a size #8 28 foot head for use on my #5 weight rod. When I want to cast heavy streamers I just loop the head on and I can cast a size 6 long shank heavily weighted woolly bugger with no problem at all.
This is impossible with a "standard" #5 weight line, the line is simply not heavy enough to carry the fly, and you can not load the rod enough to generate sufficient momentum to carry such a fly.
I use a 34 foot #12 head on my 9' 6" #7 for seatrout and other fish in the salt for much the same reasons.
Using a half DT one or two line weights below the designated rod weight will give you very delicate presentation, but will only work with small flies.
There are also various other scenarios. I have a large collection of heads, which are basically just purpose built and matched pieces of line, of various lengths and weights, for doing lots of different things. Half a standard 90 ft DT is just a a 45 foot head.
As the majority of (trout) rods are designed to withstand being loaded with at least a full line of the designated weight, you can go up at least two line sizes with half a line, and even more if you use a shorter head.
There are some limits however, trying to use a head less than twenty feet or so for "normal" casting will cause problems.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 12:00:35 AM
its pretty hard to let a line drop to the ground without it unrolling, to collapse a loop(as you do with some aerial mends) is harder than letting it roll out, you have to go into less than no power,
an instructors trick to show beginners they don't need to use too much power(thats all of them and experienced fishers too) is ask them to cast 40' with zero power stopping the rod at vertical after a back cast, there is a slight lead but no forward stroke as such, try to make the cast collapse, the trick is it doesn't, anyone can try this,
then ask them to cast further with the same minimal power but with a harder stop, then further with the same power, a harder stop and a lengthened stroke and so on, when they can lift no more line with zero power you tell em to let go, when they build on this they have a a very efficient base to work from.
Malcolm, you read it right, by my argument the head flies forever..up to the point that the line is designed unroll, thats head length + and whatever you can shoot, so yes, it flies forever within this distance with the same energy put in, with leader etc, most WF lines reach 70' with little effort, this obviously needs some energy to power the cast, and beyond this critical distance you need to use more energy because your rotating a heavier lever, and for every foot beyond this you will use more effort exponentially hence diminishing returns.
its just occurred to me that you guys are applying more force when you want to shoot further?
You can not cast at all with "zero power" that is just a casting colloquialism designed to encourage beginners not to use too much force. The act of lifting even a rod length of line requires force, just not very much.
You can collapse a cast immediately at any time up to the actual release of the line simply by relaxing the tension.
After you release a line, then you have very little control, with a head basically none once it is outside the rod tip, because you can not mend the fly line by mending the backing, it simply will not transfer the required energy to the fly line.
With a full line, ( or a head which is still inside the rod tip ), you have more control, you can mend and do a few other things.
Tension is what keeps a line in the air, (and also causes it to unroll). If you relax the tension it will fall to the ground immediately, it will not unroll, no loops will form etc It will just drop to the ground.
Once you release the line on the forward stroke then it begins to fall, but the momentum you have imparted to it keeps it traveling forward. The more momentum the further it travels.
If you want to shoot further then you MUST apply more force. There is no other way to do it.
TL
MC
There are loads of weird and wonderful descriptions of casting, how it works, and how to do it. But the method I have always taught all my beginners, (WITHOUT TELLING THEM ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL), is just to keep the line taut and try to make it even tauter just before you stop the rod at the release point. None of them have ever had any problems with it.
The worst people to teach are those who have already tried to teach themselves or been taught incorrectly by others. It is well nigh impossible to eradicate bad habits and retrain muscle memory.
This works with anything by the way, even a piece of string in your hand, and also teaches intuitive timing.
It is also largely neglected. In order to cast you just need to keep the line taut under either constant or constantly increasing tension. Practically ALL faults which occur are caused by not doing this.
This also obviates a lot of difficult concepts like "line speed" and a lot of other stuff. What does a haul do? It increases line tension. How? By pulling the line against its own inertia. You have to move the line faster and faster in order to at least maintain or increase the tension. Any decrease in tension before release will cause tailing loops and things like that. Complete loss of tension simply collapses the cast. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHEN IT OCCURS! Loss of tension at any point in the cast will cause it to collapse.
