Tracking and Loop planes

[Paul Arden]

I believe the rod-leg applies a force to the fly-leg.

It’s called Tension and has been source of endless Sexyloops discussions since the very beginning of the Board

The point is, that the "vertical rod plane" is a flat surface in vertical orientation per definition. That is not my definition, but the by far most common one in physics and math.
If you move your rod along a vertical, but curved surface, I get that very easily and it's precise.
Who is "it", when you are able to make it travel flat enough? The loop?

I’m happy to continue calling curved rod and loop planes “planes” and not surfaces while I assess how you handle referring to them both as “surfaces”. For consistency you are going to have to stop referring to loop planes for most casts and start referring to loop surfaces as well. Once I’ve seen how much simpler and clearer your discussions become, then I’ll make an assessment between the two.

“It” refers to loop plane (loop surface for you) which is horizontal enough to overpower horizontally and curve the presentation. It’s not fully flat as you point out as a result of rod bending/unbending, so it’s certainly not a loop “plane” for you, but as a loop “surface” it is sufficiently angled to hook the presentation.

[VGB]

So it was already common knowledge to you and just obvious. But you need to spend 40min in the field and still aren't able to say, that I am wrong or better provide any evidence. You just say, that for you it did not happen. That has very little meaning to me. No explanation, no video, no pictures, just a few words.

You want a video of nothing happening? You haven’t provided a video either, just a still. It’s not even clear what you are claiming. Initially, you said:

viewtopic.php?t=4152&start=80#p80166

Watching from bird's view, I see another figure 8 caused by us dealing with the impact of rod flexibilty to our casting.

That was in the vertical plane. Now there is some form of drift in the horizontal plane due to the rod leg pulling on the fly leg.

Apart from rod leg tension being part of the basic mechanics of the loop for at least a decade, most of the discussions I’ve been involved with that relate to this topic are when the dangle pulls straight.

I’ve added red circles to your own graphic to show you what Graeme saw. Feel free to produce a video showing the still is wrong

IMG_2168.jpeg (66.85 KiB) Viewed 76 times

Regards

Vince

[Bernd Ziesche]

Hi Graeme,
I agree with you, if you are saying there is impact to be seen. That's what this thread is about, too. But we several times did discuss about casters typically pulling their rod out of the accelerational rod path post RSP1 and pausing it further left (right handed caster). Very common movement. I see more students entering the lesson doing this as those not doing it to some degree. Even in the WC I saw it being done and have filmed it. I can't remember anyone to have disagreed with that not being a problem.
I differentiate between the level of impact to a false cast with a fixed length of carry and a cast when shooting. Shooting lowers the impact. In those further discussions we did not differentiate between shooting and not shooting. Well, not that I remember it. For a distance shoot I still understand the impact as rather small. I have studied the difference and it's bigger than I would have thought it is.
Not for Vince though. He tried, but it didn't happen to him as he sais. That shows, that yet there obviously are different views experiences in this.
Regards
Bernd

[VGB]

But we several times did discuss about casters typically pulling their rod out of the accelerational rod path post RSP1 and pausing it further left (right handed caster).

If it is intentional we could call it a reach mend.

Not for Vince though. He tried, but it didn't happen to him as he sais. That shows, that yet there obviously are different views experiences in this.

What “it” didn’t happen Bernd, the tip describing a figure 8 in the vertical but not the horizontal, the line drifting in the horizontal but not the vertical due to the rod leg pulling on the fly leg, or the caster pulling the rod leg out of plane due to some as yet undisclosed mechanism?

Regards

Vince

[VGB]

What I do remember instead is, that Lasse as well as others said, that once main launch direction for the fly-leg is set, tip position to get pulled sideways has nearly no impact.
That means the force applied via rod-leg can't have any impact worth to talk about.

If that's correct, a video prove should be very easy.
Cheers
B

Where is this thread that you keep referring to Bernd?

[Paul Arden]

It’s difficult in that overlayed image sequence, to determine what is a result of tracking and what is a result of rod plane and loop planes. (For you Bernd: Rod Surface and Loop Surface).

