in search of a perfect loop

Discussion in 'Spey Clave' started by yuhina, Dec 17, 2011.

  1. :beathead:
  2. No problem! Greg,

    above statement is what I disagree with and I respect your opinion

    You mentioned this already established forward stroke is already "done deal" even before the downward stroking portion.
    I say the downward stroking is a continuous power pressing, and continuous adding acceleration (force) to the loop (fly in different path) until the rod almost touch the surface, and this is done by through changing the overhang direction. as related to hammer throw rotating motion.

    here is another good example see how long is the stroke and how the continuous stroke accelerate the loop speed even the loop and fly in the upward tangent direction. This is easy to test by yourself... no need to argue here... just go out and micmic the motion.

    In addition, there are also can be test in different direction. try to think what Chris will do, and where he will stop if his pre-forward stroke is like BC video, or Ed's cast. His stop will be way higher and looks very different. again, you can test those idea yourself. and this is the beauty of science, there are repeatable and can be cross examination.

  3. The biggest thing I noticed in the BC video of Todd is the straight line path of the rod, the follow thru happens after the straight rod path movement, if there would have been no straight rod path the cast would not have been tight just because he followed thru or compressed it as you say.
    Now I am done

  4. You missing an element in you equasion here Yahina.
    rod loading and unloading effecting tip path.
    I did not see a round tip path on the cast in vid.
    There is a corrlation between upper hand path and tip path yet there is no need for them to be on a parallel path.
    In fact they can diverge by quite a bit-with some manipulation of the loading and unloading of the rod in the forward cast you can get the loop to fire almost 90 degrees off from hand path.
  5. Bruce,
    This is NOT followthrough... simply look at where is the rod unbend...

  6. Please learn how to reply with a quote without removing part of my post!

    This is what my quote in post 83 said.......
    The biggest thing I noticed in the BC video of Todd is the straight line path of the rod, the follow thru happens after the straight rod path movement, if there would have been no straight rod path the cast would not have been tight just because he followed thru or compressed it as you say.
  7. rod loading and unloading effecting tip path.

    Greg, I totally agree! so the deflected rod tip should count into the path.
    But how about look at the start point and the end point? if there are off from the loop flight path, can we assume the stroke/ path is curve? as I show it on my second video (me casting cpx 7 weight)
    I will have to read your hand description more closely, I can't picture it now...
    thanks for the input...

  8. OK Gentlemen...

    I had a long day and having a long day ahead... good discussion! and sorry if I did some mumbling... loooong day!
    I will pay more attention to what has been said tomorrow...

    good night!

  9. Don't you quote me out of context, I was explaining how your hammerthrow theory is crap. You THINK the chain is overhang, but you clearly don't "get" casting in some strange way I have yet to figure out. And you're giving GREG advice on overhang?!!

    I have figured out why this is, however: you said-"In the previous year, when I teach my college students the liner momentum concept, I always lost 30% of them when I mentioned the acceleration, then, if I get further to explain the angular momentum and the angular acceleration, I will expect to loose another 60% from the rest... at the end, about 20-30% got a grip of rotation and how it related to force. That is the reason I try to use more video and more realistic examples to explain. " I can understand how that could be, now.
  10. Mark,
    The "continuous power pressing and continuous acceleration" late in the forward stroke you seem to think so important to loop energy in reality serves mostly to keep tension on the rear portion of the outbound line, allowing a shooting head loop to hold the shape that would otherwise rapidly deteriorate without said tension on the portion of the line still connected to the rod. Having that minor amount of force applied at that stage of the cast has the same likelyhood of changing the loop or the overall energy input/output in a major way that a curler's sweeping broom would have in reversing the direction of the stone!

    Post script: Once the rod tip has unloaded (straightened out), all the stored energy in the rod is dissipated back into the line. We all know that. Continuing to drive the rod downward after the cast is well out beyond the rod becomes less an excerciese in adding power to the cast and more one of maintaining tension on the rear portion of the line. If you had a heavy enough line, or a limber enough rod, you could drive it to submersion on the forward stroke and never fully unload it. So What? The total cast energy has not increased beyond what a properly timed cast with a stiffer action or lighter line would accomplish. Ed's style of casting as I observe it employs a very late release of a relatively long stroke with a fairly limber stick and a full load. That's what it takes to move the payload he uses without collapsing the loop from the sheer weight of the sinktip and fly. My first response concluded with the words "Apples and Oranges". That is still a valid statement, IMO.
  11. Tip path= the very tip top of the rod and it's path-the actual connection to the line.

    everything in between the tip and the top hand can do all sorts of funky stuff and gyrations but its the tip travel that counts.