That is basically it. If you manage to do that you will cast perfectly.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
Mike you don't read my replies :lol: if i film myself casting 35 and 70' with the same 3'' long forward stroke will you believe me?
No, because it is not possible. Stroke length does not equate to applied force. ( Although of course there are limits to the force you can apply with a short stroke). I read all your posts very very carefully indeed. I do not on any account wish to write something that is incorrect.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 01:09:12 AM
I'm with you on the tension thing, but it appears you don't believe a word i write :lol:
I'm surprised you think a 3'' stroke is impossible, if you let me haul this would not be difficult.
i can't think of another way of proving that I'm imparting the same force at both distances, don't get me wrong, the distance the line travels with the same power is determined by the head length, i need to pick up at least 35' of head to reach 70', beyond this distance the line would start to collapse, i normally measure from foot to fly so if i can include an 11' leader/9'rod it should be pretty easy.
I did not say that a 3" stroke was impossible. I said that it is impossible to cast 70 feet with the same force as 35 feet. It is what I have stated all along. If you add a haul you are adding more force.
You can not be imparting the same force at both distances. It is impossible.
Stroke length, or any other factors are completely irrelevant. The force required to propel a line 70 feet is greater than the force required to propel it 35 feet.
There is no way to gainsay that simple physical fact. It does not matter what you do or how you do it. What you are saying is a physical impossibility.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 01:47:49 AM
its taken a while but we have reached the nub of it :lol: i would say that a WF head needs the same force/power to cast any distance around what the head length/weight allows, irrespective of stroke length, i see this as the whole point of a weight forward, beyond what the head allows, sure you need to do a pile of things to add even minimal distance.
You would be wrong. ANY increase in casting distance with ANY line, or indeed any object at all, requires an increase in force.
That is an immutable law of physics;
Air friction, or air drag, is fluid friction. ( Air is classed as a fluid). Such friction forces are velocity dependent. The frictional drag is approximately proportional to the square of the velocity:
(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2990/airfri2.gif) (http://img4.imageshack.us/i/airfri2.gif/)
where ρ is the air density, A the cross-sectional area, and C is a numerical drag coefficient.
The faster you try to move something the greater the drag. As the distance you can achieve is governed by the velocity, ( momentum = mass x velocity or p = mv ), the further you try to cast something the harder it becomes, and the more force is required. Since the velocity you can obtain is limited by the amount of force you can apply you soon come up against diminishing returns for the force applied.
The power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity.
Unless you accept that, there really is no point at all in any further discussion.
The scenario you suggest is simply not possible.
TL
MC
Furthermore, the scenarios differ depending on what you are casting and how. In the case of a line that is always inside the rod tip ( i.e. Not a head), extending line increases the mass you are trying to propel and also requires more force.
p=mv
In the case of a mass outside the rod tip, ( a head or weight etc), which can more or less be considered a constant mass, the only variable is velocity.
The states of various things during a cast vary. At the end of an overhead backcast for instance, the line has no momentum at all. It is not moving, it has no velocity, and therefore no momentum.
The final momentum of the mass at the point of release is the sum of all the forces applied to it. That is also why stroke length is important, because you can apply force over a longer period of time by lengthening your stroke. You have to maintain or steadily increase line tension in order to achieve this, and this also loads the rod. The rod is loaded against the inertia of the line.
The target is to translate as much of the force you have applied as possible to the line. Which is then momentum.
Once you release the line it begins to accelerate negatively ( Slow down ).
