So you are on a highland loch wandering along the bank with your 8ft 6 5 weight with a team of flies and there are fish rising steadily and you can cover them all perfectly and gently up to about 80ft or so with just a single false cast to get the line out. Totally effortless. Then a good one "head and tails" 90ft out. It's just 10 feet but all of a sudden that effortless cast changes. You look behind making sure that there is no rise in the bank, the single false cast becomes four false casts, the team of flies in their nice wide loop tightens up and every second cast is a balls-up for one reason or another. And this is weird. It doesn't much matter whether you are using a 7.5ft 4 weight or a 10ft 7 weight. There might be 5ft or so less with the 7.5ft 4 weight and 5 ft more with the 10 ft 7 weight.
But the same thing happens. Add 10ft to the effortless cast and it's not just a cast with a bit of effort: it's a whole new ball game.
Add 15ft and you have to take off a fly or two and make sure there is nothing behind you.
Add just 30 ft and you have to take off the fly altogether, put on a piece of wool, put on a longbelly line and you'll do quite well in many a casting competition!
Diminishing returns!
Malcolm
Best to take the wool off as well! :)
TL
MC
To me it has more to do with adrenalin rush :) If I ignore the fact that it is a big fish, relax, and cast as normal I don't have a great deal of bother, rush at it and the cast is in chaos. I also find that excessive casting causes the same problems which I put down to tiredness, leading to loss of concentration, or muscle tiredness causing the muscles to tighten and a loss of fluidity in the cast. Sitting down for a while helps.
In order to cover up my inept casting I justify my actions by pointing out that a single rise of a "good one" merely shows you where it was, not where it will be when you next cast.
Only consistently repeated rises are worthy of your attention. If these are beyond the reach of acceptable presentation there is little point in making the effort. If I do make the distance (usually after losing a few flees to the heather/trees, much cursing, using a casting action that starts around the knees, wading to the danger point and so on) presentation is pish. Nae fish. As Sandy has it, the sight of a whumper sends a dose of adrenalin to the brain, flushing out logic, sense and learning. Sit down, watch and think, the fish is still there.
Or buy a boat.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on April 11, 2012, 12:27:53 PM
In order to cover up my inept casting I justify my actions by pointing out that a single rise of a "good one" merely shows you where it was, not where it will be when you next cast.
Exactly. This I have also found to be the biggest issue on lochs.
No matter how good your casting is you will probably be casting onto empty water unless you can first work out the rising pattern and this is next to impossible with occasional risers.
In order of importance this is no different from any other situation: Observation first - casting second. Luck also plays a far greater role than most anglers will allow their egos to admit. :lol:
Quote from: admin on April 11, 2012, 12:42:13 PM
Exactly. This I have also found to be the biggest issue on lochs.
No matter how good your casting is you will probably be casting onto empty water unless you can first work out the rising pattern and this is next to impossible with occasional risers.
In order of importance this is no different from any other situation: Observation first - casting second. Luck also plays a far greater role than most anglers will allow their egos to admit. :lol:
I would go along with all of that.
Alex
I think experience plays a lot too. I tend to fish areas I 'know' should have fish. It may look like casting blind but the way I look at it there should be fish in the same areas from loch to loch. It is hard to quantify what I see I just 'know'. It is the same with rises, I will cover the area that the rise occurred in as well as around it, and I will keep casting into that area 'till I feel i am wasting my time and move on. This again I can't quantify as the time can be long or short, it is just a feeling. I will also cast back into an area even after moving as long as I can cover it which often results in a take or at least an offer. Again this isn't something I always do to every spot it is just when it 'feels' right :) Most fish in lochs have a patrol area, usually a circle or an ellipse in my experience, so casting into the area of a rising fish for long enough might result in the fish coming back and, seeing my fly, take it. This why I try not to rush into a long cast for a rising fish at distance. Rushing invariably results in a bad cast or it gets stuck in the heather behind me. The fish in the 'Casting in the Sun' video I put up is a case in point. The fish you see me playing and landing is the same one I miss earlier in the video, or at least it was in the same place. I walked up to where it was and fished into the general area where I thought it was and it took my fly. An awkward cast as the bank behind me was steep so every cast couldn't be rushed.
Quote from: buster1980 on April 11, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
Malcolm how many people do you know who cast 80ft with a team of flies
Malcolm can, he is a good, sold
fishing caster and to my mind fishing is what casting really should be about. Sport-distance casting is something else altogether. I'm pretty sure Alex would manage it too with little effort.