    Through the loading of the rod actualy shortening the distance from butt to tip(and the reverse in the unload phase)hand path is but only a medium player in the dication of tip path.
    Three major elements-Rod load/unload,rod arc(rotation) and hand path,ALL workin together in varying degrees to determine tip path.
    You can also include tip rebound and rod arc apex in the equasion.

    All this thinkin HURTS:beathead::beathead:
  12. Mark, your clip of Josh Linn is another perfect example of a fine caster working within the confines of some pretty solid casting principles. His low rod delivery is proportionate to his low and powerful V-loop.

    Mark, don't let your pride cloud your judgement. For good and productive interchange to happen we must all be reasonable, that includes you. It's not reasonable to post a video, say there's the answer...the proof and tell us we are missing the point or seeing it wrong when we don't get it. Please humor us and take a stab at drawing us a casting diagram over head and sideways demonstrating the rod's path. Even the simple stick type drawings Rio provides would be helpful.

    You've got our attention but It's truely waning.

  13. Mark, a great way to end this thread would be "Smile! You're on Candid Camera!".....

    or as the kids say "You just got punked". And then admit you're Peter Funt and this was a hoax. Well played, sir.
  14. Nicely Said Grgg
  15. This has been an interesting, not to mention confusing thread...but really, it isn't confusing because there are 2 things that occur within the physics of a cast.

    1) the line can only go where the rod tip sends it (assuming no wind).

    2) any deviation from the rod tips path/plane means loss of energy.

    The tightest loop will always concentrate the most energy and therefore be the most efficient and therefore longest...but not necessarily the best route to catching fish.

    This thread came from an earlier thread suggesting lighter lines were equally good or better than a line that would fully load the rod. The javeline and hammer thowers don't have a tool to absorb and release the energy they create, the spey caster has that tool.
  16. Hey James.

    Thanks for pointing out... you are a true friend!
    Sorry for skipping some explanation with the videos... will do my best later.
    and no worries, I have very thick skin, and I DO make mistakes, I will definitely admit it if I make mistakes... but so far I need to finish my explanations.

    here is the drawing, 1) is the Chris, linear. 2) is Ed, rotation. noted the pivot point is different in those two panels.
    The rod tip is the small circle, the thin line is overhang and the thicker line is skagit head.... will give another try later... Mark

  17. First,
    I think Greg did a great job to describe the 1) type of straight path. I agree with Aaron on this one.

    I will just concentrate on the 2) top panel to explain what is happening. if you noticed the pivot point is only have one in the top panel. This is because the pivot point is very confined in Ed's casting style. He mentioned this as "center of the box". So unlike the lower one. The lower one is linear (straight path) acceleration which the rod pivot is shifting more, just like people tent to rock their body to get a better linear acceleration.

    In addition, if you look closer to my top illustration 2), the rod tip (small circle) start to get deviate from the straight line very early. This is due to the "center of the box" fixed pivot point. That is the reason Ed cast like a statue. his pivot point is fixed, doesn't move.

    From A - B -C is the path that deviate from the straight rod tip path. and at this stage you still applying acceleration to the rod, force the rod mentain it's bend shape until the overhang reach the C position. which is the overhang almost form a vertical line in the drawing and the skagit head deviate from the straight line path in a angle @. this will force the line to rotate with higher speed. and it DOES will open up the loop a little bit. However, this @ angle is adjustable, if you desire very tight loop, you can have a very small @.

    Finally, I want to point out the opened up loop will form a very desirable "Wedge shape" in the front which is perfect shape to cut though the wind and prevent the big fly to tangle up with sinktip, to me, this is the "perfect loop" for skagit casting.

