PLEASE NOTE: This is the Archived Sexyloops Board from years 2004-2013.
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/

Drag

User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Drag

Post by Paul Arden »

Hi Frank, if Drag is efficient then why is it outside the Casting Stroke in your model?

Cheers, Paul
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

Try efficiently dragging the rod with 90 feet of line trailing behind the rod tip and then forming a loop with that just that motion alone. Even Merlin has mentioned that he really would have no idea what effect dragging the rod prior to rotation would have on loop formation. That's why it's not included in the graphic. Makes perfect sense to me. We could have the Garbage Pail Casting Stroke if you like. Remember the saying though, "garbage in garbage out," before adding creep to that pail as well.

Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Post by Paul Arden »

It's not included because you can't carry 90ft of line with drag alone. Wow! I can't carry 90ft of line with rotation alone either.
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

I don't know Paul you look to me like your dragging/carrying an awful lot of line prior to rotation, so does Rick and the rest of the extreme draggers. I've heard you talk about carrying 90 feet of line more than I need to so if it's not drag that allows you to do that or it's not rotation then what exactly is it ? Timing, tension, line speed, dragging prior to rotation or all of the above ?
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Post by Paul Arden »

90ft of line in the air, I need drag and rotation. What I dont understand is why you dont include it in the CS. It seems like drag first is Modified casting stroke, that is more efficient.

Cheers Paul
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

Simply because not all casts require drag. So the modification remains outside the actual CS. It's there if you need it, and not there because you don't need it, for all casts all of the time, or even most of the time.

Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Post by Paul Arden »

But you've just said that drag is outside the CS because drag alone will not carry 90 ft. Neither will rotation alone. Should that be outside the CS. It seems to me that it's the combination of the two that leads to the most efficient distance casts. If they combine then surely they belong together.

Cheers Paul
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

Paul Arden wrote:It seems to me that it's the combination of the two that leads to the most efficient distance casts. If they combine then surely they belong together.

Cheers Paul

Drag comes well before rotation in the 170, that's pretty clear to anyone who looks at the clips. Try and launch the line with that motion only. Then add rotation after your done dragging the rod and you can imagine what the difference might be. Then take a look at a Rajeff 5wt cast and tell me how much drag prior to rotation you see. They don't combine as much as the fact that drag turns into rotation. Absent the drag, it's all about rotation.

The 170 allows you to drag the rod forward to a position of strength otherwise you could not even begin to rotate the rod efficiently if the casting hand remained to far behind your shoulder. Form goes to function in that case, the function being drag that yields to efficient rotational form.

Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
User avatar
Marc LaMouche
BBBB No 2,5 Le NP
Posts: 6758
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Pyrénées, France
Contact:

Post by Marc LaMouche »

with all due respect to Steve (and i sincerely mean that), 170 casters are now casting farther than him by several meters in the 5wt game. why always bring his casting style up as the ultimate example ?

cheers,
marc
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

I don't know Marc. Maybe it's because he is one of the best casters on the planet ? Or maybe it's just because he does not add drag to his stroke and kicks out a long line. I could have mentioned Menno Vandamn (sp) as well who casts with the shorter stroke into the 130's without drag. Steve doesn't win every competition who does ? The last one he lost in the 5wt game was in Europe I think and the winning distance was what 113 ? So I'd think on his best day he's as good as it probably gets in official competitions given his track record, not that he is not capable of losing from time to time.

The question I'd like to really have answered though is why base a casting model around an extreme distance cast and variables of any style. Seems to me you'd want to have a more practical base example to work from.

Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Post by Paul Arden »

If you ignore Slide which is a necessary repositioning move from the extended reach on the backcast, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between Steve's delivery and mine. He certainly Drags. I think you're mistaking slide with drag, Frank.

No one on the planet using drag thinks that they're starting the casting stroke with rotation. Only you Frank who casts with rotation only!

Cheers Paul
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
User avatar
victor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Ashford, Kent, England
Contact:

Post by victor »

Just a side note. Does drag have to be rotation free?

Mike
it's casting Jim, but not as we know it, according to EFFA

http://michaelheritage.wordpress.com/
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

Don't be so casual about drag in the 170 Paul. I just looked at the 2008 clip for BTOW. I hardly if at all, see Steve drag anything in those casts, zip. Not that drag is not a positive thing, only that it's really not present in those BOTW casts of his.

But the point remains that slide and or drag are needed for the 170 to reposition the rod, so you can rotate the rod to a more efficient rotational launch position. Steves or Mennos style does not require that repositioning because their rod hands never really travel that far beyond their shoulders. Two completely different styles, one with extreme drag, and one without. And again I would point out that it's of no immediate value to define a casting model around one style or any style for that matter or a model based around extreme distance casting and or any and all additional micro adjustments found within those strokes.

If that were to be the case then why not recommend that the ideal hand path for all casts to be a swooping or concave hand path. Tim Raijeff does it beautifully. Why not slide for each and every cast ? Why not a haul for each and every cast. Those are all a part of a casting stroke aren't they ?



Mike

Not anymore than rotational drift needs to be free from translational drift in the graphic. The big difference is in the two different models of the cast for the SL version or terminology and that graphic. Clearly there is much to be gained, even though it remains outside of the Casting Stroke in that graphic, from lengthening the stroke (translational drift) and increasing the size of the casting arc, (rotational drift), for the coming cast. That much is easily understood.

What is not so easy to process, as least to me at any rate, is the immediate gain from dragging and rotating the rod at the same slow speed in the direction for the coming cast during the start of the actual casting stroke.

When slow rotation and translation/drag eclipses or compromises the start casting stroke, good things are bound not to happen. If you ask me that's the fly in the ointment.

Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
Frank LoPresti
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Frank LoPresti »

victor wrote:Just a side note. Does drag have to be rotation free?

Mike
Better bang for your buck if it is.
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Post by Paul Arden »

I and everyone I know rotate through the stroke for accuracy. A better comparison is to compare accuracy stroke against distance stroke ignoring slide. Using your definitions the distance casting stroke is shorter than the accuracy. Didn't you used to teach long cast long stroke, short cast short stroke? That doesn't work with your model. Do you think my Casting Stroke with the 170 is shorter than Steve's?

Cheers Paul
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest