AFFTA and rod loading stuffs

[Lasse Karlsson]

This so reminds me of that IG reel from Tim, we know there's a peer reviewed paper out on lever/spring contribution, you mention it in your clip, yet Tim like his friends unpublished paper that shows 10% more spring energy from the rod, much more.

Lasse, which paper BTW and who is Tim?

Greetings,
Torsten

Hi Torsten

Tim Rajeff, on an instagram reel.

Btw. First clip I did over a decade ago, the rods where fixed together, was told by a physisist that the rods affected each other post line launch and that was invalidating my point which where everything up to line launch. Can't ever please anyone... I have a fixture to attatch three rods, as pr the demo I do with three very different lines and three identical rods. Paul doesn't like that one either

First demos I did, I used a soft 25%carbon/75%glass berkley grayphite rod, with 5 written above the handle and a stiff tcx with 6 written above the handle and a rio gold comp 5 weight on both rods, and of course the same amount of line out. Since then I have moved to even stiffer rods, the most recent clips are with a soft fibreglass rod echo glass 690 and a very stiff carbon, echo epr 890 and two equal shootingheads. I have put the combos in the hands of alot of casters/instructors in the last decade, usually people that don't agree with me, and they have an enligthenment throwing it. To really get different outcome, one need almost a broomstick in there against something soft. Got the videos. But the whole premis was fishing gear, not the "never wanna fish this combo, even if payed lots of money" type of comparison.

12 years ago


And after being told on SL that a haul would change things up as a haul loads the rod deeper and thus the soft would of course tail, and a longer line would also cause the loops to be so different in size, I shot this, where I haul and lengthening the line to twice the length of the first clip.



12 years later people still tell me I am wrong on SL

So looking forward to Paul shooting a clip in a indoor facility getting a good loop and a tail

Soft rod in one hand, stiff one in the other
Soft rod echo glass 690 stiff echo epr 890, line MED5



Cheers
Lasse

[Torsten]

Hi Lasse,

Thanks.
If you just want to falsify a statement, e.g. like you can't cast a "tailing loop" with a stiff rod, then experiments like yours are fine. If you want to measure quantities like loop height and compare different rods, that's much more challenging. I'd just like to mention that 20% energy figure is currently an estimation for an average cast, +10% could be still in the plausible range depending on the cast / setup. What Paul found with his experiments could be also plausible, it's just a different setup and different boundary conditions. Maybe others could replicate it.
It's not possible to measure directly, only with models and computations from video analysis (indirectly). I think the models are also improving. I've seen some results from Hans, and we can derive something from coupled line/rod simulations in the future.

Greetings,
Torsten

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Torsten

What Paul found is highly plausibel, if one changes the initial parameters, throw in a few meters of slack in one rods line pre start, and presto, same thing. Already done that. Why does Paul get good loops in the end of his clips?

And yeah, loop size, easy to see why they differ slightly, expected, no one expects exact replicas in the real world, that only happens in theory. Theory was that one 5 weight would throw a tail and the other 5 weight would throw a good loop, or one would throw a tight loop and the other an open loop. Doesn't happen, but who cares these days right

20% is the good estimate for a short unhauled cast, I would be more than surprised if somewhere there's a setup delivering more, and clearly the number drops with a longer line and/or a haul.

And na, don't want to falsify a statement, you can throw a tail even with a broomstick, if you know what causes a tail, that was never the objective, but thanks

Cheers
Lasse

[Rickard]

I have seen these videos multiple times but am not really sure what the initial discussion is about. Is it that no matter what rod we use casting the same line with the same carry the same stroke will work for “all” rods? Work as in a decent cast.

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Rickard

When I began flyfishing, I was told that you needed a different pause, and a different stroke between a soft and a stiff rod. That the same stroke would cause a tail in the soft if it was geared towards a stiff, and a open loop if roles where reversed.

