The Board

Well go ahead, I won't understand it but at least I will be able to point a client at something they can read (if they are interested). I get annoyed when terms that have been used in a fly casting context for years and are intuitively understood get re-labelled because some mathmatition or physicist says those terms are wrong so we change casting arc to casting angle, rod load becomes rod bend, application of force becomes (what?). Then we have the re-naming of things like counterflex to kickback, line launch for loop formation etc etc.

I do actually want to know how it works, but not to make me a better instructor, or caster for that matter. I just don't go there with the majority of my clients. The deepest I go is to try and instil in them an understanding why forming a loop is important and what they need to do to get the rod to form it. The only time I get to fully use my, somewhat basic, understanding of the mechanics is when helping someone prepare for an instructors assessment and even then I warn them that probably the only time they are ever going to have to use this knowledge is during their assessment and, maybe, talking to other instructors if they fancy getting into an argument or being labelled a bit of a nutter.

Thankfully I don't have an ego to worry about, I have never been afraid to ask the stupid question that others may worry about asking. I even ask someone else's stupid question because they don't want to look stupid by putting it up themselves and I think people not wanting to look stupid, or find themselves being talked down to is one reason a lot of lurkers don't post and a lot of the board members don't post as often as they used to, myself included.

The 'simplified' physics of fly casting is a big ask. Best of luck. It will make the creation of the definitions seem like writing a Janet and John book by comparison.

Mike

Mike Heritage wrote:Well go ahead, I won't understand it but at least I will be able to point a client at something they can read (if they are interested). I get annoyed when terms that have been used in a fly casting context for years and are intuitively understood get re-labelled because some mathmatition or physicist says those terms are wrong so we change casting arc to casting angle, rod load becomes rod bend, application of force becomes (what?). Then we have the re-naming of things like counterflex to kickback, line launch for loop formation etc etc.

I do actually want to know how it works, but not to make me a better instructor, or caster for that matter. I just don't go there with the majority of my clients. The deepest I go is to try and instil in them an understanding why forming a loop is important and what they need to do to get the rod to form it. The only time I get to fully use my, somewhat basic, understanding of the mechanics is when helping someone prepare for an instructors assessment and even then I warn them that probably the only time they are ever going to have to use this knowledge is during their assessment and, maybe, talking to other instructors if they fancy getting into an argument or being labelled a bit of a nutter.

Thankfully I don't have an ego to worry about, I have never been afraid to ask the stupid question that others may worry about asking. I even ask someone else's stupid question because they don't want to look stupid by putting it up themselves and I think people not wanting to look stupid, or find themselves being talked down to is one reason a lot of lurkers don't post and a lot of the board members don't post as often as they used to, myself included.

The 'simplified' physics of fly casting is a big ask. Best of luck. It will make the creation of the definitions seem like writing a Janet and John book by comparison.

Mike

Good post Mike...

I hear you!

The difficulty of "Common sense" explanations is they only give you certain depth. Beyond certain point, common senser become helpless and even give "stupider answers" to "stupid questions" as we can see from time to time.

Education is an art, knowing the underline casting physics doesn't necessary means the instructor has to talk like a professor. Use common terms to teach is totally fine as soon as the logic is sound and clear. The sad part is people mistakenly "simplify" this scientific foundations and think "common senses" is all you need to be a good teacher...

Merlin wrote:Why are you so shy? It is a challenge to explain the physics without using the corresponding terminology. Why do golfers have an interest where flycaster's don't? Nobody obliges you to believe in or to promote it, just try to let it be. There is more interest from rod builders in that field, not surprisingly. There are a lot of preconcieved idea posted up to now, and the question is not to debate here about the wording, but the concept and which topics should be covered.

There are always good reasons to do nothing.

Merlin

well said! Merlin

Merlin wrote:Why are you so shy? It is a challenge to explain the physics without using the corresponding terminology. Why do golfers have an interest where flycaster's don't?

Hi Merlin,
personally am still working a lot to understand more details of fly casting. I think I first of all should fully understand it, before putting down a piece of paper explaining it to others.
Let's say I would want to explain what happens during unrolling. The truth is, yet I have not even measured the speed of the lines end during this process, just to have a good idea of how it goes under many different conditions. So I feel, that all I know is, what I have seen in a few slomotion vids still not offering me precise numbers.
Yes, I got a lot closer during the past years, but am still having a huge way to go in front of me.
It feels to me like we all have a way to go left still, when reading here in many technical threads on SL.

In the end it remains a big question to me what part of the casting physics are we going to explain to whom?
Definetly I would want to have a very serious back up for all arguments first.

