Got hand it to the marketing types at Orvis who never are at a loss to describe a new fly rod's advantages, and for 2024 the newest model Helios is 4X more accurate than its predecessor. Golly. Guess I'm lucky to keep a cast in the stream using my old Superfine.

My fly tends to go exactly where I cast it, whether that is where I intended or not.

.........

Same with every rod I have ever owned.

The new one is much better than the one made last year, for the last 30+ years.

Interestingly, the traces of tip movement Orvis is advertising, as pointed out to me by David Taylor, are the same as those one gets on golf clubs when the FLO, Flat Line Oscillation technique is used to select the proper orientation for the shaft/club face. FLO builds result in a trace that is a straight line. And they are the same as observed when doing the True Natural Frequency process. You can rotate the blank until its response to release from deflection has the tip vibration defining a straight line, not a "hunting" motion. Does this contribute to accuracy? I don't know, but before dismissing it, you might want to do some experimenting yourself. Piece of cake to do it.

I have one spin rod that seems to cast a little to the right when I'm going overhead with it. It was not built consistent with FLO. It was built before I knew about FLO. But I'm seriously considering building consistent with FLO from now on.

I don't contend that this is an "earth shaking discovery;"a bazillion fish have been caught with rods built without knowing this. But, it might be more than insignificant.

When, holding a rod in your hand, as you would, when, casting, you will not get those same oscillations that you would get if you clamped the butt end to a rigid object. The rod, might bounce once, if at all.

………..

The rod WILL recover from being loaded, but will it recover exactly in the plane of deflection? It is the first recovery that is the issue, not subsequent recoveries, and based on the traces of the tip, it may or may not recover in the same plane as the deflection. No, it will not be a great difference, but there is likely a difference. Significant?

It's easy to dismiss new information, especially if one does not understand or experience it himself. Or if it goes against his long held beliefs.

Similar to "to spline or not to spline."

The lure or line will already be on its way by the time the rod begins to recover. How much the rod can affect accuracy after the cast has been made might be seen by what you can do with the rod in terms of affecting the lure's flight path after its left the rod tip. You can certainly stop the lure's flight be clamping the line but what can you do in terms of moving it left or right by rod movement after the cast?

I wouldn't compare it to the spine nonsense. We have proof that spine cannot stop rod twist and results in less deadlift capacity. These aren't beliefs - they're facts. Conversely, 40+ years after the spine theory was unveiled, there has never been a single iota of proof that it offers the advantages claimed.

...........

But spine will still be a significant issue in rodbuilding. Probably forever. All the "proof" will not change that. Look at all the tutorials that still advocate it, and tools marketed to find it. It is not going to go away, no matter what "proof" there is.

Believe that FLO/Orvis accuracy arguments could be significant or not. Your choice. But there is no evidence that FLO/Orvis does NOT affect accuracy. That's a fact also. It is a new idea, may or may not be significant, but too early to dismiss it, IMHO.

I submit that the direction the lure takes in response to the recovery of the rod from deflection/load will be dependent on the rod characteristics in its response to deflection. It's not AFTER the cast has been made, it is DURING the cast motion/action/recovery.

I agree about the spine stuff - myths die hard and apparently don't require any proof whatsoever to stay alive.

Unless a casting machine can be devised to make identical casts with different rods there is little means to determine if the claims made by Orvis, or others, have any validity. Stan Fagerstrom, who's been gone a few years now but was one of the two greatest casters ever born, could pick up any rod and work his magic. Was he adapting to differences in how the rods cast or did it simply not make any difference. I wished I had asked him when I had the chance.

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

Nobody casts on the same plane or axis each time. So all this stuff about tracking and oscillations affecting casting accuracy are out the window. They would change on each axis so if they really made any difference you would be accurate on one plane and not on any other. Guys that can cast can cast accurately on any plane.

I want a rod that is 4X less likely to catch a tree limb behind me...or a tuft of tall grass....or guarantee I won't drop a cast or throw tailing loops....