A instructor friend told me how he thought it funny, that when handing a soft rod to someone that normally casts a stiff rod, their stroke would cause them to tail all over the place, until they adjusted said stroke. He didn't really like that I didn't do that when put to the same test, but remarkwd that I was so good that I instantly adjusted my stroke by just picking up the rod and feeling its stiffness. I say thats bs because I am really a crap caster, but I digress. I got a bit fed up, and thought that if I tried casting to very different rods with the same line and leader, either I would prove to myself that rods aren't so different after all, but in our heads, or I would prove myself wrong and there where definetly stuff I needed to relearn and look more into. An old berlkley grayphite 4/5 and a sage tcx 690 where the rods I used to convinced myself that a sound stroke and similar timing is what is needed for normal fishing even when the rods are further appart than the average fisher would use. Those average fishers that sell flylines and rods hardly used because they dont suit their casting style. I have another clip for those
After I uploaded that first clip, I was told that I was such a good caster, that I could dampen one rod in my hand while the other got to run free, that I used photoshop to make the clip, that the stiff rod of course just followed the soft and if I was to cast it like it was supposed to be cast, the soft would tail, or if people where more inclined to softer rods, it was the other way around but with a fat loop etc. Been a fun 12 years so far then of course there was the claim here on SL, that I was casting too short a line, and a longer would naturally make the claims real, because 9 meters of line outside the tip isn't enough to load modern rods 12 years ago, right And of course the haul, hauling loads the rod more, so hauling would cause the sift rod to bend over itself and tail like there was no tomorrow... that's why the second clip was done with hauling, and lengthening the line to 18 meters. That was a bit of a bitch to do, but I managed, as can be seen. I reshot some a few years ago, when I thought I should do it with the setups I have been demoing with for a long time, the 690 glassrod and a 890 extra stiff carbon saltwater rod, still same line on both, but these days I seriously overline the 6 with a 17 gram shootinghead, and thus underline the 8 a bit with the same head. It's always fun to demo at a fair, and then hear people talk about rods afterwards, especially those shows where there is plenty instructors present
I'm not special, I have showed the rods into enough good casters and instructors over the year's and they've experienced for themselves. But sometimes experiencing isn't even enough.
So yeah, rods doesn't matter that much, it's mostly personal taste, same stroke delivers very similar loops. Do the rods "feel" different cast alone? Of course they do, never claimed otherwise, but mostly it's our minds playing tricks on our bodies. And if you are told that you need to change timing, casting angle, casting speed, and underwear when shifting between a soft and a stiff rod all your life, by gurus, instructors, rodmanufacturers, friends and authors, chances are you subconsoiusly change all of those things when being handed a different rod, and then things go south fast.
I think it's a worthwhile excercise to do, pick a soft and a stiff rod, pair them with two lines of the same weight and taper, equal leaders and fluff on, and then give it a go. Make sure to have the same amount of line out, as a longer line needs longer to unroll, and that would mess up the experience, same with having slack in one line and alot less in the other, it messes with the experience, it's basic flycasting knowledge one would think

Cheers
Lasse

[Torsten]

Hi Rickard,

I'm also lost (sometimes) in these nerd debates I'm guessing Pauls point was that soft rods would create a tail with the same casting stroke (compared to a stiff rod). I think Lasse demos this stuff on fairs - I don't know because I rarely visit a fly fishing fair and I don't belong to the instructorsphere. The overall message is that the difference between fly rods is overrated, right (?) - on the other hand I think it still makes sense to investigate these differences.

Greetings,
Torsten

[Merlin]

We know that the rod is not a big spring since the energy of the line comes from leverage, spring and momentum (typical values, excluding a haul):
SH CF rod: 65% leverage + 20% spring + 15% momentum
DH CF rod: 40% leverage + 35% spring + 25% momentum

Note: the energy from momentum is hardly detectable from videos, the figures above come from casting modeling. We use to call that the “whip effect”. The share of energy from leverage increases with the carry (counterintuitive), mainly at the expense of the share of spring energy (although the amount of spring energy increases with carry).

For a big spring the energy would come 100% from the spring. In reality we cast the spring by leverage which generates the two other mechanisms, spring and momentum.

