|
Walter & Group...
Walter & Group....
[GH] From Paul Arden :
Hi Gordy,
Pull is a good term, as is Draw. The term Drag originated from Bruce. The first I came across the concept was from a chap called Herb Spannagl, who lives in NZ. He called it Slip, as in Slipping Clutch. So I originally used Slip but after talking to Bruce about it I agreed that Drag was a better term.
The idea of a caster using Creep to accidentally tighten his loop is very common in my experience. Big wide loop backcast followed by Creep, followed by a reasonably tight loop. Here we have two faults. The wide backcast loop and Creep. Fix just Creep and you have two wide loops. Fix just the back loop and you'll see the front tail.
Of course it's possible that both the wide backcast loop and the forward rod repositioning were intended. It's very easy to find out by simply asking!
Cheers, Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Paul,
After reading your message, I went out and made some casts doing exactly what you described. Worked just as you said.
A couple of years ago, Bill Gammel sent us some pictures of Rick Hartman using a great amount of DRAG for his distance cast. I thought I'd saved those pictures, but couldn't find them in my records.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Doug Swift :
Quote: (Caveat: Some MCI candidates, when asked the cause of tailing loops will opine that the concave tip path is the cause. Many examiners won't accept that answer, since they see the true CAUSE as action by the caster.)
Gordy
Hi Gordy
My thinking is that if we were asked this question and we kept in mind Bruce Richards six step method of teaching, it would cover the "true CAUSE". i.e.. What the hand/arm/body did to cause the rod tip to travel in a concave path which resulted in a tailing loop.
Doug Swift
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] YES ! I was going to add that, but you beat me to it.
When asked questions on the CAUSE of any fault or problem, the first thing I do is to think of what the caster probably did as a start.
Even that isn't perfect, because we can have casting problems "caused" by poorly matched rods and lines, leaders, etc. Jim Valle emphasized that a while back as a reason for the instructor to check the function of the student's outfit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Tim Lawson:
Hi Gordy,
Semantics!! Ya gotta love 'em!! If I ask a candidate the cause of a tailing loop, I EXPECT the answer to be a concave rod tip path. The path of the rod tip IS what causes the tailing loop. I would hope the candidate would then proceed, without being prompted, to explain what the caster does to cause that rod tip path, but a concave tip path as the "short answer" is not one an examiner should not "accept". If the examiner doesn't want a tip path answer, then the question should be asked specifically as to what the caster does to cause the problem. I think candidates have a right to expect a "clear and concise" question if the examiner expects a "clear and concise" response.
Tim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Tim,
I think yours IS a better way to ask the question.
Most examiners will (and should) give the candidate a chance to explain. That question/answer wouldn't be "flunked" unless the candidate couldn't do that.
Now, let's look at this tailing loop: The caster makes a high trajectory back cast. Without changing rod planes, he now makes a high trajectory forward cast. This yields an angle of less than 180 degrees between back and forward cast trajectories. A tail results.
Question: Where is the concave rod tip path ?
We can stretch a point and say, "Well, there was a concavity between the two trajectories"...but is that really a concave rod tip path during a casting stroke ?
Either way, the root cause lies in what the caster did.
Gordy
|