A different (?) view on rod-design.

[RSalar]

Hi John, My comments are in bold below:

Hi Ron,

At the world casting championships you will see nearly as many rod bend profiles as you will see competitors. If rod bend was a key determinant of performance everyone would use the same rod.

That's like saying the if the golf shaft flex rating was the key determinant of a golfer's performance everyone would use the same golf shaft flex. Respectfully, that's not how it works John -- each golfer finds out which golf shaft flex rating is best suited to his swing. Ever golf pro knows that bend matters.

Fast rod actions, like solid tip and others are a matter of choice, the caster's perceptions are the caster's reality, no more scientific or quantifiable than that. I will be beaten by a caster using a stiff rod this year and the next year will be beaten by a caster who uses a less stiff rod, so which bend do I select for the following year in order to beat both casters and win? It is a question nobody can answer and because of that, I suggest bend does not matter. The 5 essentials add nothing to that issue and do not help with an answer to that question. Lasse is correct.

Just because someone beat you with a rod that bends X amount, doesn't mean that if you use a rod that bends X amount you will win. You have to find the optimum X bend for you. No serious competitor would just get the same equipment that the winner used. He would test a variety of equipment and find the one that is optimal for himself.

What about the solid tip design makes it a better casting rod? It just impacts tip flexibility, no more or less than the butt does. US casters use more flexible rods than some casters from other nations - each achieves perfect accuracy scores at WCs. So, we're back to the casters' perceptions.
Does it have anything to do with the way it bends, how it bends, or how it unbends? It does but at the end of the day it just provides an option, no reflection on performance.

The tip is lighter -- less mass -- less momentum -- less counterflex? Only more resistance to bending.

Do you think the lighter tip effects the way the rod bends or is it just the fact that it is lighter that makes it cast better for you? Don't make the solid tip your focus, it is an outcome of the inside diameter of the multi-tapered hollow sections used in the preceding sections. I like them for accuracy but again that is perception only. For example, I will use it with a 5 weight MED in the Trout Accuracy but will use another bend profile in the ICSF Fly accuracy. I've different perceptions about what delivers performance in each accuracy event.

So you go by perception rather than scientific evidence. That's obviously your choice to make. But I believe it goes beyond just perception. Perception is just a subjective feeling. Why not test various rod actions and find the one that you can cast the farthest or the most accurate? Can you imagine Tiger Woods saying to his rod designer, "It's my perception that this golf shaft is better -- let's go with this one." That will never happen in a million years. Computers, high speed cameras, sensors, chronographs, and all sorts of scientific analysis will go into finding the optimal golf shaft for Tiger's swing.(again, just because Tiger wins with that particular golf shaft, does not mean it is the right shaft for every golfer.)

What if it were possible to make that same rod -- same dimensions, same weight, same guides, same everything, but it was perfectly stiff and did not bend -- how do you think it would cast? Better, worse, the same? Like a broomstick? I use a flexible rod for all my casting, however the bend profile each rod delivers differs across each events. Same with plug accuracy and distance event rods bends. Performance will be better with a flexible rod vs a rod that allows zero bend, but once you decide to use a flexible rod, the bend profile does not matter. Again it is about your perception only.

If the bend profile does not matter as long as the rod bends, what if it just bends a millionth of an inch? What if it bends like a wet noodle and just flops to the ground so that you are casting without a rod? I hope you will at least agree that the bend profile needs to be within a certain range. Maybe the tip just has to bend a foot and no more than 7 feet -- but there is a range that works well. This is more than just perception. If it was all about perception then if I perceived that a non bending rod is no different than a bending rod then there would be no difference. We know for a fact that the rod must bend and we know for a fact that it must not bend too much (like a wet noodle). We know for a fact that it must bend within a certain range.

John

Thanks for helping with this subject John -- and although we may disagree, you're insights are very helpful and much appreciated,

Ron

[Tangled]

I really like Winston's strapline but I suspect it doesn't have the meaning that us Brits would put to it. I wonder if they know? Makes me smile anyway.

[VGB]

I’m in Team “a fly rod is not a golf club” and can prove it scientifically.

Regards

Vince

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

Hi Ron,

Casting is the same as serving a tennis ball. The racket moves the ball, the player moves the racket. In casting, as Daniel describes, the rod moves the line, the caster moves the rod. In both cases what matters is the movement employed by the player or caster to move the racket or rod.

John

John,

I get where you are going with the idea that there is a tool between the person and the object being propelled, but I think using tennis as sort of a model for casting is otherwise poor.

