The term tracking.

[Paul Arden]

From Bernd’s FP - do you still use the term “ tracking”?
http://www.sexyloops.com/index.php/ps/b ... shing-week

Cheers, Paul

[Lasse Karlsson]

Never used Bernds definition of tracking, so yeah, I do use the word tracking... Btw. Seen from the birds view, keeping the rod in one plane produces a straight line.. And can still have a tail in it

Tracking is aligning backcast with forward cast.

Cheers
Lasse

[Paul Arden]

For me tracking is the tip path when viewed down the rod plane.

Nice to know we’re all on the same page.

Cheers, Paul

[easterncaster]

At times in my teaching I have used 'non-casting' terms: plan, elevation, profile and silhouette.

[Lasse Karlsson]

For me tracking is the tip path when viewed down the rod plane.

Nice to know we’re all on the same page.

Cheers, Paul

So you can have straight tracking, and a line that swings from side to side
Aitor has a nice beadchain video showing something similar, but it really rattles some religious folks...

Cheers
Lasse

[Paul Arden]

Yes of course. That’s when your back target doesn’t align to your tracking!

Of course using your definition one can also have straight tracking - targets aligned - but curve the stroke between them. Line also goes from side to side

Cheers, Paul

[Lasse Karlsson]

Are you sure?

[bartdezwaan]

is there anything you guys can agree upon?

[Boisker]

I always assumed or understood tracking to be in the two planes...horizontal and vertical or from the side and above.... so for me Bernd’s description just covered one element?

This is where I find out even my basic understanding is flawed

[Geenomad]

I always assumed or understood tracking to be in the two planes...horizontal and vertical or from the side and above.... so for me Bernd’s description just covered one element?

This is where I find out even my basic understanding is flawed

Don't be too quick to draw the conclusion it's you mate. I've only been back a couple of days from the wilds of Tasmania and I'm working through what's changed while I was away but I suspect that casting force still accelerates the line mass and that the most efficient way to do that is in a straight line. Since we still cast, I assume, in 3 dimensional space, then yes both planes need to be considered. Your net F wants to be applied to your m so it accelerates in the intended direction of your cast, and preferably you don't waste too much of it by directing it elsewhere. We might not achieve perfection but F=ma is still handy as an ideal.

Cheers
Mark