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
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 13920
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 1
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

rod accuracy

#141

Post by Paul Arden » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:58 am

Thank you very much Chris! Address sent. Happy holidays to you too :cool:

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

Flycasting Definitions

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

rod accuracy

#142

Post by Chris Korich » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:53 am

Merlin wrote:Hi Chris

I visited the Golden Gate casting club with Harry Wilson in 1981, and had the opportunity to cast a 10 weight HMG with a shooting taper: a strange outfit for a small glass rod fisherman at that time. I can’t tell how far I cast, far may not be the appropriate word, the owner of the rod told me to be careful with the casting plane, just in case the line would hit me. I am afraid I won’t be able to do it again, but many thanks for the kind invitation.

Here is the graphic illustrating the calculations I had asked for in 1985...

Merlin
Hey Merlin, Great to hear you visited the GGACC pools way back with Harry Wilson (founder of Scott rods). He was a little quirky to many, but I got along with him fine, helping test and refine many of his early graphite designs, after Fenwick's launch of the very first HMG's in '74. Don't rule out another visit to the wacky left coast of U.S.A. Sorcerer's are still welcome!

Thanks for sharing your graphic in post #126, illustrating the computer center calculations you had run in 1985. Fantastic stuff. No doubt, our desktop IBM PC XT wouldn't have handled that job, but no surprise when science/math confirms what we can FEEL when closing our eyes and trusting The Force!

All Jedi should optimize REEL weight for each rod and line used. Mass matters. DO or do not.

Chris

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

rod accuracy

#143

Post by Chris Korich » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:24 pm

easterncaster wrote:
Chris Korich wrote: ...
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. Combined with a lower mass of line extended and generally less line speed at 30 feet, it's also easy for air and wind conditions to negatively affect accuracy on the final delivery.

...
Hey Chris!

Clarification on Deeper Bending: Are you describing More bend overall, or bend Lower on shaft?

Thanks,
Craig
Apologize for my delay responding Craig.

I chose the words 'Deeper Bending', so most would hopefully understand my points above. As you know, I prefer rods with firmer tips, which force the bend lower down the butt (or shaft) for better FEEL, especially when precise trajectory and accuracy is demanded.

'Deeper Bending' can also be thought of as 'Prolonged Bending' during a given casting stroke, which gives the caster more TIME (milliseconds) to FEEL the direction they are driving or delivering their fly line with hopefully a narrow loop!

More TIME to FEEL direction and adjust your stroke according, usually leads to more consistent ACCURACY on your final presentation cast.

Hope this helps further understanding a bit,

Chris

User avatar
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 13920
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 1
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

rod accuracy

#144

Post by Paul Arden » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:55 pm

Very interesting on rods, Chris. That's the same as the Spey casters like for Speys of course. For Overhead the other way around. I can see that I have a hell of a lot to learn here. Thanks for sharing!

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

Flycasting Definitions

User avatar
gordonjudd
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:36 pm
Location: Southern California

rod accuracy

#145

Post by gordonjudd » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:36 pm

Do you find the junction between line and leader to be important or not ?
Yes, important Mr. Finn
Chris,
What effect do you see the type of line to leader connection makes as that transition goes around the loop? I always thought the Dave Whiltlock’s Zap-a-Gap connection where the end of the leader is “welded” to the inside of the fly line would be the best connection to use.

Much to my surprise, I did not see any affect on how different types junction went around the loop (even with a thread connection to simulate the effect of a hinge behind a nail not) in this series of experiments.

Gordy

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

rod accuracy

#146

Post by Chris Korich » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:10 pm

gordonjudd wrote:
Do you find the junction between line and leader to be important or not ?
Yes, important Mr. Finn
Chris,
What effect do you see the type of line to leader connection makes as that transition goes around the loop? I always thought the Dave Whiltlock’s Zap-a-Gap connection where the end of the leader is “welded” to the inside of the fly line would be the best connection to use.

Much to my surprise, I did not see any affect on how different types junction went around the loop (even with a thread connection to simulate the effect of a hinge behind a nail not) in this series of experiments.

Gordy
Hi Gordy, Since John Finn's question was a quick add to Paul Arden's about our competition leaders, my complete answer of using 'well-tied nail knots', was really specific to what most U.S. Team members use in competition.

While training and testing, we of course use various loop-to-loop connections to facilitate quick changes. But to minimize the chance of any snags at the line/leader transition when a clock is ticking, we really like piece of mind with a nearly 100% dependable, quick nail knot.

In terms of how different line/leader junctions transition around a tight loop, intuitively like most, I've assumed welded or braided loop-to-loop connections with a bit extra mass and poorer aerodynamics, would be slightly inferior to good nail knots and glued transitions, especially on smaller diameter lines.

At least in your linked series of controlled test videos, the loop-to-loop connection doesn't appear to be that detrimental. I still wonder however, out in the 'windy' world. Maybe you can retest someday with a fan blowing against casting direction and also compare on a 4 or 5wt line!

Related to your earlier posts with John Waters about line weights/densities and achieving leader and fly hover or 'HANG TIME' for measuring targets at the end of leader turn-over, I will say that it seems MORE difficult to maximize my leader/fly hang time on lighter lines with loop-to-loop connections and also when my line cracks behind a nail knot. To be clear, when it comes to measuring and zeroing in on any target spot or hoop, U.S. casting team members are striving for MICHAEL JORDAN hang time! :yeahhh:

For trout fishing, I still default to needle nail knots, especially with long leaders and fine tippets, but obviously Whitlock's direct glue method is even more stealthy and minimizes moss/vegetation headaches. For heavier lines, leaders and flies and less spooky situations, I appreciate the convenience of welded or braided loop-to-loop connections, especially when setting up tackle for certain clients.

Chris

User avatar
Merlin
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

rod accuracy

#147

Post by Merlin » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:04 pm

Hi Chris

Another graphic coming from my PC and my magic calculation files:
trout rod balance.JPG
trout rod balance.JPG (35.25 KiB) Viewed 3141 times
What you can see here is the variation of the node in the butt (free-free unloading conditions) as a function of the reel weight to rod weight, and as a function of line carry (mass). This has been calculated for a hollow rod (solid rod is for next time), and it shows red dotted lines representing the location of the handle. If one needs to keep the node around the center of the handle, then a 1 to 1.5 ratio would be fine. The problem is that for SH rods, the reel is something like twice as heavy than the rod.
Interestingly, the situation reverses if you consider a graphite DH rod, for which the mass ratio is around 0.5. In that case, you might be "short of weight" to get the node within the hands.

May the Force be with us.

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

User avatar
gordonjudd
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:36 pm
Location: Southern California

rod accuracy

#148

Post by gordonjudd » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:51 pm

Another graphic coming from my PC and my magic calculation files:
Merlin,
Do your magic calculations take the variable EI stiffness of a tapered rod and the effect of the line mass into account or are your mode shapes given by the ones expected for a uniform beam?

I know the mode shapes that Robert Haun calculated for a tapered rod are not exactly orthogonal, so coming up with the mode shapes and frequencies for a tapered rod must not be easy to do. Adding in a tip mass along with a variable mass near the butt must be even more complicated.

Gordy

User avatar
gordonjudd
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:36 pm
Location: Southern California

rod accuracy

#149

Post by gordonjudd » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:06 pm

I still default to needle nail knots
Chris,
Thank you for your detailed response.

I am always surprised that line and/or leader manufactures have not produced some high speed videos to show how their loop to loop connections perform going around the loop and laying out the fly. Maybe it not so easy to do.

I also use nail knots for fishing. My expertise in making the zap-a-gap connection seemed to pull out after some water exposure.

Gordy

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

rod accuracy

#150

Post by Chris Korich » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:14 am

Merlin wrote:If one needs to keep the node around the center of the handle, then a 1 to 1.5 ratio would be fine. The problem is that for SH rods, the reel is something like twice as heavy than the rod.

Merlin
Hi Merlin, Thanks for the interesting new graph in your last post. Possibly a bit above Yoda's pay grade here, I sense. Precisely why we are lucky to have Master teachers like you and Gordy in the community!

Please clarify the sentence above (in bold). Are you sharing an observation that many commonly sold trout reels (empty) are approximately 2X the weight of many high-end ultra light 9' trout rods?

Chris

Post Reply

Return to “Flycasting”