Question:
Oops! I am sure glad that I am not required to understand the physics of fly casting in order to do it because if I was I would be in serious trouble. I try to keep it simple. I fish, therefore I am. JK
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bloody hell John, I hope you mean grains ! I would not like to try casting a fly-line weighing over a pound ! (Especially not from Airflo !! 
500 grams would be 7716 grains !!!! 350 grains = 22.5 grams or 0.8 oz. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de I have had very good experiences fishing the their fast sinking line. The design is similar to the Teeny in that it has a running (intermediate) line attached to a shooting head. The version I have is about 500 grms. My experience is that this weight business differs wildly between fly lines. The Cortland line I have which I think is a 350 feels like 650.
Response:
I have had very good experiences fishing the their fast sinking line. The design is similar to the Teeny in that it has a running (intermediate) line attached to a shooting head. The version I have is about 500 grms. My experience is that this weight business differs wildly between fly lines. The Cortland line I have which I think is a 350 feels like 650.
That’s interesting. My Teeny 300 feels heavier than my Scientific Anglers Wet Cel 11 wt shooting head (nominally 330 grains – I haven’t weighed it because my scale is in storage in Michigan) on my 9 weight rod. I’m not sure what it is. IIRC Teeny’s prototypes were originally made by Sci Ang and might still be. (In fact, two years ago at a fly fishing show I asked a 3M rep all kinds of questions regarding splicing custom density compensated shooting heads and he sent me and assortment of 5 sinking fly lines that he had used for his research. Three of them were 3M lines and two were Teenys). Obviously the linear density of the Teeny line is greater since it’s 300 grains and 24 ft whereas the 11 wt Wet Cel is 330 grains over 30 feet. The 11 wt is rated as a Type IV and not sure what the Teeny is. The 11 wt is tapered and the Teeny is not. Airflo claims that their Depth Charge lines have the smallest diameter/grain weight ratio. That might have something to do with your experiences. Mu, still searching for clues
Response:
Throw him in the river and he will come up with
a fish in his mouth. Arabian proverb.< When I was a kid, growing up in Youngstown OH, we used to say (about someone we considered lucky), "If he fell in the Mahoning River, he’d come out with a fish in his pocket." The M. was dead as a doornail from steel mill pollution in those days.
Response:
I have had very good experiences fishing the their fast sinking line. The design is similar to the Teeny in that it has a running (intermediate) line attached to a shooting head. The version I have is about 500 grms. My experience is that this weight business differs wildly between fly lines. The Cortland line I have which I think is a 350 feels like 650. My main concerns in these kinds of line are: 1. The most importand consideration is tangles. I fish for striped bass off Cape Cod where the air temperature can vary from 95 degrees in summer to forty degrees in the fall. I have found the Airflo to have the least tendency to tangle. Since one of the main concerns in fishing fast sinking, shooting head lines is distance, this is a major concern. I commonly have 70 feet of line to contend with when retrieving. If the line tends to tangle you can find the day very frustrating and you can lose some nice fish if a tangle jams in your guides. 2. Finding the correct weight. As noted above, I do not know how much the issue is actual weight and how much it is the way that weight is distributed but there is quite a range in the way these shooting head type lines feel to cast. I noticed on their web site that they are now guarranteeing their lines not to crack for five years. JK
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Ref other postings: Early airflo lines were terrible, not even much use as parcel string, came undone too easily. The modern ones are much better, quite usable in fact. Not as good as the best Cortland or Sci Anglers of course, but available here (uk) at competetive package prices. You gents in the US would balk at the prices we pay! Chris — Throw him in the river and he will come up with a fish in his mouth. Arabian proverb. Where’s this river then? I hope its the Bow, Thompson or Vedder, which I aim to fish this summer.
Response:
Bloody hell John, I hope you mean grains ! I would not like to try casting a fly-line weighing over a pound ! (Especially not from Airflo !! 500 grams would be 7716 grains !!!! 350 grains = 22.5 grams or 0.8 oz. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have had very good experiences fishing the their fast sinking line. The design is similar to the Teeny in that it has a running (intermediate) line attached to a shooting head. The version I have is about 500 grms. My experience is that this weight business differs wildly between fly lines. The Cortland line I have which I think is a 350 feels like 650.
Response:
Hi Ref other postings: Early airflo lines were terrible, not even much use as parcel string, came undone too easily. The modern ones are much better, quite usable in fact. Not as good as the best Cortland or Sci Anglers of course, but available here (uk) at competetive package prices. You gents in the US would balk at the prices we pay! Chris — Throw him in the river and he will come up with a fish in his mouth. Arabian proverb. Where’s this river then? I hope its the Bow, Thompson or Vedder, which I aim to fish this summer.
