Gordy - on the opinion thing (tough one!) -
I'll start with the short answers but the explanations will
be quite long (of necessity).
1. No
2. Yes
Explanations:
First let's define casting stroke since it is
integral to both questions:
Casting stroke - application
of continuous force by the rod to the line such that a loop is
formed.
I know that we can cast a line without a rod
but I've eliminated hand casting in my definition because it is a
limited case and does nothing to help
understand the casting stroke. I say continuous force
because the
casting stroke
starts with the application of force in the direction of the
cast and ends when no longer
applied. This separates forward cast from
back cast, for example, even if I move smoothly between the
two
because my component of force in the
direction of the cast changes from a negative value to a positive
value.
At some time it passes through zero so this
is not a continuous application of force. If we plot the
force
I apply on a graph as the Y component vs time
as the X component the curve may be full of lumps and bumps
but at no time does the Y component equal 0
during the casting stroke.
There may be movements leading up to the
point where force is applied but these are not part of the
casting
stroke.
I think it's important that a loop is formed
following the casting stroke. If a loop doesn't form then
there
was no cast and, hence, no casting
stroke. We can debate the characteristics of any loop that did
form
but we know for sure that if no loop forms
then we didn't have a casting stroke.
1.) Do you think that CREEP should be
considered within the casting stroke ?
I'm going to say that creep
is an unintentional motion of the rod that causes you to shorten your
casting stroke. I will
qualify that by
saying creep is unpowered - starting the forward cast before your line
fully unrolls on the back cast is therefore
not creep because you are applying force. Since creep is unpowered it
is also not part of the casting stroke.
Creep can and does affect your casting stroke but it is not a part of
the casting stroke. As instructors we need to
be aware of the existence of creep and its affect on the cast but it
is not part of the casting stroke.
2.) Do you think that DRAG (translation
of the rod without rotation) should be considered within the casting
stroke ?
For purposes of this discussion we won't include the haul.
Let's lay the groundwork:
Rotation - any movement of the rod that changes its orientation with
respect to a fixed co-ordinate system.
Translation - any movement of the rod that does not change its
orientiation with respect to a fixed co-ordinate system.
Can either one occur without the other? Absolutely. Can both occur
simultaneously? Again - absolutely. Can they both
provide a significant contribution to the casting stroke, i.e. aid in
loop formation? Absolutely.
We know that getting a loop to form requires us to get the line
moving in a straight line at a certain velocity oriented in the
direction of the cast. We do this during the casting stroke. We know
that for the majority of casts we can achieve this
with purely rotational movements. I'm going to look at this from two
different scenarios:
We know that the distance cast demonstrated by Hartman and Arden
begins with significant translation and ends with
almost pure rotation. The advantage here is that the velocity they
achieve through translation contributes significantly to
their final line speed and that contribution is significant. Think of
it this way - if I want to accelerate my car from 0 to 60
mph it takes a certain amount of force applied over a certain amount
of distance (the classic work equation) but if I start
out at 15 mph and apply the same amount of force over the same
distance I will now be travelling significantly faster than
60 mph. Line speed translates directly into distance so for these
casters with their casting style translation is a necessary
part of their casting stroke. It may only add a few feet to their
final cast but there is no way they would achieve the same
distance without the translation. I know it wasn't required for loop
formation but I would say that the speed of the loop
is
a characteristic of the loop that should not be ignored in this
case.
Now let's look at an everyday scenario. We
know that some casters use a longer casting stroke than others to cast
similar
distances. How
do they achieve a longer casting stroke
with the same final line speed? After all - if their rod motion was purely
rotational the longer casting stroke
would be achieved through increased arc
only and this would mean the path of the rod tip
would change significantly leading
to undesireable loops or loops that fail to
fully unroll. The only way this is possible is to
add a significant amount of translation to
the stroke and the translation must be significant or we wouldn't be able
to observe
it when we see it. Is there a significant
advantage to eliminating the translation?
We know that using the work equation
(W = F x d) they do the same amount of work
regardless of the length of their casting stroke
so in terms of efficiency
there is no advantage
of one style over the other. Did the translation directly create the loop
in this case? No, but then neither
did the rotation - all other things being
equal if we take away the translation from the longer casting stroke the
loop would
fail to unroll completely. Is the use of
translation to augment rotation in this case a casting fault? I don't see
how. Would we,
as instructors, tell the person with the
longer cast to remove the translation? I don't see why I would do that.
