no problem, they're both reproducing the original loop's shape but in my mind there's two major differences.
when you're creating this loop you're not getting the counter-flex of the original because you're deliberately pulling the rod leg down.
by pulling the rod leg, the rod tip is up.
with counter-flex (at least at the point in time in Grunde's pic) it's pointed down.
you're doing it deliberately. i'm firmly convinced the original wasn't for the reasons i mentioned many pages ago.
I believe as someone else posted earlier the counter flex you are looking at is just the result of pulling the rod tip down and the rod trying to return to RSP. The rod may have been something(Cane) that bends a whole lot more than the Z-axis i was using when i filmed the cast.
Cane rods bend that much just holding them out in front of you which makes the counter flex much more obvious. :p
There would have to be a pause between the stop to create the loop and the second rod movement to create the step down. I wonder how someone could drop the rod tip down that far unintentionally after creating such a nice loop to begin with.
If you look closely at my video you can see that after i pull the rod down to create the step and then stop the rod that a wave travels back up along the step. To me this is caused by the counter flex that you are talking about.
Marc LaMouche wrote:when you're creating this loop you're not getting the counter-flex of the original because you're deliberately pulling the rod leg down.
by pulling the rod leg, the rod tip is up.
with counter-flex (at least at the point in time in Grunde's pic) it's pointed down.
Marc,
Doesn't the act of pulling the rod tip sharply down then produce a secondary counterflex when the rod is stopped at the end of the mend? So if the photo is snapped during the downward movement it will be flexed upwards, and if it's taken just after the downward movement is stopped then the rod will be flexed downwards. So just a timing of the photo issue?
Marc, you can do this thing with or without pull back (pull up). With this line formation pulling the rod tip up will speed the line tip down. I can make another video with this additional movement, if necessary. But try it yourself first. With just a little of practice it is a very simple cast, truly useful for fishing.
James9118 wrote:Doesn't the act of pulling the rod tip sharply down then produce a secondary counterflex when the rod is stopped at the end of the mend?
hi James,
done purposely, it's just a downward mend. who would do it hard enough to get such a strong counter-flex as on Grunde's pic ?
But try it yourself first. With just a little of practice it is a very simple cast, truly useful for fishing.
Alp, i'm very familiar with this cast. it's just a variant of what a lot call a Pile Cast as the line layout is basically the same.
i do however make this cast without so much of a downward snap but rather by lowering the rod tip, pulling the rod leg down instead of 'casting it' down. this allows a real fly while real fishing to go out a little from the pile so it doesn't catch on everything...
Marc LaMouche wrote:It's just a variant of what a lot call a Pile Cast as the line layout is basically the same.
Marc, respectfully, I would not agree that the funny looking loop is a Pile cast variation.
For Pile we need lower back and higher front, which sometimes may not be very handy. The cast on my video works perfectly ih horizontal line. Works even with relatively high back and low front as well. This is the first difference.
The second difference is in the distribution of slack on the water. Funny looking loop will put the a slack in a bucket directly on the tip of the line while the rest off the line will be relativly streigt. With some practicing we mey put the leader bucket accurately on the target on 15+ m. That’s quite difficult with the Pile cast.
The third difference is sensitivity to wind. Pile will be easy to blow away because the line is simply collaps in the end. On the other hand funny loop actively pull the line on the target zone.
I hope that my bad English in this case is sufficiently understandable.
I don't think the CF is excessive - perhaps he pulling back up to form a V?
Paul,
Do you see a similar "V" in the Blackwater video? Where and when is the V formed in that video?
It is hard to see the rod flex all the way through the cast, but it appears to me the rod goes through a second counterflex soon after the second stop after the rod starts down when the loop has propagated for the distance that sets the length of the horizontal portion of the rod leg.
This is a great example of loop morph as well. Elliptical at MCF to Climbing happens pretty quickly in that cast
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
Gordy, I think that Paul talks about the picture at the beginning of this topic. On a picture rod is bend down not because of cotraflex but because a caster is pulling it up. This action will finaly result in ”V” formation on the lower leg. As I said in my earlier post , this funny loop can be made with or without pull back (pull up).
alp wrote:For Pile we need lower back and higher front
not really. why limit it to one plane ?
(and this changes your points 2 and 3 as well)
i understand you well, mate
cheers,
marc
Plane? I was talking about trajectory.
"All you have to do is aim your forward cast higher than normal - almost as if you're casting towards horizont...", Mel Krieger writes about Pile cast. So, the differences between Pile and funny loop will remain, I'm afraid. Or not?
If you measured the tension between 2 points an inch either side of the point of the right angle what would it be?
Vince,
Nominally the same since Hendry states the tension in the bottom leg of the loop is nearly constant.
Try taking a shoelace, hold it in tension and form a right angle with it whilst maintaning constant tension and staying in the same plane.
As I said that is a static example of the effects of tension in a string. As Mike Hendry explained in his thesis we are dealing with the tension that is related to the propagation velocity of a wave in a string.
As you might expect, the difference between those two cases is much different.
Gordy
Gordy
Hendy's paper simplifies the tension conditions and assumes the rod leg is straight. It is irrerlevant to this discussion.
As I mentioned, these effects are well known in other engineering disciplines, one paper in particular explains an effect that is remarkably similar to the dangle. I would commend looking at the output from projects that receive more generous funding than fly casting. There is some very good open source information available.
slack S shaped line layout yes, but no pile.