Response:
Hi Ref other postings: Early airflo lines were terrible, not even much use as parcel string, came undone too easily. The modern ones are much better, quite usable in fact. Not as good as the best Cortland or Sci Anglers of course, but available here (uk) at competetive package prices. You gents in the US would balk at the prices we pay! Chris — Throw him in the river and he will come up with a fish in his mouth. Arabian proverb. Where’s this river then? I hope its the Bow, Thompson or Vedder, which I aim to fish this summer.
I bought an Airflo line last year at a sporting goods store that was getting out of the fishing business. This particular shop specializes in hunting/shooting and apparently wasn’t very successful selling to anglers. The line had been reduced in price three times to a final selling price of only $20. For that price, I figured I couldn’t go wrong–so I bought it. It’s a DT5F in a light brown color and so far it seems to work as advertised… I’m probably not a good enough caster to be critiquing fly lines, but I don’t have any complaints about the Airflo line I’ve got. Tom G always looking for a good deal
Response:
Question:
Putting all that together, I gather that I haven’t broken a rod while casting because I use a roll cast or retrieve enough of a wet line to avoid that overload on the lift, and I’m never over bending the rod while casting. The fatal errors come in the heat of battle. The more I think about it, I see what you mean about casting being the heaviest force on the rod. Thanks for your help, Chas
Response:
The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod.
If it’s done right the rod is already fully loaded and you are just accelerating the line and, more importantly, the tip of the line. — Charlie…
Response:
The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. If it’s done right the rod is already fully loaded and you are just accelerating the line and, more importantly, the tip of the line. — Charlie…
Charlie, Your analysis of hauling to increase line speed and thus increasing casting distance is correct. If it was a matter of loading the rod as rw says the caster would only have to apply more power to accomplish this. Ernie
Response:
rw, If the haul is done correctly the rod is fully loaded and any additional speed must be imparted to the line by foreword movement of your arm and by pulling "hauling" the line through the guides. Ernie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod.
Response:
Charlie, Your analysis of hauling to increase line speed and thus increasing casting distance is correct. If it was a matter of loading the rod as rw says the caster would only have to apply more power to accomplish this. Ernie
I’m not saying that the *point* of hauling is to load the rod. I’m saying only that one *effect* of hauling is additional loading of the rod. It has to have that effect — there’s no way around it. Hauling accelerates the line, which generates a force on the rod tip. (F=ma) Consider three cases: 1. After loading the rod on the forward cast (with no hauling), you accidently lose your grip on the line with your noncasting hand. The acceleration of the line vanishes, the force on the rod tip vanishes, the rod straightens without appreciably affecting the line, and the line falls on the water in a bloody mess. 2. You make a normal forward cast without hauling, just holding the line tight. A force is applied to the line by the rod tip, causing acceleration of the line. An equal and opposite force is applied to the rod top, causing loading of the rod. 3. You make a forward cast while hauling. The action of the noncasting hand, pulling on the line, causes an *additional* acceleration of the line. This additional acceleration causes an *additional* force on the rod tip, resulting in additional loading of the rod. If you ignore things like friction, you could replace the effect (on the rod) of hauling by a transient additional stress in the line, and the rod would have no way of "knowing" the difference. It would simply load more. (The line would behave very differently, though.) These three cases are really just points in a continuum. Whether you consider this additional rod loading to be significant is your business, but it’s nonetheless real. This is just elementary physics. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
Whether you consider this additional rod loading to be significant is your business, but it’s nonetheless real. This is just elementary physics.
