Fence Post

[Frank LoPresti]

You and me and both Andy BTW have you had a chance to look at the 5 Essentials yet.

[Morsie]

I had a fella who needed some help with his casting come to me on the weekend. He's a good caster, very experienced but fishes mostly bass, which is all casts in the 30-50 foot range, and mostly from a kayak. He'd been struggling with distance, hitting 55-60 and the tails began. The solution was very easy and he is one of those great students who can quickly apply what you suggest. I explained translation and rotation as separate but essentially integrated and co-dependent parts of the cast. I suggested more translation before rotation and during rotation and we worked on that for half an hour, he's about my age so there was 30 years of muscle memory to deal with. Previously his stroke had been curtailed and he finished only just in front of his body. By adding some translation prior to any rotation and extending his stroke so that he finished when he 'ran out of arm' the problem was solved. And its not the first time I've seen exactly this same thing. There's non FFF instructor in this part of the world who teaches this curtailed forward half of the stroke and I can pick his students a mile away. All of them struggle to get beyond 60-70 feet without tailing. Back to my student from the weekend - by adding translation his tailing loop issue was cleared and by working with translation and rotation timing he was pretty soon throwing beautiful loops out to 80-90 feet - so I would say that translation is an essential part of good loop formation and none of Frank's dodging, ducking, weaving and obfustication will change that.

Yes it is a strange place to visit but I drop in from time to time just to try and figure out where its going. It reminds me of the movie 'Raging Bull'. "He never knocked me down"........ :glare:

Morsie

[andy_with_a_rod]

im fully aware of the 5 essentials frank.

oh, and congratulations. after 2 days, 60-odd posts, and endless ducking and weaving you actually dared to approach a question.

the fact that your answer is still BS is excusable cos at least you had the stones to give one this time.

[Frank LoPresti]

by adding translation his tailing loop issue was cleared and by working with translation and rotation timing he was...

Except for one thing Morsie, I assume you know the issue or point you raise, given your extensive backround as it relates to fly casting, translation, and angular acceleration. Do not misconstrue this as a confrontational question.

"Go ahead, hit me in the face ! " I don't wanna hit you", "I said hit me god damn it," "No I don't wanna hit you.... "You don't wanna hit me, fuck you."

Best scene ever.....

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

im fully aware of the 5 essentials frank.

If you are Andy, then how does the path of the rod tip influence the shape of the loop ?

Frank

[Morsie]

No Frank......



Morsie

[Frank LoPresti]

No Frank......



Morsie

I'm sorry, but I'm from New York City. No what ?

[Morsie]

No, I'm not going to get sucked into one of your stupid endlessly patronising and obtuse discussions Frank.............

Morsie

[Frank LoPresti]

No, I'm not going to get sucked into one of your stupid endlessly patronising and obtuse discussions Frank.............

Morsie

Really..........Stupid you say. That's a bit pre judgemental, don't ya thank ? Patronizing ? ..... to who..... you ? What for ?

[Stoatstail50]

the fact that your answer is still BS is excusable cos at least you had the stones to give one this time.

Its not all BS actually Andy and there is a point at issue which is worth pursuing here.

If we cannot match an arc to a bend in a non bendy rod, and yet we can still cast with it, then it implies that the "essential" relationship between "Arc and Bend" may not be quite as "essential" as we had first supposed.

Are these things unchallengeable for some reason ?

What if the terminological meaning of Arc had changed, we could make a perfectly reasonable case for Bills essential relationship if Arc was intended to cover the whole positional change of the rod during the casting stroke but not if it means just angle.

There is more to it than the simple heuristics that we teach with would imply and why anyone should get the hump when we try to explore what really happens is beyond me.

That rotation and translation often and do occur at the same time is the weakest argument and the other arguments I have read over the years fair no better. If they did, quite honestly I'd have to admit I was wrong along, and I have no problem with that. The problem is that I can't do that for all to obvious reasons, the arguments to support that contention are simply not there.

Frank, it is difficult to understand how you can contend that this is not the case, it isn't really an argument at all. The terms rotation and translation are used to describe the change in position of something, thats all. They have been used in this way for hundreds of years.

