[Paul Rankine]

Hi All,
         Ok wer'e on to double hauling now.

But when do you  haul ? , both in relation to where the line is and in what part of the rotation ? .

In relation to what the line is doing
Traditional wisdom says "begin the line haul just before the line has straightened , front and back " .
Theory being that if you instigate the haul just beforehand then by the time the message has reached your noggin and your hand has been "told" to move then the line has straightened .


In relation to rod rotation
Most folk also probably don't begin the haul until the rod has straightened (??) or at least stopped moving .


Nothing wrong there , or is there ? What is in fact the OPTIMUM time and place to haul ?

Ok, next related question . What rod is best for acheiving a high line speed by hauling , a through action one or a fast tip action one . Your'e probably thinking ,well ..... tournament casters use fast tip action rods , yes, but why ?

 

Paul.

[Magnus Angus]

See the end of the Tailing Loop thread Paul.

"Most folk also probably don't begin the haul until the rod has straightened (??) or at least stopped moving."

errrr - nope - I'd assuming you mean line not rod? The only time the line stops moving is when it lands on the ground or water. For most of our backcasts if the line was suddenly cut as the loop was approaching straight the line would be dragged backwards. Dunno if that explains well 

IMHO we use the feel of tension in the line hand as a cue, we often look and use that as a cue for the haul. If we wait for the tug its probably too late for the stroke to be optimum. Again in imho the haul and rod rotation should be conceived as a unit - the haul needs to still be going when the rod tip comes straight and the loop forms. We work backwards from there to when it starts.

Magnus

http://revver.com/video/314942/tcr-long-cast/

Look at his line hand at the start of the stroke - it is following the rod as it turns and loads then starts to separate from the grip and he hauls. Incidentally he has 16m of line outside the rod tip in this clip.

[Ben Dixon]

Paul,

I cannot agree with that, I tend to teach to not start the haul until the rod is loaded, in the case of beginners then I would probably be teaching it closed stance to begin with and I would teach not to haul until the rod can be seen, i.e, it is in front of the caster.  Most folk tend to begin the haul too early hence finish it early and throw a tail due to the rod starting to unload prematurely.

In terms of the ideal time to haul, I would say that peak haul speed should coinside with peak rotation speed and that both should be as late in the stroke as possible.  I was playing about with haul timing and later rotation against the tape today and my conclusion is that the later the two occur and the faster they are, the further the line goes.

In terms of rod actions, fast actioned rods generally tend to be stiffer than slower actioned rods, a stiffer faster rod will return back to rsp more quickly hence should generate more line speed but, it takes more load to bend it in the first place. 

Cheers

Ben

[Magnus Angus]

Ben

but, it takes more load to bend it in the first place.

hmmm - not sure if I agree with that Ben - a stiff rod simply bends less for a given load.

[Irvine Ross]

I tiptoe with trepidation into a debate amongst experts but it would appear to me that the main benefit of a stiff (fast action) rod is that it bends less for a given load.

Correct me if I am wrong but the effective lever length is the distance between the handle and the rod tip. The rod is not straight during the fastest point in the cast, it bends, shortening the lever.  At any point when the caster is generating speed of rotation of the handle, a soft rod will bend more thus shortening the effective lever length and therefore slowing the speed of the rod tip. That is simple mechanics. For any given rate of rotation, the tip of a longer lever is travelling further in a given time so it is going faster. So given the same loading, a stiff rod will generate more line speed than a soft rod.

When the stop is applied, the tip of the soft rod has further to travel to come to the straight rod position ( is that what Ben means by rsp ?) but as it is already travelling more slowly,  and it flexes more slowly,  it will never catch up with the faster rod tip/line speed of the stiffer rod.

Am I making sense here? ???

Irvine

[Magnus Angus]

Hi Irvine

Feel free to have your say. Yes you are making sense.

Couple of things about the rods need to be near enough the same for the comparison to hold - mainly length and weight or mass - but yes you have the right idea.

"...the fastest point in the cast" cause some problems - if you look at the tip (the fastest moving part of the rod) and the tip speed over the course of a decent cast, its speed peaks fractions of a second before RSP (rod straight position) or at RSP (I think the strict theory is - in a vacuum at RSP in air fractionally before RSP)  - that is important because unless the tip is accelerating up to that point the line will catch up and a loop will begin to form. The butt by that time (RSP) is travelling slowly possible even come to a dead halt. So looked at from the POV of the tip the fastest point in the cast is when the rod is straight - maximum effective lever length. Minimum effective lever length is 'obviously' (actually not so obvious - see below) when the rod is at maximum bend - I'd say that's when the butt is being driven by our hand and we are rotating the rod butt at maximum angular acceleration for that cast but only for that bit of the rod - the tip continues to accelerate beyond that point.