Quote from: buster1980 on April 11, 2012, 08:18:44 PM
I wonder if they practice
All the time Craig.
Sad bastards both of them :lol:
The post isn't actually about distance; it's about this ceiling in easy casting and how it hardly changes across line weights. I said 80ft but the exact distance doesn't matter. It just struck me as very strange when i was out yesterday salmon fishing with a 10ft 8 weight and realised the the comfortable casting distance hardly varied from my 7.5ft 3/4 weight. Ok I could stick a piece of wool on the end and get 15 feet more with the heavy rod compared to the light rod but it's much less than that in real life.
QuoteThe post isn't actually about distance; it's about this ceiling in easy casting and how it hardly changes across line weights. I said 80ft but the exact distance doesn't matter. It just struck me as very strange when i was out yesterday salmon fishing with a 10ft 8 weight and realised the the comfortable casting distance hardly varied from my 7.5ft 3/4 weight.
I agree too.
It's not just the
comfortable casting distance that doesn't vary much, the
maximum distance achieved doesn't vary much either, even in artificial non-fishing situations like casting competitions. Take a look at the top distance cast with a #5 line versus a #9 line on this site.
http://www.thebfcc.co.uk/category/results (http://www.thebfcc.co.uk/category/results)
With occasional exceptions, most people who took part only managed to cast the heavier outfit about a rod length further than they cast the lighter outfit.
Alex
I think the "comfortable distance" is a state of mind. I cast to that distance without thinking, my timing and power delivery is easy and relaxed. To cast that extra bit further causes me to think about it, this mucks up my timing, I put more effort into it and it all goes to rats :( The more practice I put in, the further the "comfortable distance" gets until air resistance, dodgy technique, and my bad back set the limit. A good balanced outfit will cast to about the same distance irrespective of the AFTM weight . IN MY HUMBLE OPINION
My usual cast is sixty to sixty five feet, how do I know? I know my three fly cast is ten feet. The tapered leader is five feet and I can get the belly of the WF line out which should be thirty feet. I shoot line, so another fifteen to twenty feet.
10+5+30+15/20=60/65'
What the flies are doing at that distance I very seldom care about. I can see them land in a straight line some of the time, to the left or right on others and back on themselves into a breeze. As long as they aren't tangled up I don't really care they are in the water and I can start fishing. If I really have to I can probably get another ten feet on a good day or more with a following wind, not into a head wind though.
It never matters to me whether they land in a heap or not, bad cast or good, they all get fished back to the shoreline. If the cast looks really bad I will check to see if the flies are tangled, sometimes they are others they're not. I try not to false cast too much no matter what length I want out just giving the rod a bit more "omph!" on the forward cast to speed the line up or I double haul the running line, or both, I also aim that bit higher above the surface.
I suppose it depends a lot on your expectations. I don't expect every cast to be a good one but I expect every cast to catch a fish :)
You normally cast a quite a bit more than 60-65 feet for your normal cast Sandy - more like 70-80 feet. You are forgetting the length of your rod (10ft) and the length of the head is more than 30 feet on most WF lines. When you were reaching for that trout rising at the edge of the ripple on the second last loch we fished it was pretty impressive stuff for a 3 fly cast certainly further than I would have attempted!
Arthur Cove used to fish up to about 90 feet with his nymphs on a 20ft leader with his DT5 but he was a very good caster and cast that sort of distance very easily but he stands out as being a bit exceptional and maybe the best practical (as compared to platform) distance caster I've seen with a team of flies but he wasn't all that pretty to watch. The point remains that the gap between the very best and people who have reached a decent level - like a lot of people on this forum - is comparatively small.
Quote from: Malcolm on April 12, 2012, 04:33:34 PM
You normally cast a quite a bit more than 60-65 feet for your normal cast Sandy - more like 70-80 feet. You are forgetting the length of your rod (10ft) and the length of the head is more than 30 feet on most WF lines. When you were reaching for that trout rising at the edge of the ripple on the second last loch we fished it was pretty impressive stuff for a 3 fly cast certainly further than I would have attempted!
Arthur Cove used to fish up to about 90 feet with his nymphs on a 20ft leader with his DT5 but he was a very good caster and cast that sort of distance very easily but he stands out as being a bit exceptional and maybe the best practical (as compared to platform) distance caster I've seen with a team of flies but he wasn't all that pretty to watch. The point remains that the gap between the very best and people who have reached a decent level - like a lot of people on this forum - is comparatively small.