How an object changes position is a function of combining angular and linear forces. This isn't really an argument either and it too has been established for a very very long time. It may well be the case that the linear force in this process is absolutely miniscule with respect to casting a fly rod but if you want to move your rod from position A to position B then this miniscule force is entirely necessary whatever it can or cannot achieve on its own and that is why it is included in everybodys casting stroke on the planet...even your own.

That there is a relationship between Arc and Bend I have no doubt, there is also a relationship between Arc and Force and Bend, there is a relationship between Arc and Force and the Load at the tip and Bend, there is a realtionship between Arc and Force and Load at the tip and the Material Properties of the Rod and Bend.

There is also a relationship between all of these things and Length. Heuristically we use "long line, long stroke short line, short stroke" for this concept.

Length, we know, you are happy to measure in units of distance not angles, and length is the term that we conveniently use to describe how much the rod has translated in order to get from position A to position B. It says nothing about how much linear force we have applied in order to get it from one to the other, we have already established that this may be very small. What we do know, however, is that without it, however big it is, you will not be able to add "length" to your cast.

It isn't really an argument about size, or the relative contributions of one force over another, or arc over length, or what each element can achieve on their own, or their individual relationships with other elements of the cast. It is about whether their presence is necessary to achieve the objective of delivering that fly to the target.

[Paul Arden]

I think we can all agree that a Straight Line Path is not an essential to a cast, yet we often hear it quoted as rote. I've said before that instead of slp we should have ilp, intended tip path as being an action in itself (tracking) and a combination of the other four. I think that's one of the hangups here.

Cheers Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

Frank, it is difficult to understand how you can contend that this is not the case


It isn't really an argument about size, or the relative contributions of one force over another, or arc over length, or what each element can achieve on their own, or their individual relationships with other elements of the cast. It is about whether their presence is necessary to achieve the objective of delivering that fly to the target.

Mark,

That's a good post a really good post. But keep in mind the idea of a variable casting arc is simply a way to convey something, an idea. If you read the text to the Essentials or if Andy did you already know that as Bill puts it, the size of the arc must vary with the length of line past the rod tip. That's not a challengeable assumption if your goal is to form a loop off the end of your fly rod.

Yet there will always be a relationship of some kind between the casting arc, the length of line being cast and the amount of bend in the rod. The amount of bend in the rod determines the path of the rod tip. The amount of line beyond the rod tip controls nothing, only the caster controls what is done with the rod in respect to line length.

I don't have any issues with trying to prove that to the contrary. It's not about hump either, it's about being concise. So you can't really say that translation is a part of the casting stroke as it goes to loop formation. You could, but that would not be an accurate depiction of how it happens. Because as it happens, translation does not really bend the rod all that much, when you add rotation into the mix, well, it is what it is.

But there is a special relationship between tip path and loop formation and it goes to the angle of change at the rod butt from start to stop, as a translational movement of that tip path won't alter the path of the rod tip, it will only make it uniform. There is a motion without any other motions that forms a loop. That's a beautiful thing because without that motion we would not be able to do what we do with a fly rod, a fence post or a broomstick, for that matter, the rest is simply window dressing as it were. Translation describes no change in position relative to all points of whatever it is that is being translated. Translation is scalar, without direction in that respect.


So is translation needed for loop formation ? No it is not. If it's not, then it comes down to preference, and the only thing that preference is essential to is style. It is about effective contributions Mark as it goes to a motion that results in loop formation, not a motion that cannot deliver on that end of the deal.

Personally I don't care how you cast, I'm good with all of it.

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

I've said before that instead of slp we should have ilp, intended tip path as being an action in itself (tracking) and a combination of the other four. I think that's one of the hangups here.

Cheers Paul

That would be true Paul if it were not for the fact that the ideal tip path is actually convex. CTP :p That and translation is actually an SLP and your right, that's not essential to anything as it goes to loop formation. Far as I can gather.

Frank

[Marc LaMouche]

concave ?

[Frank LoPresti]

thanks !