It also ignores the fact that the line is not attached to the tip of the rod and that the rod is very nearly, if not fully, loaded. There may be some additional loading, but what makes the haul work is the additional acceleration applied directly to the line. This is just elementary geometry<g. — Charlie…
Response:
http://www.mikeconnor.de You didn’t comment on my second reason. Does this make sense to you? A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force. We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul. Thanks Chas
This is also correct. The amount of linespeed any particular rod may generate in a flyline by direct action is limited by various things, one of which is the strength and speed of the caster. ( assuming once again perfect technique). If you haul, you do not increase the loading, as you do not use direct rod action, but your line hand, and you do not require any more strength and speed to obtain similar results to someone who does not haul. However, a powerful person with good technique will always cast better ( assuming distance casting here of course), than a weaker person, simply because he has more power per se. TL MC
Response:
– "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up. I’ve been mean to a few rods at times, putting a #10 line in a #8 rod and casting Pike flies for instance, but I’ve never managed to break one casting. Is this because most of my fishing has been with Graphite or Glass? I have to dig back into some old Physics books to get the details, but I remember stress and strain curves for various materials showing a linear relationship until a limit was released, and then additional stress produced excessive strain until the material failed. Certainly with an old shoe or a fish on the line and a stout leader it’s easy enough to pass the elastic limit, but does that happen in casting as well? Thanks Chas
If you ask most people at what point a rod is stressed the most, then many of them will tell you that it is in playing a fish. This is not the case. The basic maximum stress condition for a rod, when used correctly, is when casting. Most modern rods can stand a great deal more stress in this respect than is generally realised. What they can not stand is shock loading under stress. If you jerk a rod when it is already loaded with a "dead weight", either played out fish, old shoe etc etc then it is highly likely to break. Solid glass fibre rods were probably the most robust rods to date. Carbon fibre suffers from one or two disadvantages here. Even a slight nick in the surface of a blank can cause sudden massive failure, sometimes the blank will simply shatter without warning. More rods are broken by various extraneous factors than by casting. The failure might indeed occur when casting, but is usually the result of some other fault. Car doors, falling down on the rod, excessive heat, leaning a rod on a stone and nicking it, ramming the tip into a tree, etc etc. Constantly overloading a rod by casting full lines etc, which are way over the rated weight will usually cause a blank failure as well of course. Most rods broken while actually fishing, do so for a number of reasons, the main one directly fishing related, is getting snagged, putting a good bend in the rod, and then jerking it. This will quite easily snap a carbon fibre blank, or shatter it . The sudden extreme shock loading under stress is more than the rod can handle. The second most common reason is trying to lift a long line, especially a sunken one, without first roll-casting the line to the surface. Attempting to do this will break most rods. The sudden massive loading is once again more than they can stand. The third most common reason is attempting to land a fish by holding the rod almost vertically, and allowing it to bend over ninety degrees from the vertical. The fish plunges, and the rod simply snaps at the tip. No major exertions are required here by the way, doing the same thing while threading a line through the rings will also snap a rod tip quite easily. What often happens here, is that the rod is bent, and then the blank "rolls" suddenly changing the stress patterns in the blank walls, and causing it to break. Occasionally rods are broken when fighting very large fish, but this is again an error on the part of the angler. It should normally be impossible for a fish to break a rod, given sufficient angling skill, and correct tackle.. Holding a rod in the fingers and bending it, is also very dangerous. Especially with fine tips. Assuming a rod in good condition, no nicks etc. And also assuming correctly matched line, and reasonable casting, and correct use, then the likelihood of breaking a rod is actually very low indeed. TL MC
Response:
"Mike Connor" wrote This is not a matter of taking sides I hope. Otherwise I will simply retire from the discussion. This is a technical discussion and nothing more.
Of course, my sloppy wording betrayed me. Apart from that, you are perfectly correct. Although the rod loading generated by hauling is inconsequential, irrespective of the current loading state of the rod. When the rod is already optimally loaded, and as you say at its stiffest, the added loading generated by hauling is so small as to be insignificant. This is just as well, as if hauling did in fact appreciably increase rod loading, then an already optimally loaded rod would simply fold up under the added strain.
You didn’t comment on my second reason. Does this make sense to you? A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force. We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul.
Thanks Chas
Response:
If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up.
I’ve been mean to a few rods at times, putting a #10 line in a #8 rod and casting Pike flies for instance, but I’ve never managed to break one casting. Is this because most of my fishing has been with Graphite or Glass? I have to dig back into some old Physics books to get the details, but I remember stress and strain curves for various materials showing a linear relationship until a limit was released, and then additional stress produced excessive strain until the material failed. Certainly with an old shoe or a fish on the line and a stout leader it’s easy enough to pass the elastic limit, but does that happen in casting as well? Thanks Chas
Response:
When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip.
