A different (?) view on rod-design.

[VGB]

I’ve seen someone with a rod holster but his casting appeared to be a work in progress. For freshwater trout fishing I just change the line and leader set up not the rod.

If we were in respective competitions of the above disciplines we would have a different rod for each!

Which rods would you choose and why Paul?

Regards

Vince

[Lasse Karlsson]

nor do I know anyone that does fishing and takes a rod for roll casting, another for accuracy and another for distance.

While I agree that we don't carry a fly rod holster with rods for every distance and type of cast required, that’s also because it’s inconvenient. If we were in respective competitions of the above disciplines we would have a different rod for each!

Cheers, Paul

Is that why the casting people use the same rod and line for both distance and accuracy?

Cheers
Lasse

[Paul Arden]

For distance I want a stiffer rod. 5WT distance I use the HT10. Most are using 9-11WT rods. Because it goes further! For accuracy I use the HT5. I find the HT6 too stiff for repeated casting and my hand cramps. For Speys most prefer to overline by one line and the serous Spey distance guys have rods with more butt action instead of tip.

The change can be seen the other way too. The HT6 and lower is more tuned to casting shorter distances. The HT7 and up is for carrying longer lines. I liken the difference to throwing 2-3 rod lengths compared to hitting a bank with streamers or taking longer shots.

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

I’d practice a lot then use a beach caster and a golf ball on a line like Steve Rajeff for the distance one. I doubt that I’d get over a thousand feet like he did, maybe he was operating at optimum bend. It might be pretty good for the roll cast as well. For accuracy, it depends on the distance and the course. If it was like the casting club of Paris one, I might use a TLT set up.

Regards

Vince

[VGB]

The HT6 and lower is more tuned to casting shorter distances.

Paul, do you think that the caster has a role in the tuning; if so, do you have a theory as to what difference the caster makes to tuning?

Regards

Vince

[RSalar]

don't know anyone who would buy a car that didn't have a screen wash system.

Bedouin were there long before me.

Sorry to report, he died in crash caused by not being able to see through his windshield. His famous last words: "I was wrong damn it! Windshield washers do matter."

[VGB]

Sorry to report, he died in crash caused by not being able to see through his windshield. His famous last words: "I was wrong damn it! Windshield washers do matter."

Aaah, made up facts.

[Paul Arden]

Hi Vince,

Tuning the system can be done with the line weight and tapers of course. Line weight makes a massive difference to feel and performance throughout the ranges. One line weight is A difference of definitely more than the marginal differences I build between 6 & 7WTs

Of course a fly rod should be able to cast from the rod tip to distance, with feel at all distances. And the caster needs to have the ability to make the stroke changes to accommodate this. One of the things he/she has to accommodate in his stroke is changes in bend. Small bend, short/narrow stroke. Deep bend long/wide stroke. The primary purpose of bend as I see it is to turn rotation at the butt into translation at the tip and can do with with a variety of different lengths (and masses) of line outside the tip.

However when I cast I absolutely don’t think about rod bend. There are casters who think about bending the rod during the stroke. I think this just happens and is a by product of what we want which is to accelerate the line straight.

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

Hi Paul

I agree with your thoughts on rod bending but I don’t buy into tuning being a rod/line thing only. Structural responses are not the same when subjected to a static load or a sudden step load, a measure called the dynamic amplification factor (DAF - ratio of the amplitude of the vibratory response to the static response)is normally used to map the dynamic effect of the change in input.

All of the stroke variables that you mentioned will change the DAF and I think “tuning” presents the wrong picture, almost like it’s a tuning fork producing a pure frequency. It gives a suggestion that the outcome is pre-ordained by the design of the rod and line. The casting system has a broadband response, or to put it another way, a wide range of possible successful outcomes depending on the input. The width of this broadband response is heavily dependent on the ability of the caster to control the input.

Regards

Vince

[Paul Arden]

Hi Vince,

Of course we can adapt our stroke to the rod/line/cast required. And we do! And we can also adapt our tackle to what we want to do with our stroke for the cast required. We do that when changing the line for example.

It’s when we have to adjust our stroke in an unfamiliar way that many people have problems. Ron for example likes to feel rod bend and quite a lot of it I gather from this discussion. And because it doesn’t work in the way he would like and because the feel is unfamiliar he naturally relates this back to rod loading. And actually it is partly about rod loading!

Of course he can also change his stroke and probably should (and I’m sure he does, that’s what 1st gear casting is all about) And then I’m sure it would matter less to him.

While an excellent caster can pick up any rod line combination and make it work, they have done this by learning to cast “mismatched” tackle. There are certainly optimal rod/line combinations, but these may very well be person specific ie some prefer soft rods, others stiff rods.

Psychologically there is an interesting thing here. Many casters first working on longer distance think about trying to put more bend in the rod (mistakenly IMO). I know some very long distance casters who think about trying to keep the bend out. These are stroke adjustments of course.

Cheers, Paul