TL
MC
Here is a simplified calculation;
Power = Force x Velocity
Force = (1/2) x (density) x (velocity)^2 x Drag Coefficient x Area
Assume: Drag Coefficient = 0.5, velocity = 2.27 m/s, Area = 0.15m^2
Power = (1/2) x (1000 kg / m^3) x (2.27 m/s)^2 x (0.5) x (0.15 m^2) x (2.27 m/s)
Power = 438 Watts
TL
MC
For various excellent examples and explanations;
http://www.virtualflycasting.com/Physics_FL.htm (http://www.virtualflycasting.com/Physics_FL.htm)
https://www.seesar.lbl.gov/anag/staff/bono/html/ASME_Bioengineering.pdf (https://www.seesar.lbl.gov/anag/staff/bono/html/ASME_Bioengineering.pdf)
http://www.letsflyfish.com/fly_casting.htm (http://www.letsflyfish.com/fly_casting.htm)
TL
MC
There is however at least one serious error in the explanation given by Frank LoPresti. You can not "overcome inertia". Inertia is a constant property of mass. Any given mass has the same inertia regardless of its velocity, (except at relativistic velocities). This is also why you need to continue accelerating the rod in order to maintain or increase loading and line momentum. The inertia is the same regardless of the velocity, but you have to move the rod faster in order to maintain or increase the inertial loading.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 02:27:55 PM
Mike, if you were talking about double taper lines i might agree, the whole point of a weight forward is a fixed head weight, i can cast to around 70' using no more than by shooting the rest, as Malcolm put it 'it flies all by itself'
i see a lot of people false cast and put extra power into the delivery cast, especially when casting a bit further, the same people can't figure why they get tailing loops :lol: they also struggle beyond 70' or so because they have already overpowered the cast before they get there.
all the stuff you posted applies beyond the point where the line is comfortable reaching, this isn't distance casting its just using the profile of a wf to do what its designed to do.
i use a triangle taper mostly, it does take a bit of energy to reach 70', i also use a loop opti wf which doesn't.
It doesn't matter what line you use, or what distance you cast it, the same principles apply.
Personally I think you are confusing your own comfort zone where you can cast easily with something else entirely.
It takes energy to get anything anywhere. You might think you are not using much but you are ALWAYS using some, and if you want to cast the same or a larger mass further then you use more.
The maths/physics also prove it conclusively. ( Although they usually wont do anybody who is trying to learn to cast much good. They are only of real interest if you want to know why something is as it is).
Anyway, you are perfectly entitled to believe whatever you wish, even if it's completely wrong, as it is in this case.
One can not shake a belief, even with proof positive to the contrary.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 05:57:49 PM
thats for sure, I'm happy to demonstrate it and you don't believe me :lol:
lines have different profiles and people choose ones that work so i'd say it does matter, how you cast a double taper is pretty much as you suggest, progressively, a shooting head and to a lesser degree depending on the rear taper a weight forward also, you use the weight of the head to cast and shoot line to distances that would be hard or impossible to reach carrying the entire length.
basic stuff really, different line profiles are cast quite differently, the extreme being a long belly line which is carried compared to a short shooting head that is shot to the same distance, if they were not different would there even be a thread on it?
It has nothing at all to do with "not believing" you. It is nothing personal at all. I know that what you are saying is impossible based on the physical facts. What you believe is irrelevant.
Whatever you think you would demonstrate it is most definitely not that you can cast 70 feet using the same force which you would use to cast 35 feet because I know that to be impossible. It doesn't matter that you don't believe that or wont accept the proof offered, that does not change the facts.
Over the years I have invariably gone to considerable trouble to obtain as much information as I could about various things, not least because of my profession. As a professional engineer I could not afford to rely on beliefs, I had to have hard facts. In many cases mathematical proofs of concept based on the physics involved. Without that I could not have done my job.
Lots of people can cast well, and indeed do a lot of other things without actually knowing how it works or being able to explain it properly. It doesn't matter much as long as they are happy with whatever it is they do.
The vast majority of people don't know many of the physics aspects of casting, and it doesn't stop them doing it, some do it very well while knowing virtually nothing about it.
However, it has always been my contention and belief that the more you know about something the better you can become at it, especially if you can practice what you know. Knowing how to do something is not at all the same thing as actually doing it. The knowledge may not be any use at all to somebody who is trying to learn how to do something, but for somebody who already can do it it allows him to improve because he knows why and how some things happen.
It makes no difference at all to me what you believe. That does not alter the facts I know to be true. But discussing things like this with somebody who will not accept basic and proven facts is a totally pointless exercise.