Your finger is playing the role of the rod tip in that case. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.fishing.fly Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 6:33 AM This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading. The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. The point is, that when you haul, the line moves, and the rod does not, or only slightly. Thread your rod up with a line. Lay the line out and point the rod straight down the line. Grasp the line at the butt, and pull sharply. The rod has not been loaded in any way, but the line will spring towards you. The direct pull moves the mass directly. Do the same thing holding the rod at an angle to the line, The same thing occurs, with a relatively small proportion of the applied force bending the rod tip slightly, if at all. Progressively increase the angle until the rod is at right angles to the line. At this point the maximum possible rod loading, under these circumstances, will occur when you pull on the line, nevertheless, the majority of the energy involved still goes towards moving the line, the tip will barely move. It is quite immaterial how hard, how long, or how fast you pull. The energy is transferred directly to the line. The rod is barely affected. The angle of the rod changes the vector, and the rod loads a little, due to friction mainly, but the majority of the energy involved goes into moving the line. If it were so that hauling dramatically increased rod loading, then hauling on an already optimally loaded rod would cause it to fold up. This is not the case. The result of hauling is dramatically increased linespeed, because of the direct application of force to the line. You dont have to believe me, just try it. This is also incidentally why striking a fish with a pull on the line is better than doing it with the rod. The force applied is transferred more or less directly, with very little loss, to the hook point. The rod does not move much, and is not loaded appreciably. Only the line moves. If you strike with the rod, you must first load it, before you can apply any force at all, and because of the mechanical disadvantage involved, the force you transfer will be minimal, and indirect. The principles are the same in both cases. In one case you are transferring energy to accelerate a mass using the short end of a flexible lever, and in the other case you are doing it by giving a direct pull. The lever is in the second case quite immaterial, and may be ignored. TL MC Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case. When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de
Response:
This is not a matter of taking sides I hope. Otherwise I will simply retire from the discussion. This is a technical discussion and nothing more. Apart from that, you are perfectly correct. Although the rod loading generated by hauling is inconsequential, irrespective of the current loading state of the rod. When the rod is already optimally loaded, and as you say at its stiffest, the added loading generated by hauling is so small as to be insignificant. This is just as well, as if hauling did in fact appreciably increase rod loading, then an already optimally loaded rod would simply fold up under the added strain. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – RW, I have to side with Mike here, for a couple reasons. If the haul is done right, it happens when the rod is fully loaded. At that point it’s at it’s stiffest, and the flex isn’t increased much by the added force. The reaction force is actually the force you apply with your line hand when you haul the line in. A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force. We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul. Also, there is direct pull on the line, the guides are like pulleys. If you consider an 18 inch haul, and watch the effect on the rod tip, I bet it’s drawn back less than 4 inches. The other 14 inches were directly applied to the line. Chas
Response:
This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading. The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored.
I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force generated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip.
Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull.
Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case. When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip.
I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
Additional rod loading when hauling is minimal. Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity
I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading. The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. If you lay a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case. When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Additional rod loading when hauling is minimal. Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity I have to doubt that additional rod loading is minimal, Mike. The only way the caster can increase the speed of the line is by accelerating it. The only way he can accelerate it is by exerting a force on the line at the rod tip. (F=ma). An equal and opposite force is exerted on the rod at the tip, which results in loading the rod. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
One other point. Inertia is the direct measurement of a mass. The only way to change inertia is to change the mass. One may not "break" inertia. One may overcome it, ( move the mass) by applying force. Newtons laws explain this relatively simply. The first law states that: " A body will remain at rest, or continue to move steadily in a straight line without acceleration unless it is acted on by an unopposed force. The second law states: "The acceleration of a body depends directly on the force acting on it but inversely upon its mass" The third law states: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Force is a measure of the rate at which momentum is changed. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Additional rod loading when hauling is minimal. Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically.
Response:
I sure hope you’re not breaking your wrist with this arm cast, which would be very bad form, you know. JR – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm
Response:
So, In your estimation, does your wrist have a fast action or slow action and how does it affect your distance?
