Discussion in 'Spey Clave' started by kamishak steve, May 1, 2012.

  1. After years of speycasting for steelhead I've decided to move on to tenkara & 2 handed skagit tenkara because the math is simpler and speyfishing for steelhead is all but done for these days. Besides tenkara and beer go together with a lot less stuff to pack to the river..
  2. Chicks dig the two handed rod no matter what you call it.
    bennysbuddy likes this.
  3. No doubt about that... The caster makes the most difference. But given the same caster with different rods, one can "maximize" your fishing (whether it be distance, fatigue, casting classy rods, etc).
  4. I can really only remember making essentially 2 points in this thread, one of which I just made again in the above post, that of firmly believing that the most productive modelings of casting will always account for MORE variables/facets, not less, as you suggest is necessary in order to clarify some specific/particular effect.[/QUOTE]

    Totally true, but in modeling you often have to remove various factors as in most cases you'll find that correlation is not causation. And in a lot of cases, models need to fit the 90% before additional factors come into play. Case in point, if you read this:, you'll notice that there is a partial differential equation in the Z dimension in the paper, but the only affect of gravity they account for is in the final layout of the line...

    Nor has anyone said that. We've just made the argument that if you can have the same "action" with less mass in the rod, that should leave more mass to be in the line, as it will do more good from a casting perspective.

    And considering the realities of how rods are made, this will never happen. And frankly if you want to keep those kinds of rods in your hands, they'll remain a market for it. There's tons of folks who throw Boo, Greenheart, Glass, old graphite, etc that are perfectly happy with what they have. The *whole* point of the argument wasn't that this was bad, but rather that given a newer lighter material, one can still get the same soul in a rod while allowing the mass to move to the line.
  5. I'd have to go back and look, but my impression was that this wasn't limited to posing the hypothetical "if you can have the same action..." I wouldn't feel compelled to argue against that because it basically boils down to the effectiveness of the spring, assuming you can reproduce the action. I'm doubtful that a massless rod could ever "feel" or possess the same action as one made of graphite, as I believe the mass IS intrinsic to creating the action. Flexing the rod against it's own inertia creates a predictability in the energy you have to unload that is independent of what is taking place with the line. That is something that I intuit as a caster that I wouldn't ignore in attempting to appraise the role of inertia in the effectiveness of a rod. Anyways, I'm not convinced you can get the same old soul without the mass. I have yet to find any ultra low inertia rod that leads me to believe that this is the case, but maybe that is just a design problem they haven't approached yet.
  6. Yeah, I mentioned that you should be able to create the same action. Somehow that keeps getting lost. As for soul, the Solstice IMO is a very fast recovering rod with lots of soul....
  7. It wasn't lost on me. I'm just not convinced.

    The Solstice is nice, but I need to dial a line for mine. I haven't gotten quite the love from it that I have some of my other CND rods.
  8. What have you tried on it? An ACE 480 grain head rules, as well as a midspey 6/7...
  9. 6/7 FF, 6/7 SA Shortbelly Spey, 540 compact skagit

    The FF would be fine for close quarters, but I'd reach for my Burkie 7134 or Winston 7133 for more range, and that isn't just because they are firmer. The full 6/7 line felt like a bit much to me. The 6/7 SA is a bit light. The 540 + t-14 definitely felt like too much for the tip, like I'd get better recovery but plenty of load with 20-30gr less.
  10. Glad you brought it up again James, great series of posts BTW..

    As you can see, James are much better in discussion and lay out the idea much clearly than I. This is really the point we are trying to make over the whole thread. If you think about Tim Rajeff's video again, there are a lot of wisdom in it. Realistic or hypothetical ... depends how you see it and how you use the knowledge from it.

    Overall, I really enjoy the discussion with you. I can tell you are the upright guy and have the passion. Unlike some other people just hidden behind the screen and hitting the "like" buttons, simply just want to agitate the group discussion. It's really "pathetic" as you can tell! Childish maybe.. You definitely contribute some of important ideas to this forum. Analyze casting mechanics is not a easy task, as you can see in the PDF paper attached by James. That is the very reason, to me, to makes it an interesting subject to study. If it is too easy, I don't think we will be interested.

    I am not sure what you mean by F1 casters and F1 rod builders. Good caster, to me, not only can cast "far", but also understand "how" he/she get there, and "why" he/she need to make adjustment depending on the vary river conditions. Same as good rod builder, "how" to select a proper material and "how" to make a particular action to suit the customer's special need. Those "how" processes rely on not only experience, but also the deep understanding of bio-mechanics. Most importantly, if those experience can't be translate into more rigid mechanics terms, it will be very hard to compare different knowledge. I think Steve (Salmon_g) has stated this earlier in his post.

    The third category, Good instructors, well... they are "obligate" has to learn mechanics. Students come from different backgrounds, different level of knowledge. If a instructor don't understand the "how" processes by him/herself. How to translate the knowledge? how to make a proper analogy?! all he can say is "watch this!!" At some degree, we are all instructors. we are here to help out the beginners in this forum. Should we be more careful before we deliver the knowledge. Maybe not, if it has some entertaining values, I will also like to see that! Ha...

    If your good casters is measure by long cast, well... I agree distance casting is fun and has it special knowledge in it, long leverage, long shooting head and thin running line and such...My brother Travis cast 180 feet in the knee deep water this year, is that amazing or what?! Too bad, he is too humble to post here... otherwise we will be able to take a glimpse of his casting mechanics and how distance casting can apply in the real fishing world.

