A wierd thing about casting distance

[scotty9]

It is impossible to quantify "feel".  I have had long discussions with Bill Hanneman ( Inventor of the "common cents system") on this. Unfortunately the common cents system is not as useful to "newbies" or those wanting to buy a rod based on data as some seem to think. You have to know quite a bit about it before it is very useful.  This is a pity, but it's just how it is. 

TL
MC

I agree it's impossible to quantify but to be honest it's the sole thing that matters in anybody's hand. What do you see as the main benefit of the data produced? It's an interesting one and I know there is huge debate over it, lots of proponents and also those who think it useless.

Malcolm - I understand everything you've posted there. I was nitpicking the point you said to Alan about it being to do with the real rating of the rod and very little to do with softness. The winston is a softer rod than the helios - that is all Alan's point was. What their ratings are don't matter to the result that he found. ERN tells us about the strength of the flex or softness/stiffness - you measure it by finding what weight is required to deflect the from from the horizontal along 1/3 of its length, from the tip. That's all I was meaning.

For fast and slow, that's a totally different element as you said.

Fred - I wouldn't say sexyloops is dead, I'd say it's thriving. In the past 2 years with their slow mo video analysis and a couple of folk delving way into the physics of casting, understanding of what is going on in certain casts has been transformed. I agree it's of almost no relevance to most but if you are interested in that kind of thing, it's fascinating seeing the developments. Magnus's arguments to Bill are well worth reading too, I imagine you were on the same page given your post? It's good reading 

I have another topic I'll start a thread on, something that came up here.

[Wildfisher]

Fred - I wouldn't say sexyloops is dead

You are right of course. As a casting site -  forum it's probably the best there is if you are into that kind of stuff. As fishing site it has pretty much died I should have been less generalising.

[Wildfisher]

i think there is a lot of unnecessary overcomplicating, confusing a very simple thing

That's one important reason I stopped reading  sexyloops.

Sometimes just going fishing can really help extract heads from arses.   :lol:

Anyway, this is all depressingly inefficient.  I'll cast a fly farther on a hill loch than any fly rod  you'd like to choose and no matter what the line, action  or "ERN" is .  Using a spinning rod, a fixed spool reel  and a bubble float will also cause a lot less disturbance.  :lol:

[Traditionalist]

[quote author=scotty9
I agree it's impossible to quantify but to be honest it's the sole thing that matters in anybody's hand. What do you see as the main benefit of the data produced? It's an interesting one and I know there is huge debate over it, lots of proponents and also those who think it useless.

It depends on what you want to do.

Malcolm - I understand everything you've posted there. I was nitpicking the point you said to Alan about it being to do with the real rating of the rod and very little to do with softness. The winston is a softer rod than the helios - that is all Alan's point was. What their ratings are don't matter to the result that he found. ERN tells us about the strength of the flex or softness/stiffness - you measure it by finding what weight is required to deflect the from from the horizontal along 1/3 of its length, from the tip. That's all I was meaning.

For fast and slow, that's a totally different element as you said.

"Fast and "slow"  are defined: This is as good as any other diagrams;  http://btrussell-fishingthroughlife.blogspot.de/2011/11/fast-medium-slow-action-fly-rods-which.html

Unfortunately this says nothing at all about recovery speed, and is meaningless anyway if you use different weights/lengths of line. Using a heavier line will slow the action and may also slow the recovery speed.  Most rods can be overloaded massively before anything untoward occurs, but how and why to do what when is often a mystery to many (most) anglers.


Fred - I wouldn't say sexyloops is dead, I'd say it's thriving. In the past 2 years with their slow mo video analysis and a couple of folk delving way into the physics of casting, understanding of what is going on in certain casts has been transformed. I agree it's of almost no relevance to most but if you are interested in that kind of thing, it's fascinating seeing the developments. Magnus's arguments to Bill are well worth reading too, I imagine you were on the same page given your post? It's good reading 

It's dead for some ! 

I have another topic I'll start a thread on, something that came up here.