I'm sure you get where I am going... contact time. The tennis player only experiences the weight of the racket.

Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the primitive hunting tool called an atlatl?

[Merlin]

Ron,

I think you are playing with the “bend” concept since you change the context as desired. You first question was to know about a possible “ideal bend” in the rod for a distance cast. Then the general answer is “none” or maybe better said “very secondary”, it just helps to get a SLP.

Now you extend your question to “a particular caster / a particular cast”. And in that case you take the example of an accuracy event for which casters prefer to get more feel and control from the rod, hence the choice of a softer rod by comparison to distance casting. Is it a question of bend or a question of stiffness? Or is it possibly a question of speed? Then you step in your bend concept again, which was defeated for distance.

Finally you come up with rod design and here we enter the “action” domain. Like others Paul looks for the “all in one”, the rod that is nice for short to long casts. And you come back again with “bend matters”. The basic principle is that the bend you can notice for a given rod is obtained by design, but you do not tune the bend of a rod, since it can encounter a very large variation of conditions which cannot be all optimized. You can translate the issue in “bend matters” if you wish, but again it is not the foundation of the design. I would say “stiffness and weight matters” in terms of design. A kind of Grail design would be a very fast and very flexible rod, but the material to make it is not yet available.

Bend is a way among others to illustrate the way a rod behaves. So sometimes bend matters, sometimes not so much, sometimes more (roll casting). There is no universal rule.

Merlin

[Graeme H]

Graeme, LOL -- this is great! Thanks, Ron
PS: btw -- I'm not the only one who thinks bend matters... and I'm very happy to be on Team Bend Matters! I'm thinking tee-shirts are next..

Apart from T-shirt production, now all you need to do is apply your insight to your casting.

I'll take a T-shirt - depending on the colour. Colour matters.

Cheers,
Graeme

[John Waters]

Hi Ron,

Casting is the same as serving a tennis ball. The racket moves the ball, the player moves the racket. In casting, as Daniel describes, the rod moves the line, the caster moves the rod. In both cases what matters is the movement employed by the player or caster to move the racket or rod.

John

John,

I get where you are going with the idea that there is a tool between the person and the object being propelled, but I think using tennis as sort of a model for casting is otherwise poor.

I'm sure you get where I am going... contact time. The tennis player only experiences the weight of the racket.

Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the primitive hunting tool called an atlatl?

Hi Gary,

IMHO I think it is a good analogy because it is the same movement used to generate both the racket and the rod effectiveness. I do see where you are going with contact time i.e. instantaneous vs progressive but IMHO, the two are analogous. Firstly, the speed of the racket at impact generated through the movement of the player and the speed of the line generated by the caster and secondly, the trajectory of the ball after impact with the racket vs the trajectory of the line after line release or loop formation in casting. The former equates to distance, the latter accuracy. Both are common objectives of the tennis serve and the cast. The weight of the racket is analogous to the weight of the rod/line. There has been a lot of research undertaken on the tennis serve and the throw. Terms like wrist snap are in common use in both tennis and casting. Your reference to a throwing tool is very relevant. In Australia that tool is called a woomera and has been used by our first nations people for millennia. Some references site a 50% improvement in distance thrown using such a tool. Its use as an intermediary, like the racket or the rod, does not alter the movement used to activate it.

I need one for my casting.

John

[John Waters]

Hi John, My comments are in bold below:

Hi Ron,

At the world casting championships you will see nearly as many rod bend profiles as you will see competitors. If rod bend was a key determinant of performance everyone would use the same rod.

That's like saying the if the golf shaft flex rating was the key determinant of a golfer's performance everyone would use the same golf shaft flex. Respectfully, that's not how it works John -- each golfer finds out which golf shaft flex rating is best suited to his swing. Ever golf pro knows that bend matters.

Fast rod actions, like solid tip and others are a matter of choice, the caster's perceptions are the caster's reality, no more scientific or quantifiable than that. I will be beaten by a caster using a stiff rod this year and the next year will be beaten by a caster who uses a less stiff rod, so which bend do I select for the following year in order to beat both casters and win? It is a question nobody can answer and because of that, I suggest bend does not matter. The 5 essentials add nothing to that issue and do not help with an answer to that question. Lasse is correct.

Just because someone beat you with a rod that bends X amount, doesn't mean that if you use a rod that bends X amount you will win. You have to find the optimum X bend for you. No serious competitor would just get the same equipment that the winner used. He would test a variety of equipment and find the one that is optimal for himself.