Mr.Cove used an #8 weight with a #4 or #5 line. It was not pretty, but he managed to belt them out. This is too extreme for most. Severe underlining does work for some things, but it takes a lot of practice to use it.
TL
MC
Just in case anybody is wondering about that, there are only two ways to obtain distance. One is to shoot a lot of line, and the other is to aerialise a lot of line. Aerialising long light lines is considerably more difficult than aerialising short heavy ones, but it does have the advantage of delicate presentation, even at distance, assuming you can do it! :)
TL
MC
Quote from: haresear on April 11, 2012, 01:55:11 PM
I would go along with all of that.
Alex
Me too :)
I know it was said distance wasn't the absolute importance here but an 80' cast to fish with standing on a bank - that's one fecking hard cast. I can comfortably cast past that with a #5 line with little effort in a field, not in a fishing situation with obstacles everywhere though. Well I can but lord knows where the fly is going to end up and what the leader is going to do, it might turn over straight but it won't do it everytime. On a loch with space behind me I'd say my upper limit assuming the wind isn't straight in my face is around 60-70' with a #5 line and single dry. If you put out a tape you soon realise just how far away that actually is.
The problem is no-one and I mean no one carrying a decent amount of line can keep it high enough off the ground to deliver a long cast to fish with. For distance without using some form of shooting head you need to be able to drop the backcast, you need to alter the trajectory, to be quite frank I don't know of many places you go fishing where you can do that.
The reason it becomes harder and harder to go further is you need more speed in the line to counter gravity's effects and you can't indefinitely create more speed, you have finite energy you can impart to the rod and that's assuming you can get the most out of that energy. If you want to cast far in a fishing situation use a shooting head or a #9 weight, I can put a #9 a lot further than I can a #5... In fact, buy a float tube.
it's not speed that keeps a line in the air. It's tension.
TL
MC
A fully taught line from rod tip to loop may still land before it turns over.
For the record I agree tension is very important but it's not the only thing that will get you the distance.
Also just realised I've read the distance in relation to targetting a rising fish and thought dry fly. You want the fly landing with a straight leader for that, I hate any movement to the leader or line when I'm hoping for a rise to the fly. If you're going to be pulling flies it doesn't matter how they land like Sandy says. That's quite a big difference maker in casting distance terms IMO.
Quote from: scotty9 on April 13, 2012, 01:19:50 AM
A fully taught line from rod tip to loop may still land before it turns over.
For the record I agree tension is very important but it's not the only thing that will get you the distance.
A taut line will only land if it is not aimed high enough.Tension is all that keeps a line in the air, regardless of the speed.
TL
MC
Quote from: scotty9 on April 13, 2012, 01:23:57 AM
Also just realised I've read the distance in relation to targetting a rising fish and thought dry fly. You want the fly landing with a straight leader for that, I hate any movement to the leader or line when I'm hoping for a rise to the fly. If you're going to be pulling flies it doesn't matter how they land like Sandy says. That's quite a big difference maker in casting distance terms IMO.
Hmmm.......one of the old adages from a few top casters who actually fished was, "learn how to cast a nice straight line and leader, and then never ever do it again while fishing!".
TL
MC
Slack line dry fly on still water? Just as a general way of doing things? Ok.
If I place a line on the ground behind me bolt straight to my rod with the rod perpendicular to the line, now I start to make a cast and under acceleration the line is fully tight. I can now stop the rod and a loop will be formed as the line passes the rod. If the acceleration or speed imparted to the line was not sufficient to turn it over, then it wasn't enough. Increase the speed and you get there. Now I can see you could look at this as increasing the speed may lead to tension. But then tension in what? Between the fixed rod tip point and the unrolling loop?
I'm happy to be wrong if it can be explained to me - actually I'd welcome that as that is learning. This is the bit that really gets me:
If I make a cast and throw a dirty great hump mend into it to create a big pile of line in the middle of the bottom leg of the loop, the cast can still unroll. If we talk of tension in the loop face then surely it's unrolling because it is attached to a fixed point, the rod tip. I've just broken that fixed point by a pile of slack, yet it keeps going. That to me indicates the speed of the line moving forward is important.