Your postulations are based on belief. You offer no proof at all.
Mine are based on facts with ample proof.
If you do not accept basic physics, preferring to stick to your quite obviously erroneous beliefs, there is no sensible basis for discussion.
I am not prepared to discuss this matter any further, it is pointless, and in my experience such things do not end well.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
I'm trying to calculate how much extra power it takes to release line with an index finger :D
The rosetta stone - it's obvious now!
There I was pondering whether I was reading some insight into a new Great Universal Theory penned by a new Nicolai Tesla (abetted by Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear) and it turns out you make a cast capable of 70ft and then don't let the line go and it only goes 30ft.
You may find this of interest;
QUOTE
Summary and Cautions
Sometimes we teach casting based on what we think
is happening to the rod, line, or caster. The value of
analyzing a group of skilled casters in a study such as
this is that we can see what actually happens. This is
particularly important when one is casting for distance,
because the mechanics of a 75-foot cast require more
force and complexity than those of a 25-foot cast.
The elite casters in this study were able to store more
energy in the bent rod than the good casters and were
able to release that energy more efficiently to the fly
line. The top distance caster bent the rod the most,
stopped it the quickest, used the most body lean, had
among the best-rated backcasts, had among the wid-
est casting arcs, hauled line effectively, kept the rod
tip straight during acceleration, used weight shift and
shoulder rotation to his advantage, and benefited from
a late forceful use of elbow and wrist action. Of the
many dimensions analyzed, he had no discernible flaw.
UNQUOTE
http://fedflyfishers.org/Portals/0/Documents/Casting/MCI/Kyte-Going%20for%20Distance.Al%20Kyte%20and%20Gary%20Moran.pdf (http://fedflyfishers.org/Portals/0/Documents/Casting/MCI/Kyte-Going%20for%20Distance.Al%20Kyte%20and%20Gary%20Moran.pdf)
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 16, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
I'm trying to calculate how much extra power it takes to release line with an index finger :D
i don't really understand your thinking that this is just a belief of mine, i have to do this stuff in real time as a matter of course with people looking, i don't recall any of them fainting at my doing the impossible :lol:
If you stop a cast at 35 feet, it will only go thirty five feet. If you release that cast and it goes 70 feet, that just means you have severely overpowered the 35 foot cast.
TL
MC
Quote from: Malcolm on August 17, 2012, 09:47:20 AM
The rosetta stone - it's obvious now!
There I was pondering whether I was reading some insight into a new Great Universal Theory penned by a new Nicolai Tesla (abetted by Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear) and it turns out you make a cast capable of 70ft and then don't let the line go and it only goes 30ft.
:)
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 17, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
I'm puzzled why this was not obvious from the beginning, the principle of shooting heads rely on it to cast further, they are designed to do that.
im not suggesting overpowering the 35' cast though, I'm saying that the energy needed to lift and maintain 35' is enough to shoot to 70', depending on the weight and length of head obviously,
beyond about 70' you are moving out of the designed range of most lines at a 5 weight, but a bog standard snowbee xs will lift and shoot to 70 with the momentum of the back cast and rod load no worries i just did it between rain bursts there.
This is just nonsense.
If you lift and carry 35 feet of line, then you are providing the necessary force to do so at every stroke. The force required to carry 35 feet of line will not propel that line 70 feet.
A back cast provides no momentum at all to the forward cast, it merely straightens the line, and depending on the line weight may provide some preload to the rod which can give the effect of a lengthened forward stroke.
The "principle" of shooting heads depends on what you are using them for. They are mostly used for distance casting, and the principle there is to allow better rod loading with a shorter piece of line and use light backing to reduce drag.
You are not half as puzzled as I am that somebody would post nonsense like this and expect to be taken seriously.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on August 17, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
whatever mike, I'm not going to be rude back, i think my posts are clear enough for anyone that understands the basics of casting.
Your posts on this have been a load of unmitigated nonsense. You obviously do not understand the basics of casting.
That is not being rude, it is merely a statement of fact.
