Gordon & Group....
[GH] After being away for only 6 days, I returned to 211 emails.... so let me request that you be patient if i have failed to answer yours in timely fashion.
From Jim Chestnut :
Hi Gordy,
Some thoughts on the below statements:
Ally said:
""Until then the tip ring was pulling the line, then the tip ring direction changed and the fly line continued forward due to its momentum. None of the commotion that occurred after that made a positive contribution to the cast; these later events are simply undesirable artifacts."
Paul countered:
"While the fly line can carry on because of its momentum, it's not going to travel very far unless it forms a loop. It's the tension in the loop that pulls the fly line along and that tension is a result of the momentum change at the loop face. Since the rod tip is pulling the line between RSP and MCF it is increasing tension and therefore is certainly not undesirable."
I think Ally's statement in bold above is more than a bit of hyperbole, and taken at face value is not correct, as pointed out. We can't have a crash between line and rod tip.
But neither is Paul's statement in bold correct either, since the more the tension in the loop, the more the tension in the rod leg, because tension requires opposing forces.
If tension in the loop "pulls the fly leg along" then the fly leg would fall to the ground during a shoot - especially with a shooting head and thin light running line. It is the momentum of the fly leg which puts the tension in the rod leg through the loop connection.
An analogy might be Steve Rajefs golf ball cast against Freddie Couples. The golf ball was initially pulled by Steve's line which was attached to the golf ball. But he then snapped the line off with the rod stop, yet the ball continued for 337 yards without being "pulled" by anything.
If the discussion were limited to one of pure distance casting efficiency, I think few would argue that shooting heads with thin light running line are capable of more distance then integrated WF lines. Why is that? Because they use the least amount of rod leg (and consequently "loop") tension possible: just enough to control loop shape and stability.
So the real questions are, or should be, pragmatic ones. IF one can generate "X" line speed with a MCF of "Y" inches below SLP, but can generate "2X" line speed without a stop at all, what would the maximum value of "Y" allowable for a cast of equal distance in the stopless cast?
If that question is even answerable, then I believe the juice just ain't worth the squeezing!
We just have to each figure it out on an individual basis.
Cheers,
Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jim,
Food for lots of imagination.
One of our fishing buddies was a real practical joker. He cut the shooting line to a long head one day and when the caster made a long cast that loop went out to Kingdom Come !!! The loop never did unroll even as the line fell to the water.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Jeff Barefoot,
On Dec 22, 2010, at 9:03 AM, JEFFERY BAREFOOT wrote:
Where the line is being accelerated from is also a very important factor. For example take two identical forward casts, No#1 being accelerated from a straight 180 back cast, and No#2 being accelerated from any other tangent, let's say less than 180 or a high back cast. No#1 forward delivery will be a tight loop and No#2 forward delivery will tend toward a tail. Mac Brown refers to this concept in his box exercises.
Jeff Barefoot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jeff....
Absolutely correct !....... So long as the rod plane isn't changed between forward and back casts.
I have referred to this many times along the way as a method of making a tailing loop..... BY CASTING WITH LESS THAN 180 DEGREES BETWEEN THE TRAJECTORY OF THE BACK CAST AND THE FORWARD CAST IN THE SAME ROD (CASTING) PLANE.
Mac Brown has shown this clearly in his "box diagrams", except that if he called attention to the rod plane remaining the same, I missed it. He does refer to "Vertical Rod Planes And The Tailing Loop in Fig. 4.9 on p. 95, however. *
While a bit of a stretch, one could look at this as a concave rod tip path between strokes.
* CASTING ANGLES, by Mac Brown, 1997, pp. 95-107
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ally Gowans replies to questions about his term, "LINE LAUNCH DIRECTION" :
Hi Gordy,
I’m very pleased with the comments that are coming back, clearly some have misinterpreted what I said or maybe I have explained things badly. I have a more detailed treatment to hand but I’m not sending it until after the holidays.
However to clarify - once the line launches (is projected) the rod no longer contributes to the cast. After that the rod can only affect the projection of the line. In a theoretical perfect world the rod tip would smoothly move out of the way of the line and a perfect embryonic loop would instantly form. In practice that doesn’t happen.
The rod tip may travel together without any significant energy interchange and if so the loop formation would be delayed until the velocities differ.
I will pick up on one of the points made – and at this time resist commenting on some of the others. “After the stop, the whole line continues to be accelerated forwards up to RSP.” – this is untrue except for very short casts, normally only a small amount of line will continue to be accelerated up to RSP and the “effective mass” of the line will continue in a direction that is dependent on its starting location and the forces applied to it.
Best wishes,
Ally Gowans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~