Tension is the only thing that keeps a line in the air, and a straight line path of the rod tip is the only way to do it. ANY slack or rod tip deviation will cause problems ( also known as "trick casts" ! :) )
The tension is between the rod tip and the line loop which is unrolling. The rod tip is a fixed point compared to the line the moment you stop it, and this is what forms the loop. The better the stop, the better the loop. The line is taut against the rod tip. Tension is maintained, even if you shoot line, because the drag of the line you are shooting maintains the tension on the unrolling loop.
If you relax tension at ANY point during the cast, prior to forming the loop, the line will fall to the ground, or not travel in a straight line. The main trick is to increase the line tension, ( also commonly and incorrectly referred to as "line speed"), smoothly but constantly throughout the cast up to the point of forming the loop. A haul on the line imparts a great deal of tension when it is applied. This tension is what gives the increase in distance. It is not "speed" as such. Although of course the greater the tension the more kinetic energy is generated, so the line flies further.
I have a mathematical model of it somewhere that I worked out a long time ago. I will try and find it and post it.
If anything is unclear, then ask again. Once you understand this principle you will cast better and further, because you then know exactly what you are trying to do.
TL
MC
Indeed, if you manage to "scrape the grass" with a low back cast you will increase the line tension on the forward stroke and the line will go further. Assuming you get everything else right as well. Setting an "anchor" with a spey cast does the same thing. It doesn't speed the line up. it increases the tension. A haul increases the tension even more.
This is more or less useless for normal fishing. Even if you don't hang up, you will knacker your line pretty quickly.
TL
MC
Mike - sorry I have only just realised you are talking about tension before the stop, I was talking about it after the stop.
Before the stop yes tension is everything but what that tension is doing is allowing you to impart speed to the line. We are on the same page with that. After I make the stop I can throw the rod in the direction of the unrolling loop if I want and the loop will keep going (I think, I'm going to try this tomorrow).
My argument was based on after the stop, it's the speed in the line that keeps it travelling out - and I whole heartedly agree that it's tension making the cast that allows you to do that. When you mention hauling, yes your haul adds tension and that tension adds increased speed of the line in the direction of the cast.
Both tension and speed are important, it is not tension alone that leads to more distance. Distance is speed x time, tension during the cast allows you to add more speed. It is the speed imparted to the line that ultimately gives it the momentum to move forward.
I fully understand tension before the loop is formed, in fact that's my holy grail when I'm casting far, get the backcast as tight as possible to allow all force to go to increasing speed of the line as I start pulling it forward rather than taking up slack.
I do think that we are on the same page, I just got confused with which elements we were meaning.
Quote from: Mike Connor on April 13, 2012, 02:45:53 AM
Indeed, if you manage to "scrape the grass" with a low back cast you will increase the line tension on the forward stroke and the line will go further. Assuming you get everything else right as well. Setting an "anchor" with a spey cast does the same thing. It doesn't speed the line up. it increases the tension. A haul increases the tension even more.
This is more or less useless for normal fishing. Even if you don't hang up, you will knacker your line pretty quickly.
TL
MC
More time to think about this in between studying :) I really should start going to bed earlier mind you, now the guys I fish with can see why I really struggle with mornings!
Catching the grass will slow down the line and cause a wave in the leader. Neither wanted. Have you seen the effects of a cast that ticks the ground compared to one that doesn't on a distance cast? It will either collapse the cast (which at a certain moment in time there would have been great tension), or it will send an awful wave into the line that generally stops it turning over.
Before the stop I see tension as facilitating the transfer of your casting energy to the entire length of line. The goal is getting that line to move as fast as possible for distance (I know that's only one element to a good distance cast, still have to consider loop shapes etc) and tension allows us to do this. The main forces on the line excluding gravity will be its own inertia and drag. If we increase tension we must be increasing the force applied to the line as these two forces are all we are pulling against. This increased force is increased acceleration of the rod resulting in a higher line speed in the direction of the cast.
At the end of the day it is momentum that results in the line travelling forward. Momentum is a product of mass and velocity. Tension allows us to impart velocity to the whole line from rod tip end to fly - this is difficult to achieve. I agree you need both but speed is the goal and speed is created at the rod, tension allows the entire line to gain speed. http://leecummingsflyfishing.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/fly-casting-seen-through-line-tension-glasses/ (http://leecummingsflyfishing.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/fly-casting-seen-through-line-tension-glasses/) Lee is very well respected as being an exceptional caster and one of the best instructors around. His thoughts on tension are about getting maximum speed into the entire portion of line in the direction you want it.
Paul Arden is the best distance caster I have seen in the flesh and his core goal is line speed.