Since we have
translation happening during the casting
stroke in this case I don't see how we can't consider it as part of the
casting stroke.
I agree that we can't get much happening in
the way of false casting or even a cast of any significant distance with
pure
translation but by saying drag is not
(can not) be part of the casting stroke would be enforcing stylistic
differences where
no clear advantage exists and limiting
our effectiveness as instructors.
My very long winded Canadian 2 cents
worth.
Thanks!
Walter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:16
AM
Subject: Prior topics / Opinion /
Reflections on "slide loading"
Walter &
Group....
Tarpon have arrived ! (We have some
all year round, but this is the start of their annual
migration.)
SO
I hope you understand, that I won't have
as much time to spend with our Group Messages as I do most of the
year.
Had 2 CCI exams and one MCCI exam this
week, and I have a Master pre-exam this morning. THEN I'M OUT FOR
POONS !
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GOOD" LOOP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New word picture from Rene Hesse
:
Hello Gordy,
An ideal loop is one that accomplishes the desired task most
efficiently.
PS- sorry about not answering a few of the questions on the last
'mend' quiz. I often have to work on a quiz during down time at
work and have very limited time and resources....It's kind of a
paradox.
I figure it is better to try than not.
Thanks for everything,
Rene
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rene... I understand very
well. None of you should be reluctant to come in with answers or
comments late after discussion of a particular topic. We all have
lives to lead. This is why I never hesitate to share a good answer
or message even if it is related to a past topic.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
OPINION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is NOT a quiz. Simply
reaching for opinions, as suggested by Bruce Richards.... one additional
one from me :
1.) Do you think that CREEP should be
considered within the casting stroke ?
2.) Do you think that DRAG (translation
of the rod without rotation) should be considered within the casting
stroke ?
THINK before answering
!
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REFLECTIONS ON SLIDE
LOADING
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Thomas Berggren:
Hi
Gordy,
Notice that it
would be the last string on”slide loading” but here is a reflection to
Bruce Richards comments.
” I agree
entirely. I suppose some could find slide loading (terribly name
for
the motion) "comfortable", I really don't see any possible
physical
advantages. They would be better off learning not to use
this crutch. But
as long as some advocate perceived advantages there
will be those who try
to adopt it.
Interesting that the suggested
advantages of smoothness (no
explanation for why), and increased rod
load (probably just the opposite is
true) are very poorly explained,
and there is a good reason!”
First of all!
I agree……. And my reflection is relative to the
distance-casting-mega-trend here in Sweden
right now.
Last year there
was a lot of focus on distance casting at my casting range and I had
some quite good casters here to improve their distance.
Among those
casters who reached 100 - 110 feet for start there was an easily visible
slide among the “wide-open-stance-casters” and hardly any slide among
the “closed-stance-casters”.
I just removed the most of the slide
and the “open stancers” improved more than the others. Not as smooth as
they did from start, but a little bit longer casts.
As I said “I
removed the most of the slide” …….
Still there was
some slide/creep because they hold the line hand while rod hand stroke
(for saving hauling distance to rotation position). And I notice that it
was very difficult for most open stancers to reach the reel with line
hand during up feed because of the body position, maximum rod arc and
tip travelling distance (rod arm completely stretched in back before
start the forward cast for maximum tip travelling distance).
On the
other hand it was very easy to reach the reel for the closed stancers
(as they already did from start).
The closed stancers couldn’t
find much more line speed by their haul. For those we found the speed in
the rotation, but still they casting smooth…….
The open
stancers did find more line speed by improving their haul, but the
casting was not as smooth as before. They actually missed “big time”
more often because of body twist & bad tracking, but it went far
when they hit it….
So!
If there is any
right hand caster out there who God shaped with a much longer left arm.
Go for distance competition, use wide open stance and no slide at all….
You will rule!
Try it and feel
the different between open & closed stance and visualize you have a
very long linehand arm..
Hope that make
sense! Could be some language difficulties
here….
Regards// The
Swede"
Thomas
Berggren, Certified Instructor
FFF -
Federation Of Fly Fishers,
CCI - Certified Casting Instructor
THCI
- Two Handed Certified Instructor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas,
No language problems at all..... perfect description
!
Real food for
thought. Gets back to the idea of STYLE of casting.....
"different strokes for different folks
".
Also
makes it clear that the "slide" doesn't help everyone and may hurt some
caster's performance. We , must also consider that "sliding" may
make casts a little easier and a trifle smoother for some casters who
are not trying for distance.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~