Question about tails

[Graeme H]

Ahh... so much clearer now!

I'll just shut up and listen.

But, if we are going to talk about that S shaped tip path from the horizontal plane... has anyone ever tried to skip a fly? That path is what I have tried, but admittedly I gave it up as I could not get it under control.

Yes, I skip flies into snags sometimes. The secret is to throw a fast tailing loop with a reach mend to your left (if you're right handed). The mend prevents collision of the loop legs and the tail gets the fly leg below the rod leg.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Graeme H]

Well, a tailing loop ALWAYS was defined as caused by a dip in the accelerational tip path within rod plane. Thus the oeak ofcthe resulting wave in the fly-leg can't be in opposite direction.

For me, that only indicates you were ALWAYS talking about loops propagated in the vertical direction.

I see tails in horizontal plane casts doing the same thing as they doing the vertical plane and they are caused by the same incorrect application of power. If the rod plane is horizontal, the "dip within the rod plane" becomes a sideways movement, rather than a vertical movement because it is within the rod plane.

However, we can and do throw loops in any orientation with any rod plane orientation, and it's the collision of the loop legs that we see as a classic tailing loop. The tip path is the important thing, rather than the rod plane, because we can make loops do whatever we like by controlling the tip path.

As far as I'm concerned, the tailing loop always brings the loop legs closer together, whether it's upright vertical loops, horizontal loops or inverted loops.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Paul Arden]

8C56D053-9A39-41FB-B1FB-8173DE84D182.jpeg (52.63 KiB) Viewed 2645 times

I’ve numbered them to make them easier.

So I can see we are discussing different things here. An inverted tailing loop for me is 5 not what Bernd is drawing. And ok I can kind of see Bernd’s point but that’s a whole other discussion!

Looking at 1. Pretty sure that’s understood.
2 and 3 are tip paths drawn on a vertical wall (with a horizontal rod plane). 2 is how I would normally teach pendulum cast - ie saucer or J shape tip path.

3 is an alternative tip path that also throws an inverted loop. Now that tip path with a non inverted loop, is the mirror of 1. 1 tails. 3 doesn’t (at least it doesn’t throw 5).

Which leads me to think that the propagation of tails (increasing amplitude) in 1 is very much affected by Gravity. Of course horizontal tails are possible...

Cheers, Paul

Ps if anyone would like a copy of this image in full resolution for their wall just let me know.

[Bernd Ziesche]

Well, a tailing loop ALWAYS was defined as caused by a dip in the accelerational tip path within rod plane. Thus the peak of the resulting wave in the fly-leg can't be in opposite direction.

For me, that only indicates you were ALWAYS talking about loops propagated in the vertical direction.

Hi Graeme,
I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Maybe we are having a language issue here. "Vertical direction" to me means "earth to sky" (or opposite). I hardly ever aim may loops to move that direction.
My loops usually propagate (move) more or less in the direction of the fish. Depending on wind and distance this can mean to aim little left or right and/or little upwards or downwards from where the fish/target is.

I see tails in horizontal plane casts doing the same thing as they doing the vertical plane and they are caused by the same incorrect application of power. If the rod plane is horizontal, the "dip within the rod plane" becomes a sideways movement, rather than a vertical movement because it is within the rod plane.

Exactly what I was saying in my definition of the tailing loop.
The dip happens within rod plane and thus the orientation of the wave in the fly-leg matches rod plane orientation as it was when the dip happened.

However, we can and do throw loops in any orientation with any rod plane orientation, and it's the collision of the loop legs that we see as a classic tailing loop. The tip path is the important thing, rather than the rod plane, because we can make loops do whatever we like by controlling the tip path.

