Discussion in 'Spey Clave' started by yuhina, Dec 17, 2011.
Bob, I think, the last three winters using the Guideline DDC has tought me how to deal with sink tips pretty well.
What full sink head do you use?
ho, hey, James, not an insult intended, hope am reading this wrong...please PM me if an issue.
I'm grateful that everybody's weighing in on this, not a topic often discussed in this forum. I'm split half and half with fullsinks, I don't like them on shorter rods because I find them to be a pain in the ass to get out, but on longish rods with some strength in the middle they're butter and swim a fly so beautifully.
I think Kerry and SpeyBum have made some girthy statements worth thinking about...there's a whole winter ahead and the whole strip-strip-strip idea is giving me hives.
No, I was commenting on how full sink heads 38'-45' with lots of use can give a person a leg up when casting tips in general. I know I struggled at first with the DDC but after a few weeks I was single speying with ease. The DDC is a great line...haven't used a skagit ever since.
Aaron, you got me inspired. I just dug up a bunch of my old lines and remnants and think I got a winner. Everything seems to Mic out right and measures out to 62'3" and 910grns of head. General make up: 24' of 450 rio skagit looped to 38'3" of DDC and tip. I'll get back with the results once I get a chance to go cast it. May be a total bust but like to experiment.
Oh, cool. was worried there for a minute. The DDC can be a cruel bitch, but once you see her cut the wind she owns you, am I right?
I'm interested in some of the new concept american Int skagits, am contemplating a SA Int for my new skagit rod.
James, this float/Int/tip experiment promises to be a total disater, just the kind of crazy shit I love. Please let us all know how it turns out, and if a total disaster, all the more fun! Include disaster vid!
I'm about 90% sure it'll cast...how pretty? we'll have to wait and see. And of course I'll get some video if I make it out.
As far as the DDC...a real pleasure to fish, gets deeper than a skagit with less weight and stays in the zone longer. I'd think a intermediate skagit is a bigger disaster in the making than my "Ultra DDC". The thought of pulling such a heavy bulky head from the water and some T-anything, sounds like a day of sustained anchor casts after a roll-up. The DDC is well designed to shed water and extract with ease.
probably fishing mine tomorrow, but instead of the standard DDC tips I'm using a slightly cutback Rio Type III, lightly weighted fly, a slow slow straight swing...shh! we're revealing state secrets here.
Bob, what set up are you using? Rod, head length and weight?
With regard to the full sink heads, pulling them out is easy with the right rod. For me the Swedish folks have figured this out. Those Guideline rods, and probably any of those other Scandi rods as well as some UK rods, and certain US rods can do it.
For a short rod set-up I've loved the 12'6" LPXe 9/10 for 420-460 gr. heads. Been using a DDC/ and full sink PT's for many years now and am satisfied. It has been my "go to" for small rivers for winter fishing.
As we know, there are many ways to get the fly to perform the way we want. Whatever system you are using, there is probably a way to make it work.
We just have to figure it out at the time.
Holy Smoke this thread has changed around quite a bit.
Most guys here in the UK still use a full sunk line for early season fishing, sink tips coming secondary, will not go into the reasons why as i have to go to work in a little while, so designing a rod in the UK that can't lift a long line off the bottom of the river would be pointless.
Happy Hogmanay from the Highlands :beer1: ........... i can't reply over the next day or so as its party time here............ and i most likely will be ill with all the drinking that goes on here, nowhere takes in the new year like the Highlands of Scotland....... i have the liver to prove it.
DTX Pro Staff.
Here is the rest of the comments...
Please check Tellis’ video and my frame by frame post # 3-4 frame
5) It maybe around 10 oclock, without phantom cam, it is hard to tell at this moment. Keep in mind, how different in his casting stoke than Chris’ video. He has not intention to stop rod tip high, and by watching the video and the frame by frame analysis you can see the highest speed and release point is around 3.2-3.5 frame as James point out. Again, without high speed camera, I only can do this kind of analysis… buy this is good enough for suspect he is doing different thing than Chris’ video
6) During the forward stroke the rod blank should remain loaded, the gradually increased acceleration can only add more and more pressure to the blank. (otherwise will be inproper load and might cause tailing loop- conclave sauce disk load) Thus the rod effective length during the rod load (direct length from rod tip point to rod butt point) shrink gradually until it reach the releasing point (highest rod load). If you can picture this rod bend during the entire forward stroke loading process. You will understand the RTP ( rod tip path) is actually go downward MORE at the last part of the stroke (the fastest acceleration) than it looks in diagram. So even at the 10:00 stop position it looks only small deviate from the SRTP line, it actually deviate more because of the biggest deflection occurred here.
(downward flexing rod momentarily causing the line to rise).