Even at 4X less likely, the only thing I can guarantee is that stuff happens.

I can't imagine flycasting and thinking to myself "dang if I'd had the new orvis helios rod maybe I wouldn't have missed the shot!

Tom wrote..."My fly tends to go exactly where I cast it, whether that is where I intended or not."

Yes...funny, and also simple laws of physics.

Mike wrote..."Nobody casts on the same plane or axis each time. So all this stuff about tracking and oscillations affecting casting accuracy are out the window. They would change on each axis so if they really made any difference you would be accurate on one plane and not on any other. Guys that can cast can cast accurately on any plane."

This notion supports what Tom had to say. Whatever direction that tip is going at that final moment is where everything else is going.

I liken it to a well "bore sighted" rifle whose position is such that, when solidly locked into place will hit a small bullseye at 100 yards. Load it, fire it, and as long as you do not change its position, it will hit the target. Now free that gun into the arms of a human being, and you now might find that the gun may not be hitting that bullseye consistently any more. Did something change with the gun? Of course not. Perhaps Orvis may one day market a gun that finally shoots straight! :-)

"Whatever direction that tip is going at that final moment is where everything else is going." yes, but if the rod recovers in a direction not opposite to its defection, there will be an error. Whether Orvis has done something significant, like FLO, to ensure that this does not happen, is debatable.

The issue is whether or not one can accurately predict the direction of recovery or not.

I think there were a lot of people who thought the Wright brothers would never get off the ground, too.

A golf club has a fixed head used to strike a ball. The angle of the face of the club head can change due to rotational forces that may occur as the shaft unloads

On a fishing rod, the only thing fixed to the blank are the components on the rod. The line connected to the lure being cast isn't fixed, and it's flexible. That flexibility is going to eat up any energy that may be transferred to the line from any rotational forces generated by a loading or unloading rod blank.

If I am already hitting my target, how does a supposedly more accurate rod help me to be more accurate?? The tip end of a rod blank going somewhere other than along the same plane as where the caster aimed it will not happen until at least after the cast has happened. The lure or line leaves the station at the point that the rod is unloaded. What the tip does or where it goes after that is not going to affect anything in terms of the portion of the cast that sends the lure or line on its way. These "tests" that Orvis and others are doing are nothing more than marketing.

There's an old joke about a post office clerk who told a customer that he’d put more postage on a letter than it needed. The guy said, “Gee, I hope it doesn’t go too far.”

The Orvis FLO thing isn’t new. It gets trotted out about every 6 or 7 years in some form or another. If you’re not an accurate caster it’s not going to turn you into one. If you are already an accurate caster your only concern should be that it might make you too accurate. Although, I'm not sure how you'd ever know.

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

When the manufacturers reveal the next generation item, what do you expect them to say.

"Here it is gang!. It may look the same but it's better, trust me !"

It's just a matter of how gullible they think we are.

I adapt to the rod I using and enjoy my time on the water.

Have fun

Mike Danek wrote..."yes, but if the rod recovers in a direction not opposite to its defection, there will be an error."

What error? There is no error. Whatever the combination of forces exerted on the rod at any particular time will result in whatever you end up with. Regardless of the characteristics of the rod, nobody is going to make the same cast with all of its various forces acting on it at any given time twice. I don't know what the odds of doing so are, but I bet you have a better chance of winning the lottery on demand. And if you cannot do that, all the technology put into the rod to "keep things straight" is ludicrous.

>"The issue is whether or not one can accurately predict the direction of recovery or not."

Again...who cares? If you cannot duplicate any given casting situation with all its variables twice, you can't get the same result twice....let alone every cast!

>"I think there were a lot of people who thought the Wright brothers would never get off the ground, too."

The Wright brothers were in pursuit of one of the most incredible inventions the human race ever created. An original invention. I think rod companies are all too often guilty of trying to reinvent the wheel.