After the stopIn terms of increasing tension after the stop, this will make the loop unroll faster but this is not what you are looking for for further distance. An unrolling because the top leg is travelling faster than the bottom leg, I agree this is due to tension, it's going to be immediately after the stop as the line first passes the rod tip, now the top is travelling faster than the bottom. The instant you start shooting line you are decreasing the tension, now imagine you increase it. If you increase tension on the bottom leg you are going to reduce ultimate distance and speed up how quickly the loop unrolls.
If I cast a head with equal length and weight as another but one has mono running line and one has normal fly line running line which will travel further? At the moment of release they will have exactly the same tension and exactly the same speed assuming an identical cast. The one with mono will travel further as it will not slow down as quickly, now is that because of less mass or less friction, either way there is less tension as there is less opposing force.
The tension of an anchor on a spey cast is to stop the line from slipping backwards thus allowing more force to be applied to the line in the direction of the cast. This is a great video. https://vimeo.com/26829591 (https://vimeo.com/26829591)
That's my thoughts on tension and speed in a distance cast.
I have cast and fished with quite a few first class casters over the years. Jack Martin, ( who really taught me how to cast properly many years ago now), Dick Swift, Paul Arden, and a few others. There are differences in detail, but they all try for the same thing. I think there are still problems with a lot of the terminology in general.
TL
MC
I used to fish the Eyebrook reserviour in Northamptonshire where Arthur Cove used to sell flies out the back of his car on the car park by the fishing hut.Many of the locals used to fish there for the browns in early season using a shooting head made from lead core line(now banned for safety reasons I'm told)they could shoot this contraption out sixty or seventy yards using a fly reel on a spinning rod.There would be a black fly on the point and a whisky fly on a dropper,I saw people get 40 or 50 stockies in a day before a catch limit was introduced.
I thought a great deal about this once upon a time. I think the main problem with softer rods is that you simply can not drive them fast enough. This is much easier with a fast rod. If you try to drive a slow rod too fast it will just bend more and not accelerate the line as well as a fast rod.
In theory a rigid stick should work best of all, but of course it wont, because the rod bend is what allows you to get the timing right. You can cast with a rigid stick but the timing is absolutely critical, as you will lose tension easily. The rod bend allows you to maintain tension.
Hope that made sense?
TL
MC
Indeed. Overlining a soft rod will also cause problems as it slows it down even more and usually slows recover as well.
TL
MC
As I have said in other posts I don't really think a lot about my casting unless there isn't a lot happening and I get bored. The telescopic rod I was using on my last trip I found very soft compared to the Daiwa I normally use. I suppose it didn't help much that it was probably cracked at the time I was using it. When I first started casting with it I couldn't get the line to go out as far as I would normally with the ten foot, the Shakey was only nine although both #7 weights. As the day progressed I gradually altered my usual casting to match the rod, not consciously as such it just happens when I use a different rod, until I was casting my usual distance and getting the line to land more or less as I wanted it. I'm not sure what I did but it feels like I slowed my action down slightly to allow the slower rod to catch up with the line before going into the forward cast.
As far as high banks and casting are concerned I just make sure the line is going up rather than straight back and cast in the direction I want the line to go in. When I was first learning to cast my mate, who was teaching me, couldn't understand how I managed to get the line to go out in front without tangling as it went up and crumpled, his words, on the back cast. I do catch the hillside occasionally but it is normally as I get tired, bored, distracted or try for a few feet more to cover the fish that was just rising out of range. I fish to my limits and only try a few casts at out of range fish before reverting back to just casting and fishing. I don't get hung up if I can't make the cast, or it gets stuck in heather behind me, I just forget about it and carry on along the bank.
Mike,
Oddly enough I normally cast a little better and a little further with softer rods. Generally I find almost no difference between any rods - be they from the 1980s or the latest offering from Sage. Indeed there is little difference in distance terms between a 40 year old 6 weight glass and a modern carbon rod for practical fishing. The cargbon is about an ounce or so lighter.
One exception is the Hydros 5 weight that Alan mentions I can barely cast at all although I have seen Scotty9 on here cast 114ft with it.
Quote from: Malcolm on April 14, 2012, 10:16:54 PM
Mike,
Oddly enough I normally cast a little better and a little further with softer rods. Generally I find almost no difference between any rods - be they from the 1980s or the latest offering from Sage. Indeed there is little difference in distance terms between a 40 year old 6 weight glass and a modern carbon rod for practical fishing. The cargbon is about an ounce or so lighter.
