Micro Skagit/Spey

[Ed Ward]

Paul,
I would say that our limited access to current Speycasting information "back then", is the cause for many of us on this side of the pond assuming the belief that details on line proximity and shape on the water was not a thoroughly explored subject. We did get the "anchor the fly as close to being in-line with the Forward Cast" information, but nothing about also paying any real attention to the rest of the line.

As regards the "tension" thing... I'm just not wording my thoughts in a way to correctly convey my thoughts. I'll try this... higher degrees of tension on the rod-to-line connection point, should result in a more "direct", "quicker", "efficient" translation of Forward Cast rod movement, to forward movement of the line into the cast? This of course being dependent on the fact that the rest of the line is also in a "taut" status and as free of wiggles, waves or any other "variances" in congruity as possible?

[Paul Arden]

igher degrees of tension on the rod-to-line connection point, should result in a more "direct", "quicker", "efficient" translation of Forward Cast rod movement, to forward movement of the line into the cast?

I don't know, is my answer to that, Ed! I would be surprised if there is much tension in a dynamic D-loop to begin with and I would be surprised if higher tension resulted in a significant difference in the forward cast. But I genuinely don't know and it's certainly worth exploring.

Spey casting instruction has actually changed quite significantly in the UK in the last decade. When I was first examined on Spey casting instruction in '96 crashed anchors were actually acceptable! Now every anchor has to come in straight and land on its toes, in the same place and left side should mirror right side. So it may not have been the fully explored subject that it's since become.

Cheers, Paul

[Unregistered]

...the actual action of the Sweep is to project the line into position for making the Forward Cast AND to do so with an "optimal" degree of tension on the line. Tension on the line provides for translation of rod movement into line movement.

My last contribution, Ed.

Have you watched this video I linked before?



https://vimeo.com/64747188

You can see how much tension there is in the rod leg of the D by watching at how much the rod bends when the line comes tight.

But you said that you need to experience it by yourself to believe. So take a rod and line, put the line end on the ground and step on it, then make a sweep. Now tell me where do you feel the tug of the line coming tight, on the rod hand or on the foot?
Try with different speeds of sweeping. Try sweeping as hard as you can.

Looking forward to know the result of your experiment and what it suggests to you.

[Ed Ward]

Aitor,
Yeah, probably going to be a while before I can check out that experiment... we were at minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit with a wind chill of minus 35 this morning. I doubt that my flyline could be straightened out enough from its coiled on the reel state to attempt any type of casting right now. I will try it out as soon as conditions are better. I viewed your last couple of vids and what I'm seeing is that the line doesn't exert as much "backwards pull" on the rod at "full D-loop formation" as I would have thought. But to clarify, "backwards pull" is not the action I have been trying to question. Rather, it is about what "force" in terms of physics, causes the D-loop to "suspend" in the air for that brief micro-second before the Forward Cast is made.

[Unregistered]

Aitor,
But to clarify, "backwards pull" is not the action I have been trying to question. Rather, it is about what "force" in terms of physics, causes the D-loop to "suspend" in the air for that brief micro-second before the Forward Cast is made.

Ed,

Gravity is not affected by the horizontal velocity of an object: the same line falls to the water at the same rate, whatever the line's speed.

Again, IMHO, you are looking in the wrong direction to get a basic idea of the "whys" and "hows" D loop and anchor work.
It seems to me that we are going in circles and have just reached the point of departure again. But I won't try to change your mind; these issues have been explained and documented many times over the years here and I can't add anymore to that.

[Snake Pliskin]

Ed - my quick contribution. I tend to look for the basics in casting first these days, and I take what I call a "line centric" approach. It is after all the line that we're moving around, regardless of if we're using a bendy rod, a broomstick, or our hands.
Think about a good anchor as something that stops a portion of the line going backwards. Think about the D loop as another portion of the line going backwards. What would be the optimal conditions to hit a forward cast in an overhead cast? Would the conditions in a spey cast be different?
Forget all about the magic of forces, and think about the line.
As an example - In an overhead cast I might think about the line in the rod leg having no slack in it so I can move the whole thing as soon as I move the rod. I'd think about the timing involved in that, depending on the length and mass of the line. I might think about the trajectory of the rod leg relative to my target forward cast and rod position.
Another example - In a spey cast I might think about the line in the rod leg having no slack in it so I can move the whole thing as soon as I move the rod. I'd think about the timing involved in that, depending on the length and mass of the line. I might think about the trajectory of the rod leg relative to my target forward cast and rod position.

[Paul Arden]

There is definitely tension at the rod tip, Ed. The D-loop is held between the anchor and the rod tip. I watch the apex of the D travel from the rod tip to the water. My physics unfortunately does take me any further than that!