TL
MC

[Inchlaggan]

Analysis is for the laboratory. "Feel" is for the water.
If you can bring both together, good for you, I can't.
I remember playing a rather good table-tennis chap, who whupped me every time, he changed his game and I started scoring a few points. I asked why. He explained that I had the best disguised-backhand-soft-topspin-return (or something like that) that he had ever played against and was trying to learn how to deal with it. I had no idea what he was talking about, and his explanations did not help, nor did his examinations of my stance, grip, bat (a cheapo) and much else. Armed with his advice I bought a better more expensive paddle and moved my right foot further forward, now everybody could whup me. That did not change my enjoyment of our lunchtime, social, TT league. Those who have an innate ability often struggle to describe exactly what they are doing. Amongst their own kind a necessary jargon develops. This uses common terms but with new meanings. Thus a "light" rod is not the opposite of a "dark" rod, nor need  a "heavy" rod weigh more than a "light" one. The uninitiated become confused, like me.

[scotty9]

Totally agree Fred! Fly fishing is purposefully more inefficient so that we can pretend we are sophisticated  :lol: :

Mike - can you give some examples please? That's all I asked.

Fast and slow, I left it as just saying it is a separate element. I presumed that would just be taken as action angle as described in the CSS as that is what we were talking about. If fast and slow is meaningless with different line weights and lengths then so is CSS.

Inchlaggan - you are most correct. It is all jargon created by those that are involved in it and it does not help someone who hasn't spent a bit of time going through the jargon to gain an understanding. If someone is going to explain something to someone not familiar with the terms of example then they need to simplify it right down until it is understood. This geekery stuff isn't relevant to 99% of fly fishers but if some want to take an interest then they need some form of communicating that, regardless of how imperfect that may be 

[Traditionalist]

Mike - can you give some examples please? That's all I asked.

Sorry, I seem to have lost the thread here somewhat, examples of what?

TL
MC

[scotty9]

In relation to the data created by using the common cents system.

MC -"I have had long discussions with Bill Hanneman ( Inventor of the "common cents system") on this. Unfortunately the common cents system is not as useful to "newbies" or those wanting to buy a rod based on data as some seem to think. You have to know quite a bit about it before it is very useful.  This is a pity, but it's just how it is. "

Me - "What do you see as the main benefit of the data produced? It's an interesting one and I know there is huge debate over it, lots of proponents and also those who think it useless."

MC - "It depends on what you want to do."

Me - "can you give some examples please?"

[Traditionalist]

In relation to the data created by using the common cents system.

MC -"I have had long discussions with Bill Hanneman ( Inventor of the "common cents system") on this. Unfortunately the common cents system is not as useful to "newbies" or those wanting to buy a rod based on data as some seem to think. You have to know quite a bit about it before it is very useful.  This is a pity, but it's just how it is. "

Me - "What do you see as the main benefit of the data produced? It's an interesting one and I know there is huge debate over it, lots of proponents and also those who think it useless."

MC - "It depends on what you want to do."

Me - "can you give some examples please?"

Oh, OK.  Well, the primary aim of the system is to classify a rod so that anybody could just use the data to be able to buy a rod with defined characteristics.  It is also very useful indeed if you build rods. If you already know what a certain rod does and you have the data for it, you can choose another similar, or even a completely different rod, based on other data for other rods.  It does tell you a lot about any rod you own if you do the tests, or you know what the data means.

The main problem here, as with many other things, is that a beginner has nothing at all to base his choice on.  Also, it is extremely doubtful that many will actually use the system. There is only a certain amount of bumpf people will accept, and there is a massive amount of stuff to learn about fishing, so most people wont bother with stuff like this.

TL
MC

[scotty9]

You said it wasn't as useful to people buying a rod as some people seem to think? There's also a difference in what it sets out to do and what it actually achieves. The rod building example, I like that, can happily accept that - that would be a good use of it.

I totally agree with the last paragraph.

I personally don't see that it offers any great benefit as a whole over the current system of subjective rating. It doesn't realistically tell me anything more that is going to be useful to me. If we handed out 5 rods of different CSS ratings through the various components would people be able to pick out which was which, I'm not convinced. It also does just as little as the current method in quantifying an ever flexible variable that is the length of line being cast. It tells me nothing of how the rod will cast at 10', 30', 40', 60' and so on just like the current system. It also attempts to predict what someone is looking for in terms of their preferred type of rod for a given line weight - that's not possible. I admire the approach, have a lot of time for someone willing to dedicate the time and effort to creating it but I don't see it being particularly useful to me. That's only my view of course and it's differing opinions that keeps the world a fun place.

In general I rarely find a rod rated under the current system and matched with the same line that is horrible to the point of I wouldn't fish it. In fact for a subjective rating I'd say they do a bloody good job.