One of the reasons I decided not to post any more on the matter is that stupidity annoys me, and I might then indeed be tempted to rudeness. I can assure you most emphatically that you would notice immediately if I was being rude to you.
Presumably you imagine if you keep on repeating this total shite that somebody will eventually believe you.
Good luck and goodbye.
TL
MC
By the way, the tactic of posting a load of rubbish after you have made a public fool of yourself, in the hope of annoying somebody enough to insult you and get the thread pulled wont work with me. Too many people have tried. I doubt Fred will fall for it either.
You can not possibly be as stupid as you are attempting to appear, so I can only assume some other motive.
Whatever it is I am not interested and I certainly wont reply to any more of your posts.
MC
Sort out your definitions of energy, effort and force guys, you're confusing me!
I have watched a guy sit in the boat with his casting forearm resting on the gunwale throughout the cast and chuck out 65ft plus of line. Others have to stand up (wrong!) and the cast begins at the knees to attain the same distance.
All else being equal, the energy required to propel that amount of line that distance is equal, but the effort is greater in the second case, and thus the energy expended in the process is greater.
The difference is the tool (rod and line) and the ability to use them to efficient effect. Knowing Master-Caster's set-up is only a very small part of the story.
I cannot be ersed to find out what line, leader, and fly weigh, allow for air resistance, gravity and much else come to, but can do the simple calculation at the end that determines the number of Joules required to complete the task. But that number is the absolute minimum for the task in hand. The energy expended by the angler will be much more. There will be an optimum (enregy minimising) set up of rod and line, and of the movement of both in all planes, a machine, but there is no 100% efficient machine, so the Joules expended to chuck out line and fly will only tend to the theoretical number, and usually exceed it by several orders of magnitude. The addition of the human element makes efficiency less likely.
Knowledge of the "personal optimum" is worth pursuing, there is no "universal optimum", therein lies the distinction between a lecturer and a coach, though both may term themselves both expert and teacher.
Come on chaps, be pals! :D
In a casting DVD I have by the late Mel Krieger he classified casters into two groups: engineers and poets. He said the first group needs to know how things work in order to learn and the other one relies more on feeling and doing things.
I'm certainly no poet and as an engineer it might just be I am misunderstanding something here, but I can't quite grasp how the same energy is required for a 35 and 70 foot cast.
This really does not only apply to casting, so even a basic knowledge of casting is not essential. The same applies to a football hooligan (ex or current) throwing a half brick. More energy is required to propel the ½ brick into the opposing supporters at the far end than into the centre circle. Now the effect would be far easier to see with the ½ brick than it would be with a fly rod and line because once the ½ brick has left the hand of the football hooligan he no longer has control over its distance or path. With the fly rod and line he does, so perhaps he is doing something different with the 35 and 70 foot cast. I have no experience of ½ brick propulsion and I'm not one of the best casters, but I do understand basic physics and both a fly line and a ½ brick require more energy input in order to travel farther. :8)
That makes no difference. It's a basic law of physics that to travel farther requires more energy. Work = force x distance. You may be confusing efficiency. Efficiency will waste less energy, a better caster should be more efficient, but that does not alter the fact that to travel farther requires more energy.
I burn more petrol traveling to Wick than I do to Inverness, it's twice as far and requires twice as much energy (fuel). I can reduce this fuel usage by driving efficiently and wasting less. I can cast farther is I waste less of the energy I am applying.
If you can think of a way to 1/2 my fuel bills I'm all ears! :lol:
Quote from: admin on August 17, 2012, 06:39:25 PM
That makes no difference. It's a basic law of physics that to travel farther requires more energy. Work = force x distance. You may be confusing efficiency. Efficiency will waste less energy, a better caster should be more efficient, but that does not alter the fact that to travel farther requires more energy.
I burn more petrol traveling to Wick than I do to Inverness, it's twice as far and requires twice as much energy (fuel). I can reduce this fuel usage by driving efficiently and wasting less.
