Haul timing / Turnover delay

When I first read Al's string of comments on hauling, I had the same reaction. I had to look closely at his definition of Recovery before this made sense to me.

If the rod tip moving fastest at some point prior to RSP, and begins to slow down just before RSP, then I wonder if that portion of the haul after RSP is wasted? Or is there a benefit to continuing the haul into Rebound?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I study the Casting analzer results of Noel Perkins and Bruce Richards, I note that the rod tip is actually moving fastest just prior to RSP. During this time, the acceleration is decreasing, but there is still some acceleration. Velocity increases as long as some degree of acceleration is present, as I understand it.

I, recently, made the error of stating that the loop probably started to form just prior to RSP using the logic that the speed of the rod tip was decreasing at that interval. We did high speed video analysis of loop formation relative to RSP, and found that the loop did appear to form so close to RSP that we couldn't seperate it. Problem was that I'd been incorrect in assuming that the speed of the rod tip would decrease as acceleration diminished in the fraction of a second prior to RSP.

Whether that portion of the haul after RSP is wasted or truly effective is still open to discovery. Some distance experts feel that it helps ..... but that has not yet been quantified. Noel and Bruce are developing a haul analyzer, which will probably give us some answers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why does increased overhang delay turnover? What is the physics behind it? (I am thinking of overhang as a length of level running line as you have defined it.)

I can understand ( I think) why a long rear taper would delay turnover. And that is that just as the front taper with decreasing mass, increases turnover velocity, then increasing mass would slow turnover velocity and allow the shoot to last longer. (based on the kinetic energy formula)

I don't understand why longer running line, as a single factor, would delay turnover, except that more line has to go out for the front taper to turnover, but I think this would be miniscule because we only talking about a few more feet at most.

To start with your second paragraph: With a long rear taper, we have decreasing mass, not increasing as the rear taper shoots out of the tip. If we tried to false cast with a great length of this taper out of the rod tip, we'd have thin line trying to turn over and control the thicker line ahead of it. A little (but not much) improvement over the use of thin running line with no taper behind the head. Enough, however, to help smooth out the cast .... which is the main function of the rear taper in the first place. Distance suffers as a trade-off because the continuous rear taper isn't dragged out of the rod as easily as a very thin running line. That long rear taper, then does delay turnover of the head .... but not nearly as well as thin, light running line.

Same principles apply, however, in that the very thin running line ( as well as the rear taper ) must be, "pulled" through the rod guides and tip top by the already energized head. The thinner that line behind the head (whatever its mass profile) and the less mass, the easier it is for it to be pulled out of the rod simply because it has less inertia and less friction between it and the rod guides/tip top.

If we take a shooting taper and cut the thin running line behind it just behind the casters line hand, the caster can fling that head out to kingdom come. Incredible distance is achieved because that loop once formed has no resistance to its rod (lower) leg, therefore it never fully unrolls and keeps traveling forward until atmospheric resistance and gravity take over. Theoretically, if we made that cast with that arrangement in outer space, that loop would travel indefinately. Tom White and I played with that a couple of years ago.... Tom was able to fling an unattached head out to 300' !

As I understand it, casting with increased overhang can be seen as casting while carrying more line out of the rod tip. The caster can shoot line in proportion to the line he can carry well. Now, if he carries and then shoots a greater length of line, it will take significantly longer for the head and finally the forward taper and leader to unroll. As more thin running line leaves the rod tip on the shoot, there is little resistance between that rod tip and the loop, ergo slower turnover of the loop itself. The real world problem is that few casters can control the cast with lots of overhang.

I look at a shooting head/thin running line assembly as nothing more than an extreme fly line design with a radical mass profile. Same casting physics apply, but are magnified.

Steve Rajeff has described the function of casting with increased overhang very well and it quoted in Jason Borger's: THE NATURE OF FLY CASTING, pp 240 - 241.