Errors and commentary are compliments of me.
SkagitMiester
I like the answer, and the blog post. I would add that in terms of physics the tension in the line can not only be created by the action of the tip on line, but on the internal forces as the line moves. I'd just remind people who may have an overly simplistic idea of tension they got from solving all those pulley and sliding block problems from freshman physics that the tension in a line is not uniform along its length when the line is accelerating, and itself has mass. I think that confusion may have some part in the ongoing "debate".
If one part of the line is accelerating or decelerating in a curvilinear manner relative to another part there will be tension in the line due to the forces of those parts on each other. So if the rod is unloaded for a moment it only means that the force (and hence the tension) on that end of the line momentarily vanishes, not that the tension vanishes throughout the line - in other words the line is not just falling at that point in time. Depending on your point of view I realize that this may be either a useful way to understand the issue, or totally obvious and/or trivial. Annoyingly incomprehensible is a third possibility. :razz:
So for a cast like a switch cast, and to a lesser degree a single Spey there is a point where most of the line is already shaped by prior forces, and is (mostly) falling and therefore mostly NOT under tension throughout ts length. For a skagit style cast things may be different, and I think someone very experienced such as Ed might be able to intuit this tension, even though it doest exist for a moment right at the end of the head attached to the rod. After all, the caster sees the result of what is going on, and how he can effect things, and as done many tens of thousand of casts. If I see my dog catch a frisbee I can very well intuit the force of it jaws snapping shut on the disk, despite the fact I don't feel it myself.
So, and I'm not saying I'm %100 sure of the answer, I would guess if you plotted the tension along the whole line, and not just the tension at the tip of the rod, you would tend to see skagit casts have a higher degree of tension right up until the power stroke because the of greater amount of differential acceleration between the line's parts, while for many other casts, including touch and go casts, the tension (and the acceleration that is the source of it) largely vanishes THOUGHOUT the line some time before the power stroke.
Now I have said this before in less precise terms, so I apologize for saying it again, but especially for playing the physicist card.
If one part of the line is accelerating or decelerating in a curvilinear manner relative to another part there will be tension in the line due to the forces of those parts on each other. So if the rod is unloaded for a moment it only means that the force (and hence the tension) on that end of the line momentarily vanishes, not that the tension vanishes throughout the line - in other words the line is not just falling at that point in time. Depending on your point of view I realize that this may be either a useful way to understand the issue, or totally obvious and/or trivial. Annoyingly incomprehensible is a third possibility. :razz:
So for a cast like a switch cast, and to a lesser degree a single Spey there is a point where most of the line is already shaped by prior forces, and is (mostly) falling and therefore mostly NOT under tension throughout ts length. For a skagit style cast things may be different, and I think someone very experienced such as Ed might be able to intuit this tension, even though it doest exist for a moment right at the end of the head attached to the rod. After all, the caster sees the result of what is going on, and how he can effect things, and as done many tens of thousand of casts. If I see my dog catch a frisbee I can very well intuit the force of it jaws snapping shut on the disk, despite the fact I don't feel it myself.
So, and I'm not saying I'm %100 sure of the answer, I would guess if you plotted the tension along the whole line, and not just the tension at the tip of the rod, you would tend to see skagit casts have a higher degree of tension right up until the power stroke because the of greater amount of differential acceleration between the line's parts, while for many other casts, including touch and go casts, the tension (and the acceleration that is the source of it) largely vanishes THOUGHOUT the line some time before the power stroke.
Now I have said this before in less precise terms, so I apologize for saying it again, but especially for playing the physicist card.
Could you please explain to me what the "skagit cast" is? Because I've never heard of nor seen one :surprise:
In practise there is a line loop running! When Touch&Go cast the fly leg of line loop flyes is in the air underhand like in an Oval Cast and on a Sustained Anchor cast the fly leg of line loop runs in water surface and line loop energy keeps the line tension but line loop energy lessens. Then line tip lands to an anghor on T&G cast and line somewhat straightens in SA cast anchor and line loop energy ends.
Esa
Esa
One of the problems for me...
