Scott G.
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Zach,
That experiment has been done, as was referenced by Gary Borger. Peter Schwab did the experiment with Crompton’s casting machine and showed that the reel was a detriment to the cast. Here is a link saying that in Gordy Hill’s master study group http://www.wildoutfitting.com/mci/emailarchive/mlistarchive/msg00026.html. Both Gordy and Tom White in that link have been FFF Governers for the casting program. I believe Jason Borger also references Schwab’s study in his “Nature of Fly Flycasting,” but I do not have that book in front of me right now.
I’d be happy to send along the Loop piece, but that part is just a discussion from Gordy Hill’s group and doesn’t add anything more than the above link.
It is definitely different casting without a reel. By the way, Gary was just explaining research done with a casting machine by others, not by his own casting.
I’m guessing you are pantomiming a short cast if you’re only moving a couple of inches. If that’s the case, then yes the reel probably would not have much momentum. Then again, there would not be much mass of line outside the rod tip thereby minimizing the benefits of a “balanced” outfit. The first casting movement should be translational and the rotational phase only comes end at the very end of the cast. While distance casting, the translational phase is in feet (at least for me) and the rotation is probably nearing 170 degrees. There is some significant momentum there. Look at Tim Rajeff’s delivery stroke on his distance cast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCwu6u2jBA. It is quite long and has a lot of speed. I definitely wouldn’t want to be in the path of the reel during that stroke.
I know that most fishing casts aren’t for extreme distances, but the same physics should be in play. They are just better highlighted in the casting extremes.
Zach-
Thank you for the well thought out reply. I agree with everything you said except, “But I would argue that the perceived weight to the caster is lessened when there is a counterweight in the form of a heavier reel on the butt end.”
The reason I disagree with this is that the extra weight of a reel on the rod increases the energy needed to accelerate and decelerate the rod during the casting stroke. In Gary Borger’s blog he noted that a mechanical casting machine could cast further without the reel attached than with it on and the rod held at the balance point. The reel requires more energy due to Newton’s second law. Additionally, the slower deceleration due to the reel attached causes wider loops which decreases loop (and energy) efficiency.
I do realize that you are talking about perceived weight. However, I think for the reasons stated above that a lighter reel will cause less fatigue. Try pulling the reel off the rod and casting for awhile and compare that to having the reel on the rod.
Zach,
With all due respect, I don’t know that I quite agree that you would want a heavier reel to counterbalance the rod. Gary Borger addressed it on his blog: http://www.garyborger.com/2010/09/26/rod-balance/. The reel is a weight that has momentum during the cast, the more mass the harder it is to stop and the wider the resulting loops from the cast. This is why casting tournaments require reels that hold all the line. Try casting without a reel sometime and you will find that you are able to throw tighter loops. There was also some discussion about this in the Spring 2010 FFF Loop for casting instructors starting on page 26. I don’t think they make the publication publicly available any more so I can’t link to it. Besides, the amount of line outside the rod tip dramatically alters the balance point of the rod against the resistance of the line while casting, so the “balance” point is always changing.
Michael,
I got my certification three years ago and really enjoyed the process. Definitely hook up with a certified instructor or two to prepare. A master would be really helpful as they are more familiar with the testing process since they help administer them. However, anyone that helps prepare you cannot administer your test.
I found the hardest performance part for me was the accuracy casting, specifically the offshoulder at 20 and 45 ft. The 20ft sounds easy, but you aren’t casting much more than just the leader which makes it quite difficult. You can fail one of the performance tasks and still pass, but the part you have to know forwards and backwards is the explain and demonstrates. The examiners want very short answers within the framework of Gammel’s five essentials. Be able to expand on your short answer as needed. Check out the past issues of the Loop on the FFF website for the Gammel’s essentials and lots of other useful info.
I would definitely recommend a 7 wt for the test. You want to give yourself every advantage you can. You could probably pass with something smaller, but you never know the conditions of the test day. I have a certified friend who had to take his test with a strong wind coming from his rod arm side. Besides, you need to be able to make things look easy and the 7 wt will help with this. Most people use the SA Orange Competition Expert Distance line for the test. If the examiners have trouble seeing something, they will make you repeat it. The bright orange line helps with this. The long head helps with the long roll casts and long carries for some of the tasks. Whatever setup you chose, practice exclusively with it.
I agree with Zach that you want to be able to do everything on the test easily before you take it. Like you mentioned, it is good to have someone certified administer a mock test beforehand. When I was prepping for the test, I generally casted at least an hour every day working on the tasks. I also spent a fair amount of time going through study materials.
Good luck and keep us updated on your progress!
I have to agree with Craig. I trained my bird dog with Wolter’s principles before I realized that this was “outdated.” However, I have been most impressed with the results and receive frequent comments about my dog’s obedience.
I agree with Grant. I have a French Brittany and he definitely treats woodcock different than other game birds. He will occasionally point them, but not always. This is not the case with any other game bird. Many dogs do not like to retrieve them; I don’t know if it’s the scent or the small feathers that are on the bird that get in their mouth. It is very hard to find a downed bird without a dog.
If you can get a clear shot at a woodcock, they are pretty easy to hit. They don’t fly that fast. However, they do live in thick cover so a clear shot doesn’t always happen. However, if you don’t hit the bird, mark it closely. Bogsuckers rarely fly far and you can easily find them again.
I don’t have a boga, but did put the scissors through the loop and pulled pretty hard against it. It held. The angled, cut end of the flyline where I started the weld did separate just a bit. I probably just didn’t melt this part well enough. It was just an old line that I was testing on so I left it alone, but if I had been doing it on a line I was using I would have put a little more tubing over it and re-welded it. It is quite surprising how well the loop holds.
We ordered the heat shrink tubing through Amazon from https://www.ties4less.com/ties/index.asp.
I know this post is getting a bit older, but thought I would report back on some results. I couldn’t find any clear heat shrink tubing locally so I ordered some with a friend online. That was the ticket. I put the folded loop inside the tubing and use a lighter (from a distance) to shrink it up over the line. Then I used a hair straightener to melt the line inside and would roll it. The tubing provides a nice mold for the bonding and protects the line from overcooking. After I was done, I just cut the tubing off with some tying scissors.
I figured out the other problem I was having was using an old hair straightener. It kept turning on and off and wasn’t providing the heat I needed. I switched to my wife’s Chi and the heating issues went away. My friend that I ordered the tubing with is getting a heat gun and we’re going to give that a try.
Zach,
Thanks for the tips. I’m going to see if I can find some of the heat shrink tubing. I have some old line that I can play around with this. I think I was overcooking the line.
Scott
Zach,
I tried your method of using the hair straightener on the back end of a SA GPX line. I seemed to float between two extremes: not getting the PVC hot enough to bond or getting it too hot and melting the coating away from the core. I may have been applying too much pressure in the latter case. Any tips?
I agree with Ralph. Additionally, cheap lines can be frustrating to use.
Grass will probably wear out your line a little faster than water, but using the same setup for the lawn and on the water is definitely a plus. I cast quite a bit on grass and generally get a year or so out of a line- although I have worn one out in a few months when I was hitting it really hard.
George- I assume your statement is tongue in cheek.
They seem to be marketing the, er, aesthetics? of the reel. For a reel in that price range there doesn’t seem to be much information on the mechanics of it.
I just picked up a pair of Smith photochromic ambers a few weeks ago and love them. I was using them while fishing with a friend who had the Smith photochromic coppers in a low light situation and the amber lenses were definitely superior. In a brighter situation, I might prefer the coppers, but so far I haven’t felt like the ambers weren’t enough. You might want to check out Smith’s website where it goes through the visible light transmission of each lens: http://www.smithoptics.com/technology/#/Sunglass+Technology/Lens+Options/view/.
Zach,
I didn’t realize that you had an interview with him in American Angler- I’ll be sure to check it out. It sounds like his outlook isn’t great for us fly tiers.
Bob, that’s pretty funny.
I’m going to check out some of those options. Has the hair market craze affected the Whiting woolly bugger packs any?
Zach- thanks for the welcome. I enjoy the content and found the articles pretty interesting.
Michael’s numbers are interesting. Below are the grains per foot of head.
Line Head Length Head Weight Grains/foot
Rio Gold 47′ 228 4.85
Rio Trout LT 47′ 240 5.11
Wulff TT 40′ 192 4.80
Rio Windcutter 43 190 4.42
SA Expert Distance 69 310 4.49Most are in the 4.5 to 5.0 grains/foot range. My point about line rating being determined by the first 30 feet is that the standard is at a fixed distance on the line, not by head length. Given how close the weight/length of the heads are, at 43′ (the shortest head length of the bunch) I would guess that most of the lines still have a comparable weight. Michael’s table shows that it quickly changes beyond that point. As Chris hinted, maybe a better comparison is looking at differences in the weight of the line at the point that Michael typically carries.
As the articles mention, this is only one element in the equation. Interesting discussion.