    In summary, if casting mechanics is not important to you, don't read those posts. (BTW, there are ignore function in this forum, I love it!), if light material is not important to you, don't buy it.. bamboo and fiberglass can be as fine as those nano graphite, depends on who is making it. and most importantly, Science won't help you catch more fish. BUT, they will make you more attractive in front of your friends! Ha...:)

    good discussion gentlemen! I am off fishing tomorrow! I think Kerry is right... overall we are just a bunch of fishermen... Go fishing!


  11. Mark,

    It bums me out to see you taking swipes at people. You took a couple at me in this thread, and plenty at other people. I might have returned the favor once or twice, but it all sucks. I don't recall you doing much of that until your "perfect loops" thread got such negative review. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and believe it or not, you occasionally say things that don't make any sense. Get a thicker skin...

    Regarding the actual content of the thread, I can't say I've been moved much by what James or you has said. I never tried to disprove any law of physics, and I agreed with everything said about the effectiveness of springs. I've only tried to be sensible of the limits of how that translates to actual casting/fishing when used in a simplified model. At one point, I recall you making the statement that the perfect rod is weightless. You've both made the statement that the same action/load/feeling/etc... can be attained with ultra light weight or weightless material by adding weight to the line and/or adjusting the taper. I don't think it is that simple, certainly not to the extent that eliminating inertia in the blank should be the overriding design goal of every builder. My point has simply been that blank inertia has a positive role to play in casting & fishing. We use it every day, but a simple model would have us believe it's the bogeyman. I'm not suggesting adding mass, but I believe there are limits to the benefit of removing mass, and I think as casters, there is much to be gained by being sensible of the role of rod inertia. As I already pointed out, flexing the rod against it's own inertia creates a predictability in the energy you have to unload that is independent of what is taking place with the line. Whether we realize it or not, we do this all the time, but less so with ultra low inertia rods, as they are less capable of it.

    What I realized last night is that I was injecting a subject matter and conversation that I am interested in into a dialog that is related, but ultimately a poor forum for my interests, which are grounded in how to get the most out of the dozen or so rods in my rack, and less inclined to what we will be casting in 20yrs. Around a year ago, I posted a thread on "sway" over on Speypages that didn't get much attention. I would like some review of my thinking on this to see if it's crap or not, but honestly, this thread has probably sucked my will to type BS for at least a few months, especially seeing as the rivers are getting ready to open.
    fisshman26 likes this.

  12. This isn't a swipe as it is an observation. When there is evidence that your position may need adjustment, you seem to not sway in your beliefs. If you want someone to call BS, you need to be able to either back your statements up, or modify your thoughts. Your statements on feel were well received and noted, but when the idea that things being less massive were brought up, you resisted and resorted back to your original argument on feel. We understand, acknowledge and believe what you say, but please either reread what was presented or just flat out say that this is your opinion. Opening up the conversation that you want someone to call BS and not listen to it is probably frustrating to all involved.

    As for the simple model problems, I would encourage you to read the pdf provide earlier as it will provide a mathematical rigor that we've been unable to do through our simple descriptions.

    As for the whole thread, hopefully you still found it useful. There certainly frustrating parts of it, but as a whole, I think a lot of useful (and not so useful) material was covered.
    fisshman26 likes this.
  13. Yeah, I went with the 510 skagit with T11 tips on that rod... The 540 gets really doggy.
  14. Trevor,

    I think a major part of the difficulty of this discussion is that not everyone is using the same definition of terms. For example, you refer to "low inertia" rods. I think the definition of inertia = resistance to change in motion, acceleration specifically. So a low inertia rod would have a low resistance to acceleration. A really low inertia rod could barely hold itself straight when no force is being applied to it (almost a wet noodle) so that it would bend completely at the application of the slightest force. Consequently I think you are using "low inertia" incorrectly and most likely mean something different.

    Mass in a rod definitely plays a role in rod action, and some of that role is negative. Slow recovery and slow to dampen are common in heavy rods of mediocre design. This is at least one reason why designers like graphite and the more advanced types of graphite for rod building. It helps reduce attributes that negatively affect casting. Contemporary bamboo rod design is very different from old designs - same material but different designs - in large part to make faster recovering rods that dampen faster after the casting force is applied to their inertia at rest. One of the methods of improving the performance of bamboo rods has been to reduce their mass as much as is feasible even in the tip section. So it goes with graphite rod design. The newest rods have less mass (and weight) even in their tip sections due to newer graphite fabric and resins. I think mass in this discussion has been confused at times with tip section taper and design, because the tip sections of contemporary graphite Spey rods are not heavy in weight or mass.

    I wish I were more knowledgeable of physics to better contribute to the conversation.

  15. My CND Solstice 13' 4" 6/7 likes a 450 Skagit head and 15' 8 wt tips and a 7 wt short belly floating line. Or I should probably say that my casting style brings out desirable results with those rod and line combinations.
  16. Trevor,

    I shake hands as friendly as you can imagine; teasing tone for teasers and fang to fang! Don't get too serious... we are just a bunch of fishermen talking around a camp fire as a wise man told me! If you don't get it, that's fine with me. If someone found this thread entertaining that's great. and if the casting mechanics influence some beginners, that's all bonus!


  17. Steve,

    You already did and I have to say I enjoy your good posts and good writings as always!

  18. So, I too have a solstice but have not lined it to my liking yet. Fished it early last summer with a windcutter 6/7/8 but it was too heavy. Then I came across the Custom 8/9 with a delta 8/9 it was sweet and I never went back to the solstice. Any suggestions on lines with at least 50' of belly for the solstice?
  19. I have the 14'3" 7/8/9 and the Vector 8/9 is money.
  20. Klickrolf,

    My 7 wt short belly is 52=55'. It's an Orvis made by SA.


Share This Page