... in discussing Skagit casting, is that I am just one person presenting an opinion, via the internet, to an audience of "many". That audience is interpreting what I say through many, many differing perspectives, each one unique to itself, yet I can realistically reply only through my own singular perspective. In other words, for me to tailor my responses to fit or match for correct interpretation, the perspective of every individual that reads my "stuff", just isn't possible. Just something to keep in mind about internet-based discussions.
I would suggest that "interpretations" of Spey-type casting, are as subject to individual perspectives as anything else. But, I also believe that Sustained Anchor casting has genuinely different requirements than does T&G casting because it has different casting characteristics and that thérefore "tuning" one's casting technique to those particular differences will result in increased performance capabilities. Most of those "tuned" casting techniques are "small" in appearance, but when all added together into one congruous casting process, result in a substantial increase in casting performance. As an example, Skagitmeister, in your Skagit casting vids presented in relation to this thread, look at how the line lifts off of the water at the very beginning of your Sweep, then compare that with how it lifts off the water at the very beginning of the Sweep for the casts in my vid (except cast #6). What difference do you see?
... in discussing Skagit casting, is that I am just one person presenting an opinion, via the internet, to an audience of "many". That audience is interpreting what I say through many, many differing perspectives, each one unique to itself, yet I can realistically reply only through my own singular perspective. In other words, for me to tailor my responses to fit or match for correct interpretation, the perspective of every individual that reads my "stuff", just isn't possible. Just something to keep in mind about internet-based discussions.
I would suggest that "interpretations" of Spey-type casting, are as subject to individual perspectives as anything else. But, I also believe that Sustained Anchor casting has genuinely different requirements than does T&G casting because it has different casting characteristics and that thérefore "tuning" one's casting technique to those particular differences will result in increased performance capabilities. Most of those "tuned" casting techniques are "small" in appearance, but when all added together into one congruous casting process, result in a substantial increase in casting performance. As an example, Skagitmeister, in your Skagit casting vids presented in relation to this thread, look at how the line lifts off of the water at the very beginning of your Sweep, then compare that with how it lifts off the water at the very beginning of the Sweep for the casts in my vid (except cast #6). What difference do you see?
Thanks for clarifying guys. If I get it right it takes a skagit head to make a skagit cast. And it must be waterborne cast as a prerequisite.
Then how do you call a single spey cast, switch cast or snake roll cast using skagit head? :grin2:
And how would you call a cast using RIO Scandi Body (500gr 23ft exactly the same length as RIO Skagit Max 500gr) with a sink tip using waterborne anchor (let's say perry poke) and not using a tip to build a D-loop? Is this Skagit cast, Scandi cast or neither? Or maybe it's simply called perry poke cast? :grin2:
Then how do you call a single spey cast, switch cast or snake roll cast using skagit head? :grin2:
And how would you call a cast using RIO Scandi Body (500gr 23ft exactly the same length as RIO Skagit Max 500gr) with a sink tip using waterborne anchor (let's say perry poke) and not using a tip to build a D-loop? Is this Skagit cast, Scandi cast or neither? Or maybe it's simply called perry poke cast? :grin2:
So Ed explain why a sustained anchor cast works well with the tip up high and flat through the entire process as opposed to down low with a slight rising angle. It works as you showed it to me - certainly need to keep off the gas but a very relaxed easy cast. Not much of a white mouse developed with it. It does still have torsional acceleration as opposed to linear so this likely contributes
Best,
RJ
Best,
RJ
In SM I Ed spends some time in discussing a high rod tip vs a low rod tip when demonstrating the DS - seems with a high rod tip the weight of the iine plays a bigger part in line tension vs water.
PS - I have actually got fairly proficient at throwing singles and snakes using a Skagit line set up though mainly with my lighter 2-4 wt rods and lighter flies. But been practicing using more winter type stuff - I get bored doing the same casts so will usually switch up a lot during the day using as many different casts as I can think of - as has been said both torsional and linear methods can be used to cast any line and both can work pretty well.
I do think the CL/CM torsional seems easier to consistently toss heavier Skagit lines with less effort
PS - I have actually got fairly proficient at throwing singles and snakes using a Skagit line set up though mainly with my lighter 2-4 wt rods and lighter flies. But been practicing using more winter type stuff - I get bored doing the same casts so will usually switch up a lot during the day using as many different casts as I can think of - as has been said both torsional and linear methods can be used to cast any line and both can work pretty well.
