Pretty much, yes. The line is never allowed to billow out from the spool due to the spool cover containing the line coils.

Spinning reels present a unique challenge because the line isn't controlled at the spool face with a cover. Once it billows out several inches ahead of the spool, you're faced with having to get it back under control. You want to do it as quickly as possible but have to be careful not to do it too quickly or you'll get an overshoot on the butt or subsequent guide. Remember, unlike a spincasting reel, a spinning reel doesn't have the inside of a reel spool cover to keep the line under control.

........................

Now I start to wonder what a say 12-10 ring M guide would do just a few inches from the spool face Hmmmmm Would look funky ?? Would not have the funnel affect like the enclosed reels. I should go out and play.

Bill - willierods.com

The secret to the spincast reels is twofold - the small opening just in front of the spool works because you have a cover over the spool - that's what controls the line. The same small ring just in front of a spinning reel spool without the cover isn't going to work in the same fashion.

.................

I hear ya Tom. If it worked I am sure others would have been using it.

Bill - willierods.com

Just a thought.
Would there be an advantage to changing the reel up-sweep angle by adding shims under the rear foot and tuning the reel to the rod guide placement.
This could move the intersect to the rod to the reel either forward or past the first guide position independent of guide ring dia or offset height. Casting tests could then be quickly reviewed without even rethreading the guides and adjusted for optimum results. My guess would be that the intersect point should be closer to the reel then the first guide in most cases.
This also opens the possibility to design a reel seat to accomplish this and allow the reel angle to be tuned to the rod for best performance.

I've done it and found it makes little to zero difference - the line isn't shot off the reel spool. It's pulled off so spool upsweep really isn't much of a factor.

Have at it, but if you try this, be prepared to have your knuckles smacked when you begin your retrieve. The bail roller assembly will hit you pretty hard if you dial in too much upsweep. Every additional degree you dial in brings the bail roller closer and closer to your knuckles.

...........

Tried it.
Like you suggested only saw about a 5 percent change in casting distance for approx 12 degree change in upsweep.
The knuckle statement was way off though.
The change in distance to my hand was imperceptible.

As you experiment with a greater variety of reels, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Or perhaps I just have big knuckles.

............



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2009 03:04PM by Tom Kirkman.

HOw do you shim the rear of the reel foot?? Once I put my reel foot into the hood opening there is no room for a shim. Does this need a special type of reel seat?

Eugene,

May I ask for more details?

And is the 5 percent increase or decrease? And how did your guide size/height/spacing change with the change in upsweep?

To me, 5% is no small improvement.

Mo

Mo,
The rod is an old store bought 6'6" Berkley 2-piece, steel ferrule, glass Lemonwood.
Now stop laughing and we'll continue.
The reel is a Shakespeare #2062 spooled with 8# test mono to about 2/3 capacity.
The line is possibly antique judging by the coil memory.
The rod has only 4 guides plus tip top.
5mm tip top,6mm double foot, 7mm double foot, 10mm double foot, 20mm double foot
All guides are stainless, most grooved and all rusty.
My father didn't believe in expensive rods, but fished this rod heavily because it cast well.

My test consisted of loosening the back hood and shimming under the reel foot until there was almost no purchase left. Quick math gave me an intersect angle of about 12 to 14 degrees.
The intersect point was in front of the first guide.
Casting was 1/4 ounce cone head.
Casting was done in my front yard and the distance paced-off at 90' plus or minus 4 feet.
Casting for distance was an operator control issue so I setteled on what I could easily and consistently cast.
The shims were then removed bringing the reel back to the 4 degrees factory and pushing the intersect past the first guide.
Casting distance increased to about 96' plus or minus 4 feet. The casts were still easy and consistent. It however was not the WOW I had anticipated.
I could see the casts landing on my neighbor's driveway. The original was the near edge plus or minus about 1 pace. The lesser angle was about mid driveway but none fell short of the drive.
Better but not earth-shaking.
The reel has a 2 inch spool so I think a larger first guide would help but I'm not going to rebuild it.

My spinning rods have reserved duty with my grandchildren until they want me to build them their own rod. Until then my father's rods remain as they were when he used them and as I grew up borrowing them.

Sorry for the trip dowm memory lane.

Gene

Eugene. Thanks.

LOL. I wasn't laughing until I read your 'stop laughing' comment. Rest assured I'm no equipment snob though I like to think about pushing the envelope.....:)

Mo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 11:29PM by Mo Yang.

Thanks Tom for your last post, it answers the question of how do you know. Knowing that the videos have been consistent is important.

Some numbers to give some idea of the dynamics involved:

One source said fly casting dynamics calculations resulted in velocities of up to 600 ft per second, about 400 miles per hour.

One casting distance I've seen mentioned a lot is 135 feet. Some rough calculations indicate that to do that would require an average speed of about 45 mph. I estimate that to do this would require an initial velocity of about 90 mph (about 120 fps). This seems consistent with the velocities of other "arm motion" activities, like tennis serves and pitchers fast balls-with a long rod it is easier to reach higher velocities than with short arms and tennis raquets. The lure would be in the air about 3 seconds, given an intial angle of 45 degrees up for the cast. Given 90 mph line speed through the first guide, it would take about .014 seconds for the line to travel from the reel to the first guide (assuming 20 inches). The line would be subjected to gravity between the reel and the first guide for about .014 seconds, and at 32 ft/sec/sec, would move about .003 inches down (due to gravity). The longer the cast the faster the line must move, so .003 is not a minimum number; longer casts and it will get smaller.

