Discussion in 'Spey Clave' started by kamishak steve, May 1, 2012.
I like them, the ones that start strong and stay there!! But I am lazy.
Since Steve brought up the dynamic load and static load... I will just provide some examples here to help people understand why "acceleration" play the key difference. pay attention to the acceleration.
Keep accelerating a object will increase it's momentum, increased momentum means increased rod load.
For example, Keep accelerating a car, will increase it's speed. so over the positive accelerating course, the car GAIN momentum. This is dynamic momentum (either accelerating or decelerating). Ideally, a car cruise at "a constant speed v", the momentum STAY the same. no gain, no lost. This is the static momentum. mv.
Why knowing this will help casting? You want to increase rod load? sure, two ways.
put a "heavier" line or "accelerate" rod butt faster, or do both.
Why dynamic momentum?
keep in mind, fly rod is a spring. When spring is loaded, it will unload immediately. The only way to keep them "loaded" during the forward stroke is to use force, to keep INCREASE it's relative momentum, keep ACCELERATING, until your rod reach the fire position. People think smooth regressive rod don't need to accelerating during the forward stroke. Wrong. In the LINEAR casting stroke. You need a steady acceleration during the forward stoke to hold the rod load. (small acceleration is still an acceleration). Otherwise the rod will unload itself during the forward stroke.
A special dynamic momentum..
Ed Ward's Circular Motion Casting style, uses angular momentum to load the rod. He CAN use constant speed during the CIRCULAR motion (the sweep process) and still hold the rod load, because constant circular motion immediately bearing the angular acceleration ( a vector toward casting center). That is the reason, he can use constant sweep speed to hold the rod load and divert the load to the final firing position. This concept set his casting style into a complete different level. People should appreciate his unique contribution to our community. IMO.
Science not necessary will help you to catch more fish, but it will solve some puzzles and confusions; and maybe will improve your casting mechanics every once of a while.
That's the way rods are really designed - by iterative tinkering (even tho Orvis used an advertising spoof years ago that their rods were "computer" designed). Clearly there is nothing wrong with that technique, but some of us were born analytical and can't help ourselves. So we look for the mechanical and physical attributes that help explain what goes on during casting.
Qualifying attributes makes for good conversation (and advertising hype like the Sage ONE, wherein your arm becomes one with the rod). However, for the analytical - see any of Yuhina's posts - quantifying the differences is the key to understanding differences. And as near as I can tell, it's just complex enough to lie slightly beyond the level of competence of everyone who joins the discussion. It's interesting that the "contemplative" man's recreation involves arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and many of the fundamental laws of physics. And I'll speculate that there is some sophisticated organic chemistry in developing ever more sophisticated graphite fabrics and resins that enhance all the desirable attributes.
BTW, it's OK to mention CND rods, cuz this is the CND rod thread. But I blame the thread hijack on Rob Allen cuz he generated the discussion about tips, i.e., strong, stiff, more mass, less mass. And this is what led us to discuss (as best we can) the mathematical and physical attributes that create the desirable tip action attributes. Pretty clear now that it isn't just increased mass, since that would mean Burkheimer rods would use steel rebar or some such for tip sections. Since Burkheimer uses high tests graphite materials too, it's about which grade of graphite fabric, how many wraps around the mandrel, and the all important taper to get a tip that loads just as the designer - and caster - want it to. Fun stuff.
Your advice will be easy to follow...as I've never even heard of CND. Bummer about your rod, hopefully they will reconsider and provide a reasonable level of support. I suppose nothing is truly a lifetime warranty, given the possibility of companies going out of business, mergers, etc. -- all the more reason to stay with the big names with long history of outstanding support. Good luck.
Well for the folks here, I don't think any of us have the skills (math, materials engineering, etc...) to do this. BUT, consider the expense and sophistication of something like an aircraft wing, and that they can't always be "prototyped". In those cases, they can be modeled and must be in order to move forward to production. Even though a spey cast is an involved procedure, I would believe that lots of computer modeling can be done to get things quite a bit of the way along. This may not be the cast though, as I understand that a lot of those kinds of simulators are multi million dollar pieces of software.
In no way shape or form did I intend to say the simple numbers would produce a good rod. Rods are about the material, the taper, the manufacturing, and the appearance. Even if you could create an idealized rod out of the current materials, it may not meet the "feel" or "aesthetics" that a person would want.
But given a particular material, it would seem that great designers (Burkie, Meiser, Loomis, Rajeff, etc...) could then use experience and intuition to mold those materials into a better, sleeker rod. Truthfully I suspect that the new resin graphite combo's are things that all new developers are looking at, even most of the smaller boutique vendors.
Oh, and just a quote from the guy who does Thomas and Thomas rods....
Rod Designer, Tom Dorsey, explains,
“Knowledgeable rod designers understand the significant benefits of a lighter shaft weight and diameter – low inertia, better dampening characteristics for cleaner loops and increased energy transfer to the fly line. The challenge is to achieve this while retaining rod strength. The blend of high modulus graphite’s and state of the art resins has enabled us to achieve this to a degree we previously thought impossible. To the best of my knowledge we have created the lightest, most powerful saltwater rod blanks built anywhere.
