Bernd Ziesche wrote:
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
There is a huge difference between a straigh leader and a collapsed one. The straight one needs alot more speed at distance than the collapsed one.
And it's quite clear that one throws furthest with the rod one is most familar with, or the stiffnes one is most familiar with.
the difference is, that in such a test the collapsed leader may position the rod on the lowest ranking, while the straight leader might position the rod on the highest ranking.
If I look at the max (30,12m) and minumum (29,06m) avg. results and compare the (1,06m) difference with the range of standard deviation (1,78-3,18) for each single rod, this tells me that the test results are not reproductable in my book.
If one throws furthest with the stiffness one is most familiar with, then what was the final ranking based on avg. results over all different casters good for anyway? Seems to me, as if you are saying, that the test can not work well this way (and that's what I said, too).
A straight leader is not only a question of line speed but of technique, too (I think). We all know that one cast may be totally straight while the next one ends up with a piled leader, even though in both casts we aimed for the same line speed (and maybe achieved it, too).
If the casters can't throw a straight leader with that particular rod, and don't forget they are all top level tournamentcasters, then it sort of blows a hole into the myth that stiffer rods throw further. Hand the rod to the average caster and the results will be even worse
Linespeed is a product of technique, not the other way around.
And by having eight casters, even if one is familar with one of the rods, the other seven will not be and that makes the results plausable.
And the test really rams in the fact that the gear does not give you a advantage unless you can control it. There's no free lunch
Would be cool to reproduce the test today with a new bunch of rods and see how things have progressed. I bet distances would be up a bit, but the final results would be similar...
About the stiffnes one is used to... It's not that clear to me. I think the one being used to a pretty stiff rod will achieve a benefit in very windy conditions, while the one using a pretty soft rod may have to shorten his carry significally. I believe that every outfit has its pros and cons based on the situation. Besides that being used to a specific rod always is a huge plus. I agree on that.
Two casters of same high skill level, I doubt there would be much difference.
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Would be interesting to try, I haven't tried with two rods of the same length, so can't say, but bamboo can be thrown pretty far. Nevertheless it's a pretty much apples to potatos comparision if the graphite is a stiff one and the bamboo is a noodle, give them same stiffness and we can see if the weight does play such a huge factor
Are you saying, we were comparing apples to potatoes in Norway (we all were using completely different stiffness profiles)?
If so, I agree.
Nope, I'm not saying that. This is about same caster throwing distance into the wind with two different rods, not different casters with different rods (some) throwing distance they have practiced with same rods...
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Casting in the wind the bamboo rod will show HUGE bend and that will open up your loops significally in my experience.
Stick a shootinghead on it, and a mono shootingline and the counterflex will matter much less witht he right amount of overhang...
Even if you compare a bamboo rod and a graphite rod of a smiliar stiffness while casting into a wind (what this thread is about), you still will be faced more air resistance to overcome with the bamboo rod.
I agree, that we can throw some fine distance with a bamboo rod. But it will not go further than it will with the graphite rod. That's all am saying.
Besides that most bamboo rods are softer compared to graphite rods as far as I know it.
I am pretty sure that not a single caster in Norway was using a stiffness profile that would match with the one of an avg. 5wt recommended bamboo rod. Instead all casters were using higher stiffness profiles.
Not following the more air resistance argument, sorry?
The trend for bamboo is softer today, absolutly, but the stiffest rod I've cast was a bamboo
And no, not a single bamboo in Norway, I only know of a few local tournaments where people cast bamboo for distance. But I do know that there was at least one competitior usiing a rod that would match a bamboo rod, he was using a glasfiber rod, I cast it there
Since the bamboo rod needs more energy to rotate the rod itself, this should mean the efficiency between energy input by the caster and the output to the line should be better for the lighter graphite rods, shouldn't it?
Yup, question is how much does that really matter in distance?
Seems as if it mattered enough, that no one was using a bamboo rod in Norway nor in any other tournament I know of.
Interesting deduction, longest switchcast in the world was done with a greenheart rod, didn't see a single one in Norway, maybe it didn't matter enough either
Do you think you can find any bamboo rod that would offer you a longer 5wt. MED carry than the one you achive with your 6wt. TCX? If so, that would surprise me.
(Am open minded for any test of course.
It's not the rod that offers me anything in that regard, that's technique
Pretty sure if I found the right bamboo, and I used it enough I would at least get similar results. So would more practice, I'm not that good a caster in line carry, lots of people carry significanlty more