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!

Shooting heads

Moderators: Paul Arden, stesiik

Ben_d
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland

Shooting heads

#91

Post by Ben_d » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:20 pm

Profile would also have to be taken into account for Spey casting heads. The longer the head, the heavier it needs to be to still feel similar on the same rod IMO.

Cheers

Ben

User avatar
Bernd Ziesche
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Whereever the fish are!
Contact:

Shooting heads

#92

Post by Bernd Ziesche » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:59 pm

Hi Ben,
Ben_d wrote:
Hi Ben,
fully agree. Answer to your question: Yes. I prefer to say stiffer since "faster" can be a tricky word in usage.
Really? I say stiffer when I'm talking about and increase in ERN and faster in action when I'm talking about an increase in AA. I didn't realise that an increase in AA could ever be confused with being stiffer!
Ludwig Reim (former German engineer) used to measure recovery speed via infrared. Similuar to ERN measurement but instead of measuring the weight for the 1/3 deflection let the tip go and measure time until RSP1. Having the "big loading concept" in mind, quite a lot of people thought the fastest rod would shoot the line the highest distance. And of course the fastest rod (lowest time for recovery in the measurement without weight at the tip) did not come by ERN and AA differencies BUT ONLY by the best graphite material :p (being ironic here). So that was misleading to think the fastest rod is built of best graphite material shooting the line further than other rods.
Took me years to fully get behind all directions the term fast was used. This was just one way.
Your way is the same way I like to understand a fast (action) rod. In Germany I would call it a tip action rod or confusion will soon come in.
Ben_d wrote:
If you think this is not based on the relationship between rod stiffness, line weight and the in avg. resulting range of rod bend (and finally feeling to control the cast), then what did Steve Rajeff have as a basement to offer these precise recommendations +/- 0 gram?
Probably what worked best for him, I doubt he examined the rod bend in each case, he just picked it up and cast a few lines and thought, yeah, that works.
I would be very surprised if that is true. I think he has his measurements and then will make a calculation and finally give it some casts for him and other casters.
Do you think Simon Gawesworth was casting ALL the rods that the RIO sheet recommends head weights for? ;) I would be very surprised here, too.

About density changes it depends on the length of the line. If you aerialize 20m carry of the same weight and profile in floating and sink3 it feels way different. If we talk about the difference for just a head of 9m it's not that big. I don't want to generalize that at all.

For sure I do not much agree on a rod's label giving me one head weight only. I fully agree with Sakari.
In Germany we have Theo Matschwesky who years ago started working with Ludwig Reim and then had his own version of measurement for rod stiffness and rod action (similuar to CCS). Ludwig Reim did those measurements way before CCS btw. :p Theo a few years ago added a shooting head calculator to his database. I asked him to integrate the line length and he did. That calculator works fine for me. But it is meant for overhead casting only (typical coastal Sea trout casting here). A lot of people are happy with it.
Tellis offers a 4 gram range recommendation. That sounds well for me. Taking into account that the range has to be bigger in the higher weight area it matches well with my thought of a +/-1 gram recommendation range in the typical coastal single hand range of 15-20 gram.
Sakari is right, other manufacturers have not arrived yet, or are too afraid to offer too much datas to their main market (not sure here).

Greets
Bernd
http://www.first-cast.de
The first cast is always the best cast.

User avatar
Bernd Ziesche
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Whereever the fish are!
Contact:

Shooting heads

#93

Post by Bernd Ziesche » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:12 pm

Ben_d wrote:Profile would also have to be taken into account for Spey casting heads. The longer the head, the heavier it needs to be to still feel similar on the same rod IMO.
Absolutely Ben.
Many (20?) years ago Loop (Göran Andersson) offered custom shooting heads. I have plenty of them. They came in ca. 15m length and then there was a list in the package, too. That list recommended different length to cut down the head for:
a) overhead casting
b) overhead + underhand casting
c) underhand casting
It was like:
12m overhead
11m both
10m if only for underhand casting
Problem wass that had to result in pretty heavy overhead recommendations or very light underhand recommendations.
Anyway the thought behind it was a different one:
The shorter head is easier to handle in the underhand business while the longer one means trouble for many people.
At its own time that was a good helping step for many fly fishermen. The taper of these old heads is still of the bests I have in my line box.
Greets
Bernd
http://www.first-cast.de
The first cast is always the best cast.

User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
Posts: 4236
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm
Location: There, and back again
Contact:

Shooting heads

#94

Post by Lasse Karlsson » Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:08 pm

Hi Bernd

Underhand only should be : tight underhand casting :cool:

And it basicly went that for long overhead casting it should be a line with the same number as was printed on the rod, for overhead/underhand, it was a number above, and for underhand 2 numbers above
And the lengths where app. 12, 10 and 8 meters respectivly.

