Sooting tapers/rods / Kyte-Moran study v. Casting analyzer / Attachment (record bow)

An excellant answer to our question on matching shooting tapers to fly rods from Troy Miller. (He sent this prior to my answers of yesterday, but it came up on a different screen which I failed to access in time.) This one hits the nail on the head and is not over loaded with words.

Note that there were some other answers which were so far off base that I didn't include them. (In any event, way too many to print out and send.) :-

Today’s rods are designed more “application specific” than they were when AFTMA first came out with their line/rod weighting system. At that time, every line weight was designed (theoretically) to optimally load the rod with a nominal 30 feet of flyline out of the rod. Today, the manufacturers realize that it’s more common for an end user of a fast 8 to be casting at least 50 feet of flyline. Therefore, they design the rod stiffer than if it were intended for only 30 feet of line (210 grain nominal). Now if we really do only have 30 feet of line out of the “correct” line weight, the rod will be under-loaded. Therefore, going up a couple of line weights on a 30’ shooting head will be closer to properly loading the rod.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An important question from Gary Eaton. My brief answer and Bruce's detailed answer to follow

I suspect that as with any in-depth study, multiple methods of analysis will yield far more information than any single modality. Even the older video techniques have greatly improved. Putting it diffrently, we need not discard the old for the new.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..........................................................If so, what are the differences from the shorter more common results

with the analyzer?

*****Yes, we have analyzed all sorts of different casts, including

very long casts with long carry. Some observations..... Changing rod

action has little impact on the analyzer charts. Softer rods require

a wider rod arc, which clearly shows, but that is the main

difference. We do note bigger rebounds too, which you'd expect with a

softer rod, but most other data is quite similar to that from charts

made with faster rods.

Changing line head length has little discernible impact on the data

either. Assuming a good caster, lines with short heads can be carried

very long, well into the running line, and the casting style needed

to cast them long is no different than a line with a longer head. Of

course, casters of lesser ability will have trouble carrying these

lines long, but they will struggle with long heads too.

I haven't gotten Rick on the CA yet, but hope to in Livingston this

year. I have charted my own casts, and Paul Ardens, and some others

and find what you'd expect of top casters throwing long. Very wide

rod arcs (up to 140 degrees!), very high peak speeds (over 800

deg/sec!) and great stops. It is very interesting to start with a

short line and slowly work up to very long line, analyzing casts

every 5 ft. of distance change. As you'd expect, rod arc gets wider

and peak speed goes up, but other than that, no radical changes are

seen. While casters may look very different while casting due to the

body style they choose, they are making the rod do the same thing,

and that is what we measure. Joan casting long generates a chart very

similar to Lefty making the same cast. Remember, what we measure is

the angular rotation of the rod, not translational (lateral) hand/arm

motion. The angular rotation of the rod is a critical component of

every cast, casting can't be done without it. Translation is a matter

of style, most casts can be done with it, or without it...

I do not know what distances or casting tools were assessed by Kyte &

Moran. Were they a narrow range of tasks and gear, also?

****It is mentioned in the article, I think they were carrying 40-45

ft. outside the rod and shooting from there. They all used the same

gear and made only one type of cast, keeping the variables to a

minimum.

It seems that my guided analysis of video at advanced casting classes

suggests there are at least some differences in the Hartman type

distance casts from the 'usual' casts ascribed to the Casting

Analyzer or the typical stuff I video tape in my practice and

teaching. If my observations are correct, then it seems logical that

purist discussion of cast analysis would be predicated on some

definition limiting application. Examples might be "No haul, single

shoot, accuracy cast to 120% of the head length with a single handed,

medium fast 6 weight 9 foot rod, 7 foot 1x leader"; -OR-

"Double hauled, double shoot, long belly (SA Expert Distance 7 wt)

line with delivery cast carry of 8 rod lengths to maximum distance

over 110 feet using a 7 weight, one-handed 7 weight rod 9 feet in

length and 7 foot 1x leader".

There are a lot of variables and comparison of oranges with bowling

balls can lead to misconceptions.

****Of course, if you want to accurately compare different casts the

cast parameters must be set and adhered to, as with any other

scientific experiment. No analysis technique that I'm aware of can

examine two radically different casts and make meaningful

conclusions. And we can't tell you absolutely everything about casts

we analyze either, but we can tell you, in great, accurate detail, a

lot about the most important part of the cast, the angular rotation

of the rod.

I hope this info helps, great questions!

Bruce