I think the comment by Barry that you would definitely want to upset the revolving coil of line quickly is very pertinent, because the air drag of moving a big coil of line through the air at 120 fps has to be a lot more than moving a straight line through the air along its axis (as it would be with a guide upsetting it and reducing its size. Interestingly, what guide will get the line into the closest thing to a straight line with minimal coiling and therefore the least amount of air drag? A micro).

The earlier comment on line motion being chaos is pertinent also in that it appears that there are so many dynamic influences above and beyond gravity (without the coil having been upset, gravity hasn't the time to significantly affect the line position), but after removing the other dynamic influences (chaos)by the "interference" of the guide, gravity takes on a bigger role as almost the only influence left except axial velocity of the line. Yes, I know I think and talk in generalities-I'm an engineer, remember? Engineers do more of that than most people think.

I think this means that we have not been able to theoretically identify the most successful geometry, but have to rely on testing to identify it. It appears that there are a few principal features that work (like 27x, first guide dia ~ 1/2 reel spool diameter, NGC and quickly getting the line controlled) consistently, but there is a lot that just has to be experimented with in order to optimize for the particular characteristics of your system, like line specs, reel geometry beyond spool diameter, rod flex characteristics, rod mass, and probably more).

I may get to doing some testing today, but have a lot going on. Will report anything of significance. This has been a really valuable discussion for me, and I appreciate all your contributions. I think I have a much better idea of what's going on now than before. I expect in the future we will reduce the mysteries even more.

Keep in mind that gravity always has an effect - even at the outset of the cast. Effort and Inertia can overcome some amount of gravity for some period of time, but gravity is still affecting things nonetheless. Gravity nevers shuts itself off - it is affecting the line the whole time. If you used the same rod, reel and line and made a cast where gravity was not present, the line coils and line path would be totally different.

....................

I am fully aware that gravity is always there, but what my numbers were looking at was how significant it is when the line is accelarating from zero to about 90 mph in miliseconds by being pulled axially off a reel spool. And as you cannot argue the fact that gravity is always there, you also cannot argue the fact that if the line has only .014 seconds between the reel and the first guide in which it can act, the line can be moved down about .003 inches. The only option for error here is that my velocity estimate is way off.

Surely on a slow lazy cast gravity will be more significant as it will have more time to act. We are talkling about long casts, however, and long casts will have high velocity. But if I am off by 50%, line movement between the reel and the first guide due to gravity will not exceed .006.

I did get time to do some casting tests on my ultralight , 7 1/2 foot built on a 3 wt fly blank, Shimano Solstice 500 size reel, 8 # Stealth braid, guides 25, 12, 8, 6, 3, 3, 3. At the last minute I replaced a 3 with the 6 fly after doing a couple test casts and thought it worked better with the 6 fly guide. I am not confident in the rigor of those tests. Today I tested the rod as above and also with a 18 first guide placed on centerline as the other guides were. I put auto wax on the first three guides, let it dry, and cast to see how the line was contacting the guides.

Results: On the first two guides, whether 18 or 25, the wax was evenly removed, and completely removed from the inside of the ring surface. There was no indication of line building up and upsetting the wax on the face of the guides. It just looked liked I carefully buffed the wax all the way around the guide ring, forming a very shiny clean ring on the inside surface of the guide ring. It had significant width, but I didn't measure it. It was unclear whether the third or fourth guides were affected similarly; I think they were not.

The casting distance of the rod with the 25 first guide was about 2 feet longer on average than the 18, and both sounded the same to the ear. Since 2 feet in 120 feet is less than 2 %, it may or may not be real. I'm just reporting what I observed. The group sizes of both setups were quite tight, with 4 feet max variation in distance.

If you want to continue experimenting, try this - Keep what you have now (25 - 12 - 8 - 6 and 3's) and find a lower framed 25 that you can install in place of the 12, or use the 18 as the butt guide and find a lower frame 18 to use in place of the 12. In other words, make the size of the first 2 guides the same, but keep the same line path. this requires the second guide be a lower framed version of the first. I have something on this in the issue of RodMaker but you can play around with it and see what you think.

............

I assume the guide placements were identical and the first one was set up so the line path was through the center of the rings and the other one with the guide edges directly along the line path? If this is the case and you got no major increase in distance then I think Tom's original point is pretty valid. Setting the guide ring edge on the line path is pretty much how I settled setting mine up anyway. I never did get any extra distance by setting up with the path running through the middle of the rings. I don't think I can say I lost any distance but I didn't get any extra distance so I go with the more compact set up of having the guide ring edge on the line path.

Tom, I just happened to think about your last post and wondered what happens when you make the first two guides the same ring diameter? Seems like it might be hard to find two rings in the same size but in proportionally different frame sizes.

Michael,
Good dynamic analysis.
Now look at the rotational speeds produced while pulling line off the spool at that velocity.
I don't know the spool dia of the reel you are referring to but the rotational speeds for a 2" spool will be in excess of 15,000 RPM.
This is string trimmer type of velocity and gravity plays little effect. Centrifugal forces are the large player. If the line was not controlled by the subsequent guide it would stand straight out.
The line is attempting to barrel about an axis as it's being pulled out.
This effect is velocity sensitive and will change as cast velocities are reduced but are at their highest when attempting long range casts. More energy in much more drag. Diminishing returns.

Gene



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 11:23PM by Eugene Moore.

Ken,

This was difficult in earlier days - you had to combine a spinning type guide with a casting guide. It looked odd, thus few did it. I stumbled on it 30 years ago but have yet to complete a rod with that particular set up. Today it would easy to implement - you have some guide types that feature the same frame design with the same size guide rings in at least a couple of different heights

As far as what happens, I'm not going to spill the beans. I think anyone interested in casting distance should just try it and see for themselves.

..............