I am a big fan of T&T rods. I've owned three, down to two, the 1206-3 spey and 1006-3 switch. To me, their 3-piece rods really do represent some of the finest work in fast, low inertia rods. I love them. When I was farting around with the notion of sway, or the role of inertia in casting, I found the natural balance point, or center of gravity, of all my rods, and expressed it as a function of length. The range was something like .20-.255, or thereabouts, so they all balanced between 20-25.5% of their length from the butt. My T&T switch was .20, and the 1206-3 was .22, the next lowest, and these are rods that have pretty streamlined cork & reel seat, and likely zero weight added for balance. The highest balance point was my Burkie 8133-3 at 25.5% of it's length. From a casting perspective, the difference in sway is obvious. I love the T&T action, but I feel like they have a very narrow grain window, and are best adapted to casts in which you don't want to hold a load on the rod, so for me, they are a niche rod, which is fine, as I have of number of rods for very specific uses. The Burkie, on the other hand, I genuinely feel will handle all lines and techniques, in a very wide grain window, with equal aplomb. I don't subscribe to the thinking that one is better than the other, but I do subscribe to the thinking that inertia, at times, has a role to play in casting, and shouldn't be disregarded as inefficient because a fairly simple model/formula says it is.
And don't get me wrong, I like physics. To me, it's the common sense science, but as I have attempted to forward my understanding and articulation of things two-handed, I've tried to be sensible of how perspectives, models, analogies, etc... can actually skew my sense of what is taking place. I hope I'm not sounding like a jerk, but I question the usefulness of physics, especially once you get to the water, and I place a premium on understanding derived from experience, which I'm just slowly plugging away at, trying to gather...
I am still a huge T&T fan. Their ultra narrow grain window can be a big hindrance. But the loops you can throw with those rods!!! The B&W Powerlites I have cast, and the Norways, are just as 'fast' and 'stiff' as the T&T two handers. But they are stronger in the tip with more mass while being full flex (if you can make them bend). Plus the Powerlites have a solid 'thump' as they recover. The grain range is amazing. Un-T&T like. In many ways easier to cast than T&T's. I still really like the CND Salar and Thompson Specialists. My son fishes a 13'6" Black Spey. And the Solstice rods are super sweet too.
So many really great sticks out there...
That is weird to me that you say the T&T's have an ultra narrow grain window- from what I have read on speypages from guys who underlined their 1307 with a 450 Skag head up to huge weights Bob Pauli casts on them I assumed they had a huge grain window.
Grain window is defined by the caster's hands. the comfort range they can handle.
For a given rod, some people are comfortable in a narrow range, some people are good at huge range. It's the skill to "time" rod's response. T & T 1307, 1610 has huge grain windows. As I said before, strong tip/ strong butt action rod has quicker casting tempo... if your hands are not sensitive enough to "time" it, you can't handle it. No offense. We all built differently... see video below my good friend Jerry cast 10 weight 16 feet T&T across the river with breezy ease. 450 Airflo Rage.
Since I consider we are friends from Speypages and WFF, so once again I will like to point out your logic flaw... no offense. Just my personal opinion.
Practice and building experience is important and good for any sports and athletes. We all agree. But learning principle and mechanics doesn't mean we don't go out and practice casting anymore. You see your logic flaw? They are two different things. Doing mechanics analysis doesn't mean you stop practice and fish. Even theoretical physicists need to design experiments to prove the hypothesis and theory.
Needless to say, for instructors/ rod designers. Learning mechanics is vital element in their career. Do you willing to pay 200 dollars to hire a instructor and all he can say is "Watch this!" . Or even worse, make some wrong analogy like "swing heavy hammer use less energy". I won't hire a guide like this.
When you say you like use common sense and experience. Fine. I agree.
So what is common sense?
Is water boil at 212F a common sense? Is steelhead migrate to ocean common sense? or steelhead interbreed with local rainbow trout a common sense? To me, common sense is defined by how far you want to go, how much you want to learn. and of course how much time and effort you want to put in.
From a fisherman's perspective, you can do whatever you want, the basic mechanics will catch fish... From casting instructors and rod designers" perspective... would it be dangerous to use common sense and not learn new casting mechanics?!
Just my opinion, don't take it personal, I know you are a good mechanic guy in spey casting!
Am I wrong about the video......I did not see one cast go "across' the river.
Nice dig on the hammer analagy btw, I wouldn't take you out anyways ;-)
I respect what Rob has to say on this subject
watch closely Bruce... We hanged the leader on the branches of the other bank several times... no kidding... You can ask Fred... for a 16 feet rod, I am sure you understand this is a small task...
BTW, are you the one saying the hammer analogy?! Oh... my apology!
You missed the point...
I mentioned the potential for skew to you once a while back. Limiting the discussion to this thread, I think it is a mistake to disregard the potential positive role of inertia in casting because a physics equation implies that it makes for inefficient springs.
I'm quite interested in modeling and understanding casting for the sake of maximizing my effort on the water, especially these days, with kids and work reducing my time in the water. In terms of actually improving my casting, I think there are more productive approaches than modeling only facets of the cast with physics equations.
And I would agree, except we get back to fibreglass rods and greenheart. Both are massive and in most cases much less desirable to cast.