# Pulling force -tournament casting



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

Has anyone ever measured the pulling force in lbs exerted on the grip end by the better long distance tournament casters? If so is there an average?


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

lucky strike said:


> Has anyone ever measured the pulling force in lbs exerted on the grip end by the better long distance tournament casters? If so is there an average?


That's an interesting question, not actually sure how you could measure it, but I would think the results would be interesting, I'd also be interested in measuring actual speed, both rod tip speed and initial sinker launch velocity-- for starters, and looking at possible correlations.


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

I belive that if we could find out force lbs, say 20 ,30 or 40 on the pull,it would allow us to get to a correct ratio of grip length to working length (reel to tip).Let suppose it takes 30 lbs of force on the pull, it would then in casting a 6oz sinker necessiate a 4to 1 ratio.example--13ft rod -grip 31" -working end 125"= 4 to 1 ratio.
I am under the impression that many grip lengths are too short for creating the best leverage. If the casted weight becomes lighter ,then the ratio would increase say 4/12 to maybe 5 to 1. (shorter handle) and so on- IMHO


----------



## pogeymoe (May 5, 2009)

there are several math equasions that are used in archery to measure ft/lbs of energy.not sure how yet but some of these may give an energy/speed rating.not sure how variables would come into play....ill think on it.

some guy i used to fish with on longbeach pier could sling his anchor farther than any cast ive seen.think he used a jigmaster with an 11' rod.im determined to get that good.it was crazy how far he slung that thing.

id be interested to see a study on lb test / weight and rod lenth to see what the overall best casting como is.hard to do when you have better quality blaks versus lesser qualuity ones.so many variables though!


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

I think I understand your reasoning, but I see a problem. The pulling force required on X rod may not be the same force required on Y rod to achieve the same bend, and tells us nothing about the rods ability to recover and launch a missile. I find it interesting from the standpoint of detemining whether better casters have refined a technique that results in a more efficient "pull" -- even if that pull may not register the same force as say a stronger person/ mechanical arm might be able to put on a rod.

Unfortunatley I don't think a robotic arm would help us with this one-- it's important to remember there are several "forces" at work ( push and pull, for starters) that combine to lead to ultimate tip speed, leading to (hopefully) ultimate sinker launch velocity.

Interesting topic.


----------



## billr87 (Jan 13, 2008)

what would it mean in distance? no two people cast the same. tommy hits it about as hard as anyone i've seen, yet he varies depending on the conditions.


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

lucky strike said:


> I belive that if we could find out force lbs, say 20 ,30 or 40 on the pull,it would allow us to get to a correct ratio of grip length to working length (reel to tip).Let suppose it takes 30 lbs of force on the pull, it would then in casting a 6oz sinker necessiate a 4to 1 ratio.example--13ft rod -grip 31" -working end 125"= 4 to 1 ratio.
> I am under the impression that many grip lengths are too short for creating the best leverage. If the casted weight becomes lighter ,then the ratio would increase say 4/12 to maybe 5 to 1. (shorter handle) and so on- IMHO


OK, that makes things a little clearer-- if I interpret you right your attempting to determine optimum hand spread ?

Unfortunately this varies from individual to individual, based on arm length, chest and shoulder width, etc.-- and as you noted changes with rod length, weight of payload, etc. 

Spreading the hands farther apart does allow for more power, but at a loss of speed transfer (hand over hand).

A little expermentation will usually find most comfortable and optimum spread for each individual-- also important to note-- to a degree spreading the hands leads to being able to apply more power-- but more than a few tournament casters have found doing so increases risk of injury-- especially to the shoulders and back.


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm actually looking for the correct handle or butt or grip or whatever you choose to call it ratio to the working end (reel to tip top) on any rod. I don't think that the pull force varies that much on the better casters. IT would only give a good indiication of the best ratio to go by for the weight being casted and the length of the rod


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

lucky strike said:


> I'm actually looking for the correct handle or butt or grip or whatever you choose to call it ratio to the working end (reel to tip top) on any rod. I don't think that the pull force varies that much on the better casters. IT would only give a good indiication of the best ratio to go by for the weight being casted and the length of the rod


Manufacturers use such data to design rods that perform reasonably well for the "average" caster. 

