Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Peter Patricelli

1. The Fly Rod as a Hammer....and as an Earthworm

Rate this topic

55 posts in this topic

Absolutely agreed Andrew :th: .

 

I'm just glad there are guys like you who discuss and contemplate these issues so I don't have to ;) .

 

Its all good :)

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James3shin,

 

"hitting 120ft and further with a 5wt is rare territory."

 

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but in the US distance casting competitions everyone has been using a 5 wt rod...a specialized 5 wt (raising the question of what defines a 5 wt, but the company CALLS it a 5 wt)......heavily overloaded with a very long head....then shooting to distances of 180 feet and beyond. Is my memory on that correct?

 

Peter Patricelli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

The only resemblance to a 5wt is the weight of the first thirty feet of the line, then the head is close to seventy feet long, the whole thing weighs about the same as a ten wt head. Obviously the rods are specially designed for the line. Five wt only in name!

JC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But this is one of the things that makes fly fishing fun: you can get as "into" the various parts of it as much as you wish, or not. For some of us, fly casting is a fun and interesting thing in and of itself (much in the way skeet shooting is of interest to some bird hunters, but not all, and some skeet shooters aren't hunters at all). Fly tying is the same, of course. I mean, do we really need 10,000 fly patterns for hatchery rainbows? Of course not, but for a lot of fly tyers, that's not the point.

 

So, you all who say none of this casting stuff matters to the fishing are right...but are also missing the point!

 

:)

 

Fly casting is a fun thing in itself. But this thread isn't about the fun of fly casting.

 

Another thing that makes fly fishing fun, or certainly makes it beautiful, is when things simply work well in the hands of someone who is practiced and at home with what he's doing; or simply by rare chance. Stripping down to the bare science of casting is to neither understand or divulge anything of its poetry, beauty, or why we do it, in my opinion.

 

Respectfully, if someone is an anomaly in fishing because he deviates from common rules, then I would just as well call him a fisherman.

 

Jonny

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonny,

 

respectfully,

No one, certainly not me, would argue with anyone who just wants to viscerally enjoy the beauty, and magic of fly casting and not have it dimished by dissection into scientific components. Whatever winds your clock. I can't believe that anyone viscerally enjoys casting, and watching good casting, more than I do. You probably feel the same way. I equate it to other arts, like music and poetry. It sings to some or speaks to some and certainly not everyone equally, or at all. But to suggest that the study of music, composition, the physics of sound, or the study of poetry and breaking down why a line works and the images it stimulates has had an overall diminishing effect on the quantity, quality, range, and richness of the music or poetry out there would put one in a distinct minority.

 

There is a point in medical training where, after months of dissecting and dismantling a rapidly "aging" cadaver that one wonders if one will ever be able to look at, say the female form and respond to it...ah...viscerally...again. I can report that for 100% of those that have been through that, the recovery rate is ......100%.

 

And, respectfullly, no one ever suggested that The Fisherman was anything BUT a fisherman. I said several threads back that this all had nothing at all to do with fishing. But his casting style IS an anomalie. That is a statistical statement, not a value statement. I knew what Steve was saying and intending, and some of it was playfully pulling my chain... from the start...and Steve correctly interpreted my tongue in cheek response...from the start. And apparently that mutual understanding was not universally apparent...from the start.

 

The universal antidote for any negative vibes from reading what is being discussed here...is to...go.... fishing.

 

Peace,

PMP

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one, certainly not me, would argue with anyone who just wants to viscerally enjoy the beauty, and magic of fly casting and not have it dimished by dissection into scientific components.

 

to suggest that the study of music, composition, the physics of sound, or the study of poetry and breaking down why a line works and the images it stimulates has had an overall diminishing effect on the quantity, quality, range, and richness of the music or poetry out there would put one in a distinct minority.

 

Respectfully, I don't want to worry you, but I have a question: have you seen the film The Man With Two Brains?

 

There are no negative vibes, of course; I simply neither possess nor covet the expertise with which to determine who, amongst perfect strangers, is and is not a minority, an anomaly, or belonging to this or that statistical sample within the glory that is the natural universe, and all from the excruciatingly banal context of the inner workings of your fishing pole.

 

Think about it.

 

Jonny

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hate 5 wts for casting distance - they feel too much like toys after all the SW fishing I do. That said, those distances you are thinking of are done with specialized fly lines with very long heads and thin running line sections. All my casting is done with standard off the shelf floating lines with 35-45 ft heads. When I used to do a lot of this it was an issue because I'd have to carefully lay out my backing on the ground next to me or else it would tangle during a cast.

