|
Walter & Group...
[GH] I placed an updated message from our Group messages, June, 2009 in an attachment.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Paul Arden:
Hi Gordy,
Drag isn't only something useful in the domain of distance casters, but also can appear in tight loop static and dynamic roll casts. Indeed I actually use the dynamic roll cast as a method of teaching Drag to a distance caster.
In the case of Drag the Casting Stroke has begun, as initiated by the caster. In the case of Creep, the Casting Stroke has not begun and the caster is actually unaware of the moment.
As you know our definitions are based around purpose or function and they are for teaching as opposed to measuring.
Thanks Gordy,
Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Paul,
Come to think of it, I use it for those roll casts. Sometimes for medium distance casts as it does help me form a tight loop.
I do understand how CREEP and DRAG fit with respect to the stroke in the SL definitions.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Walter Simbirski,
Actually, CREEP could reduce slack. It would just do it unintentionally. ;-)
Walter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Walter,
As usual, from a scientific standpoint, you are correct. From a practical point of view, I think it would be a lot less effective in doing this than DRAG. Reason: It is usually so brief, sometimes even hard to notice, and so slow.
When I demonstrate CREEP to students, I use the teaching principle of EXAGGERATION. As i make the demo cast, I make a loooooonnnng CREEP to dramatically lessen my available casting arc, followed by a tail even while casting slowly so all can easily see the moves.
When making a CREEP demo to MCI candidates I'm mentoring, I make a very brief creep move to demonstrate that it sometimes is not easy for an instructor to identify.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Alan Kato :
Gordy,
It is interesting that one of the basic tenets I was taught to pass the CI test is re-evaluated in the MCI world.
Isn't the cause you describe an alignment problem? The line on a high back cast without an excessive pause will be above the tip path of a high forward cast. Even with a straight line tip path it will tail. This in effect is like a concave tip path. Perhaps concave between the b/c line layout and the tip path? The line is pulled or has enough momentum to follow a path below the tip path and creates the tail.
By the way can't this tail also be prevented by a large convex tip path?
Regards,
Alan Kato
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Alan,
Sometimes we do have to realign our thoughts as we advance. Going from CCI to MCI does involve some "re-learning". It has been argued that this is not a good thing, but to some extent, I can't see how it can be avoided altogether.
Re. the cast with less than 180 degrees of trajectory between the backcast and the forward cast :
a.) This is an anomaly, rare if ever to occur either when fishing or teaching.
b.) Sure. There are several ways of preventing it.
c.) ACTUALLY it isn't easy to demonstrate this way of making a tail, because in doing so, the caster must not vary the rod plane between casts.
d.) One could look at it s an "alignment problem" inasmuch as on the forward cast you are aiming for a collision between loop legs. Also, the rod planes used for the back cast and forward cast have to be "aligned", i.e., the same.
e.) It can be combined with creep, inappropriate application of force, and/or too small a casting arc in which case we would likely have a concave rod tip path during the forward cast..
f.) I only brought it up because it appeared to me that this may be one example of a tail which does not necessarily involve a concave rod tip path during the stroke.
g.) Would I bring this up on a Master's exam ??? .... NO.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Jim Chestnut :
Hi Gordy,
I’ve finally had a chance to read all the messages about creep and the
possible definitions. I realize it is too late to re-hash, but I thought
you may be interested in the following, nonetheless, as a casting guru.
I don’t think anyone mentioned one form of “creep” I’ve noticed than is
more “unavoidable” than “unintentional” . And that is rebound creep
caused by rebound of both the forearm and rod momentum (from rod
rebound) that occurs in long casts using “American style” casting (as
opposed to 170 degree “European” casting). I think nowhere is it more
apparent than in the below link to a video of Steve Rajeff’s casting.
That video is also an excellent illustration of Lefty’s assertion that
there should be a delay between the “stop” and “drift”.
I also think that Steve’s very aggressive drift does one other thing and
that is to pre-bend the rod in the direction of the backcast at the “drift
stop/turnaround” – in other words the drift is to a degree, pre-loading
the rod with it’s own momentum while, at the same time, “catching” the
momentum of the unrolling line with precision timing. If what I think I’m
seeing is what is really happening, then Steve is also eliminating the
“bounce back” effect that one of the physicists was referring to last
year. I’m sorry but I forget his name. The vigor with which he executes
the drift appears to increase as he warms up.
I also have a question as to general usage of the terms "Drag" vs. "Slide
loading". I take "Drag" on a forward cast to mean literally dragging the
fly line forward in a principally transitional move while the line is
clamped in the line hand (which is close to the rod hand). Thus, the rod
leg is being "dragged" forward during the transitional move.
"Slide loading", on the other hand, occurs when the rod is slid along the
line either with or without the line being clamped in the line hand, (also
in a principally transitional move). The difference between "slide
loading' and "drag" is that in "slide loading" the line is not "dragged"
in the direction of translation. And in some cases, the line may actually
be going in the opposite direction from the rod.
Is that in essence the difference in the terms?
Thanks,
Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jim,
I didn't see what I would call CREEP in any of Steve's casts. I think we are seeing REBOUND of the rod tip.
Is that rebound a form of CREEP ????? Technically, it fits some of the CREEP distinctions, but it is rapid though brief rod tip movement. i daresay most experts would say, no.
It is probably unintended, but is a brief rapid movement in the opposite direction of counterflex.
Perhaps he is "catching the momentum of the unrolling line", but before saying that, I'd want to see the unrolling back cast loop as he does it.
Of course, those who practice the "170 cast" are using about 170 degrees of casting arc whereas Steve uses a short stroke and small casting arc even though he is carrying a lot of line and casting a great distance. He is one of a set of very rare casters who can exert enough well controlled power as he casts his very high modulus rod to maintain a good match between his casting arc and the rod bend for an almost straight rod tip path and a tight loop. This not only requires great strength, but impeccable timing.
As you point out, SLIDE LOADING is quite different than DRAG. This is a term coined by Joan Wulff which has led to much discussion and controversy. Without getting into a discussion on it again at this point, those interested should read what Joan wrote. *
* Joan Wulff's FLY CASTING TECHNIQUES, 1987, pp. 107-108.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Attachment:
Translation.docx
Description: Binary data