What about the solid tip design makes it a better casting rod? It just impacts tip flexibility, no more or less than the butt does. US casters use more flexible rods than some casters from other nations - each achieves perfect accuracy scores at WCs. So, we're back to the casters' perceptions.
Does it have anything to do with the way it bends, how it bends, or how it unbends? It does but at the end of the day it just provides an option, no reflection on performance.

The tip is lighter -- less mass -- less momentum -- less counterflex? Only more resistance to bending.

Do you think the lighter tip effects the way the rod bends or is it just the fact that it is lighter that makes it cast better for you? Don't make the solid tip your focus, it is an outcome of the inside diameter of the multi-tapered hollow sections used in the preceding sections. I like them for accuracy but again that is perception only. For example, I will use it with a 5 weight MED in the Trout Accuracy but will use another bend profile in the ICSF Fly accuracy. I've different perceptions about what delivers performance in each accuracy event.

So you go by perception rather than scientific evidence. That's obviously your choice to make. But I believe it goes beyond just perception. Perception is just a subjective feeling. Why not test various rod actions and find the one that you can cast the farthest or the most accurate? Can you imagine Tiger Woods saying to his rod designer, "It's my perception that this golf shaft is better -- let's go with this one." That will never happen in a million years. Computers, high speed cameras, sensors, chronographs, and all sorts of scientific analysis will go into finding the optimal golf shaft for Tiger's swing.(again, just because Tiger wins with that particular golf shaft, does not mean it is the right shaft for every golfer.)

What if it were possible to make that same rod -- same dimensions, same weight, same guides, same everything, but it was perfectly stiff and did not bend -- how do you think it would cast? Better, worse, the same? Like a broomstick? I use a flexible rod for all my casting, however the bend profile each rod delivers differs across each events. Same with plug accuracy and distance event rods bends. Performance will be better with a flexible rod vs a rod that allows zero bend, but once you decide to use a flexible rod, the bend profile does not matter. Again it is about your perception only.

If the bend profile does not matter as long as the rod bends, what if it just bends a millionth of an inch? What if it bends like a wet noodle and just flops to the ground so that you are casting without a rod? I hope you will at least agree that the bend profile needs to be within a certain range. Maybe the tip just has to bend a foot and no more than 7 feet -- but there is a range that works well. This is more than just perception. If it was all about perception then if I perceived that a non bending rod is no different than a bending rod then there would be no difference. We know for a fact that the rod must bend and we know for a fact that it must not bend too much (like a wet noodle). We know for a fact that it must bend within a certain range.

John

Thanks for helping with this subject John -- and although we may disagree, you're insights are very helpful and much appreciated,

Ron

Hi Ron,

On the contrary, serious competitors do try the same equipment that the winner used and compare the performance impact. If performance improves, guess what rod they will use at the next competition? If their performance degrades, guess what rod they will not use in their next competition? Of course casters test a variety of equipment and find the one that is optimises their individual results.

It is exactly the same with a body movement. What happened to high jump technique after Dick Fosby won gold in 1968 with a very different technique to the straddle and other conventional jumping movements. Every jumper and coach experimented with it, compared the performance output with the conventional technique of the day and after consideration, adopted it. Ditto casting and all sports.

Equipment and technique in every sport evolves, casting included. A few years ago distance casting technique was predominantly non rod foot forward. After wins by casters with a rod foot forward technique, a number of casters are adopting the new feet movements. I expect more casting converts to the non rod foot forward technique in Norway.

"So you go by perception rather than scientific evidence." Never said that, I attempted to put perception in context. Perception is one driver to change but like all perceptions or beliefs, only those that are backed by peer reviewed scientific research and proven performance improvement, progress to technique or gear innovation. Rod bend is an outcome only and a function of the movement employed and impulse generated by that movement.

Range of rod bend is the same as range of body movement. Steve Rajeff has a smaller range of body and rod movement that Paul Arden. Each would advocate rod and body range is optimal. What research has been conducted to identify which is the better? Each has evolved because of a number of influences e.g. what was their results, what were their coaching influences, what is their physical makeup etc? IMHO rod bend is the same.

We can agree to disagree on whether rod bend matters, the important thing is the opportunity to choose.

My perception is my reality - until it is proven to be incorrect.

My best wishes,

John

[Paul Arden]

I really like Winston's strapline but I suspect it doesn't have the meaning that us Brits would put to it. I wonder if they know? Makes me smile anyway.

[Paul Arden]

I threw an atlatl in Montana many years ago. Very close IMO to what we think of in casting.

Cheers, Paul