One exception is the Hydros 5 weight that Alan mentions I can barely cast at all although I have seen Scotty9 on here cast 114ft with it.
A lot depends on technique. I know a bloke who casts well over 100 feet using an old bamboo rod , ( he uses the Belgian style http://www.g-feuerstein.com/Elliptical_Fly_Casting.html (http://www.g-feuerstein.com/Elliptical_Fly_Casting.html) ). Some rods are well suited to some people, others far less so. Some people can use virtually any rod and others have problems with only slight differences. The modern trend seems to be mainly towards extremely fast rods. For some things I prefer a softer heavier ( actual weight in ounces) rod because you can do things with them that you can't do with lighter rods. For close range light line fishing you can't beat a rod with a decent heavy tip. The tip itself is sufficient to cast just a leader. It won't work well with light carbon fibre rods. I have a "solid" carbon fibre rod which also works well for this. All depends on what you want and how you use it.
TL
MC
Quote from: Mike Connor on April 14, 2012, 10:45:44 PM
For some things I prefer a softer heavier ( actual weight in ounces) rod because you can do things with them that you can't do with lighter rods. For close range light line fishing you can't beat a rod with a decent heavy tip.
TL
MC
Do you know Mike, you are the only person I have ever heard say that apart from me! I prefer a rod with a heavier blank because it will pick up my heavy flies from anywhere for the short and accurate spey casting which I spend my half my fishing life doing. Fast or light rods simply don't cut the mustard. Greenheart is nearly as good as older carbon and much better than modern carbon but is much too heavy for practical all day fishing.
PS. Although common, "Belgian style" is the wrong name for the elliptical casting technique. It is correctly referred to as Gebetsroither Technique or Austrian Style.
TL
MC
Quote from: Malcolm on April 14, 2012, 10:57:18 PM
Do you know Mike, you are the only person I have ever heard say that apart from me! I prefer a rod with a heavier blank because it will pick up my heavy flies from anywhere for the short and accurate spey casting which I spend my half my fishing life doing. Fast or light rods simply don't cut the mustard. Greenheart is nearly as good as older carbon and much better than modern carbon but is much too heavy for practical all day fishing.
Very fast light rods can be a real problem at short distance. Although a lot of people will give you arguments about that! :) I did some experiments a few years ago, adding weight to the tips of some rods. (I just put various tungsten weights in the tip). Worked great for short distance light line fishing as the rod loads itself, and obviated the problem of the whole rod being too heavy. Indeed I think the reason many people overline drastically is to try and slow down their "pokers" as otherwise they can't use them very well at "normal" fishing distance. "Normal" varies of course according to where you fish and what you fish for.
There are all sorts of nice tricks you can do. Many people have major problems because their gear is not matched up properly and also not tailored to their real requirements. Some are impressed with people/rods who/which can cast a whole line , there was a common trick by some firms/casters at game fairs years ago, they cut twenty feet off a DT and demonstrated casting the "whole" line, certainly sold some rods, and as the buyers never ever attempted to cast a whole line it was seldom noticed or remarked upon.
If you fish small streams and the like then you are looking for ease and precision at very short range. You certainly don't need a rod and line setup that can cast 60 feet, let alone 100. You can not even see further than 30 feet on some streams. Still water fishing is different again.
TL
MC
Quote from: Mike Connor on April 14, 2012, 11:19:16 PM
If you fish small streams and the like then you are looking for ease and precision at very short range. You certainly don't need a rod and line setup that can cast 60 feet, let alone 100. You can not even see further than 30 feet on some streams.
Last year I bought a short #4 weight split cane rod just for that. It loads itself and casts and turns over a few feet fly line and leader. It reminds me of everything I lost in fly fishing.
Quote from: Alan on April 14, 2012, 11:36:45 PM
Austrians copied it from an old belgian guide who used it to cast nymphs according to Ritz, it can be used in a slight upward curve to get a high back cast but it never works, should rename it the 'heather cast'.
The style was invented by Hans Gebetsroither an Austrian shoemaker, river keeper, and guide. He taught the style to a number of people, one of whom was a Belgian named Albert Goddart who won a silver medal at the world championship in Brussels in 1958. He met a lot of Americans and demonstrated the Gebetsroither style in the USA, that's why the Americans call it the Belgian Style.
Hans Gebetsroither died in 1986.
