Sloppy Rod

[Merlin]

In the example I used the power application lacks progressivity, the extra wrist input is clearly the source of it. In real life muscle coordination is obtained after hours of training and such burst in power does not occur instinctively. IMHO the caster's part of responsability comes from (lack of) coordination for the rod characteristics.

Now there is something coming from the rod. Ovalisation testing shows that the phenomenon is progressive. The amount of ovalisation for a glass rod may reach 3% to 4% at handle level, which translates into 9% to 12% of loss in section stiffness and not at once. But we are far from a sudden change leading to collapsing. That occurs above 10% ovalisation (I have to check again) and there is no return, the shaft bukles or bursts. Maybe there is a transition zone up to that point, I cannot tell.

Merlin

[James9118]

The amount of ovalisation for a glass rod may reach 3% to 4% at handle level, which translates into 9% to 12% of loss in section stiffness and not at once.

Merlin

We have to not lose sight that we're pulling on the end of a tapered tube, so your estimated loss in stiffness (which so far has not shown up in my real life Instron tests) is going to be swamped by the increase in stiffness due to the taper of the rod in a cast.

Cheers, James

[Merlin]

James

In the virtual test study I performed nothing can tell you if the stiffness characteristics you find (linear, non linear) comes from ovalisation. One has to calculate ovalisation to find it is there. Applying ovalisation effects changed little to end results.

I wonder if the issue has something to do with elastic buckling: the rod shaft would buckle somehow but could get back to its initial conditions without damage. I read a few papers mentionning that phenomenon, but I need more to figure out what could be observed in practice.

Maybe your instron machinery could detetc that.

Merlin

[Lasse Karlsson]

So I don’t think it’s me. But I do know what you mean. I find for example the HT6 nowadays very soft for 5WT distance. That’s 5 years of throwing the HT10. But when I switch back to the HT6, while it feels soft/slow, I don’t have tailing loops when I hit it.

It “feels” to me that when I hit one of these other two rods that the butt suddenly bends/gives. I don’t think it’s a just soft butt however, but a relatively soft butt in relation to the taper. That’s what I’ve always taken away from this. It is a completely unexpected feel.

Of course I’m sure it’s not designed for hitting a 90’ carry but it’s an interesting phenomenon none the less.

Cheers, Paul

You still fish the HT6, and before you made it, you fished and cast a similar rod for another 5 years, so you are talking about a taper you have thrown for what, 15 years? No wonder you don't tail what you're used to mate

Incidently, how much are your max carry across the board? 110? 100? 95? 90? When I go max, it's skating on thin ice, a small mistake and I burn, and my max is around 90 across the board, so I really wouldn't judge on something where its most likely my own shortcomings rather than a bendy sticks...

Cheers
Lasse

[Paul Arden]

I think it also depends on taper, mass distribution and the different moduli throughout the blank. For example we know that there are rods that feel very stiff in the lower section. You get to a certain carry and feel drops off. Going the other way I think it’s possible to have a rod that bends too much in the lower section for distance and this is what gives us the phenomena that I’m feeling anyway.

To be honest I don’t find much difference in carry between rod stiffnesses as one might expect. It’s obviously there with soft rods. But the HT6 is not a soft six and many people find that quite stiff already with a MED5. True the 10 is a lot stiffer again but I think we are at the point of line limitations with overhang or more specifically running line in the fly leg of the loop. If it was a never ending DT I’m sure we would see a more significant difference. Or in fact if the MED head was just ten feet longer.

MED5 I’m around 95’ at sea level - I’ve measured that many many times. I’ve carried 105’ 1000m up. There are conditions when I can’t carry 95’, particularly fog! The problem with the line is that it’s unstable as you extend over 90’. I try to sit slightly under 90 with no wind, and slightly over with a tail wind. (Measured 88’6 and 92’6” – but the problem with those numbers is that was one line the last time I measured and as we all know there are variations between lines). I do know I don’t carry my maximum carry in distance competition. Incidentally a great way to practise carry is to stand on something. It takes away that feeling of skating on thin ice because ticking has gone and you can usually sort out shit with a longer pause. Roof of your truck, boat, house. First thing I built in Hungary after a campfire place was a 20’ high casting platform. I’ve never had a problem when coming back down to ground level. But it has enabled me to experiment with hand paths, power application, timing in a way that I never could on the ground.