 

How is your casting going these days James? Get to that 100 ft mark you were shooting for a few years ago?

 

Hey F1, my casting practice is very much like my actual casting ability - hit or miss. I can hit 100' with my 9wt but my 5wt is inconsistent. My 5wt is where I do most of my casting practice and has helped my saltwater casting tremendously.

 

The 120 ft casts I've mentioned were done with standard WF floating lines like the Scientific Angler MED or Barrio GT140. Both are available off any tackle store shelf and meet AFFTA and AFMTA standards, unlike some other lines i.e. Rio Outbounds

 

James3shin,

 

"hitting 120ft and further with a 5wt is rare territory."

 

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but in the US distance casting competitions everyone has been using a 5 wt rod...a specialized 5 wt (raising the question of what defines a 5 wt, but the company CALLS it a 5 wt)......heavily overloaded with a very long head....then shooting to distances of 180 feet and beyond. Is my memory on that correct?

 

Peter Patricelli

 

Hi Peter,

 

The Best of the West (California, USA) and most of the European distance competitions used Sage TCR, Sage TCX or Loomis Native Run GLX rods. All of these are standard 5wt rods that can be purchased from any tackle shop. The lines they used are again Scientific Angler Mastery Expert Distance or Barrio GT140, nothing special. Distances of 120+' with a standard 5wt and line is possible but very difficult. No one has hit 180 ft with a standard WF floating line and rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If F = M x A, why can't I use a little more M and a little less A to get the F I need? Rhetorical, I know, because that's what I do, and I don't think any of the stripers I've caught over the years would argue that my casts have been ineffective...

 

You cannot add more mass to get get more force and more distance because you are applying the force to the mass, not the other way around. You cannot get more distance by adding mass because the cast distance is dependent only on the velocity of the fly line and the length of time that the fly line remains in the air. The velocity is determined by the amount of acceleration and the length of time that the line/rod is accelerated. The amoutnt of acceleration (in turn) is dependent solely on the amount of force that you apply to the rod/line qwith your arm. Unless you increase the amount fo force that you apply to the rod, adding mass will only reduce the acceleration of the rod/line, and thus, reduce the final line velocity and the cast distance.

 

An analogy might be throwing a baseball. If you can throw a standard 4 oz baseball 200 feet, do you think that you can throw an 8oz (weighted) baseball farther? I doubt it. My guess is that most people would see a distance reduction of 50-100 feet. People confuse the fact that a heavier line will see less speed reduction when using large flies with the fallacy that the heavier line will cast faster (and farther). They neglect the substatntial speed reduction that comes with the added line weight. It is a violations of physics to see an increase of speed by adding weight. otherwise we would all drive 20,000lbs cars.

 

Part of this is the mythology that momentum determines casting distance. When people assume that a heavier line casts farther it is because they always assume the same velocity for both heavier and the lighter . It is physically impossible for the velocity of the heavier mass to be equal unless you applied a proportionally larger force to the heavier mass.

 

Velocity = (Acceleration x time)

V = a x t

 

but, Force = Mass x acceleration

 

F = m x a

 

Rearranged this gives

 

a= F/m

 

When inserted into the previoyus equation this gives,

 

V = a x t = (F/m) x t = Ft/m = (Force x time) /mass

 

Therefore, if you increase the mass, you cannot maintain the same speed unless you increase the force applied plied (by you) or the length of time over which the force is applied. Somehow, this mythology continues to persist.. Momentum is use to describe elastic collisions not force application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey F1, my casting practice is very much like my actual casting ability - hit or miss. I can hit 100' with my 9wt but my 5wt is inconsistent. My 5wt is where I do most of my casting practice and has helped my saltwater casting tremendously.

 

The 120 ft casts I've mentioned were done with standard WF floating lines like the Scientific Angler MED or Barrio GT140. Both are available off any tackle store shelf and meet AFFTA and AFMTA standards, unlike some other lines i.e. Rio Outbounds

 

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

The Best of the West (California, USA) and most of the European distance competitions used Sage TCR, Sage TCX or Loomis Native Run GLX rods. All of these are standard 5wt rods that can be purchased from any tackle shop. The lines they used are again Scientific Angler Mastery Expert Distance or Barrio GT140, nothing special. Distances of 120+' with a standard 5wt and line is possible but very difficult. No one has hit 180 ft with a standard WF floating line and rod.