Well, it’s not a limp wrist I’ll tell you that much And while it *is* acting as the rod tip, it’s not loading in the same sense as a fly rod is it? Isn’t most of the line action due to acceleration because I’m pulling on it (and not wrist flip caused by the pulling)? –Steve
Response:
RW, I have to side with Mike here, for a couple reasons. If the haul is done right, it happens when the rod is fully loaded. At that point it’s at it’s stiffest, and the flex isn’t increased much by the added force. The reaction force is actually the force you apply with your line hand when you haul the line in. A second reason that the loading is not the key is that you could achieve the same additional loading if you just applied a bit more casting force. We know that a man of modest strength and a good haul can outcast a muscle man who doesn’t haul. Also, there is direct pull on the line, the guides are like pulleys. If you consider an 18 inch haul, and watch the effect on the rod tip, I bet it’s drawn back less than 4 inches. The other 14 inches were directly applied to the line. Chas
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This would be correct if the line was fixed at the rod tip. When hauling it is not. It moves more or less freely through the guides. The force applied is applied directly to the line, independent of the rod loading. The "equal and opposite reaction" in this case, is immediate line acceleration due to a direct pull, and is independent of the rod. Some of this force( a relatively small amount actually ) does indeed go towards the total rod loading, but compared to the force which is transferred to the line, this may be more or less ignored. I’m afraid you’re missing the point, Mike. It’s really irrelevant whether the line is fixed or free to move through the guides. There is a force exerted on the line, by the rod tip, that accelerates the line. There is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the rod tip. That force has the effect of bending the rod. The greater the force, the more the line is accelerated, and the more the rod is bent (i.e., loaded). None of this force can be "ignored". The force gener ated by "hauling" is not "applied directly" to the line. It’s applied though the loaded, and increasingly loaded, rod. The acceleration is induced by a direct pull on the line, and is only possible because the line is indeed able to move independent of the rod tip. Again, there’s no "direct" pull on the line. ALL the force affecting the airborne line is generated at the rod tip. If you lay a piece of string along a table top, and pull one end, depending on the force and speed with which you pull, you can accelerate the string quite easily, giving it very considerable momentum. The string accelerates immediately, simply as a result of the pull. No rods etc are involved. The only force involved is the direct pull. Sure, but that’s not what’s happening when the line is strung though a rod. You (the caster) can exert a force on the line in your left (hauling) hand, but the only force that can be exerted on the airborne line *outside* the rod is exerted at the rod tip. Before hauling was discovered, the line momentum was indeed totally dependent on the acceleration of the rod tip. With hauling, this is no longer the case. When hauling, the extra line velocity is independent of the rod tip. I’m not saying *anything* about the acceleration of the rod tip. I’m only saying that the force on the line (outside the rod) is generated ONLY at the rod tip. Where else? — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
So, In your estimation, does your wrist have a fast action or slow action and how does it affect your distance? Paul
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm –Steve
Response:
Additional rod loading when hauling is minimal. Most of the force used is transmitted directly to the line, increasing its speed immediately and drastically. Momentum = Mass * Velocity A very short haul of a couple of inches is sufficient to increase line speed drastically, and thus increase its momentum, allowing the mass to be thrown a greater distance. The harder(force), longer ( distance) and faster( time) the haul, the greater the resulting line momentum, independent of the rod. The same effect may be observed without using a rod at all. Shortening line decreases the mass, and therefore reduces momentum. As far as hauling is concerned this is more or less negligible. Shortening the line by even a couple of feet, does not reduce its mass by much. If you overload the rod, the haul will still be effective, but due to the rod already being overloaded, additional strain, even slight, due to shock loading might damage it. Otherwise the length of line ( total mass ) is irrelevant when hauling. The effect is the same with or without a rod, and with any length of line. TL MC — "Where fishing is concerned, most anglers are basically manic excessives" http://www.mikeconnor.de – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – From what I’ve always been told, the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft. An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line, and therefore an increase in velocity: Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod? Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line? I suppose the way to test it out would be to overline a rod and cast a sufficient length of line to overload the rod. Would hauling be effective? According to the simple haul/loading spring idea, the haul would (perhaps) be ineffective, though the shortening of the line (derived from the haul) would still prevail?
Response:
When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out.
I agree with what you’re saying, but I can "cast" nearly thirty feet by using only my right arm as the rod (with fingers in O shape to act as the tiptop) and a lefthand haul. So there’s more to it than just the rod tip. In fact, in a blindfold test I can’t tell the difference between a Cabelas rod and my own arm –Steve
Response:
From what I’ve always been told, the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft. An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line, and therefore an increase in velocity: Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod? Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line? I suppose the way to test it out would be to overline a rod and cast a sufficient length of line to overload the rod. Would hauling be effective? According to the simple haul/loading spring idea, the haul would (perhaps) be ineffective, though the shortening of the line (derived from the haul) would still prevail?
Response:
From what I’ve always been told, the reason that hauling improves the line speed is that additional loading is put into the rod by the action of hauling. Obviously the hauling is done during the power phases fore and aft. An immediate reaction of the hauling action is a shortening of the line, and therefore an increase in velocity: Is it at all significant compared to the additional loading of the rod? Is the inertia of the line broken by the haul and therefore allows the spring of the rod to work on an already moving line?
When you haul you’re loading the rod by making it work harder against the inertia of the line. I don’t really think "shortening the line" is a good way to look at it. A haul takes in maybe two or three feet of line, and you have maybe 30 feet or more out. Imagine what would happen if the end of the line were attached to a springy tree branch when you hauled. (An all too frequent occurence in my case.) The rod would bend even if you didn’t move it forward. By hauling, you cause an increase in the force exerted by the rod tip on the line. When you haul in the normal, more felicitous case, more or less the same thing happens, but the resistance of the tree branch is replaced by the inertia of the line. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/
Response:
