Fly Rods - slow or fast action

[Lou Bruno]

Recently I had a conversation with a casting instructor regarding a whole host of different fly casting jargon. Eventually we got to talking about fly rod action. Specially, what fly rod action is best for casting longer distances. My view was that stiff faster action fly rods were not the best for casting longer distances. Most of the videos I watch where casters are demonstrating casting longer seem to be using a mid-flex...progressive action fly rod.
My opinion is not based on any scientific data or research. I'm not sure of the mechanical forces that different fly rod actions even create; some basic understanding would be helpful for us to choose the best fly rod for the fishing condition.

I might be mistaken but if our fly rod bends a greater distance when casting...wouldn't that develop a MCL (minimum chord length)? Which gives us a greater recovery speed, and that speed when applied to F=MA means a greater casting distance?

The stiffer rod won't bend as far. But, creates faster recovery speeds...straightens faster! The ideal scenario would be to bend the stiffer rod to create the MCL, which allows the stiffer rod a greater distance to increase its speed, giving us more force...greater distance?

I'm stuck thinking that the slower rod would have more distance to recover, creating more speed, more force...greater distance.
Which is best for distance?

Lou

[Paul Arden]

Hi Lou,

It depends.

So firstly there is action and there is speed. They are closely related but can be different. Action would be the bending profile of the rod. We have for example rods with very stiff butts but relatively soft tips. And vice versa.

Then we have speed, which I would think of as frequency, which can be related to how quickly the rod unloads.

For many people nowadays I believe they are buying rods that are too stiff for them. We know this is the case because they’re putting heavier lines on the rods “to make them work”.

However in the competition world, over the last 20 years, we have seen casters going to stiffer and stiffer rods. Many 5WT distance casters are using a rod that most people would think of as being a 10WT. So that’s quite a lot stiffer!

There are advantages. While we can certainly put more force into casting a stiff rod, and without it buckling into a tailing loop, I think probably the biggest advantage is less Counterflex, which in turn means a tighter loop.

Here are some results between 6, 7 and two 10WTs for the MED5, in metres, 2 minutes if casting, and it was wet and windy.

IMG_2709.jpeg (53.6 KiB) Viewed 427 times

So as you can see, there is a gradual increase in distance… but it’s not huge. In competition it’s significant. The caveat is that is many/most casters would progressively lose distance as the rod stiffness increases, because they don’t have the technical skills to make the stroke/timing adjustments.

Cheers, Paul

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

Lou,

I don't think it is that simple. Your MCL theory is on one side; the third class lever increasing tip speed for the faster rod is on the other.

Which rod casts farthest for you? Maybe its more about matching a certain bend to your particular cast?

A couple of weeks ago I broke my current favorite "casting" rod doing something stupid. Its now back at the company having the tip replaced. So, for a while I didn't practice. The rod model is, by current standards, so slow (and therefore unpopular) that the company discontinued it. But it fits me like a glove.

Knowing it might be a while before it returns I looked around for another to play with. My eyes fell upon a rod that, years ago, (lets say a dozen but it was even more) I liked to play with. Once, when meeting some friends for a Sunday cast, I was showing off to a new participant and chucked one out there, using that old rod. Before I could retrieve the line another guy runs over and says "Stop... thats one hell of a cast!" He gets out his tape measure and it was in fact a very long cast. Later that day I even bested it a few times.

The old rod was/is nothing special. It is an early TFO model that was considered to be for folks who were not willing to pay full price for a "top" level rod.

So... what happened when I took that old rod out? I cast the fluff farther than I have in a long time.

Apparently, for some reason, that rod just suits me. Is it a fast or slow rod? Kinda in the middle, but definitely leans more to slow. Kinda like me.

[Lou Bruno]

The main point you both make is; it's fly caster dependent.

Is the distance the rod cast dependant mostly on how far it bends or how fast it recovers being bent. Paul was leaning towards...stiffer rods cast farther, yes? Although the casters ability admittedly has to be considered. I totally understand that.

How many casters can distinguish or tell how stiff the butt is compared to the overall flexibility of the rod. Most manufacturers don't advertise that.
How would a caster tell; most focus on the tip area don't they.

Lou

[Paul Arden]

Firstly Lou, I don’t think distance casting is primarily about loading the rod, it’s about carry length, line speed, loop shape and trajectory.

But even if it was about loading the rod, a softer rod will need to bend deeper to store the same amount of elastic potential energy as a stiffer rod, consequently the amount of bend doesn’t necessarily indicate greater loading.

It’s quite easy to tell the action of a rod by flexing in the hands at various points along its length.

Good questions by the way!

Cheers, Paul

[Lasse Karlsson]

Remember someone did an experiment with a bunch of different stiffness rods, same line on all, a bunch if casts, took longest and average and looked at carry and then tried a control with the rod they used the most for distance and found a correlation. Bunch of people disagreed but none did a similar test...

Oh damn, that was me

Longest 5 weight distance cast has been the same since 2012, even with casters chasing better springs like mad.
And everyone seems to ignore Bernt Johansson's longest indoor shot and the rod he used

Cheers
Lasse

[John Waters]

I wonder if we complicate the casting performance vs rod type experiment by using an MED and introducing the variable of carry length.

Maybe using a fixed length shooting head would produce another result.

John

[Walter]

If it was just a simple spring that we stretch and let go then the longer stretch with the same force would favour the stretchier spring but we also need to consider what percentage of our casting stroke we use to fully load the bendier rod.

[Paul Arden]

Interesting. I carry more with the softer rod to leave the head at the same part (top) the loop. In other words I carry more with the HT6 than HT10 for distance. In both circumstances my max carry is higher than what I need. But it’s largely determined by the head’s position relative to the loop. My max carry with HT6 was 95’ which I measured for years. With HT10 I measured 93’6”. I think the difference is counterflex.

Cheers, Paul

[Lasse Karlsson]

I wonder if we complicate the casting performance vs rod type experiment by using an MED and introducing the variable of carry length.

Maybe using a fixed length shooting head would produce another result.

John

I don't think it matters, the head of the MED is fixed just as the length of a shootinghead, only difference ends up being higher difference in mass to shootingline. And bigger impact on the cast from casting flaws. I have a higher variance between casts using my ST27 outfit than when using the MED outfit.

Cheers
Lasse