How much fly line?

On Mar 21, 4:44 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 21, 9:59 am, wrote:

Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can cast,
when it has absolutely nothing to do with it?

On this, I must respectfully disagree. If I may use one of Sir
a Isaac's favorite equations, F=ma, it's clear that fast action rods
and
slow action rods have different capacities for the acceleration
component of that equation, and thus have a mathematical difference in
the force they can generate with a constant mass, or a different mass
with a constant force. That difference can manifest itself in either
the fly characteristics or distance cast; but there *will* be a non-
zero difference.

Joe F.

Firstly, rods don´t accelerate anything, casters do. The thing which
is accelerated is the line, the line carries the fly. Rod action
affects how much line speed may be attained, but it is the line which
carries the fly.

There is a slight difference in the amount of weight which a fast
moving line can carry, as opposed to a slow moving line, OF THE SAME
WEIGHT, but this is in fact quite minimal, as it is primarily
dependent on the basic carrying capability of the moving line mass.

There are also quite precise limits to what a line can carry at all.
Regardless of how fast you manage to accelerate say a standard #3
weight line, ( using a rod) it will not carry more than a certain
amount of weight, ( or a bushy fluid resistant fly, )the weight it can
carry ( or the fluid resistance it can overcome) is directly
proportional to the line mass which is actually pulling the fly along
behind it by unrolling. This may also be roughly expressed in grains
per foot ( ignoring the taper etc). The relationship of fly weight
( and/or fluid resistance if known) which the line will carry at all
may be shown on a graph of grains per foot/fly weight.

So although I would prefer to qualify it exactly, I don´t disagree
with you there about the difference being non-zero.It is however
negligible. There are some measurements on this in various studies,
but that would take us too far away from the present subject matter,
and merely confuse the issue.

The difference which accrues by using a shorter line of the same mass
is however very considerable. Regardless of the rod used. The shorter
line OF THE SAME WEIGHT, will carry heavier flies faster and further.
It has more grains per foot, it offers less fluid resistance than a
longer line of the same weight, and it is also a great deal easier to
load the rod properly with it. Something very many casters have severe
problems with.

This is the basic point here.

TL
MC

Incidentally, although a lot is talked about line speed, this is also
something of a misnomer. The force which causes a fly line to unroll
is the same force that keeps it in the air. Tension. The more force
applied to the line, the greater the tension in it, and the faster the
loop unrolls. It is the loop unrolling which pulls the fly along
behind it. The bottom leg of the loop ( in an overhead cast) is
stationary, its speed is exactly zero.

TL
MC

Furthermore, this is also why fast rods cast further, they generate
more tension in the line. Hauling also massively increases line
tension, which is also why hauling allows you to cast further.

It really has nothing at all to do with line speed as such. The
greater tension makes the loop unroll faster.

TL
MC

wrote:
"rb608" wrote:
wrote:
Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can cast,
when it has absolutely nothing to do with it?
On this, I must respectfully disagree. If I may use one of Sir
Isaac's favorite equations, F=ma, it's clear that fast action rods
and slow action rods have different capacities for the acceleration
component of that equation, and thus have a mathematical difference in
the force they can generate with a constant mass, or a different mass
with a constant force. That difference can manifest itself in either
the fly characteristics or distance cast; but there *will* be a non-
zero difference.

Newbie translation: Fast action fly rods are better for casting heavier
or more wind-resistant flies than slow action fly rods. This is common
knowledge and accepted as fact by virtually everyone except the resident
cuckoo.


Firstly, rods don´t accelerate anything, casters do. The thing which
is accelerated is the line, the line carries the fly. Rod action
affects how much line speed may be attained, but it is the line which
carries the fly.

There is a slight difference in the amount of weight which a fast
moving line can carry, as opposed to a slow moving line, OF THE SAME
WEIGHT, but this is in fact quite minimal, as it is primarily
dependent on the basic carrying capability of the moving line mass.

There are also quite precise limits to what a line can carry at all.
Regardless of how fast you manage to accelerate say a standard #3
weight line, ( using a rod) it will not carry more than a certain
amount of weight, ( or a bushy fluid resistant fly, )the weight it can
carry ( or the fluid resistance it can overcome) is directly
proportional to the line mass which is actually pulling the fly along
behind it by unrolling. This may also be roughly expressed in grains
per foot ( ignoring the taper etc). The relationship of fly weight
( and/or fluid resistance if known) which the line will carry at all
may be shown on a graph of grains per foot/fly weight.

So although I would prefer to qualify it exactly, I don´t disagree
with you there about the difference being non-zero.It is however
negligible. There are some measurements on this in various studies,
but that would take us too far away from the present subject matter,
and merely confuse the issue.

The difference which accrues by using a shorter line of the same mass
is however very considerable. Regardless of the rod used. The shorter
line OF THE SAME WEIGHT, will carry heavier flies faster and further.
It has more grains per foot, it offers less fluid resistance than a
longer line of the same weight, and it is also a great deal easier to
load the rod properly with it. Something very many casters have severe
problems with.