If you make two casts with say a TCR (stiff fast rod) and a T&T Paradigm (middle action, moderate stiffness) - as the casters in those clips did for Grunde's experiment - the important point would be if they are false casting the same length of line and chucking the fluff the same distance the tip speed and line speed at or near RSP must be essentially the same - the loop must have the same or very nearly the same initial speed to reach the target distance. To do that the weaker rod will bend more, the arc will be wider and the stroke will take a longer time (fractions of a second more.)

If you look at the later slow motion clips on the tailing loop thread you'll see what's happening.

To complicate things you could also look at the angle of load  If you tether a 1 ounce weight to the tip of a rigid lever and hold the other end. Start with the lever horizontal and the angle of load is 90 degrees - what we feel is the heaviest possible combination - if you then slowly change the angle upwards the combination feels progressively lighter. The torque or moment arm reduces as the angle of load reduces. Do the same with a fly rod and of course the rod bends (ie deformation or strain) and my wrist and arms feels the stress. As the rod rotates towards a position where the load and rod are parallel the strain (bend) reduces and the stress at my end of the lever reduces too. Note that probably only matters or can be felt during large casting arcs - ie longer casts which need large changes of angle during the stroke..

Magnus

[Ben Dixon]

Ben

hmmm - not sure if I agree with that Ben - a stiff rod simply bends less for a given load.

Does that not imply that to more load is required to get the stiffer rod to bend to the same extent Magnus?

Ben

[Paul Rankine]

Hi All ,
          This is good stuff eh ? 

"Most folk also probably don't begin the haul until the rod has straightened (??) or at least stopped moving."
Okay , I went for goal here and then decided to cross the ball instead.

 What I think I,m meaning here is "don't begin the haul until the LINE has straightened (??) " and " the ROD has stopped rotation"  ?  Sorry guys. Ben was that the bit that you did not agree with ?

Please  note that I,m asking questions here in order to stimulate discussion not saying what is wrong or right per se

Anyway , Irvine , "So given the same loading, a stiff rod will generate more line speed than a soft rod. "
Yes, I think I agree , but I also think my head hurts 

I'll make a fuller reply on this very interesting ,(not geeky , what are you saying Magnus !) subject when  I have viewed the videos. 

Paul.

[Irvine Ross]

"...the fastest point in the cast" cause some problems - if you look at the tip (the fastest moving part of the rod) and the tip speed over the course of a decent cast, its speed peaks fractions of a second before RSP (rod straight position) or at RSP

Magnus

Yes I take your point. I should have said At the point where the caster's hand is moving at maximum speed

To complicate things you could also look at the angle of load  If you tether a 1 ounce weight to the tip of a rigid lever and hold the other end. Start with the lever horizontal and the angle of load is 90 degrees - what we feel is the heaviest possible combination - if you then slowly change the angle upwards the combination feels progressively lighter. The torque or moment arm reduces as the angle of load reduces.

OK, so on long casting arcs, to maintain or accelerate the rate of rotation of the rod, the caster has to steadily increase the power he is putting into the cast up to the point where the weight of the line is at right angles to the effective lever (the line joining the handle and rod tip). Judging by the videos, that is probably just at or before the stop.

I appreciate this theory is a bit simplified as it would imply that we can generate higher line speeds with a rod that does not bend at all and we know that is not true. As this thread is about hauling I had better leave that there for the time being.

Irvine

[Magnus Angus]

Hi Paul

Lemme try this - the haul usually starts after the rod starts accelerating in the direction of the stroke. The stroke can and for longer casting usually does start as the line is straightening. I know in theory we say the line should be straight - empirical observation shows that ain't what we do.


Hi Irvine

The caster needs to accelerate the rate of rotation (there can be no 'maintain' in there) otherwise yes. The chord length - distance between the tip and butt - reaches it minimum  - from there on it's normally deceleration aka stop - imho the rod starts to unload once beyond that angle more or less whatever we do - that's why the Supersonic backcast works 

Grunde has delved into why we can generate far higher linespeeds with flexible levers http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/rodcast.shtml It was assumed that we loaded the rod and then made a hard stop and ALL the energy came from the spring recoil - that's obviously wrong because we get the line moving as we load the spring, ie the line already has considerable KE while the spring is still fully loaded - which then delivers back its stored elastic PE - the suddenness of the stop does not increase the efficiency of that return or the speed of the line. Crisp stops do mean the rod tip may not end up as far below the path of the line as it does with a slower stop. BTW note during the deceleration the line is still getting energy from the caster.

