|
Walter & Group...
[GH] From Bruce Richards :
Hi Gordy,
I'm in Billings with Dusty, training starts in a few minutes... I had to respond to this...
Insufficient rod arc is definitely a cause of tailing loops. Assuming that enough power is applied to get the line to where it should go, if the rod arc is insufficient the tip path will dip and a tail WILL result, every time. Same with #2, creep forward (which reduces the casting arc) then apply the normal power to get the fly to the target and a tail WILL result, every time. It is the vary basic rod bend, rod arc relationship that determines tip path. We all need to learn to properly demonstrate this as our students to it all the time. I will say that case #1 is less common than #2 & 3, but we see them all and instructors need to be able to demonstrate. #3 is what Mark is talking about below, correct rod arc, poor power application...
Off to work, will be tied up until Sunday sometime....
Bruce
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH]
Bruce,
Thanks for answering. I knew you would, because I knew your position full well. I recall you and Dusty going 'round with this last year.
My point is that "... enough power is applied to get the line to where it should go.."
can be interpreted as inappropriate application of power FOR THE AVAILABLE DEGREE OF CASTING ARC.
In so far as the caster's behavioral fault is concerned, of course the tort is the creation of insufficient casting arc. No argument there.
Still boils down, as I see it, to the combined issues of too small a casting arc and the use of too much power....not for the cast, but for the degree of arc. That small casting arc when related to the length of line carried forces the caster to either not be able to make the cast, or do so and form a tail.
All depends upon where we wish to place the blame. I see debates of this sort as contributing to some basic understandings.
I do agree that the primary casting fault committed by the caster must be his choice of too small a casting arc. It puts his foot in the trap.... but the trap is sprung by the application of power that he is forced to use.
All this, however, hasn't solved the issue of how we shall define the tailing loop for testing purposes. This begs the question: Should we have one standard for the demonstrations of tailing loops (Task 19) and another for loop formation with other tasks ? Or should one standard definition of tailing loop apply to all tasks. ?
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Jim Valle :
Gordy and Group,
Demonstrating tails:
In my opinion a good instructor is able to demonstrate this task very slowly. Most candidates demonstrate this way too fast and in the students eyes there is a back cast, a quick forward cast and then a tail magically but very briefly appears… If the student blinks he misses the whole thing… It is much more effective to explain the concave path and how the tail forms and then demonstrate the tail very slowly (my personal method … couple very slow false casts, big slow creep and then a tiny surge of power) which will allow the student to see the tail form. It is very obvious and the whole thing kind of sits there for a second like a snapshot.
I would add for Rick the reason you can’t make the concave tip path tail is that you are really making a continuous tension cast or if you like the lower half of a circle cast… now add a spike, surge or any uneven application of power in there somewhere and you will find the mess you are looking for. Try doing some experimenting in a horizontal casting plane making half circles, try it in both directions … concave and convex you will soon get the feel of the tail… now put it all together in a very slow cast … when you can do it slow you understand it.
Hope that Helps,
Jim V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jim.
That is exactly the way I do it when I simply wish to demonstrate an easy to see tail for a class of students.
To me, it appears that creep can do two things. 1. Shorten the casting arc. 2. Lead to the candidate sensing a problem as a result of which he sometimes actually does apply a spike of power.
With your demo, you are doing exactly that.
However, for Task 19. we have the issue of how to demonstrate 3 specific actions which the caster makes leading to the final result of a tailing loop. These are listed in the task description. The candidate must explain and show each in turn in undiluted form.
Where the cheese gets binding, is when the examiners ask for in depth explanations for these methods. That is when a good candidate is able to handle differences of opinion and different ways of viewing these things. The best candidate will be able to put all that in perspective as he goes beyond the dictates of "conventional wisdom".
Lefty, Ed Jaworowski and I have traded messages this very morning which call attention to what I think is an important point :
If the caster fails to drop the rod tip sufficiently to get the "tail line wave" produced by whatever method, a tail will surely manifest. Be it a "bandaid fix" or not, that is the quickest way getting the caster to abort his tails.
Another point to consider, is that when and if the caster pushes the rod forward, he is a lot more likely to get a tail. Looking at that in view of our discussions, I see that this results in failing to dip the tip out of the way of the tailing line wave, diminishing casting arc, and is usually combined with inappropriate application of power.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|