Cheers, Paul

[Ed Ward]

Sorry if I am driving some of you guys batshite crazy! The circumstance of abolishing rod loading as a major enabler of casting is making the understanding of the Skagit process difficult for me. Though the theory has been incorrect, the actual technique still works very well. Even though rod loading for casting is actually/truly insignificant in the act of casting, all the steps that I've employed for achieving rod load during the Sweep - formation of water tension onto the line, instant start, steady Sweep speed, out and around action - combined with the "transferring it around" intention of the Turnover step, produce good casting. Elimination of any of the one steps , does in fact result in a degradation of casting quality. So, I can only surmise that my "rod loading" approach is actually successfully creating some other "desirable" condition for casting. It seems to me that that condition is the formation of a "smooth", congruous D-loop. By that, I mean a D-loop that is as free from wiggles, waves or any other deviations in shape that would have to be "removed" during forward rod travel, thus "wasting" the efficiency of the Forward Cast. I translated that condition to be "tension"... a D-loop under effects of tension is going to be taut in its shape - less wiggles or waves in the line - and thus translate any forward travel of the rod "more quickly" into forward travel of the line. I did not mean to imply that tension was causing rod loading intended for use in the Forward Cast. In the videos that Aitor has presented, plus the one of me in this thread, it can clearly be seen that just prior to initiation of the Forward Cast, the rod has no "load" as it begins the Forward Casting Stroke, thus forward line movement has to be a direct result of levering the rod forward, and therefore my concepts of "rod load" or "transferring rod load around" is complete B.S. However, the quality of the cast and efficiency with which the levering action of the rod is transferred into forward line movement, looks to be affected by how "tight" the "connection" is from rod tip to line and how smooth/congruous the line is throughout the shape of the D-loop. I translate that as a "state of tension". Perhaps I am seeing this entirely wrong or am conveying my thoughts about it wrong, I don't know?

[Unregistered]

You are are totally right, Ed. The tighter the line is the better. And that is the same for overhead or spey casts.
Your style looks for a tight and straight line/D-loop; other styles of spey casting look for exactly the same.

IMO your problem is that you aren't looking for an answer because you already have one.

Your preconcieved idea is that a sustained anchor is able of creating "casting energies" in a way that other styles' anchors can not; the caster may then take advantage of those energies to impulse the line forward in the delivery, and that doesn't happen with other spey styles.

This is a quote from a post of yours on the Skagit forum:

The definition of Sustained Anchor goes beyond just the "literal" meaning of the word "sustained" and is instead an ACTUAL CASTING CONCEPT: an anchor process designed/intended/performed to produce conditions of significant water tension in order to optimize the creation of casting energies via waterloading.

When we look at casting as a matter of the rod unloading and impulsing the line the obvious place to put those "energies" is in rod loading:
SA allows for the sweep to keep the rod loaded for the entire cycle of sweep/delivery.
Since rod loading is the holy grail everything fits in its place, and that bigger load makes Skagit casting more efficient than other styles. Eveybody is happy.

However slo-mo shows crystal clear that this continuous load doesn't exist, and there comes a time when it is impossible to keep denying the evidence anymore, so now we must look for a place to put those "energies" in order to keep stating that sustained anchor is different, and more efficient, from any other anchor of the rest of styles.

The problem is that this is also false: SA works the same as any other anchor.

P.S.
Of course it is easier to get a shorter line (like a skagit one) more tight than a longer one, and the first is also easier to control.

[Ben_d]

Could we maybe bring in another term here to help things out? Regardless of whether I am casting a mid belly or a Scandi, a circle C / Snap T, Perry Poke or double Spey is a sustained anchor cast to me. Touch and go / live anchor casts really do not work very well with a 750 Skagit 15' of T17 and 2" of copper, whilst it is possible to make a single Spey with this gear a Circle C works much better so, the sustained anchor for Skagit is a given IMO. I will add at this point that I only fish a Skagit when I need to, I see it as a tool for a job and it is not a tool I would ever use for shifting about a size 8 double or dry fly on a floating tip and 15' tapered leader.
What I'll change when I move to a Skagit set up is the force applied during certain parts of the set up and I adjust the timing of my sweeps to maximise tension in the D loop when I form it. I think we all agree that more tension = better cast.
Once I have swept the line into position and have the line lay I want, I will pause longer than I would with say, a mid belly and a fast sink polyleader and this is because I want a sunk anchor prior to D loop formation so I can come back with enough pace to give a nice tight, maximised D without blowing the anchor. My cue for delivery is when I see the anchor sit up and most of the sink tip lift from the water into the fly leg of the so that it looks exactly like the anchor on a perfectly timed Single Spey or Snake Roll in attitude when I execute the forward stroke. The reason I do this is the massive amount of grains jammed into a very short length of line. Without the anchor being below the surface prior to D loop formation, I don't think I would be able to set the D with nearly as much tension, I should really try a floating Skagit set up just for comparison.
If I tried the same set up with a 60' head, 10' 7ips poly and 2" Cu tube, I'd struggle to get get the relatively lighter line to pick up the gear and carry it forward to the target.

If we went from overhead casting a #5 GT125 or SA ED on a TCR5 to an 6wt Outbound short with 2' removed from the front taper and some T14 lashed on, I think we'd all agree we'd have to make some fairly major adjustments to how we moved the rod around. The Outbound would kick like a barstool on turnover unless it was carefully managed and this would rob tension and effect the next cycle, I'd want to slow down the BC to the point where it had only just sufficient energy to unroll and no more before delivering the FC to get the best out of it. Just the same as using a sunk anchor to control the massive amount of grains lumped into a very short blunt line when Spey casting a Skagit set up.

Cheers

Ben