I am not sure what you mean here, but when the rod reach the releasing point (straighten rod tip), the line is at it’s highest speed and the overhang is releaseing, there is no force can be add to the line or overhang. (you can’t push a object with a rope, only can pull a object (with overhang)). The overhang as I mentioned earlirt is about 90 degree angle perpendicular to the horizontal line in the final releasing point. As we can almost see this in the Tellis’ video 3.2-3.5 frame (per James’ analysis which I did not be able to capture).
7) There is no “overhang” structure in pitching, so don’t know how to relate it to casting.
OK,Greg, I finished all your request. It officially end here.
Happy New Year! My friends! It was a good discussion!
I have several rods that are good for fullsink heads, but the one I'm specifically thinking about here is my 1407 Meiser S. I have fullsink heads for my 1306 Hybrid S but they're a pain if I'm standing deep, cast beautifully though...I recently snagged a 3 piece LeCie 13'7" 9/10 3 pc, and like Dan said above, that one is effortless.
Question for Gordon- In your experience, what about the UK rods make them better at getting sinkheads out? I would jestingly say "better casters who do it all the time", but the rods have to have certain characteristics. I've picked up on a slightly stiffer tip and strong middle, like a Greased Line GLX might have, but the unique DTX action might bear some explaining.
I will pray for your liver. A toast to you and yours!
Perfect loop, hell, I'm still searching for a consistent loop that;
1.) doesn't make me look like a total spaz
2.) doesn't smack me in the back of the head or poke holes in my wading jacket
3.) gets the line where it needs to be to present the fly
... from where I am currently in spey casting capability, "the perfect loop" is a moonshot for me
If you want to review the non-perfect loop, please refer to my YouTube post a couple months ago
I did get lots of great feedback from many on this forum that critiqued the cast -- still working at it!
Mark, oh Mark,
Thank you for completing the resposnses as promised.
If you go back and re-read your own postings, (as I have done several times) from the very beginning of this thread, you will notice:
1) a gradual shifting of your insistence from downward forces towards a combination of forward movement with downward late emphasis. Nothing wrong with that latter motion-- I never said there was (you wrongly assumed I did). Maybe that's the way threads evolve, but I'm pretty sure its not the scientific method. I suggest stating a thesis clearly, narrowly defined, with a minimum number of variables, well defined terms, and sharp focus thereafter.
2) a tendency to utilize what I will call "selective viewing" (of presented video "evidence"), similar to the selective hearing (balance of coment deleted prior to posting)
3) Deleted, with apologies to all, Mark especially. Knee jerk reaction. Not wise.
4) no evidence that your interpretation of Center Mass as applied here is getting any traction. I couldn't help but notice the head length in your diagrams is only slightly longer than the rod; i.e. unrealistic. Since the center mass is not instanly present at the moment of infuence, only the front portion of a "ass heavy" head will be affected by the rotation forces you describe, and it will likely fail to function at all on long heads/lines.
5) you never answered the question as to why a tennis ball, but not a fly line could be directed into multiple paths from an identical set-up. It would seem critically important to resolve such apparent inconsistencies, yet you somehow breeze right by them. Hint: it has to do with the tennis ball being a compact solid object as opposed to a long flexible one, presenting itself in the time and position of release quite differently, not to mention their behavioral differences in relation to a short tether such as overhang.
6) very early responses by others sugessted the anchor played a vital role in the success of this rotational movement, perhaps you missed that one (Idid initially)--too bad.
7) my citing of action/reaction principles as a primary factor in the rising rear portion of the front loop recieved the same subtle dismissal, much like your failure to explain the hump in the lower leg of the D loop in Tellis' video. (Al Buhr has excellent text and photos depicting this in his book).
8) your insistence on a "fixed pivot", "pulling the rod down rotates the overhang", and "dragging the rod tip down is the most effective way to move the CM forward" are all still unproven at this point. (IMO).
I have verified to my personal satisfaction in my "lawn experiment" that excessive downward force negatively effects forward travel. Perhaps you could take the time to verify this for yourself.
In summation, though it was an interesting discussion, and I learned some things I hadn't previously known, it was less rewarding than I'd hoped-- perhaps you feel that way too, albeit for different reasons. If, in the future, you refine the nut of your argument into something genuinly novel, please share it. You previously hinted that it was the description, not the technique that was new, that may be as good as it gets.
I posted (on the other site), a very brief description of the actual effects of the motion as I see them (without referring to you).You may wish to read it, if only for clarification of my opinion on this topic, since I had never previously offered it. You'll be able to locate it easily, having perused the thread previously.
I'm hoping to leave the table peaceably here, hoping you can do the same. If you think you'be been "punched" again here, so be it. I can't control your response, but will certainly be held responsible for mine. If we interact in the future, it will be to our mutual benefit to establish and follow certain groundrules...
With a polite, firm handshake, and a diffent perception,