This is Hans Gebetsroither;
Fliegenfischen: Wurftechnik nach Gebetsroither (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXgEQdQ9pNs#)
he was a very nice bloke. I met him a few times. By the way, he invented the style as a result of looking for ways to dry his customers soaked silk lines more quickly.
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on April 15, 2012, 12:23:50 AM
thats interesting, I'm sure Ritz had the same story the other way round, a thing that has interested me for a long time is Lee Wulff's oval cast, popularised by Joan more than Lee, she considered it the most energy efficient and elegant cast, i'd like to see the cast performed in the original way, common perception that this is similar to a belgian cast but i believe its very different, nearer to italian style.
Have a look here;
http://www.g-feuerstein.com/Elliptical_Fly_Casting.html (http://www.g-feuerstein.com/Elliptical_Fly_Casting.html)
EDIT: Link changed, I posted the wrong link!
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on April 15, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
i'd propose that softer rods just max out at distance.
..and I'd propose that although they both have #5 on the butt, as the ERN of the Winston is 4.3 and the Helios is 6.7 that you overloaded your Winston and the Helios was just getting into it's comfort zone! Distance and whether the rod is soft or stiff really doesn't matter much.
Quote from: Alan on April 15, 2012, 10:58:48 PM
thats quite interesting, it seems the elliptical cast was already evolved before Lee Wulff used it, i looks the same, short rod/no stop, presumably he saw this visiting and fishing with the Europeans,
i'm a fanatical collector of Swiss and Austrian casts, i use Gunter Feuerstein's version of the snap Z a lot, very useful cast, any idea where i can find the ones lost to time?
strange thing is when i use these casts everyone says they can't be bothered with this new fancy rubbish :lol:
I have a few discs full of stuff somewhere, I fear they got buried when I moved house. I will see if I can find them.
TL
MC
Quote from: Malcolm on April 16, 2012, 12:32:46 AM
..and I'd propose that although they both have #5 on the butt, as the ERN of the Winston is 4.3 and the Helios is 6.7 that you overloaded your Winston and the Helios was just getting into it's comfort zone! Distance and whether the rod is soft or stiff really doesn't matter much.
Apropos of butt markings: the Corries sang a little ditty about that;
On the bosom of young Abigail
is written the price of her tail,
And on her behind
for the use of the blind
is the same information in braille.
This information is probably at least as much use as what is marked on rod butts! :)
TL
MC
Quote from: Alan on April 16, 2012, 09:30:00 AM
i'd say thats bang on, but makes the last line a bit confusing, it matters when you have to present a fly in that one makes the distance with ease the other is overloaded and difficult of control.
the control you loose is precisely the control you need to keep the line above shoulder height away from snags.
Definitely.
I agree with Malcolm in the sense that talking about distance on a tape there isn't much of a difference but in a normal fishing style casting stroke there might come a point where the extra bend in the softer rod can become harder to control. You want economy of movement when you're fishing and when the point comes that your stroke needs to be too long or casting arc too wide for it to be comfortable fishing then step up to a stiffer rod. This you can overcome on the casting field and why you won't notice much difference there.
It's also the reason I tend towards stiffer rods. A 7' #3 (or#4, can't remember what it is) split cane rod is gorgeous for short distances but it becomes hard to control quite quickly. A stiff rod might be slightly less comfortable (very short stroke) at short distance but allows longer distance more comfortably due to the same relative short stroke. I tend to pick the rod that can most comfortably do everything. All rods are a trade off of pros and cons, it's about picking what you need or what suits your preferences if you are not willing to change - you get used to the rod you most often use.
Even after all that, I have to say at most of my usual fishing distances it doesn't really matter but it's nice to have the easy extra reach when you want it.
There's no such thing as a bad rod or best rod, it's the guy holding it that matters.
Alan,
It's got very little to do with the softness Alan and everything to do with the real rod rating.
I know that the Common Cents system isn't perfect but I find it much better than the figure that appears on the rod butt. The simple fact is you were overloading a 4 (ERN 4.3) weight rod and so no wonder it wouldn't be as stable as a 6 weight rod (ERN 6.7) at long distance with a 5 weight line.
If Winston made a rod with an ERN of 6.7 but stamped #5 on the butt - like the Helios - then it would do just as well I'm sure. In fact they probably do but they will stamp #7 on the butt.
I'll stick with the slow rods!