I do think the CL/CM torsional seems easier to consistently toss heavier Skagit lines with less effort
My favorite guide has finally got me doings the occasional snake and single with 12' of t14, etc. He is also always trying to get me to cast through a hole in overhanging trees on the opposite bank barely over a foot wide, and then making fun of me if I get hung up! But that is another story. At least I have learned that they can be done just fine with a full on winter rig, and without hurting myself. His reason given for this is also usually something like "to keep from getting bored", though it occurs to me it may be to keep him from getting bored as well. LOL
Wow...
... a couple of different focal points being aired out in this thread!
The classification of Spey-type lines - Skagit, Scandi, Longline - is a means for expressing what particular casting methodology the line was designed for. It does not prevent the use of said line in capacities other than originally intended. Just about any type - Skagit, Scandi, Longline - line can be cast using casting techniques outside that line's particular casting style designation. Therefore, it is not a reliable approach to use the type of line being cast as the sole determining factor for defining the casting style.
To be absolutely clear to the technocrats, I know that technically speaking, rod load is not the major factor in casting a fly line and that therefore statements such "form rod load at the beginning of the Sweep and then transfer those casting energies on around all the way through to the Forward Casting Stroke" are inaccurate. But, as I've explained before, said statements convey very well to the general public, the "correct" visualizations for producing the correct actions. Therefore, for the following discussion I will be sticking with my inaccurate-though-effective descriptions.
Skagitmeister, you made a very astute observation... "peel" versus "lift". That is one of those "small" differences that produce a significant result. Notice that my "peeling" creates a smoothly tensioned status on the line during the entire Sweep, from beginning to end, whereas your "lift" institutes "slack" into the line at the very beginning of the Sweep. Then, because of that slack (loss of a feel of loading) you then feel it is necessary to accelerate into the Sweep in order to "catch up" with a feel of load. Of course, the faster you go, the less control and "accuracy" you have in the remainder of the procedure. So, just a "little bobble" at the beginning of the Sweep adversely affects the rest of the casting process. Does that all make sense? So, in my vid, at the beginning of my Sweeps, watch on the casts ẃhere my hands are visible (except #6), how I "roll" my wrists so that my thumbs point into the intended direction of my Sweep. This action, combined with an "instant start", kind of like the "wrist flick" of tossing a frisbee, gives an "out&around", "centrifugal" Sweep action and that creates and then maintains "load" from the very start of the Sweep on to it's end by negating any introduction of slack at the beginning of the Sweep
... a couple of different focal points being aired out in this thread!
The classification of Spey-type lines - Skagit, Scandi, Longline - is a means for expressing what particular casting methodology the line was designed for. It does not prevent the use of said line in capacities other than originally intended. Just about any type - Skagit, Scandi, Longline - line can be cast using casting techniques outside that line's particular casting style designation. Therefore, it is not a reliable approach to use the type of line being cast as the sole determining factor for defining the casting style.
To be absolutely clear to the technocrats, I know that technically speaking, rod load is not the major factor in casting a fly line and that therefore statements such "form rod load at the beginning of the Sweep and then transfer those casting energies on around all the way through to the Forward Casting Stroke" are inaccurate. But, as I've explained before, said statements convey very well to the general public, the "correct" visualizations for producing the correct actions. Therefore, for the following discussion I will be sticking with my inaccurate-though-effective descriptions.
Skagitmeister, you made a very astute observation... "peel" versus "lift". That is one of those "small" differences that produce a significant result. Notice that my "peeling" creates a smoothly tensioned status on the line during the entire Sweep, from beginning to end, whereas your "lift" institutes "slack" into the line at the very beginning of the Sweep. Then, because of that slack (loss of a feel of loading) you then feel it is necessary to accelerate into the Sweep in order to "catch up" with a feel of load. Of course, the faster you go, the less control and "accuracy" you have in the remainder of the procedure. So, just a "little bobble" at the beginning of the Sweep adversely affects the rest of the casting process. Does that all make sense? So, in my vid, at the beginning of my Sweeps, watch on the casts ẃhere my hands are visible (except #6), how I "roll" my wrists so that my thumbs point into the intended direction of my Sweep. This action, combined with an "instant start", kind of like the "wrist flick" of tossing a frisbee, gives an "out&around", "centrifugal" Sweep action and that creates and then maintains "load" from the very start of the Sweep on to it's end by negating any introduction of slack at the beginning of the Sweep
Rick...
