Observations from Taking the Sage Casting Analyzer
- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Jan 22, 2006 at 10:59 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys-
I just got back from The Creel in Knoxville, where I had the dubious pleasure of taking the Sage Casting Analyzer test.
Some observations.
First off, I did well. Most of my scores were ‘excellent,’ with a few ‘goods’ and ‘needs works’ thrown in in my first couple tries. I did better on the 50′ model than the 40’er, no surprise since most of my practice is with distance casting. My symmetry score on the 40 footer was 84/100 and on the 50 footer it was 90/100.
It said: “Your cast exhibited 90% symmetry. This is very close to the expert’s score of 90% symmetry or greater.” So I guess that’s good.
To give you a breakdown of how this thing works, here’s how my 50′ test was scored for my forward cast (my backcast was similar but slightly lower, with ‘needs works’ on cast arc, creep, and stop (I knew this would be a problem area)):
Category…………….You………….Expert…….Comments
Cast Symmetry……..90…………..100………..Excellent
Cast Arc……………..89…………..78…………Good
Creep…………………0……………0…………..Good
Smoothness Ratio…..4.3………….5.0………..Excellent
Peak Speed………….381…………330………..Good
Deceleration………..-3622………-3000………Excellent
Stop………………….13…………….2…………Excellent
Rod Load…………….27…………..30………….GoodNow, I introduced it that way so you’ll understand that I am not upset with my results.
But, I still think this thing is ridiculous.
Here’s why:
1) The analyzer only works from the butt of the rod, so its tip behavior models are based on inferences.
2) Any kind of elliptical casting seemed to greatly reduce the scores. In one test where I elliptically casted, my symmetry score was 40% and my scores generally were ‘Needs Work.’ Keep in mind that I can present the fly to the exact same spot casting either way. I personally feel more in control with an elliptical stroke.
3) In order to “cast like it wanted me to,” I used a trick John Wilson showed me for accuracy casting. I turned my body away from the rod and sighted straight down the cast with my right eye. My head was turned to my right and my right foot was turned toward the target. I used to do competitive fencing and it is exactly that stance – you hold the rod like a sword in a duel. Casting like this lets you make the *exact same motion forward and back,* which is the only method this analyzer approves of. (There are widely divergent schools of thought on which method is “better.”)
4) In my first test, cold, I had a fairly low score of 84% symmetry and like other scores. This was partly because I was casting elliptically, however the system also told me I wasn’t loading the rod enough to make tight loops (in fact they never were larger than 3′ tall or so, plenty tight enough for a 100′ cast, much less a 40’er). I have been casting a Scott G2 lately and a St. Croix Pro Graphite that I have noodled. Both are easygoing rods. In order to max out the test, I needed to really power-load the XP (which is the only rod the test will work with).
5) I am pleased to say ‘Smoothness Ratio’ on the 50′ cast was a 4.3, exceeding the expert’s 5.0 score (this is on a golf-style lower-is-better-scale) by about 15%. My rod loads were both in the ‘excellent’ category as well. However, I would never actually cast this hard on a river. This is ridiculous. In order to load a rod as stiff as the XP like this test wants, you must really hammer it, and this is not a good technique.
6) Incidentally, the readouts don’t make a lot of sense in some places. I had the same score in the ‘creep’ category as the expert (who, according to the shop, is Sage’s Don Green or Jerry Siem), namely a 0, but that was only given a ‘Good’ comment. All other areas where I matched the expert rated Excellent. The breakdown comments also told me that my backcast registered a ’17’ creep (whatever that is), but the comment said “no creep detected.” However, I was told it “needs work.” This is a little confusing – the data doesn’t seem to all be working on the same evaluation scale.
7) Note too that the casting arcs from which the loop size is computed are aiming at about a 2′ tall loop, a lot like the guys in the Sage ads for the XP. I personally have thrown a 116′ cast with a 3-4′ tall loop. I never fish with a loop tighter than 3′ because I am a nymph fisherman, however I have never felt handicapped. I simply increase linespeed to cut any wind, and I am almost always the last angler blown off the water. Is a two foot tall loop desirable? Does a measurement of the arc of the rod (as in like a pendulum) actually compute to calculate loop size? This thing can’t measure tip speed at all, keep in mind.
On the balance I think this is a great tool – just not for general consumption. The test doesn’t let you haul (a major source of control for me and other casters who spend little time with the line locked to the grip of the rod). It can’t account for good, but different casting styles. It doesn’t work with any rod but the Sage XP, a very poor beginner-to-intermediate choice (and indeed perhaps a poor expert’s choice unless you’re fishing heavy water in the windy West). It doesn’t compute tipspeed or linespeed, and it draws some rather arbitrary distinctions on what is an “excellent” cast.
Basically I think this thing is still in a drawing-board phase but has been rushed to market. The core of the system is a PDA and an Apple Macintosh desktop computer, stamped all over with Sage logos. It is a very fine looking apparatus, though no doubt very expensive (the known hardware alone makes it thousands of dollars, plus all the weird fancy stuff).
On the balance, I think this thing is liable to do more harm than good. Very few casters are going to come away with a positive feeling, and it has enough technical geek-speak readouts to cross the eyes of anyone but a rocket scientist or CPA.
Zach
It can’t account for good, but different casting styles.
Hmm – didn’t you question in a previous thread whether different casting “styles” truly exist?
That is because the rod is still loaded and unloaded, three-dimensionally, the same way, it’s just that the *butt* of the rod is tracking a circle in the elliptical cast instead of a straight line.
I’d like to try the casting analyzer, even though I have a sneaky suspicion I know the problem areas it will detect.
I took the test today. It pin-pointed errors I purposely tried to fool it with… 😉
Really, my scores were similiar to Zach’s, though somewhat in reverse. It said I would do better letting my back cast fly!
We had one shot at 40 and 50′. This is a test that can be studied for if you had the unit.
It’s my understanding that the Hendersonville Fly Fishing Club (of which I am a member) is going to have an analyzer at our meeting in a couple months for the members to try out.
I have some predictions about what it will show, though it will be interesting to see if I’m right.
One feature I really didn’t care for was the rod used. I’m okay with a Sage XP but have spent months using an entirely different acting series. Compared to what I’m used to using, the XP just didn’t telegraph much of what was going on at 40′ and just started to hit its stride (in my hands anyhow) at 50′.
I’m sure I’ll think of more excuses for my moderate results as time marches on! 😉
To be blunt, it’s hard to imagine a less useful tool. The cast itself provides all the feedback you need to diagnose and resolve the problem, and if you don’t have enough experience to diagnose it yourself, then you’re a lot better off getting a living, breathing casting instructor to help.
The analyzer can’t help you fix a casting problem, and from everything I’ve read, it’s limited in the sense that it can’t account for unusual casting styles.
A good friend of mine is a bamboo user and probably the best spring creek/midge fisher I know — largely because he’s an absolutely accurate caster. In fact, he’s one of the rare guys that actually can drop a #28 midge in a teacup and then turn around and cast a whole line.
Naturally, he scored abysmally on the analyzer, which suggests either the thing’s completely clueless or your score is largely dependent on your facility with a certain kind of rod and a certain kind of casting stroke.
I’m sure it’s in Sage’s interest to develop an analyzer based on how well you cast *their* fast rod taper, but I’m guessing this thing will get a lot of press and then become the curiosity it deserves to be.
Retrogrouches R Us,
Tom Chandler
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.