Walter & Group........
From Troy Miller on rod loading:
The rod’s OWN inertia will cause some degree of rod loading. I’m not talking about “to the cork” type loading, but some load just the same. This becomes more evident in cane and glass rods. Think about our wiggle tests that we do when we go into the flyshop. Generally we do them with some translation and some rotation. But if you clamped off the rod and then only slid the clamp along a linear track (preventing rotation), wouldn’t the rod flex? Of course it will. The lower the sectional stiffness profile of the blank, the more it will deflect.
Troy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: I agree. The tiny bit of accelertion we can generate with translation alone, however, will yield only a small amount of rod load with or without the inertia of the line compared to what happens with acceleration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gordy –
Until I finished reading all the way to the bottom, I already had my reply written in my head. But you nailed one of my points for me. Most of today’s flycasters don’t have a clue as to what a “soft” rod is because the rod manufacturers have already shifted the spectrum SO FAR to the fast side. Mac’s definition of medium slow is still very fast compared to the actual end of the spectrum that I was talking about. (Pls note, I make and fish bamboo – some of them truly approaching my intended definition of slow). The “perfect” teaching rod for all applications doesn’t exist any more than does the perfect fly for all fish/all conditions. Each student would have a perfect rod based on her/his experiences and where they are in their journey. Their perfect rod to learn upon would change over time.
In my post, I was not talking about teaching beginners. I’m simply talking about the degree of control that the AVERAGE caster is able to exhibit over his loops when changing between radically different rod actions. And I’ll stand by that, because I had an intermediate class of 12 students last summer that this applied to – down to the last student. We swapped rods around and I had a couple of cane and glass rods mixed in. Every student had great difficulty adapting to what the soft rods required to made even “good” loops. Not a single student could make excellent loops with them. I know what y’all are thinking – “they were just bad rods”. No, they were very fine casting bamboo and glass rods, in knowing hands. And absolutely capable of laser tight loops by casters experienced.
So, I’m agreeing with Mac, Gordy, and anyone else who says that it’s bad to start a beginner out with a TCR. Wrong tool for the job. Something that is more medium in action (according to today’s definitions by the manufacturers) would generally be more suitable.
Can we get back to the original point? We weren’t really talking about which type of rod is easier or better to teach with. We were talking about the loop speeds required to unroll a given distance of line out when changing from a fast to a slow rod. So isn’t it reasonable to say that a fatter loop will have to be moving faster initially to get the required work done? Think bullet ballistics…
I don’t think you posted my response to the reactive torque induced when we move the rod translationally against a static flyline.
I’d sure love to hear what some of the nuclear physicists on here think about Michael Montagne’s writings on rod tip speed throughout the stroke/stop -- and his rationale. I’m having trouble resolving it in my mind…
With greatest respect to all the incredible teachers on this list -- TAM
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Gordon Hill
[mailto:masterstudy@xxxxxxxxxxx] More from Troy My comments in his
text in CAPS.
Gordy –
Until I finished reading all the way to the bottom, I already had my reply written in my head. But you nailed one of my points for me. Most of today’s flycasters don’t have a clue as to what a “soft” rod is because the rod manufacturers have already shifted the spectrum SO FAR to the fast side. Mac’s definition of medium slow is still very fast compared to the actual end of the spectrum that I was talking about. (Pls note, I make and fish bamboo – some of them truly approaching my intended definition of slow). The “perfect” teaching rod for all applications doesn’t exist any more than does the perfect fly for all fish/all conditions. Each student would have a perfect rod based on her/his experiences and where they are in their journey. Their perfect rod to learn upon would change over time.....AGREE.
In my post, I was not talking about teaching beginners. I’m simply talking about the degree of control that the AVERAGE caster is able to exhibit over his loops when changing between radically different rod actions. And I’ll stand by that, because I had an intermediate class of 12 students last summer that this applied to – down to the last student. We swapped rods around and I had a couple of cane and glass rods mixed in. Every student had great difficulty adapting to what the soft rods required to made even “good” loops. Not a single student could make excellent loops with them. I know what y’all are thinking – “they were just bad rods”. No, they were very fine casting bamboo and glass rods, in knowing hands. And absolutely capable of laser tight loops by casters experienced. THIS HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, TOO.
So, I’m agreeing with Mac, Gordy, and anyone else who says that it’s bad to start a beginner out with a TCR. Wrong tool for the job. Something that is more medium in action (according to today’s definitions by the manufacturers) would generally be more suitable. BECAUSE OF THE ROD MANUFACTURERS MAKING RODS WITH HIGHER AND HIGHER STIFFNESS PROFILES, SOME OF THE LINE MAKERS HAVE GONE TO THE TOP RANGE OF GRAIN WEIGHT ALLOWANCES FOR THE FIRST 30' OF SOME OF THEIR LINES. A FEW LINES HAVE ACTUALLY EXCEEDED THESE LIMITS.
Can we get back to the original point? We weren’t really talking about which type of rod is easier or better to teach with. We were talking about the loop speeds required to unroll a given distance of line out when changing from a fast to a slow rod. So isn’t it reasonable to say that a fatter loop will have to be moving faster initially to get the required work done? Think bullet ballistics… YES. FOR 2 REASONS, AS I SEE IT: 1. WITH THE WIDE LOOP, LESS OF THE AVAILABLE ENERGY IS USED TO PROPEL THE LOOP FORWARD. 2. MORE OF THE INPUT OF ENERGY GOES TO OVERCOME AIR AND WIND RESISTANCE.
I don’t think you posted my response to the reactive torque induced when we move the rod translationally against a static flyline. DID GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT, HOWEVER. AS YOU KNOW, TORQUE IS A ROTATIONAL FORCE .... NOT LINEAR, AND, THEREFORE, NOT TRANSLATIONAL AT ALL. IN AS MUCH AS THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE STROKE, TRANSLATION AND ROTATION ARE MIXED IN A VARIABLE RATIO, YOU DO HAVE TORQUE.....BUT ONLY IN RESPONSE TO THE AMOUNT OF ROTATION. HERE, I ASSUME, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TORQUE AS A FORCE YIELDING ROTATION IN THE ROD PLANE . THIS IS WHAT OCCURS WITH STRAIGHT LINE CASTING. TORQUE ("TWIST") OCCURS WITH SOME FORMS OF CURVE CASTING, ELLIPTICAL CASTING, AND SPEY CASTING. THIS TORQUE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AS IT IS IN THE AXIAL PLANE OF THE ROD.
I’d sure love to hear what some of the nuclear physicists on here think about Michael Montagne’s writings on rod tip speed throughout the stroke/stop -- and his rationale. I’m having trouble resolving it in my mind… I HAD TROUBLE WITH THAT, TOO. I READ HIS STUFF A LONG TIME AGO, AND DON'T RECALL THE DETAILS .... AND I DON'T HAVE THE REFERENCE.
With greatest respect to all the incredible teachers on this list -- TAM
GORDY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Gary Eaton: