PLEASE NOTE: In order to post on the Board you need to have registered. To register please email paul@sexyloops.com including your real name and username. Registration takes less than 24hrs, unless Paul is fishing deep in the jungle!

rod accuracy

Moderators: Paul Arden, stesiik

User avatar
Chris Korich
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:56 am
Location: Dagobah

rod accuracy

#101

Post by Chris Korich » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:57 am

Merlin wrote:Hi Chris

Thanks a lot for your comments. Your description of the rods makes me think about a Fenwick HMG 865. :ninja:
We also meticulously experiment with reel weight to optimize the reels counter-balance effect on the torque coming from above, so we can maintain a relaxed grip throughout a competition or long day of fishing.
This is very interesting. I guess you use a reel which weights between one and one and a half the rod weight (3.5 oz I think). Where is the center of mass with the reel attached? Is it at the top of the handle? There is a technical reason behind that, and I would like to check my perception of it before explaining that reason. I do not want to influence your own perception.

It is interesting to know that accuracy needs feel and “bending” rods, with a minimum of swing weight.

Merlin
Now, now Merlin, You don't expect me to share ALL the Jedi secrets here, do you? Just enough to make fellow casting friends think a bit deeper and test more thoroughly.

I will confirm, you're not far off when it comes to reel weight range. Obiously, target distance line weight, rod lever length, and line and rod air resistance are all off-setting factors. Clearly, most anglers pay far too little attention to these important details with regard to optimizing FEEL and casting EFFICIENCY.

Share whatever technical reason(s) you choose. Ultimately, The Force wil continue to be the primary influencer of my perceptions and most likely yours.

Hmmm... No doubt a high Midichlorian count in you Merlin. ;)

Chris

John Finn
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:35 pm

rod accuracy

#102

Post by John Finn » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:02 am

Chris Korich wrote:Regarding your comment on 'glass' being a bit much, we actually teach and train with full action fiberglass rods all the time and feel doing so, is a BIG advantage for improving our strokes, dampening, loops, etc.
Hey Chris, while I'm not a competition caster I do find this subject interesting and more importantly I can understand this thread which is not always the case up here. :???: We all want to be more accurate , especially while sight fishing so I was wondering why you don't use glass in competition seeing as you train with it, and as a pure fishing tool, do you prefer it.
John

User avatar
Merlin
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

rod accuracy

#103

Post by Merlin » Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:36 pm

Hi Chris

I’m a sorcerer, you know, and I can use the dark side of the Force to get some vision of what is taking place in the casting clubs of the Bay Area.

Now the story about the weight of the reel: I did not invent the rule of “one to one and a half times the rod weight”, but I had some check of it made by a computing center. The author of this rule was Letcher Lambuth, a cane rod maker (twisted rods). I was quite puzzled when I read his book in the beginning of the eighties (I am 64 today). I could not see any other reason than a vibration node story, but I did not know how the vibration mode could take place. Today I have a better understanding. A rod can unload along its first “free-free” mode, especially if the caster does not hold it firmly and use some “stopless” cast. Then there are two nodes appearing briefly: one in the tip and one in the butt. The interesting one is the one in the butt for the reel issue. If one does not want to be disturbed by the possible rotation of the rod around that node, this node must be placed under the grip of the caster, somewhere on the handle, between the reel and the top of the handle. The node can move a little bit, it depends on the carry (the reel becomes lighter, the mass at tip increases, so the node moves upwards). It also means that the center of mass of the rod is above the butt node, somewhere above the handle. To check the location of the node, I asked a computing center to conduct some tests with a model rod and a reel of variable mass. That took place in 1985. This computing center was the one who recomputed the frame of the Statue of Liberty as it was revamped. The outcome of that study indicated that the approximation of Letcher Lambuth was quite good. Like many people I use a large arbor reel today, but my Hardy Lightweight is still my preferred option for trout rods, especially with the very light rods we can use today.

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they won't play if they're maltreated
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

User avatar
gordonjudd
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:36 pm
Location: Southern California

rod accuracy

#104

Post by gordonjudd » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:19 pm

Pretty sure Daniel meant to use a rod that had a lower number written on it, rather than using a heavier line
Lasse,
Right you are. There are no restriction on rods (other than length) so what Merlin proposed would be allowed.
Gordy

User avatar
gordonjudd
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:36 pm
Location: Southern California

rod accuracy

#105

Post by gordonjudd » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:34 pm

A few casters use floating lines and the reason proffered by those who use intermediate lines is that being more dense they are easier to cut through adverse conditions. Excuse the pun but that logic does not hold water.
John,

Could you expand on why you think using a line with a higher linear mass density would not be less affected by drag (i.e. "cut through" the wind) in adverse conditions?

Gordy

User avatar
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 14614
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 1
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

rod accuracy

#106

Post by Paul Arden » Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:47 pm

Very interesting Daniel and Chis. Thank you. I'll have to play with reel weights.

Cheers, Paul
It's an exploration; bring a flyrod.

Flycasting Definitions

John Waters
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:16 pm

rod accuracy

#107

Post by John Waters » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:36 pm

G'Day Gordy,

Having a slightly smaller diameter is thought to be an advantage particularly in side winds but I don't see that as significant or dare I say, even advantageous. I use silk lines for my fly accuracy casting because of the stretch. I like floating lines and am doing a lot of training with the MED5 because that is what I will use in 2018 but I like to underline and add speed to the false cast to cut through adverse wind. I am playing with a 5 weight 7 weight and 9 weight Solitip rods for this event. Of course there is always the fact of diminishing returns with this strategy but contrary to Chris, I like tip action rods as I set up my gear for the longer hoops and and use arc and speed adjustments on the short target. I have also been playing with soft tip glass rods to test the difference and at this stage favour the faster action. I also use maximum length rods because of line trajectory, I want my fly and leader to hit first. Bit harder to achieve with the longer leader and tippets in Trout Accuracy but I think a strategy worth developing.

Unlike the fly accuracy events in Australia or the US, there is not a large distance variation between the shortest and longest centre target in the Trout Accuracy and that is important is any gear choice. The shortest possible casting distance is 8.9 metres and the longest possible distance of the centre hoop is 14.1 metres. The shortest target may be set further away and the longest target may be set closure to the caster so the range to cover is not huge.

John

John Waters
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:16 pm

rod accuracy

#108

Post by John Waters » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:44 pm

The concept of rod/reel balance is something I believe in for all events, even plug accuracy and distance. Thanks Merlin for the quantification, very much appreciated. My empirical measures concur with that even for ICSF and FFG events, including distance casting.

John

User avatar
Merlin
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

rod accuracy

#109

Post by Merlin » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:44 pm

I searched for L. Lambuth's book in my library. In fact he knew the rule of the thumb but had his own recommandation to place the middle of the handle when you know the rod and the reel you want to use: it must be right in the middle of the location of the reel and the location of the center of mass with the reel attached. So chose your reel so that the handle is in the middle of the reel foot and the center of mass when the reel is attached. If the reel is too heavy this point is too low on the handle.

It appears that vibration nodes are more on the butt side than this recommandation, which means that you might not found a reel light enough for your rod, especially if it is a large arbor one.

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they won't play if they're maltreated
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

WJC
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 2:02 am
Location: Fl. Keys

rod accuracy

#110

Post by WJC » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:36 pm

If I'm correctly understanding the original 2 questions asked in post #1, the logical answer regarding what WJC has read about in ‘rod review shootouts’, has to do with how deep a test line is BENDING a particular rod at a given target distance, given the tester's stroke mechanics and ability to adapt.

At a 60 foot target distance, the heavier amount of line extended is going to help BEND a rod more deeply. Deeper bending, when not excessive, generally improves LINE FEEL and can easily help a caster execute his/her stroke and resulting cast more accurately.

At 30 feet, especially with modern light graphite and stiffer rod designs, minimal bending can easily rob a caster of adequate LINE FEEL. Hence, it's very easy to misdirect a short cast to a close target.

In essence, short strokes at close targets happen so quickly, the caster doesn't have the extra milliseconds and bio feedback to execute the stroke accurately.
Thank you, Chris, for taking the time to answer the question that's been puzzling me since I read my first rod review fairly recently which rated different rods for rod accuracy at different distances. I only got interested in technical casting in the past 8 years or so and have not previously read much of anything about fly casting.

I've not fished for trout in the last 20 years, fishing primarily the salt. So, the closer the target, the more accurate the result; but most casts were not close, and those not moving were usually apt to at any moment. So the two primary selection points in buying a rod were how fast the fly could get from hand to fish, how much line could be picked off the water, and would the rod become mushy before my arm did either on long pickups or long casts with the line I wanted it for.

So now I understand. A softer rod would give you more time to feel the line tension and consequently allow better control of line velocity to allow maximum air time for the conditions. That would make for a longer look at the direction and range to the tiny targets you shoot for.

From your information and that of other posters like John Waters, it will be fun to test out an old 8 1/2" RPL 6wt against a 9' TCR 5 wt at small targets scattered around the field.

Thanks again for your great descriptive posts in plain English.

Post Reply

Return to “Flycasting”