Well, in my point of view we usually have lost control over tip path when tailings happen. Tip path is bounded to rod plane for the dip coming in by too uneven force application. Exactly as you (too) explained well above. Personally I don't like the old school definition of the tailing loop in which the wave in the fly-leg needs to cross the rod leg. In 90% of too uneven force applications I see waves in the fly-legs NOT crossing the rod-leg making that old school definition useless for me. If the wave crosses the other leg depends on where the observer stands anyway. Old school tailing loops according to the defintion then can mostly not be seen (identified) from many positions, again useless for me. It's just the wave in the fly-leg for me.

As far as I'm concerned, the tailing loop always brings the loop legs closer together, whether it's upright vertical loops, horizontal loops or inverted loops.

I disagree with this. The wave already has gotten it's orientation as soon as the dip in tip path is finished. But I can then change rod plane for example and put the rod-leg into a pretty different direction as I in fact do for the inverted loop. I can cast horizontal until the dip is finished and until RSP1 and then put the rod-leg upwards while the wave still travels in horizontal orientation. The plane in which the tailing-wave travels can clearly vary from the plane in which fly-leg and rod-leg are for most of each their parts.

I wish we could all discuss this by meeting. Would be so much easier and less missunderstandings.
Regards
Bernd

[Bernd Ziesche]

8C56D053-9A39-41FB-B1FB-8173DE84D182.jpeg
So I can see we are discussing different things here. An inverted tailing loop for me is 5 not what Bernd is drawing. And ok I can kind of see Bernd’s point but that’s a whole other discussion!

I am pretty sure there is a missunderstanding between us.

2 and 3 are tip paths drawn on a vertical wall (with a horizontal rod plane). 2 is how I would normally teach pendulum cast - ie saucer or J shape tip path.

Looks to me like you were drawing the rods in an almost vertical position (orientation), IF? the observer was standing in the classical side view. Rod in the horizontal plane would look quite a bit different seen from the side view.
About the J concept, I am fine with it working for teaching. BUT in reality it's not going to happen. The straight part in the J will never be straight but overall convex seen within rod plane. Also I very much doubt you will have the J in the vertical plane. Instead I expect your tip to move away from that vertical plane as soon as the rod straightens especially just prior RSP1. You can move your rod hand further out, but I bet the tip moves faster in. Look at my last drawing bird's view. The tip leaves the vertical plane prior RSP1. This is exactly why on long carries in the Gebetsroither style all experts struggle not to finally get a crossed loop instead of an inverted one as it was on the short line. Simply on longer carries we have a wider arc and more bend = more counterflex, which puts the rod-leg even more to your side! Hans Rudi Hebeisen said, that the Gebetsroither style was about having the line pass below the tip in the bc but not having an inverted loop. Makes sense, but I saw HG shaping inverted loops when carrying short lines, what he mostly did!
Cheers
B

[Bernd Ziesche]

Can we agree on this? (picture below)
In my exp. rod tip leaves vertical plane in some point pre RSP1 to the (inner) side (of the caster's position). That puts the rod-leg off to the side seen from above, looking down vertical plane. This is why I disagree with the straight part of your J, Paul. Now when you lift the tip just at RSP, you get what I was (trying to) draw in my original pic about which our discussion started. I believe here we have a missunderstandung between us. Because we do perform the cast identically for sure. I ll link the picture, so everyone can see it...
Cheers
When looking at the drawing for the inverted loop (following the link):
It's side view. So the fly-leg starts to follow launch direction, but then will fall to some degree during unrolling. At the dame time I lifted the tip and kept the rod leg higher. Hard to make this easy understandable in a 2D drawing.
http://www.first-cast.de/Bilder3/tailing-loop.jpg

[Paul Arden]

Where we disagree is in what constitutes a tailing loop. For you it’s a dip in the rod plane, for me it’s a dip in the loop plane. For me there is not a right or a wrong in that, it just means we are discussing different phenomena.

Now I’ve said that I’ll read your posts to me and not to Graeme

Cheers, Paul

[Paul Arden]

Hi Bernd,

Looks to me like you were drawing the rods in an almost vertical position (orientation),

I think the rod plane is irrelevant but certainly 2 and 3 are far easier with a horizontal rod plane or lower.

