Tracking and Loop planes

[Bernd Ziesche]

Vince,
The overpowered curve showed no dip in tip path and does not qualify as a tailing to me.

Saying that rod-leg tention has no effect would be one, saying which effect it has is quite another. Saying that once the launch direction is set and pulling the tip to the side not having any impact worth talking about was exactly that. That = saying rod-leg tension to have nearly no effect.
I guess you just see this the way you want to see it. I told you several times, that this statement was made many times on SL. I most probably have repeated it myself more than once (and was wrong).
Bottom line: you can't link any thread about this, because there was none.

That drone shot qualifies as bird view just fine.

If you choose to use an angle other than 90 degrees, you need to conduct complex transformations to understand what you are looking at, otherwise you run the risk of being fooled by what you see.

I couldn't disagree more.
Nick and I look from the front and can see some of the deviation very well. Is that perpendicular to the motion? No, its 90 degree of being perpendicular.
No matter from where you watch, you always will miss some information, that can be seen better from a different position. There is no one perfect position. I can't believe we debate this.
There are things I see in a drone shot, that I most likely miss watching from the perpendicular side view and the other way round.
If you are correct, all of Lasse's blue wall vids are worthless. The rod is never vertical and the camera never in a 90 degree angle to rod plane. I however like his vids and took valuable information of them. Of course most things in those vids can't be seen in their exact level. I don't care about this.

[Bernd Ziesche]

I admit to have zero interest in teaching anyone, that bird's don't just see what's straight down or that planes cant have all different kind of curved surfaces. That is both common sense to me.
It's like creep. Some will always put the movement that term stays for as a fault. Because they always have done it that way, while it's common sense, that every movement in fly casting can always be used for good or bad and can't be a fault perse.

There was a time on this board, when every new thought, every angle of view or whatever contribution to understand more details about fly casting was a daily welcome. That was a great time. My biggest thanks for that, Paul!

[Paul Arden]

Paul,
I think to get what you mean. I am fine with it.

In my terms a plane is flat. I would want to move my rod along a curved surface to shape (I think you mean) the line into a horizontal curve. Since my rod bends and unbends within that curved rod path, the tip cannot move in a flat surface being in a 90 degree angle to that curved rod path. That would require a straight tip path and not a convex one.
A curved surface means I change the degree of drop off vertical permanently though. That is where looking at your drawing gets tricky for me, too.
Probably easier face to face.

You make it sound complicated. If you want to overpower a curve in the horizontal, then the loop must be in the horizontal plane – that’s the bit that matters. This is independent of rod plane, but if our rod plane is vertical then we must curve the tracking. We may not be able to make it travel perfectly flat, but we can certainly make it flat enough, because we can perform the cast (and it’s not difficult).

This would be an example of curved tracking (and a curved rod plane for me, or a curved rod surface for you) as being the “proper” requirement. If the loop plane is vertical and aligned to the rod plane, then the loop tucks vertically instead of curving horizontally. And that would be a fault.

[VGB]

The overpowered curve showed no dip in tip path and does not qualify as a tailing to me.

In the overpowered curve cast I cast straight as possible (moving the rod along a flat surface), to then have a wave starting at the tip running down the line and into position.

You probably need to expand on these 2 statements, was the wave spontaneous?

Bottom line: you can't link any thread about this, because there was none.

Because it is a statement of the obvious if you understand how the loop works, the bones of this was what we discussed at Caer Beris. Graeme has used that knowledge to point out the tracking error to you on your graphic.

viewtopic.php?t=4152&start=90#p80177

You disagreed with it here:

viewtopic.php?t=4152&start=90#p80184

I couldn't disagree more.
Nick and I look from the front and can see some of the deviation very well. Is that perpendicular to the motion? No, its 90 degree of being perpendicular.

Was your graphic taken from the front? No, it has significant perspective errors all over it.

If you are correct, all of Lasse's blue wall vids are worthless. The rod is never vertical and the camera never in a 90 degree angle to rod plane. I however like his vids and took valuable information of them. Of course most things in those vids can't be seen in their exact level. I don't care about this.

Lasse's video show the full cast at full speed, your graphic is a series of overlays from which you are trying to extrapolate a theory. The debate is that you are using the overlay as evidence of something but I’m still not clear what you are claiming is unique.

I admit to have zero interest in teaching anyone, that bird's don't just see what's straight down or that planes cant have all different kind of curved surfaces. That is both common sense to me.

I agree that it has little to do with practical teaching, we should be removing complexity to help the student, not adding it.

regards

Vince

[Paul Arden]

Definition of perpendicular:

At an angle of 90° to a given line, plane, or surface or to the ground.

[VGB]

Nick and I look from the front and can see some of the deviation very well. Is that perpendicular to the motion? No, its 90 degree of being perpendicular.

You see 2 casters attempting to make the one cast with a vertical stroke; one has his loop in plane with the rod, the 2nd has a loop that is canted out at 30 degrees. Is all good in the world because their tracking is correct?

Regards

Vince

[Bernd Ziesche]

Bottom line: you can't link any thread about this, because there was none.

Because it is a statement of the obvious if you understand how the loop works

Same for the "drift" in the horizontal cast.

I just spent 40 minutes in the field, it doesn't happen to me.

So it was already common knowledge to you and just obvious. But you need to spend 40min in the field and still aren't able to say, that I am wrong or better provide any evidence. You just say, that for you it did not happen. That has very little meaning to me. No explanation, no video, no pictures, just a few words.

Very clear to me, that you would have zero need to run any field test, if this was discussed many times in many threads before as you said.

Every thread that mentions rod/fly leg tension and angular momentum...

Because it's very easy to disprove it, if I am wrong. Any simple video could do.

[Bernd Ziesche]

Nick and I look from the front and can see some of the deviation very well. Is that perpendicular to the motion? No, its 90 degree of being perpendicular.

You see 2 casters attempting to make the one cast with a vertical stroke; one has his loop in plane with the rod, the 2nd has a loop that is canted out at 30 degrees. Is all good in the world because their tracking is correct?

If 2 casters accelerate and decelerate their rod along a vertical surface, I mostly see similar loop planes, too.

I already quoted Balboa many times.

One step at a time, one round at a time.

I also said several times, that checking for tracking is just one step and every perspective can only give some, (never all) information.

If there are other differences, I'll usually spot them in seconds.

[Bernd Ziesche]

,but if our rod plane is vertical then we must curve the tracking. We may not be able to make it travel perfectly flat, but we can certainly make it flat enough, because we can perform the cast (and it’s not difficult).

Maybe I do make it complicated as you say.
The point is, that the "vertical rod plane" is a flat surface in vertical orientation per definition. That is not my definition, but the by far most common one in physics and math.
If you move your rod along a vertical, but curved surface, I get that very easily and it's precise.
Who is "it", when you are able to make it travel flat enough? The loop?

[Graeme H]

What I do remember instead is, that Lasse as well as others said, that once main launch direction for the fly-leg is set, tip position to get pulled sideways has nearly no impact.
That means the force applied via rod-leg can't have any impact worth to talk about.

If that's correct, a video prove should be very easy.
Cheers
B

I disagree strongly with this statement, but that is a completely different discussion. It is not about tracking so it would derail this thread.

The force has impact, but not in a negative way most of the time.

Cheers,
Graeme