    Sometime, the wedge loop will close up if you really drive the line speed in a certain range. You probably hard to imagine the loop will "close up" after the energy been release from the rod tip, or say the loop is already on it's flying path.( bear in mind, some flyline has tapered, thus the center of the mass is adjusted to facilitate the wedge loop). But this is speaking from true experience. If you ever cast the CND GPS line with high line speed. You will experience this. the loop actually close up a little bit after it shoot out in the mid- air.

    Why? I am guessing it is due to the line design in the GPS line. Gravity Position S. the weight distribution of the lower lag of the line facilitate the tight loop when it roll out. Same experience I have in the Rio Skagit flight... the center thicker portion will facilitate a tighter loop. When the center mass "roll out" in the air, it will close the loop a little. This is different than the Airflo Compact Skagit which is almost no taper in the middle. (to be continue) Mark
  18. Hey Gentlemen,

    As I can see you guys are really into fly casting mechanic and I truly enjoy discussing this subject. I also want to express my appreciations to most of you that remain calm and focus on the subject and allow me to explain more in detail.

    As a side note, Bruce is my true good friend, even we have some different opinions and heated excitements exchanges time to time. I believe we are still in a great shape. I just want to point out to the public that don't think we hate each other, it is quite opposite than what you think on the surface... actually I just received a PM from him addressed that he is sorry about being too excited about the conversation. I am full heartily appreciate his kind consideration. And of course there is no hard feelings as always....For any normal people who see fly casting as center of his life, This is true understandable!! I just want to address this point here to show how true kind and manly my brother is. Not only have passion about this sport, but also has compassion about his friends!
  19. Greg,

    Now you mention the final pressing and stroke is minor... and I said it is major. So this is the difference.

    I think it is important and I can tell you and the public here based on my experience it approximately account for 30% of the power. Now you have seen my drawing of power application (panel 2 -). Could you tell me how to calculate those 30% power loss if we do not keep the pressing/stroke?

    This is the core question for everyone also...


  20. Mark,
    Please re-read my edited recent post #90 before initiating a response, as it attempts to clarify my reasoning and interpretation of your argument.

    In your recently posted diagram, you don't label the implied point "d", which is where you previously and repeatedly state a "major" portion of power is being added to the cast due to the "hammer thrower" effect, and now you appear to be shifting that point? The inconvenient truth here is that a fly line and a hammer ball do not have the same cross sectional density or shape, thus applying the radial force at that point (d) cannot affect the entire mass of the fly line in such a way as to add signifcant energy. Even getting much energy input at (c) into a long flexible projectile would be challenging. If you feel I'm wrong about that, provide proof, I'll welcome it.

    You say you achieve the 30% power increase "based on your experience"--30% over what exactly? What if the preceeding movements are sufficiently cumulatively inefficient, that your 30% increase becomes reality by default, as opposed to additional energy input solely at (c) or (d) to an already great cast? That's just one possible explanation for an apparent energy increase of such magnitude, but it is certainly not intended to be a criticism of your casting. (Granted, a very heavy load benefits from a longer moment of energy input).

    Sadly, you're beginning to contradict yourself, saying at one point this late force tightens the loop, now it opens it, changes its direction, creates a wedge, opens then recloses a wedge, etc. etc. Leave that aside. If you're dealing with a shooting head and thin running line, not a mid or long belly with a relatively long back taper and thick running line, your post-launch inputs are limited. Once you launch a shooting head, you have limited control over only the rear portion of it. In fact, I would propose that if you used this "power application" on a long line, you'd be very disappointed in the outcome. You'd have been well served to have started your thread with this diagram, instead of dancing around for six pages with "students" who DON'T pay to be in class, thus have no reason to remain if bored or confused.

    No disrespect, but I'm glad I didn't have to take instuction in your class. Your factual material is great, your conclusions debateable (as you readily and thankfully stipulate), but your style of presentation often leaves me (and apparently others) confused. You suggest I experiment with various lengths of overhang--fine, I have and I will continue to do so.

    DISCLAIMER--Free unsolicited advice to follow:

    Continue to explore and experiment, continue to ask "what if", then read your material through several times before posting it, to see if a 5th grader could "get" it. Spend your verbal currency prudently. Blowback will diminish proportionately. This from a retired plumber with no college level teaching experience, and limited instruction in applied physics. And yes, I will certainly take my own advice...

Share This Page