That is the starting point. Now let’s give a look at the SH rod/line/caster issue. We set aside the fighting rods (heavy saltwater) for the time being, since they introduce another parameter (MOI) in the issue. The choice should be made in this order: river, fish, fly, line, and rod. Then the caster has to accommodate with the choice. The main everlasting issue is the choice of the rod to go along with the line.

In fact there are more parameters to take into account, like the (average) fishing distance for example. For sake of simplicity, the standard was designed for some 30 ft by 1961, when synthetic lines took over from silk ones (which existed in DT, WF and level, variable in diameters, greased or not greased). The 30 ft length was assumed to be representative of average fishing distance. The line scale gives a range of weight of those 30 ft, the average being the nominal value.

There is no weight overlap in between line numbers. Now we assume that we need a number 6 line, and that we use to fish at the same 30 ft distance on average. How can we design a rod for that line? Here comes the influence of caster’s taste. With 30 ft of #6, one can design rods having a loaded frequency between 1.25 Hz to 1.45 Hz. In the past (nearly one century ago), rods were on the lower side. Today there are on the fast side but maybe the caster’s taste is different, he might feel better with a 1.35 Hz loaded rod. You might think that it is hardly detectable, but it is easy to do by anyone. An issue is that a caster is unable to estimate his preferred range of tackle speed.

If the caster is charmed by modern rods, his tackle might well be in the 1.45 Hz range and then he will likely prefer buying a slightly heavier line to get back to 1.35 Hz. Unfortunately, there is no information available allowing him to do that: one ignores the basic rod characteristics, and the actual weight of his line. By these days line weights are inflated and can be 1 size up and even more. Ideally you should know the weight of the 30 ft (e.g. in grains) instead of a class number. But what do we know about rod stiffness and speed? Nothing. Consequently, one has to bet that the “oversized line” is going to bring back the “fastest rod” to more comfortable casting conditions.

Although it is technically possible to measure speed and rod stiffness, such information is not accessible to users. The influence of speed taste blurs the picture. The range of stiffness corresponding to a line weight range + tackle speed range is large and prevents from establishing a rod rating that would allow defining an “ideal” line spec (there is a stiffness overlap). This type of difficulty was the subject (among others) of the CCS system. I use a simple scale giving rod stiffness for a given line weight. It cannot be unique given what we have just seen before but it helped me to detect a couple of rods for which the rating (in line number) was questionable. I asked for explanations and finally understood what was behind. In one case it was technical; in another one it was commercial. However, I am a “30 ft” type of guy and my choices are likely not universal.

If you consider rod brands, designers have their own approach which leads to various scales. If I split hairs, even a particular type of rod series needs its own scale (e.g. small glass rods which are rarely used at 30 ft). It might not be very different from one series to another (e.g. mid fast to fast rods), but it can exist. Speaking of brands the differences are likely larger.

This is why I do not think that line recommendations are just anything, they result from a number of choices, and those choices cannot correspond to all casters. The game is not over, and the situation will remain the same. Putting the line scale down with fancy weights (and profiles) makes the situation even worst.

Merlin

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

Merlin,

Thanks for spelling things out in the above post!

You already know that I have similar beliefs.

But...

"An issue is that a caster is unable to estimate his preferred range of tackle speed."

While I believe that is generally true for most, especially the beginners, doesn't it soon become obvious to those casters who spend a lot of time with a rod in their hands?

Or, at least that a certain rod/line combo really seems to fit. And if they get there... cannot that rod and the mass of the cast line be used to estimate their preferred Hz?

Thanks... as always!

Gary

[Merlin]

Yes and yes Gary

The loaded frequency can be measured, one just need a little bit of hardware.

Merlin

[Torsten]

Merlin

When you statistically analyze the rod databases, you can find a strong correlation between recommended line number and the stiffness of the rod. I've found for instance only a weak correlation to the action type. The loaded frequency might be an even better predictor.

Now the question is, why many rod designers, casters like a certain stiffness / line combination (Lasse being the outlier). My hypothesis is, that this combination minimizes the effort (= higher efficiency) for a variety of practical fishing situations (or provides a good compromise).

Greetings,
Torsten