Rods and loops
Let's look at my thoughts then. Soft rod, stop rod, rod
carries on moving forward, loop opens, BIG air resistance. Line
velocity lost. Vice Versa for Fast Actioned. Plus, slow rod takes
longer to unload, thus slow line speeds. And again, vice versa. Now if I am way off, please explain the gap.
2nd part is correct. 1st part isn't spot on - next email will explain - it has to do with path of tip. A cane rod will do this since it the tip flexes the other way after the stop under it's own weight.
Not just because it has a soft action then ?
The tip bouncing forwards won't open the loop up by very much esp since it bounces back again. What is far more important is the path the rod tip travels during the stroke. That is key.
Sorry I just don't follow. Soft rod, tip goes forwards, opens loop. Even if
there is a bounce back the loop has already been opened. Answer me this
then, apart from cosmetics, weight etc., why have we changed almost
exclusively over to fast actioned carbon rods if we could get the same
effect with cane or glass?
No I mean that although the AFTM is very specific, the number on the rod is someone's opinion.
Ah Ha ! Got you ( O.K. thick, I know ). Of course I should have
realised this really as people often ask me why rods are 6 - 8, 5 - 7
etc. Huge jumps in weight really and surely if we adhere to the concept
of the AFTM ( A ! ) scale, clearly incorrect.
Q. Let's say a rod was rated 5/6 what weight line would you use and would you use a different weight between DT and WF. If so which way and why.
I would choose a 5 weight DT and 6 weight WF. The DT is thick throughout it's length so by choosing the lower line size more overhang can be created from the rod tip, thus producing more load on the rod. Too much overhang with a 6 weight DT could effectively overload the rod.
Ok I understand but overhang is only relative to WF. The point really is that you can aerialise more DT and therefore more weight (mass).
Conversely the WF has less thick "belly" section b4 it meets the rear
taper and running line. While it is fine to have some overhang using a
WF too much and the line will not turn over properly as the thin line is
not stiff enough to turn over the thick belly section.
The thin line produces less friction. This can make presentation more difficult. Stiffness is not relevant.
I understand the less friction thing, no problem. Shooting heads are a
good example. But I think stiffness is relevant. Turn a KTL back to front and try and
cast it. Not possible. Surely this is similar to the WF extending from the
rod tip. Great example of this is watching someone false cast many, many
times until they have more running line out of the rod tip than they can
handle. It collapses in a heap. But let's think DT, is my explanation regarding overloading with the 6 correct?
Mass and diameter are important. Not stiffness. Same for leaders. And see below.
Yes, got this. Mass and diameter, understood. I am thinking too literally. God if only we had been having these discussions 14 years ago, I my have taken Physics as an option !
Most rods have a progressive action. And since you can vary the amount of line outside the tip you effectively change the loading. You are right to state that ten yards is not correctly loading the rod. But
neither is 12 or 14 or 16. Better would be to state that they are all correct.
Depending on the caster, yes ?
Partly but mainly depending on the situation. Sometimes you may only want to cast 8 yrds, others 20, others 30. The more line you aerialise the greater the flex in the rod and the longer the loop can remain in the air before unfurling.
Spot on,easy to understand that.
Thumb on top of the rod
So let me get this straight, you have your palm underneath the rod ?
Looking at a rod section right now that must mean your 4 fingers are on
top of the rod and your thumb on the side. I am trying it now, and boy,
is it uncomfortable or what ! Yes, lets look at the grip in more detail.
At about 45 degrees and that is my starting position. It is not correct, but it is not wrong either. Instead of a wrist snap, I rotate from the elbow. These are the variations the AAPGAI Prospectus ;-) talks about
Coming to your eye would indeed put the hand inside the elbow. However in fact I have worded this badly. I would use the eye as a *guide*, i.e. bringing the rod up "level" with the eye, not in "front" of it. Still don't like the finger up, sorry.
The stop is when the finger is just outside peripheral vision.
Or left for a leftie :)
I don't use the finger pointing grip either... but if you have a guy taking the rod too far back this *instantly* fixes it. He can always revert to thumb on top next cast.
Will try it on Wednesday, my next guest.
Interested to know what happens
Will let you know. Now let's ask this. Are we going to base our thoughts upon intermediate and advanced casters ?
We have to cover it all.
Good point. Boy this stuff takes some thought. Just hope I don't confuse myself too much. We need to make sure we sort the wheat from the chaff, you know what I mean ? So how well would I have done ?
Not as well as you will do now. The fact that you can throw a fine loop *always* counts for a lot. Some of the stuff you have written is not true, but there again so is Peter MP's book. Massively inaccurate. And I will be making this point in this section. I am not saying every member of the AAPGAI has a complete knowledge of flycasting, but if the more you know the better you cast. What I would say is that every flycasting instructor should at the very least understand how flycasting works. This is not a reflection on you since 95% of instructors in the UK would have written something similar. I will make that point in these pages and that is why you have nothing to worry about in relation to this stuff going on the net. You may have passed the AAPGAI with this stuff 3 yrs ago. I don't know if it's good enough now. Which apart from the fact that I think that you should understand how it works :-) is a good reason to learn it.