|
Walter & Group...
[GH] From Ally Gowans. Note his attachment :
Hi Gordy,
Some sound work as always by JV.
Attached a chart for those who might prefer a visual interpretation (simplified) of what happens when a haul completes too soon. From that it’s easy to figure out how the chart would change for a haul that is too late and one that is correct.
I should add my considerations assume that all the line outside the rod tip is straight and being accelerated. If the line is not “organised” prior to it being pulled forward smooth acceleration is impossible and the outcome would be adversely influenced dependent on the extent of the disarray.
Hope that this is helpful.
Best regards,
Ally Gowans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Jim Valle :
Gordy and Group,
Perfect example of what I was talking about….load and unload … Nice job Aitor.
As far as the line speed issue I think there is no question the haul adds line speed. In looking at the haul in the second clip the first part of the haul is definitely adding line speed as the line hand moves away from the stripping guide… however it is impossible to move away from the stripping guide once you reach full arm extension, the arm then is the max radius of the circle…. Now if the rod position had changed at the full arm extension to a more forward angle then the haul would continue to accelerate the line. Of course when a haul is added to a casting stroke they are additive, provided they are timed properly.
Thus the second part of the question…. Drifted rod etc… consideration of the rod angle/position vs the amount of rod load/ haul direction.
As an instructor you will now see hauls differently from here on… J
Jim V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jim,
Once you add the casting stroke, you have a different equation with different variables.
Phil Gay speaks to this in his following message : -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Phil Gay,
Gordy,
The real question is how much does the haul load the rod when the rod Is being accelerated by the casting hand. The static rod demo is a bit pointless. Now having said that there is little doubt that the haul adds additional load but more importantly additional line speed. Also no doubt that an ill timed(early) haul will case a tailing loop.
Currently in Ireland where we had some great brown trout fishing with an Irish Master named Andrew Ryan down in the Clonmel area of southern Ireland.
Phil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Phil,
Of course, the videos do isolate the effect of the haul from that of the stroke.
It did make me wonder, however, whether the haul's effect on increasing line speed when combined with a casting stroke did so directly or as a result of increased rod load. I have been teaching that it does so directly.... but this calls it into question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mark Surtees brings up an important point !
Hi Gordy
Some interesting conversations about this in the last couple of weeks, and a lot of field work looking at it.
In FFF terms a tailing loop is where a wave in the fly leg crosses the rod leg twice. However, for some organizations over here, a tailing loop could be simply where the fly leg crosses once and collides so, for those that choose to adopt that interpretation of the term, insufficient arc will cause a tail.
If we make a cast which has a reduced arc on its own, assuming a smooth application of force, then it will not generate a tailing loop. It simply means that the line will have insufficient energy to fully propagate forwards and the fly leg will cross the rod leg once. This, for me, is not a tail. However, any introduction of a second factor into the equation line increases the possibility of a tail or what looks like a tail. This is to cause a collision between the crossing line and the rod leg by the fly leg swinging away from the plane of the cast…with a fly on the end this is just as much of a pooped cast as one with a classic tail.
For a tail where we define it as the fly leg crossing the rod leg twice, a tail will occur if there is an inappropriate application of force causing the tip to dip and a wave to form, there is no arguing with the fact that reducing the arc makes this highly likely but, sadly, strictly on its own, arc won’t do it. It is an arc/force combo that makes it happen and, just like the single crossing loop, the fly leg and the rod leg must be out of plane to cause a collision to occur.
Practically speaking they are both botched casts so it doesn’t matter really and I doubt that it would be preying on my mind too much whilst I was unpicking the resultant knot…..you can make a belter of a knot both ways…If I ever test I would like to be judged on what a complete ba….ard of a knot I made during the task… J
Mark Surtees
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mark,
I agree !
This brings up some issues which might deserve consideration by both CCI and MCI Testing Committees. Especially important as we advance our International efforts. :
Should we have two or more standards as we judge tailing loops ?
I. A tail which will flunk a cast other than those made specifically for tailing loop demonstrations :
1. A line wave "almost tail" or "tendency to tail" ?
2. A "tail" made with the fly leg crossing over once ?
3. A tail made with the fly leg crossing over twice ?
4. A tail with a distinct collision / tangle / knot ?
II.. Tails made in compliance with Task 19 :
A. Tail made with pure misapplication of force.
1., 2., 3. & 4. (as in I.) ?
B. Tail made with too narrow a casting arc for the line carried as a result of creep.
1., 2., 3. & 4. ?
C. Tail made with pure narrowing of the casting arc .
1., 2., 3., & 4. ?
a. Appropriate application of force yielding smooth acceleration. (One time crossover ) ?
b. Shortened arc leading the caster to use increases force to keep the line aloft . (Twice crossover.) ?
Will it get to the point that we will need a "photo finish" to make the decisions ?
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] On "POWER", "FORCE" and "ACCELERATION" by Bill Kiester :
Gordy,
Maybe we are throwing Power away too soon. In the olden days when we told a student to use more or less power we were trying to get them to speedup or slow down their stroke or change the stroke length or both. Generally we were not telling them to change the length of line being cast. So let's see if it is OK to use Power.
Force = Acceleration X Mass
The mass does not change unless we tell the student to change the amount of line being cast. So the only variable is Acceleration which is then equal to or interchangeable with Force.
Work = Force X Distance
So at this point because we have fixed mass the only variables in Work are Acceleration and Distance
Power = Work / Time
At this point we have one new variable which is Time. However, in our particular set of circumstance Time is not an independent variable. Time is fixed by the Distance over which we Accelerate the rod tip. That (non algebraically) leaves us with:
Power = Acceleration (or Force) X Distance
So if we say to someone we want more power we probably mean we want greater Acceleration but we could mean more Distance for their casting stroke. So some additional qualification might be necessary. But I think power is acceptable.
Bill Keister
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Bill,
"So the only variable is Acceleration which is then equal to or interchangeable with Force."
While the amount of force used can influence acceleration, I don't see how you can use these terms interchangeably (???)
It does make sense to me that when we think of adding "power" we'd be more accurate to use the term, "acceleration". I believe Ally pointed that out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Attachment:
haul.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document