We used to use an Avanta Blue Lightning Classic as our tie breaking rod in Shootouts. This as a “soft” 5WT. We never bent it butt to tip but I’m sure when it was new you could have done this. And we cast this with a DT5. The only way to compete with a DT as you know is to be hauling the backing knot. And that’s how we cast it.

Actually that’s how I cast it. Jon was a couple of feet off. When he moved north he gave me that rod as a gift; it has pride of place on my shack wall in Hungary!

It’s true we can adapt our stroke to suit the tackle but there comes a point where we have to adapt so far as to consider it unsuitable for what we want to do. We were doing that for over a decade in Shootouts casting all sorts of weird combinations. A totally fascinating exercise trying to make some of those combinations work in 2 minutes. And there’s no question I learned a lot from doing this. But one thing I learned what that some combinations are not conducive to ease of long distance casting!

If I’m going for distance I want to be able to hit it. Not like some people might imagine it but I really want to be able to click my fingers

Cheers, Paul

[Torsten]

Hi Paul,

That Hardy rod was another one that’s popped up on a few different places. Mike found it when he got it. I found it when I cast it. And then I had a meet in Hungary where a really very good caster asked if I could fix a problem he was having. It turns out it was the same rod.

So I don’t think it’s me. But I do know what you mean. I find for example the HT6 nowadays very soft for 5WT distance. That’s 5 years of throwing the HT10. But when I switch back to the HT6, while it feels soft/slow, I don’t have tailing loops when I hit it.

According to a blog post from Akos the HT has an ERN of 7.5 and an AA of 70, that's already stiffer than many other rods designed for a #5 line. Sure compared to that rod or at least a #10 it's plausible that the X would be softer. But I can't imagine that they made the butt section much softer and it doesn't look like this in the deflection chart.
There are some rods which indeed have a softer butt section, usually you would see then a lower butt diameter and a smaller action angle (AA) according to the CCS. I know Loop tackle made such rods for the "underhand cast".

BTW a bit off-topic: wasn't casting distance with a somewhat softer rod once part of the challenge (why isn't there a limit)?

Torsten.

[Paul Arden]

You’re not starting a diversion are you, Torsten?

I’ll answer in a bit. Lesson now!

[easterncaster]

From James' FP:

"... the Instron doesn’t care for rods and it ploughed on."

Bah ha ha ha !

[Magnus]

Get a video of the OP casting.

Magnus

[Merlin]

Thanks for sharing your results James

Instron measurements are interesting but they do not fully represent the situation of a casted rod. This apparatus is nice to find the modulus of elasticity of a material (BTW James, do you have the dimensions of the sample you used, both internal and external, do you identify hoop fibers at the damaged location?). In the ovalisation / buckling field, the slenderness of the beam and its section dimensions are most important. Unfortunately I never found in literature examples representative of a fly rod. Most of the time beams are not as long as a fly rod shaft. So I am afraid we do not capture the phenomenon we are after, if that phenomenon exists. Testing a glass sample would be instructive as well I believe.

The test shows the elastic behavior of the sample but one cannot identify ovalisation unless one tries to evaluate it. It might well be limited to a few hard to detect percent. I am surprised by the crack for 1 mm deflection, which is small, whilst the force is large (100 N). The sample is 20 cm long so buckling is not the main suspect, ovalisation is. The shape of the jig applying pressure could be important as well (radius at contact level?).

Before graphite came to the market we just had cane or glass rods and at that time glass was already suspected to ovalise by comparison to cane. Maybe this is not the proper issue, we imagine ovalisation but we do not know what it is. Nevertheless I experienced the sluggish feel with glass and I can suspect this was coming from my power input at the current stage of understanding. It may just be a problem of fit between the rod and power input, but there is uncertainty about rod behavior, which is not yet 100% identified in one way or the other. A test apparatus such as the ones at Hardy or Echo trying to destroy a rod at butt level with a butt fitted with strain probes would be ideal IMHO.

Merlin