Next =>
Table of Contents
<= Back
Contact
The trout flick involves little more than loading the rod, the swing weight and inertia of which is a much larger issue in comparison to the weight-load of the fly line…and then letting the rod unload. Given that the weight of reel seat, cork, guides, wrapping, and tiptop are mostly a constant ,the SW rod is only marginally heavier., a factor of maybe two. But the SW rod is asked to accelerate a weight-load 3-4 times heavier and deal with forces many more times greater than that. The role and importance of rod weight and inertia becomes a progressively smaller factor.

The double haul, a singular manuver absolutely required to effectively cast SW rods, and the rod loading necessary for the haul to be efficient, is not a requirement in short line trout casting.

What is the payoff for developing an effective model? That is a very good question. Monetarily, clearly….nothing. Even if this model, or some permutation of this model, or some completely different model achieves everything I could hope a model could do, it is perfectly clear that the fly rod and to a lesser degree the fly line industry are committed to a confused chaos where superlative adjectives and a continuous hype-promoted need for the “newest best” is the business model. One will never, in the current climate of the industry, see the REAL performance parameters of the rods reduced to generic, standard, easily comparable numeric equivalents. Like, say…a hammer.

But, there is still a need and wish from the consumer side of the equation to cut through the BS. Most fly fishers perceive, at first, that they want to buy a rod based on the line weight, say a nine weight. Unconsciously, I think most REALLY want to buy a rod that will perform WITH a 9 weight line, since they HAVE a 9 weight line OR want to throw flies thrown with a 9 wt. Certainly, right now, one can predict what a 9 wt line flying through the air can do more accurately than one can predict how a 9 wt rod will perform…with… WHICH line? Then it slowly dawns on them that in order to throw a 9 weight line they maybe better buy an 8 wt rod….or if they buy a 9 wt rod….maybe it is going to cast for them best with a 10 wt rod. A system that would accurately predict how a rod will both “feel” and perform based on a standard line weight loading across the spectrum of line weights would be priceless

This was the goal of the Common Cents System (CCS), developed by a mid-west trout fisherman who admittedly never cast more than 35 feet (read his own write-up). It was debating the disturbing inappropriateness of the parameters of the system, 1/3 rod length loading, Action Angle, and the not inappropriate but more tangential ERN that started this whole inquiry. It was only after months of analyzing WHY the CCS system failed at the level of SW rods that I found that the CCS system had already been disqualified as a model for SW rods by a major SUPPORTER of the CCS system for TROUT RODS.

http://www.hatofmichigan.org/uploads/Mechanics_of_Fly_Casting_5.pdf

2
<= Back
Next =>