... a Sweep started with the rod tip on the water, if started with an "instant start", is instantly loading the rod because of the "direct" rodtip-line-water connection. For a high rod Sweep to produce instant load, the line must trail "back" from the rod, down to the water - in the OPPOSITE direction of the intended Sweep. If the line and it's contact point with the water lie directly below the rod tip or anywhere in the same direction of the intended Sweep. Instant load will not be created. I don't know if that explanation makes sense to you or not... it's hard to "explain", but really easy to "show" it!
... a Sweep started with the rod tip on the water, if started with an "instant start", is instantly loading the rod because of the "direct" rodtip-line-water connection. For a high rod Sweep to produce instant load, the line must trail "back" from the rod, down to the water - in the OPPOSITE direction of the intended Sweep. If the line and it's contact point with the water lie directly below the rod tip or anywhere in the same direction of the intended Sweep. Instant load will not be created. I don't know if that explanation makes sense to you or not... it's hard to "explain", but really easy to "show" it!
SkagitMeister...
... hope I didn't offend you by critiquing your casts. They actually look very good, but as the saying goes that I once saw/heard expressed on an old Chinese martial arts movie, "your gung fu looks good........ but it could be BETTER!". Skagit casting, as I define and teach it, has several distinct, style-specific principles that once learned, yields significant benefits in casting performance. Those benefits are the ability to cast larger and/or heavier flies on lighter rated equipment, the ability to cheat wind conditions beyond the usual expectations, the ability to cast in tighter quarters, and the ability to cast with less negative physical impact being relayed on to the caster. Just for ****s and grins check out cast #1 on my vid and think of how many Spey-type casters you can think of that are so "casual" in their casting regimen that they can take their downstream "steps" while actually casting? Note throughout the vid the size/weight of some of the flies being cast as evidenced by how significant some of the splashdowns of the fly during the anchor set were and then consider that the rod being used is a 9' 4/5 weight SINGLEHANDER blank that was built into a double. Now consider that I am not athletically "gifted" in any manner and in fact I am the type of guy that if you throw something unexpectedly at me and yell "think fast", I will undoubtedly drop/fumble/miss or get hit by whatever it was that was thrown at me. In other words my timing skillset is not anything special. In other words, just about anyone can learn to cast at this performance level.
... hope I didn't offend you by critiquing your casts. They actually look very good, but as the saying goes that I once saw/heard expressed on an old Chinese martial arts movie, "your gung fu looks good........ but it could be BETTER!". Skagit casting, as I define and teach it, has several distinct, style-specific principles that once learned, yields significant benefits in casting performance. Those benefits are the ability to cast larger and/or heavier flies on lighter rated equipment, the ability to cheat wind conditions beyond the usual expectations, the ability to cast in tighter quarters, and the ability to cast with less negative physical impact being relayed on to the caster. Just for ****s and grins check out cast #1 on my vid and think of how many Spey-type casters you can think of that are so "casual" in their casting regimen that they can take their downstream "steps" while actually casting? Note throughout the vid the size/weight of some of the flies being cast as evidenced by how significant some of the splashdowns of the fly during the anchor set were and then consider that the rod being used is a 9' 4/5 weight SINGLEHANDER blank that was built into a double. Now consider that I am not athletically "gifted" in any manner and in fact I am the type of guy that if you throw something unexpectedly at me and yell "think fast", I will undoubtedly drop/fumble/miss or get hit by whatever it was that was thrown at me. In other words my timing skillset is not anything special. In other words, just about anyone can learn to cast at this performance level.
"yeah but, so & so said"
The finest Communication Skills remain dependent upon the ability to comprehend. Then why are we not seeking advice from so & so? :roll:
The finest Communication Skills remain dependent upon the ability to comprehend. Then why are we not seeking advice from so & so? :roll:
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