This is the basic point here.

Newbie translation: The resident cuckoo disagrees with common knowledge
and says the difference between a fast action fly rod and a slow action
fly rod is "negligible", but he can't "qualify it exactly".

--
Ken Fortenberry

And even furthermore, this is why slack at any point will kill a cast.
Tension is released, and the line begins to fall immediately. It is
also the reason for tailing loops, and most other casting faults.
tension is released, the rod tip deviates from a straight line path,
and that was that.

So you see folks, all the Fortenberries, Dick****s and other
clever****es in the whole world wont make any difference. If you just
think a little but about what I have written, you don´t even have to
try it, you will see that it is exactly correct. If you take it to
heart, you will also be a much better caster.

Have a nice day................

TL
MC

typed:
snip
The more you post, the more people learn to detest you. It beats me
why anybody would want to make such a complete prat of himself, and be
disliked by everybody, but please feel free.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Ken Fortenberry typed:
wrote:
"rb608" wrote:
wrote:
Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can
cast, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it?
On this, I must respectfully disagree. If I may use one of Sir
Isaac's favorite equations, F=ma, it's clear that fast action rods
and slow action rods have different capacities for the acceleration
component of that equation, and thus have a mathematical difference
in the force they can generate with a constant mass, or a different
mass with a constant force. That difference can manifest itself in
either the fly characteristics or distance cast; but there *will*
be a non- zero difference.

Newbie translation: Fast action fly rods are better for casting
heavier or more wind-resistant flies than slow action fly rods. This
is common knowledge and accepted as fact by virtually everyone except
the resident cuckoo.


Firstly, rods don´t accelerate anything, casters do. The thing which
is accelerated is the line, the line carries the fly. Rod action
affects how much line speed may be attained, but it is the line which
carries the fly.

There is a slight difference in the amount of weight which a fast
moving line can carry, as opposed to a slow moving line, OF THE SAME
WEIGHT, but this is in fact quite minimal, as it is primarily
dependent on the basic carrying capability of the moving line mass.

There are also quite precise limits to what a line can carry at all.
Regardless of how fast you manage to accelerate say a standard #3
weight line, ( using a rod) it will not carry more than a certain
amount of weight, ( or a bushy fluid resistant fly, )the weight it
can carry ( or the fluid resistance it can overcome) is directly
proportional to the line mass which is actually pulling the fly along
behind it by unrolling. This may also be roughly expressed in grains
per foot ( ignoring the taper etc). The relationship of fly weight
( and/or fluid resistance if known) which the line will carry at all
may be shown on a graph of grains per foot/fly weight.

So although I would prefer to qualify it exactly, I don´t disagree
with you there about the difference being non-zero.It is however
negligible. There are some measurements on this in various studies,
but that would take us too far away from the present subject matter,
and merely confuse the issue.

The difference which accrues by using a shorter line of the same mass
is however very considerable. Regardless of the rod used. The
shorter line OF THE SAME WEIGHT, will carry heavier flies faster and
further. It has more grains per foot, it offers less fluid
resistance than a longer line of the same weight, and it is also a
great deal easier to load the rod properly with it. Something very
many casters have severe problems with.

This is the basic point here.

Newbie translation: The resident cuckoo disagrees with common
knowledge and says the difference between a fast action fly rod and a
slow action fly rod is "negligible", but he can't "qualify it
exactly".

Further newbie information:
1) Buy a rod and the matching weight line and reel. If you can, get the fly
shop to line the reel including the appropriate amount of backing. Even if
you already have all this stuff, most shops will put it together for a small
fee.
2) Buy some flies from the nice fly shop people - they need the money.
3) Talk to the nice fly shop people. They have some good local information.
4) Go fishing and enjoy yourself.

More newbie info:
1) These boys will fight about anything, so don't take blame or credit for
any of this crap.
2) If I get a sixty foot cast out of my 3wt rod, it is a real rarity. Twenty
to thirty foot casts will get you into plenty of fish.
3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and
present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Mar 21, 7:17 pm, "Tim J."
wrote:

SNiPPED
3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and
present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid
unthinking dumbos who can´t cast, and know virtually nothing about
their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish.

You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that
95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant
as this lot.

MC

wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
SNiPPED
3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and
present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself.

Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid
unthinking dumbos who can´t cast, and know virtually nothing about
their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish.

You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that
95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant
as this lot.

Oops, that intruder must have snuck in again while you were out
of the room and posted more of those unfortunate, extremely common
personal insults and attacks you were complaining about earlier. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 21 Mar 2007 10:52:14 -0700, wrote:

And even furthermore...

And even furthermoreevenmore, you're a loon...four in a row...would the
judges determine if that is a new record, please?

Doubt it helps,
Dickie