Micro Skagit/Spey

[Ed Ward]

Ben_d,
Yes, I believe that the specialization of Skagit casting technique is directly attributable to the shortness of the lines. It is interesting to note that, the Skagit casting procedure, as I describe it, becomes less efficient as line length exceeds 3.5 times rod length. When line length exceeds that parameter, the "pivoting" action of a Skagit Sweep - note in the vid clips of how in the Sweep-to-Forward-Cast sequence, the hands conduct all movements from a "fixed", centralized location, we call that the "box" - becomes more difficult to accomplish "correctly". That "correctness" is the engagement of the entire line into motion during the Sweep, all the way down to the fly, without breaking the hands out of the box. In other words, at the end of the Sweep and just prior to the Forward Casting Stroke, line movement should have been "enough" to have caused the fly itself to "pivot" or "pirouette" around in the water and line up with the intended direction of the Forward Cast, all while staying in the box. The importance of moving the entire line without breaking out of the box, seems likely to be, the creation of "consistent" tension onto the line, with great emphasis on "consistent". That's my best guess at this time!

[Ed Ward]

Ben_d,
Ooops! Guess I got off track and didn't really answer your question... yes, I believe that the supposed "continuous motion", "no pause" between backstroke to forward stroke recommendation of Skagit casting procedure is definitely attributable to the short lengths of Skagit lines.

[Ed Ward]

Lee,
The main difference between this line and the Wulff Ambush would be the fact that this is a multi-tip line. It is designed to be used in conjunction with interchangeable tips, therefore it doesn't have as "fine" of a front taper down as the Ambush.

[Ben_d]

Hi Ed,

Your first post is what I always try to achieve with a sustained anchor cast with any sort of line, Skagit, Scandi, whatever. In terms of the pirrouette, I try to lay the line far enough in front of me so that I am picking up from directly under or just inside of the laid out line on the sweep so that the end of the line only has to come through 90 deg rather than 270 deg and again this does not depend upon the line type. This is something taught to me by Lee Cummings and makes a difference IMO.

I maybe wasn't clear in my question above...... has your style of casting changed since the first commercially available Skagit, the original Rio (that was used with cheaters and recommended to be made up to 3 - 3.5 times the rod length including the tip) and the more recent, shorter lines such as Skagit Flight and Skagit Max?

Cheers

Ben

[Ed Ward]

Ben,
I don't think that there has been any major change from the basic technique. There has been a bit of shift in focus... more emphasis placed on the importance of "keeping things in the box" than before. This, because as the lines have become shorter, the keeping-it-in-the-box action has become more critical to casting success.

Of interesting note I believe, as regards our thinking on this side of the pond that we have invented a bunch of new stuff with Skagit casting... as I've mentioned previously, when we first started Spey-type casting, information was limited. What info was available to us, most probably was obsolete or not up to current standards. Curiously enough, with the info that was available, that regarding T&G casts was far more thorough than that of Waterborne/SA casts. Info regarding the SingleSpey was definitely more detailed than that for the DoubleSpey. In fact even today, one can find tons - perhaps too much - information regarding the SingleSpey, but the DoubleSpey by comparison, is still lagging well behind. Descriptions of the SingleSpey contained details for every possible aspect of its casting procedure. The DoubleSpey descriptions however were simply something like this... pull the line upstream far enough to place the fly in line with the Foreward Cast, then reverse the rod to Sweep downstream and to form a D-loop 180 degrees from the intended direction of cast, with enough speed to form a white mouse. That was it... no details about precise line placement, position, shape, if and/or time on the water had an effect, speed of Sweep, "track" of Sweep, etc., etc. So, when we started figuring out that details like precise line placement, position, shape, etc., etc., made a difference in the quality of the cast, I think it was natural to think, "by golly, we discovered something!".

[Ben_d]

Hi Ed,

The reason I asked is that I had a conversation with a friend of mine over here who has done a lot of fishing in the US & Canada in Skagit country. His thoughts are that with the original lines, 27' plus cheater etc he tried to keep the line moving from the sweep to D formation to delivery. With the more modern shorter heads things are (or at least could be) more sweep, D loop, pause, deliver. I hope to get acouple of hours with him over the coming weeks to have a look at some stuff.
In terms of discovery, I was convinced many years ago that I have discovered something fantastic when I realised that a pull down with the line hand on the final forward cast gave me more distance and better turnover. Very soon afterwards, I found out that it was called a haul, many folk had been doing it for a very long time and that it could also be applied to a back cast

Cheers

Ben

[Paul Arden]

I can't remember what it was now but a couple of years ago I discovered something in distance casting, something to do with the launch or turnover, and posted it here. The reply was "you've already told us this, Paul, a few years ago". If I could remember half of what I've forgotten I'd know twice as much

[slack]

Great posts, I thank all who particapated, I read several times and learned a lot.
Again thanks ,best site on the net. slack

[Ed Ward]

Just wanted to see if I could get some input on the CM/CL (Constant Motion/Continuous Load) thing. I've got an "experiment" that is easy to conduct that might give some insight into "why" I arrived at the "beliefs" I HAD about CM/CL. Equipment needed: flyrod, 18"-24" of 8-12 pound mono, practice "wiffle" golf ball (they are very light weight plastic,perforated with holes). Tie the wiffle golf ball to one end of the mono, the other end onto the tip top of the rod. Take a position on a lawn, choose a casting direction, lay the wiffle ball on the ground in a position that would replicate the starting point of a Sweep for either a C-Spey or DoubleSpey. Now:
Tactic #1 - swing the ball into a 180 position from the intended Forward Cast and conduct a "standard" back and forth, backstroke-pause-forward stroke action.
Tactic #2 - "swing" the ball around from the "big curve" of the Sweep, into a smaller, tighter curve into the Forward Casting Stroke.

Tactic #1 creates a jerky transition into the Forward Casting Stroke, Tactic #2 feels like a "seamless" and continuous transition into the Forward Casting Stroke.

[Ben_d]

Hi Ed,

I'd sort of expect that from your description if I am picturing this as you performed it. Tactic two will work like a Belgian / Oval Cast with the fly leg coming through along the grass if timed correctly and tactic one will be like the same thing but with bad timing as you will have lost tension in the system due to the stop and start putting slack into the system. On water, the ST will allow tension to be maintained using a "stop / start". Even if I have got the above wrong, the rod will straighten at some point as you transition from BC to FC and the bend will reverse so constant "load" can't really exist. I think any of this stuff needs to be tested on water but I'm not ruling out that CM will work with certain gear hence my question about your style changing as the lines have evolved.

I'll be out on Monday for first days salmon fishing of the year and the river is likely to be running at 8'+ above summer level so it will definitely be a "Skagit day". If it's not pissing down I'll try and get some video.

Cheers

Ben