Quote from: Malcolm on April 16, 2012, 01:27:33 PM
I know that the Common Cents system isn't perfect but I find it much better than the figure that appears on the rod butt.
Agreed. Most definitely. It is the only system that addresses many problems in any way at all.
TL
MC
Quote from: Malcolm on April 16, 2012, 01:27:33 PM
Alan,
It's got very little to do with the softness Alan and everything to do with the real rod rating.
I know that the Common Cents system isn't perfect but I find it much better than the figure that appears on the rod butt. The simple fact is you were overloading a 4 (ERN 4.3) weight rod and so no wonder it wouldn't be as stable as a 6 weight rod (ERN 6.7) at long distance with a 5 weight line.
If Winston made a rod with an ERN of 6.7 but stamped #5 on the butt - like the Helios - then it would do just as well I'm sure. In fact they probably do but they will stamp #7 on the butt.
I'll stick with the slow rods!
Malcolm surely the real rod rating as you mention is the same as the softness? All you are measuring is how much mass it takes to bend the rod to a given point. One of lower ERN is softer than one of higher ERN, softness and real rod rating are the same thing. I know this doesn't cover the full measurements of the CSS but for ERN that's all there is to it.
I agree that CSS is a step in the right direction for quantifying things but it's no substitute for trying different rods or the same rod with different lines etc. It still tells you nothing about how a rod will feel in your hand - which is the thing that matters most. I have never checked the CSS scale before buying a rod, don't see the point to be honest. I go out and cast them. If I can't cast it first it needs to be at a bargain price that I reckon I can sell on without a loss.
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
Scott,
I think there is a definition mix-up. Here is my take on it:
soft > stiff: this is a description of modulus so
"Soft" would be greenheart, glass , low modulus carbon typically found in rods up to the mid 90's.
"Stiff" would be very high modulus rods like the Sage TCX.
Slow > Fast: a description of action.
Tip action is fast,
spey action is slow.
ERN > rod rating:
"ERN" an objective line rating mechanism based on 30ft. So the Winston Alan mentioned is 4.3 so basically a 4 weight. The Helios is 6.7 so is at least a 6 weight. This despite the fact that both have #5 on the butt.
"Rod rating" (as put on the butt of a rod) a subjective line rating which may be based on 30ft but is equally likely to be something else entirely, like the ability of that rod to comfortably put out 100 feet of line of that line rating.
............
Given the above it is quite possible to have a soft rod rated 10 or more. Some of the old 21ft greenheart vibration rods (ultra soft) had a real line rating of AFTM 20+
You can have combinations of the above: for example amongst rods you have tried:
Fast + Stiff: your Sage TCX
Medium + stiff: my Loomis Trilogy #7 that you tried
soft + slow: my Sparton 7.5ft 3/4 that you happened to cast 99ft!
Quote from: Mike Connor on April 16, 2012, 04:08:46 PM
I have had long discussions with Bill Hanneman ( Inventor of the "common cents system") on this.
I had long discussions with Bill too. He was hacked off when Magnus Angus and I published results of blank frequencies on the, now pretty much dead, Sexyloops forum, measured with some gear I designed, in HZ rather that CPS. It's the same thing, but Bill reckoned American / obsolete British Imperial units were better understood then SI units. I quickly got fed up of Sexyloops and this kind of stuff, too many people talking shite about stuff they obviously knew next to nothing about. :roll:
Quote from: Mike Connor on April 16, 2012, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Quote from: scotty9 on April 16, 2012, 05:41:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Alan on April 16, 2012, 06:15:24 PM
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:
[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 (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
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.
Totally agree Fred! Fly fishing is purposefully more inefficient so that we can pretend we are sophisticated :lol: :8)
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 :)
Quote from: scotty9 on April 16, 2012, 09:53:36 PM
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
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?"
Quote from: scotty9 on April 16, 2012, 11:18:07 PM
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
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.
If you are happy with your rod and you ever have to replace worn out rings be sure you get identical ones. If not you may end up with a very different feeling rod. The physical (as opposed to theoretical) tests I did showed that very small differences in tip weight could speed up or slow the rod down considerably.
Quote from: admin on April 17, 2012, 09:55:14 AM
If you are happy with your rod and you ever have to replace worn out rings be sure you get identical ones. If not you may end up with a very different feeling rod. The physical (as opposed to theoretical) tests I did showed that very small differences in tip weight could speed up or slow the rod down considerably.
Indeed, even very small changes are magnified by the massive leverage involved.
TL
MC