Cheers
Lasse
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

http://www.karlssonflyfishing.com

***Bring Mark back!!!!!! ***

User avatar
Bernd Ziesche
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Whereever the fish are!
Contact:

Shooting heads

#95

Post by Bernd Ziesche » Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:27 pm

Hi Lasse,
thanks for correction. Seems as if I didn't remember all details though.
Well, then Göran was there already 20 years ago ;) - so nothing revolutionary here at all.
It's just that today we have a lot of ERN numbers giving us the opportunity to include stiffness in a more precise way.
My old loop DH custom heads ended up around 11m mostly and I always had in mind using them 50/50.
Since my rod was a 10wt. following it's label and my heads were indeed labeled as 11wt.. So it seems as if I was using your further details. I remember that I wasn't happy with the shortest recommendation. From my todays standpoint I'd call 8m to be very short. Can get a bit unstable depending on the leader of course.
Greets
Bernd
http://www.first-cast.de
The first cast is always the best cast.

User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
Posts: 4236
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm
Location: There, and back again
Contact:

Shooting heads

#96

Post by Lasse Karlsson » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:48 am

Hi Bernd

Those where just app. Lengths, Göran had a table for rodlengths and weights. I guess your rod was a 14 footer, and then 11 meters sound reasonable. I'll se if I can find the table :)

Cheers
Lasse
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

http://www.karlssonflyfishing.com

***Bring Mark back!!!!!! ***

Ben_d
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland

Shooting heads

#97

Post by Ben_d » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:52 am

Your way is the same way I like to understand a fast (action) rod
So, can I take it from that there is not a problem calling a rod with a higher AA angle a faster rod. I don't think I implied that a fast rod, slow rod or anything in between shot line better or worse than anything else, to do so would be toally non sensical Bernd. Oh, and, I'm quite familiar with how different modulus carbon and lay ups influence a rods performance.
Do you think Simon Gawesworth was casting ALL the rods that the RIO sheet recommends head weights for? I would be very surprised here, too.
I'd be very surprised if someone was not casting them Bernd. Everytime we have a new range come out, a bunch of rods are sent to Rio to be added to their table. I doubt that we'd bother doing that if no one cast them :whistle:
About density changes it depends on the length of the line. If you aerialize 20m carry of the same weight and profile in floating and sink3 it feels way different. If we talk about the difference for just a head of 9m it's not that big. I don't want to generalize that at all.

For sure I do not much agree on a rod's label giving me one head weight only.
So what do we do here, write a book on every blank taking into account length, weight & density between 7m & 22m?

Dude, go fishing!!

Ben

User avatar
Bernd Ziesche
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Whereever the fish are!
Contact:

Shooting heads

#98

Post by Bernd Ziesche » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:18 pm

Lasse Karlsson wrote:Hi Bernd

Those where just app. Lengths, Göran had a table for rodlengths and weights. I guess your rod was a 14 footer, and then 11 meters sound reasonable. I'll se if I can find the table :)
There was a small sheet coming with the packages Lasse, reccommending about the length to cut in all three categories.
I am pretty sure it did not say anything about specific weights. Could be that it somewhere had a sentence about using the 12 wt. custom head to cut for 8m on a 10wt. rod though and so on. But I can't remember such a sentence. And I don't see how it would work cause one only would have bought one head to cut usually. That would be the info one needs before deciding which one to buy of course :).
Maybe I can find that old paper. Probably I have it somewhere :p . Also possible that there were more than one paper over the years...
Greets
Bernd
http://www.first-cast.de
The first cast is always the best cast.

User avatar
Bernd Ziesche
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Whereever the fish are!
Contact:

Shooting heads

#99

Post by Bernd Ziesche » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:32 pm

Hi Ben,
I wasn't trying to tell you which terms or words to use anyway. :blush: The "fast" just remembered me to endless discussion on the German forums about what that is.

Really didn't know all these rods have been sent to down to RIO. Interesting.
Quite a lot of work for just a single man's recommendation that can only be a very rough number since everyone has his/her very own preferences anyway, isn't it? :D :p :pirate:

I don't think I would sent down a rod there, if I wouldn't think a huge amount of people are using those sheets and it works pretty well for them.

Agree, time for fishing :D Good threat anyway!
Cheers
Bernd
http://www.first-cast.de
The first cast is always the best cast.

User avatar
Bernd Ziesche
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Whereever the fish are!
Contact:

Shooting heads

#100

Post by Bernd Ziesche » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:48 pm

Bernd Ziesche wrote: There was a small sheet coming with the packages Lasse, reccommending about the length to cut in all three categories.
I am pretty sure it did not say anything about specific weights. Could be that it somewhere had a sentence about using the 12 wt. custom head to cut for 8m on a 10wt. rod though and so on. But I can't remember such a sentence.
Seems as if I am getting old :D

Here it is:
Image

So really no revolution here. Göran had it all nailed down 20 years ago :cool: :worthy:

10,3m CU11 is nothing else than a precise recommendation in length and weight (little bit of production deviation included).
Greets
Bernd
http://www.first-cast.de
The first cast is always the best cast.

Post Reply

Return to “Flycasting”