Ben


The original piece was:

In terms of rod actions, fast actioned rods generally tend to be stiffer than slower actioned rods, a stiffer faster rod will return back to rsp more quickly hence should generate more line speed but, it takes more load to bend it in the first place.

Action is about the bend-form a rod takes under load - rods with fast and slow action under load from the same angle distribute the strain differently. That can mean under the same load from the same angle a stiff slow action rod will deflect less than a low powered fast rod.
All else being equal, the blank in the tip sections of fast action rods are inherently lighter and weaker than the tips of similar stiffness slower action rods - so they will have a higher natural frequency and will recover faster - but that tip section loads more easily - that's why we can use a fast rod with a short line and not fire every cast to the horizon.
As you say stiffness tends to rise with action speed but they are not one and the same and it ain't always that way - wanna compare my BIIx with one of your medium action Helios? The BIIx is a very lightweight low stiffness fast action rod. Your medium action Helios are considerably stiffer and have a slower action. Which one recovers sooner?
Now throw in a low priced fast action carbon rod - the whole blank and all the fittings are heavier but lets suppose the action and stiffness is identical to one of your lightweight fast action rod. Which recovers faster?

IMHO its a mistake to talk about rods or actions or stiffness causing line-speed - the caster causes linespeed. In the hands of a competent caster a light powerful fast action rod should allow him or her more linespeed when needed. When casting a fly to land delicately at 30ft he need the exact same line speed with any rod. The difference there is he uses a slightly narrower arc.

Ben as you should know the experiment run in Norway showed that the caster is the crucial variable - not the rod! http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/8rod.shtml Those guys tried to control all the variables and came up with some surprising conclusions - like the best overall performance was from an Orvis rod  and while it had a fast action it was by no means the stiffest rod in the bunch - far far from it.

I would say that peak haul speed should coinside with peak rotation speed and that both should be as late in the stroke as possible.

I don't know if I agree with that either  Seriously I don't know but I think peak haul speed should be late, probably as the stop is being applied - which is after peak angular acceleration and while the rod is straightening and recovering to RSP. Remember angular acceleration and rotation apply to the rod butt - the tip is hopefully travelling in a straight line - or straight enough line.

Magnus

[Paul Rankine]

Hi Magnus,
               Thanks for that.

What I am trying to get at here is this .

There are various ways of introducing enough PE into both fast and slower rods to cast let's say , a standard 30 metres. In order for a softer rod (with the same caster) to cast the 30m wer'e saying that it must be bent more ,(hauled for longer - KE suppied for longer = more PE ?) than a stiffer rod in which the energy transfer is more rapid .
Sooooo   ....  we are saying that it is necessary to begin and end the hauls at differing points in the rotation when using a stiff rod as opposed to a softer rod ?

If that is true ,  are their optimum  parts of the rotation for starting and finishing hauls with each type of rod ?  Is it possible to define these ? Looking at the videos and reading different authors I find confusing to be honest.

 and ....next question , do stiffer rods have the ultimate potential (!) to cast farther because higher line speeds can be more easily achieved with them . ie more PE  stored and KE released ? Let's assume the caster is capable of extracting the last nanometre of bend in each rod .

I,m reading the text from Grunde so apologies if that is already answered in there.

Paul.

[Ben Dixon]

Ben


I don't know if I agree with that either  Seriously I don't know but I think peak haul speed should be late, probably as the stop is being applied - which is after peak angular acceleration and while the rod is straightening and recovering to RSP. Remember angular acceleration and rotation apply to the rod butt - the tip is hopefully travelling in a straight line - or straight enough line.

Magnus

On the ball as usual Magnum  , I did not word that very well, highest tip speed occurs after rotation, that is where the peak haul speed should occur, as for the finish of the haul, at or after the stop, I do not know.  I know I personally have a tendancy to hold onto the line too long (finish the haul too late??) when hitting the delivery and it screws things up, have been working on this and the distance is creeping up 

Cheers

Ben

[Magnus Angus]

Hi Paul

Sooooo   ....  we are saying that it is necessary to begin and end the hauls at differing points in the rotation when using a stiff rod as opposed to a softer rod ?

