Loop Morph

[Graeme H]

You're completely missing the point, I fear. We'll talk about it in July ...

You raised the question, remember. You've seen something you didn't expect and I'm trying to explain it to you.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Paul Arden]

I saw something I’ve never seen before, this is true. I’m just not sure that we need two or three loops explanations to explain it!

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

That's okay. I need two loops to explain it. It sounds like Lasse also has a similar explanation.

If my explanation doesn't makes sense, I'll stop confusing you with it.

For now ...

Cheers,
Graeme

[Paul Arden]

I can see where you are going Graeme, I just think that the result of a theory that results in having 2 or more loops doesn’t simplify the problem. Quite the reverse in fact. Loop morph doesn’t have to only mean narrowing.

I’m surprised you’re not getting a visible increase in line speed, John. In Cumbria I didn’t see anyone cope with the wind using a truncated non-170 arc. I actually think the 170 puts the hand into a poor starting point where Slide is required to bring it back to a better starting position.

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

Fair enough too Paul. If I can't simplify it, then it's time for me to sit back and let someone else take a swing at it. I'll be pleased to how others get their message across.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Lasse Karlsson]

Paul, I doubt anyone has a theory of two three or more loops, that is just a visual to simplyfy the explanation. And for what its worth, it also works for the loops morphing the other way

We accelerate the line with a flexible rod through an angle/arc, because of how we move, we get a nice flattened tippath for most of it, then we run out of space to move and the tippath takes another direction. So most of the line goes in one direction (not the band) and a bit goes in another direction. Last bit will try to go in said direction until something stops it.
The point in the main loop almost always translate back to peak acceleration (tip velocity+haul velocity) and point in belly translates back to rod tip at MCF, it will still move as the line moves, just like the loop front.

Cheers
Lasse

[John Waters]

I can see where you are going Graeme, I just think that the result of a theory that results in having 2 or more loops doesn’t simplify the problem. Quite the reverse in fact. Loop morph doesn’t have to only mean narrowing.

I’m surprised you’re not getting a visible increase in line speed, John. In Cumbria I didn’t see anyone cope with the wind using a truncated non-170 arc. I actually think the 170 puts the hand into a poor starting point where Slide is required to bring it back to a better starting position.

Cheers, Paul

Hi Paul,

I have spent a lot of time on both techniques since Cumbria and get a better backcast with the 11 to I technique. It also delivers better distances for me. Now that may be because of my casting background, but after many months I doubt that. I will continue to experiment but I think the 11 to 1 technique is the better as long as the arm and torso are in the correct start position for throwing. I disagree with the presumption that the 170 technique needs slide to best position the arm for the start of the forward cast. My work on biomechanics and throwing concludes that the slide results in an arm-centric action and that is what I try and avoid. I know that is very much a minority view but one I hold firmly. Learning a lot about the light line casts and enjoying the experience.

John

[Paul Arden]

Hi John,

Unless your hauling hand is being stretched around your face and reaches up to the rod hand at the very beginning of the forward cast then you will be starting the stroke with slide.

Have you got a video?

Cheers, Paul

Edit: on this page https://www.sexyloops.com/flycast/compe ... ance-cast/ there is a slow motion video at the bottom. Slide is the start of the stroke where the hands move together. The rod tip is not pulling the line at this point but instead the line is free to slide through the rings.

[Paul Arden]

The point in the main loop almost always translate back to peak acceleration (tip velocity+haul velocity) and point in belly translates back to rod tip at MCF, it will still move as the line moves, just like the loop front.

Ok but what we have here is the lower point forming below MCF. It’s not the rod tip putting it there but instead the momentum of the line in the loop. I suspect this is tied to the stiffness of the rod which is why we don’t see it with softer rods.

In the same way that you can’t say RSP is separation between top and bottom legs (because of the haul variable) you can’t say that MCF is the cause of the bottom of the wedge (because of rod stiffness variable).

Furthermore, because MCF in this case doesn’t control the bottom of the wedge, you can’t control the bottom of the wedge by managing MCF!

Cheers, Paul

[John Waters]

Hi Paul,

I think we are talking two different things here. My comment about the 170 positioning the rod hand in the best starting position for casting is that it is extended behind, elbow locked. It does not need slide to optimise the rod hand’s starting position because it is already there but does to position the haul hand. Just like a javelin thrower when he/she plants their front foot and locks the front foot knee. I do use my haul hand to minimise slide but the rod does move forward angled above the horizontal so that even when the rod hand is moving to the haul hand, it is not just sliding along the line.

John