The straight part in the J will never be straight but overall convex seen within rod plane. Also I very much doubt you will have the J in the vertical plane.

Indeed but that’s a different plane you are discussing of course. The J shape is in the form of the loop plane. It’s like drawing the tip along a wall with a paint brush.

I agree with your later drawing but that’s not controlled by the drawing of the J. That’s controlled by matching casting arc to rod bend and then by using drift or thrust to minimise the effects of counterflex. This doesn’t change the nature of the inverted loop or its orientation. This is simply to ensure that the loop is reasonably parallel.

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

Hi Graeme,
I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Maybe we are having a language issue here. "Vertical direction" to me means "earth to sky" (or opposite). I hardly ever aim may loops to move that direction.
My loops usually propagate (move) more or less in the direction of the fish. Depending on wind and distance this can mean to aim little left or right and/or little upwards or downwards from where the fish/target is.

Yeah, that's my fault. I meant the loop is oriented vertically or horizontally or vertically and upside-down. Might draw a pic later.

Personally I don't like the old school definition of the tailing loop in which the wave in the fly-leg needs to cross the rod leg. In 90% of too uneven force applications I see waves in the fly-legs NOT crossing the rod-leg making that old school definition useless for me. If the wave crosses the other leg depends on where the observer stands anyway. Old school tailing loops according to the defintion then can mostly not be seen (identified) from many positions, again useless for me. It's just the wave in the fly-leg for me.

Agreed 100% on this.

As far as I'm concerned, the tailing loop always brings the loop legs closer together, whether it's upright vertical loops, horizontal loops or inverted loops.

I disagree with this. The wave already has gotten it's orientation as soon as the dip in tip path is finished. But I can then change rod plane for example and put the rod-leg into a pretty different direction as I in fact do for the inverted loop. I can cast horizontal until the dip is finished and until RSP1 and then put the rod-leg upwards while the wave still travels in horizontal orientation. The plane in which the tailing-wave travels can clearly vary from the plane in which fly-leg and rod-leg are for most of each their parts.

I wish we could all discuss this by meeting. Would be so much easier and less missunderstandings.
Regards
Bernd

Okay, I can see where you're coming from on this one and I get it.

I also agree that this would be much easier and more fun talking in person, maybe with a beer or two to help the discussion along. One day, when we're all vaccinated and free to travel again ....

Cheers,
Graeme

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

Paul,

In your diagram #3... is there some advantage to the initial rise in the tip path, or is it just something curious you noticed?

And, I am sure there are more than a few mis-understandings in this thread. I know I was not on track with many of the different personal interpretations.

My thoughts were much along Paul's diagram # 1, where the rod moves in a horizontal rod plane and the loop travels in a vertical plane. If the path the rod tip makes is a J with the rod tip moving upward at the end, the loop will be inverted or "underslung". If the tip moves down at the end, the loop will also be vertical but the fly leg on top as usual.

I think I get what Bernd is saying, but he seems to be talking about both rod and loop being in much the same plane, and usually around 45 degrees?

To add to my personal deviation of perception from reality, I do not believe the J in Paul's tip path has to be introduced by the caster's hand during translation. I believe the final tip path can be influenced by a rotation of the wrist. In fact, I have a little routine that I commonly perform when practicing and I am resting from over-doing a particular task. It is almost a "circle, eights, and straights" kind of thing.

ie...

Make a short backcast with a horizontal rod plane and keep the fly leg above the tip, follow that with a forecast with the fly leg also above/ then make a bc above, but the fc below / then make a bc below and the fc above/ then make the bc below and the fc below... etc...

The thing is to mentally call what you are going to do on each stroke before you do it. I find it to be a nice way to rest while still moving, much like slow pedaling a stationary bike between sets in the weight room... only a lot more fun because there is a flyrod involved.