Certainly not end at different points. Doesn't matter what the rod is like the haul must never end before the loop starts. IMHO we work backwards from there and judge the timing. Im also of the opinion we match the haul speed to the stroke speed. AND just for a bit of light relief, the action of moving the hauling hand and arm may have other functions  Compare it to a cricket bowler or a thrower of some form, their 'other' arm has bio-mechanical function - they can't throw as far or as fast without that other arm making opposing motions. On SL they ran an informal trial - some good casters seeing how far they could cast without hauling - and a couple also tried making the hauling action without holing the line. Its worth having a go. I certainly have more control over the rod and feel I can make a longer faster stroke when my left arm is moving in that hauling motion even when I'm not holding the line.

I'd avoid getting hung up on PE - KE is what we input by moving the rod and hauling the line, only a proportion of those motions are stored as Potential Energy by the rod. The output is KE - for those two 30m casts assuming the lines are the same they have the same KE when the loop forms. It would need someone like Grunde to look at the difference between rods and really answer those issues.

Are stiffer faster rods better distance tools? This http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/rodcast.shtml suggests it's not a clear case or simple equation of stiffer fly rod = longer casting range, imho it does suggest an optimum, whether that's individual or more general is hard to say. That study suggests the caster's skills are more important than the rod choice. In my case, if I compare how far I can cast a given line with a couple of good rods of different stiffness the results tend to be very similar - within feet. I do seem to throw longer with more familiar gear - both rod and line.

Thing is these discussions get oddly twisted towards distance If I gave you a choice of outfits #5 or #7 lines matched to a couple of nice Helios rods - which line would you guess would cast farthest? My answer would be the #7 and that is irrespective of the rod being stiff or soft, or having a fast or medium action (true slow action rods are very rare we only really have a choice of medium fast, fast and just a wee bit faster - the variation in stiffness is greater.)

Magnus

[Paul Rankine]

Hi Magnus,
               The Grunde article is very enlightening to my geeky mind. 

Several points to raise .

Firstly, the article describes casting without hauls . Dunno if the conclusions would still apply to the double haul situation or to the same extent ? . I would imagine that the more energetic the haul the deeper the bend , and the less the swing/spring ratio ?
Work in progress ?

Next ,

only a proportion of those motions are stored as Potential Energy by the rod.

As Grunde says

the overall speed increase of the tip is not due solely to the release of "spring" 

and

it is the lever aspect of the fly rod that is the primary motivation factor

. They also make the point that the swing/spring ratio depends very much on the caster and the type of cast being employed , eg Bow and arrow  100% spring. Kind of explains what most folk know already that a line can be cast using brute force as a substitute for technique (albeit not a pretty one !),

In addition to rod flexure providing stored energy it allows for a smooth application of power and it allows the tip to track straighter through the air , making for more efficient loops.

. Probably apply even more with beginners ?

The other point is your one about body counterbalance. If it is the rod as a lever that mainly influences line speed and the distance we cast we should be pay particular attention to this aspect I think . I know through my experiences as a sports coach , 10 years football and 10 years rugby , (knees to prove it  ) the kinds of problems that arise through " repeated and artificial body movements" - lets call them) . Alberto Laidlaw did a good article on this aspect a few years back I remember. Reason alone for learning "proper techniques " ?

The distance thing I agree with ,as my eyesight deteriorates !

Cheers,

Paul.

[Magnus Angus]

Hi Paul

Yes it is a good article. I agree the proportion of stored energy will vary. Jason and Grunde have done a little work on haul - I believe Grunde and an Italian physicist are currently working on other casting projects - specifically TLT casting. Maybe when they finish whatever it is they have to do on that.... But those guys are physicists so they tend to want to know the governing mechanisms and principles rather than using those to make studies of specific examples. BTW have you tried the article on Swingweight http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/swingweight.shtml - gives a brief introduction and access to the .pdf of the article and the rod database - now that really is geeky  (said the co-author)

The problem with an 'energetic haul' is that its fast - to be fast it needs to happen over a short time, haul length is limited by arm length. That means for the haul to significantly contribute to the maximum bend (minimum chord) the haul would end before the rod came straight and the loop formed.

There have been a few simple experiments to increase haul length. the most sophisticated used a pully - the easier to try used the tip section of a spare 4 pce rod as a hauling stick - adds arm length 

Have you had a chance to look at the clip of the Outcast day. If you look at the guys hauling and the way they are standing. I suggested an closed stance rather than the usual open stance for distance. Look at the freedom the hauling arm has to swing on the forward cast - its relatively easy to end the stroke with the hauling hand fully extended at 180 degrees to the rod. On the backcast the line hand and the rod butt naturally move away from one another.
I'm convinced that a closed stance is more effective than an open stance for that type of easy straight line distance casting because if offers more freedom of movement - completely the reverse of what I was taught coming into casting.

Magnus