If you can think of a way to 1/2 my fuel bills I'm all ears! :lol:
You are cofusing theoretical physics with the practial. It is easy (even allowing for friction and air resistance) to contrive a situation where driving from home to Inverness and Wick would use the same amount of fuel. Inverness just has to be high enough above the start and finish point to allow you to freewheel to Wick.
The same is true of the 1/2 brick at the fitba', give the thug a Roman catapult and he can hit the far end easily, for less energy expended than chucking it (by hand) to the centre circle.
Use a machine, such as rod and line.
But it still makes no difference. To cast 70 feet with a rod and line requires more energy than to cast 35 feet with the same rod and line. Yes, different machines may alter the mechanical advantage, but all things being equal more distance requires more energy.
PS . any idea of how to smuggle a trebuchet into Easter Road? :lol:
It makes no difference the laws of physics apply no matter what you are chucking. If you are chucking the same object using the same gear under the same conditions and the object travels farther it has travelled farther because it has been provided with the energy to do so.
Yes, technique may improve efficiency of energy use (fewer losses), no one is arguing about that.
Archimedes once said "Give me a long enough TCR, a fancy tapered line, a Sage baseball cap and a place to stand, and I will cast to the other end of the rugby pitch". So choice of gear can make a difference, however, with all other things equal it requires more energy to make the same object travel farther. It's just the way things are. I don't like it any more than you do. If I could get something for nothing do you really think I'd be sitting here discussing this shit? Not a chance, I'd be in Canada right now catching wild 'bows and cutthroats. :lol:
Weird,
I was on the river a few times today. Most of the time spey casting with a WF line: when I let the line go I could cast it 30, 40 and more if I wanted. I thought I was merely adjusting the effort I was making. Clearly not, as I should have been casting the line was desigined to go. I know I wasn't casting 70 feet every time as the fly would have ended up in a bush 20 feet beyond the far bank.
Why should this be?
Quote from: Alan on August 17, 2012, 11:32:57 PM
when you cast the head it takes say 2 seconds to drop to the water, if you release line to shoot in that 2 seconds it will go further with the same energy,
Which means when it didn't go farther you were inputting too much energy and dissipating it in another way.
Alan,
A 70ft cast can't be made with the same effort as a 35ft cast. Any normal day on the river shows this. If it did every 35 ft cast would have to be stopped or we'd spend all our time on the rivers casting where we don't want to cast! I change distance by changing the power. Many of my casts are low spey casts where the line travels very low to the water and the loop unfurls right to left or left to right. So I vary the power whether I wish to spey cast 35ft or 50 feet.
Now a "comfort zone" or "comfortable casting distance" is absolutely not to be confused with this and varies with the person and is a function of perception. Last week I suggested to my 21 year old son that we do a spot of fishing. Although a keen fisher at 14 he gave up. So we set up a rod and headed to the playing fields just to make sure he could still cast. He used to ne a bit better as a caster than me but he was a bit rusty so our casting standards were roughly the same. Yet his comfortable casting distance with the rod was about 15 feet further than mine. Why? Well he is bigger and much stronger than me so what to me was a bit of a squeeze mean't nothing to him - so not a line constraint - it is a constraint of strength (given that technical ability is approximately the same).
Smooth so-called "effortless" power is much sought after in many sports. However we shouldn't mix up a reality with a convenient expression. Your "effortless" 70ft may translate to an "effortless" 50ft or 80ft for other people.
I give up, this is just going in circles, but you should contact The Dept. Of Energy Alan. I'm, pretty sure they would be interested in these ideas. They could be the answer to supplying the UK's energy needs without having to build new power stations. :lol:
Oddly enough I think I know where you are coming from Alan. Last evening I was out on a dusk session and spent 5 minutes finding out how much line shot from the rod rings before the loop unfurled.
Obviously if I don't stop the line with my left hand some shoots out. However even with the whole head out of the rings the amount of line that shot on a minimum power cast was only about 6-8 feet at this point the loop had straightened. I did try making longer casts without stopping the line shooting and it took considerably more effort to reach 60 feet. It shouldn'y matter but the rod I was using was a 9ft 6 6/7 with a WF8 line.