 

 

Though these setups are available in the store, they are not anywhere close to standard lines and nowhere close to typical fishing setups. Sure Steve Rajeff and one or two others have hit distances over 120 feet, but it is not a regular occurrence even in these competitions. Typical max distances run from 105-115 feet for the winners, with most competitiors placing in the 90-105 foot range. If you gave these guys typical 30-35 foot 5wt lines the distances would drop off signiificantly. If you stuck them two feet deep in a river the distance would be even less. I won't even discuss the countless false casts, 180 degree arcs, and massive drifts that you never see on the water wth 5 wts. When was the last time that you or someone that you know actually fished a 5wt with a Scientific Angler MED or Barrio GT140? You missed Peter's point entirely. When you reach a certain distance limit, limitations of the rod, line, and physics force you to use a heavily modified technique that is far different from the most efficient technique for much shorter typical casting distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Though these setups are available in the store, they are not anywhere close to standard lines and nowhere close to typical fishing setups. Sure Steve Rajeff and one or two others have hit distances over 120 feet, but it is not a regular occurrence even in these competitions. Typical max distances run from 105-115 feet for the winners, with most competitiors placing in the 90-105 foot range. If you gave these guys typical 30-35 foot 5wt lines the distances would drop off signiificantly. If you stuck them two feet deep in a river the distance would be even less. I won't even discuss the countless false casts, 180 degree arcs, and massive drifts that you never see on the water wth 5 wts. When was the last time that you or someone that you know actually fished a 5wt with a Scientific Angler MED or Barrio GT140? You missed Peter's point entirely. When you reach a certain distance limit, limitations of the rod, line, and physics force you to use a heavily modified technique that is far different from the most efficient technique for much shorter typical casting distances.

 

As always crashq thanks for the being the voice of reason here. These lines, although available, are not typically seen in fly shops. I know, I buy many fly lines every year and I know I don't see these lines in the store. Maybe over the internet but I have not seen any in the local stores. And I would not call them "standard" fly lines as James3hin calls them. They are far from standard fly lines just as my 800 hp sports car is far from a standard sports car let alone a normal car. They are specialized tools created with competition casting in mind and made available to the public just as homologation special cars are made available to the general public for competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crashq,

Your basic assumptions are correct, of course. However, there is the very real possibility that Force DOES change with velocity. There is, isometrically, an ideal speed for muscle strength. There is a finite limit of speed which anyone can mimic their fastest casting motion barehanded ,or "cast" a rod with NO LINE AT ALL. Muscle weight, bone weight, rod weight, wind resistance are given and finite. That is the limit on one end of the Force scale and there is very little or no additional force available to accelerate even a very light line. Isometrically, muscles work stronger as you work the speed back from that.....to a peak nearer the isometric static phase. That is why, in my model, I am allowing for a different Force for each line weight, to be calculated. But there are obviously limits on the heavy weight-slow speed end as well. That is why there is an ideal, "average" hammer handle length....and an "average" throwing stick length.....and potentially an averaged Force for each line weight....for a defined rod lever length. That also implies there is, for each person, an ideal shortened rod length...for a single given line weight.

 

Sooooo....don't false cast out too much more line or your Force will drop off.......unless your lever shortens........which it does. Oooo, Ooooo...that is how a rod works.

 

May the Force be with you.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You cannot add more mass to get get more force and more distance because you are applying the force to the mass, not the other way around. You cannot get more distance by adding mass because the cast distance is dependent only on the velocity of the fly line and the length of time that the fly line remains in the air.

 

OK, but that's not what I said. I asked the question, if F = M x A, can I use more M and less A to achieve F? As in, 20 = 2 x 10, or 4 x 5, or 10 x 2?

 

A better baseball analogy might be that Batter A and Batter B both hit 400 foot home runs. Batter A uses a 32 ounce bat and Batter B uses a 40 ounce bat. Given the same speed pitch, wouldn't Batter A need greater bat speed to hit the ball as far as Batter B?

 

I just went out into my yard with my 5 weight, and its a heckuva lot easier for me to make a 60 foot cast with a 9 weight line on it than a 5 weight line. Can someone explain to me (and I mean this sincerely, with no malice, as I am genuinely interested) in language that a 10 year-old can understand, and without any fancy equations, why this is so? Thanks. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious to hear this as well. I can only suspect that part of what is being neglected is whatever it is that allows the heavier line to overcome its own wind resistance more effectively?

 

In other words, one can obviously throw a baseball farther than a large boulder, but you can also throw the baseball farther than you can throw a wiffle ball. Something makes the baseball optimal. What is it?

 

And is it the same thing that makes an 8 weight line, or something close to it, better on an 8 weight rod than, say, a 000 weight line or a 17 weight line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.