The reason I say that is because you’ll get a similar result even with perfect tracking, just because of the nature of how to rod “slices” across into counterflex as a result of the canted rod plane. (Surface, Bernd).

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd Ziesche]

For consistency you are going to have to stop referring to loop planes for most casts and start referring to loop surfaces as well. Once I’ve seen how much simpler and clearer your discussions become, then I’ll make an assessment between the two.

Hi Paul,
I am fine with "keeping the rod in plane" for "straight tracking" in terms of this matching how planes are defined in general (as being flat).
Yet I always saw planes used as flat in fly casting books and articles as far as I remember.
For me this only ever was an idealized target of movement, since no one can perfectly move the rod along (or keep it in) a plane.
However you have made me think about using the term plane. I didn't expect any discussion about a plane to be flat or in whatever curved forms. That never came up in my teaching. But (and that I have to say) I mostly made a moment of time to explain what a plane is. I did ask many times how many points are needed to define a plane, especially when having physic or math experts in the lesson. I'd summarize about 50% of the experts knew the correct answer straight away. The other 50% remembered it when I gave the answer. Never any discussion. Anyway a flat surface might be an easier term to understand without further explanation.
I remember when I first time came over the IFFs writing about "tip path deviation in horizontal plane seen from straight above and tip path deviation in vertical plane seen from side view." Took me a while to understand it.
I found it confusing in the beginning. That's why I never pulled that part into my lessons. Even now I was reading that part in Jason's book 4 or 5 times to be sure to get him correct. Ok, not my native language comes on top.

I assume, if I ask 1000 ppl. here about giving an example for a flat surface and a plane, the flat surface wins by far. That's what I didn't think about yet. But it seems clear. Would you agree with this?

[Graeme H]

I can't remember anyone to have disagreed with that not being a problem.

The double negative in this statement is confusing, but I am saying it's not a problem to do it if it's intentional and the reasons for doing it are appropriate.

Again, what is the intent of the action? If the end result is desirable, the action is not a problem.

I do it all the time. I do it intentionally. I teach my students to do it too, once they are advanced enough to handle the extra rod motions required to keep it from negatively impacting on the subsequent casts.

I learnt it by watching Christopher Rownes cast these magnificent loops. Watch in particular the cast shown at the 60 second mark:



Once noticed, we can see he does this on nearly every cast in the sequence.

If we examine the cast made at the 2:09 mark, you'll see a vertical loop made with a canted rod too.

Moving the rod tip upwards and sideways after loop formation adds tension to the rod leg and reduces the effort required during the casting stroke (as defined by the FFi.) Someone unaware of why he is doing this action might interpret the action as "creep" and mistakenly call this a fault in the cast.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Bernd Ziesche]

What “it” didn’t happen Bernd?

Hi Vince,
I can't read your minds. You refered to "it" yourself.

Same for the "drift" in the horizontal cast.

I just spent 40 minutes in the field, it doesn't happen to me.

I thought it was clear, what we are talking about.
Otherwise I don't know why you wouldn't ask before studying it for 40min.

[Paul Arden]

I assume, if I ask 1000 ppl. here about giving an example for a flat surface and a plane, the flat surface wins by far. That's what I didn't think about yet. But it seems clear. Would you agree with this?

No I would be very surprised. Most native English speakers will consider the term “surface” to mean a hard boundary. Eg the surface of Earth or the surface of a rod etc. Knowing that “surface” also has a specific meaning in Euclidean Geometry will be something new to many people. Certainly I’ve had to spend a few hours reading up on this, as well as other types of geometry. Consequently I think rod and loop surfaces is going to need further explanation, whereas I think most will quite easily understand the concept of a curved plane.

I’d rather teach people to cast without having to give them a geometry lesson.

If the tracking plane is perpendicular to the rod surface, and if the rod surface is curved, then so too is the tracking surface and almost certainly the loop surface when accounting for rod unloading. I don’t think that’s simplifying anything, quite the reverse, and then I have to wonder why?

Since we are correcting terminology, Casting Arc should be Casting Sector. I doubt there will be a casting book on the planet that has that right, because that’s not the term in common usage (for us).

Cheers, Paul