On one hand I agree with Mike about changing terms. On the other hand I did change the term rod loading in rod bend in all my lessons, because I feel safe to understand what is going on and that "loading" leads many students into a wrong assumption of what happens in fly casting. Anyway that took me a huge while to change and feeling safe to understand what really happens. Many people have been involved to help me with my understanding here.
Again, yet I still need lots of help to understand other parts of fly casting much better than I do today.

Besides that am looking forward to be part of working on such a document, because there is lots to learn for sure.
Greets
Bernd

If you think this is a good thing to do then it is pointless waiting until you understand everything as you will never get there and the paper will never get written.

You just need to be clear on what you want to say and that you are sure that what you say is right.

You can say what happens because you can see it. If you know the reason for it, you can explain that. But if you don't know the reason, you either have to leave that out or if you speculate, you have to qualify what you say, on that basis.

To call it a physics document is probably a setting yourself up to be shot at unnecessarily, but I'm guessing that probably won't be in the title in the end.

The idea of finding someone with a physics phd to write it, having done the necessary research to satisfy themselves it is something they can put their name to, without funding, I would have thought is hopeful at best. I did speak to a friend who does have a phd in physics (although not in this field) and having thought about it for a bit, was horrified at the complexities of it all. That was no surprise to me having read some of the the technical papers that have been written by expert scientists.

That kind of paper, however, is probably not what is envisaged, because it would be inaccessible to most and fairly turgid reading for most of everyone else.

The real achievement in all of this would be to distill all of the concepts to their irreducible simplicity and I think, in most cases that does seem to be possible. The hard maths seems to come in applying actual values, but most of those are pretty meaningless when actually casting.

I am interested in it and would read it, but I will still choose my rods for their colour, because the upshot of pretty much everything that has been written here and filmed by, for example, Lasse and Aitor, is that everything else is a myth

Cheers
Trev

TrevH wrote:If you think this is a good thing to do then it is pointless waiting until you understand everything as you will never get there and the paper will never get written.

Hi Trev,
I wasn't thinking about waiting until I know everything about fly casting. Of course I agree it to be a never ending journey.

Let's say we have the big three in fly casting: 1) Adjusting line speed 2) Shaping a loop 3) Adjusting Trajectory

In a general document about fly casting I would want to read/find some numbers/datas giving me a proper idea of rod tip speed, speed of the lines end, speed of the line thru the guides, speed of the hauling hand, speed of the line at the rod tip. All that throughout a mdium, fast and extra fast cast. And then using different rod length.
From all discussions here, I doubt that anyone yet has measured such speed profiles. Always when it comes up, we have discussions about it presenting quite different ideas/numbers.

A general fly casting physics document not presenting any basic information about the whole speed profile in fly casting to me is not what I would want it to be.

I think it might be worse/an idea to form small groups and then focus on different parts of such a document and work those numbers out by measuring them. May result in lots of work, but it can be done. I agree, we will not know everything. But we can find results to certain questions and back them up by measurements.

Also I would want to get an idea about how much force we add to an average cast and then where does that force/energy go.

Merlin asked about why golfers show more interest. Well, golfers already find a lot of answeres well measured out by (for example) the mythbusters. I am pretty sure there is the same interest in fly casting. But yet we did not deliever such numbers and then as easy to understand shown in multimedia versions...

Greets
Bernd

Hi Bernd

I think that Paul's objective is to remain in a domain that a majority of people can understand. You have a technical background and you are likely to follow quite technical discussions but I think your students will not be able to understand a series of numbers to try explaining a particular aspect of a cast, or a fly rod behaviour.

I agree with Trev's post generally speaking, but not entirely... (those bloody engineers!).

Merlin

Hi Merlin,
actually I have been teaching some "numbers" presenting line speed and rod tip speed to a huge number of students. The interest always was very significant. Asking a few questions after the lesson proved them to have understood the relationships I pointed out.
For example I like to show casting with one hand (no rod), two hands (no rod), with a rod and finally adding a haul. Then I give some average numbers on speed just to have an idea of how we use a fly rod and why it helps us so much to be effective in creating line speed and shaping a loop. It is done easily, but to put down a written paper might result in some technical discussions easily and I would like to have an excellent backup on each number first .
It's not for the average student I need a back up.
Greets
Bernd

I think this is a sterling idea but if it is to be simplified then it has to be framed in terms that a caster can understand and consciously control. There's no use in saying to a student, "oh clearly your problem there is your misapplication of the conservation of momentum". It needs to be in terms of what the caster can feel (through the forces in his hand) and see (loop formation, line speed, casting arc etc). These are the practical feedback mechanisms through which the caster experiences the physics of the cast. Sure, the hard physics will underlie this, but there's no place for this in a simplified document.