If you take the caster out of the equation you are not looking for ideal reel placement for an individual.


One of the reasons tournament casters use coasters instead of reel seats is so they can fine tune reel placement for any given rod, with any given weight--- for themselves-- this does not equate with what is best for someone else.

Most tournament casters also use "low" reel position-- which would make your ratio meaningless to them-- the reel is generally placed a few inches or so from the very end of the butt--- then the upperhand can be placed wherever necessary to have proper hand spread.


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't think so. On a low reel the right hand assumes the fulcrom point taking over where the high reel was ,making the working part of the rod from the right hand to the tip top


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

lucky strike said:


> I'm actually looking for the correct handle or butt or grip or whatever you choose to call it ratio to the working end (reel to tip top)


Well, I am not representing the "better" casters by no means but, from the butt of my rod to the reel is about 4". From tip to reel is roughly 14' 4". Hope this helps you figure out your equations.

Robert


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

what I think is being misunderstood is the value of the rod itself.
Every mfgr, if they are worth their salt knows exactly what a specific rod is capable of doing. lets say for example a 13" tournament rod built to throw 175 grams and using coasters.There is a point along the rod (fulcrum) where one hand is placed and the other hand on the butt end that will give the optimum amount of leverage or rod ratio to be able to cast 175 grams to its' farthest distance. X pull force at x speed + rod ratio(x:1}= optimum distance
Whatever hand spacing a caster decides is a matter of personal preferance


----------



## gamblr2004 (May 26, 2008)

just thinking out loud, what if there was only one specific rod per weight class (standardized) you could throw and out the box reels only. now that's a brain teaser. and yes tommy and a maybe 15 others would still through a country mile but it would be interesting to see what the rest of us could do.


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

lucky strike said:


> Every mfgr, if they are worth their salt knows exactly what a specific rod is capable of doing. lets say for example a 13" tournament rod built to throw 175 grams and using coasters.


You are correct, I believe you will find this information on the side of most all blanks built from the factory.



lucky strike said:


> There is a point along the rod (fulcrum) where one hand is placed and the other hand on the butt end that will give the optimum amount of leverage or rod ratio to be able to cast 175 grams to its' farthest distance. X pull force at x speed + rod ratio(x:1}= optimum distance
> Whatever hand spacing a caster decides is a matter of personal preferance


If personal preference is defined as optimum placement for maximum distance. No two casters will have their hands in the exact same place on any one rod. Physical size and personal strength dictate hand placement. The rod does not necessarily have a place for the front and back hands that will work for everyone that is throwing it. Acquire a rod, slap some coasters on it. Throw plenty of test casts with different reel positions and hand positions. Find the optimum placement for you. I am willing to bet no two other people will put their hands in the exact same place as you if they get to throw the same rod for a while.


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

Of course, my entire last post is merely my opinion, I could be absolutely wrong.

Robert


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

I think I may be starting to get your point. Going on the theory that a butt has a natural fulcrum point-- you are suggesting the upper hand be placed at that point-- the lower hand can be placed at a comfortable hand spread for each caster.

This theory may follow for some types of tournament butts--however some butts are of a bit of different design, a progressive type butt can allow a caster to start with his hands higher and move them downward as he learns the rod or "grows" into it if you will.


----------



## Tommy (Jan 24, 2001)

Good thread. 

My 2 cents...

It would be great if the manufacturer could/would mark the butt for ideal fulcrum point. There are just too many variables to make this work. 

Example - Take two popular Zziplex rods, the Full Tournament and the HST. Both can be purchased with the fulcrum butt and the tip/butts are interchangable. The rods, although the same length have a very different tip action which means a different effective length (length while loaded). So a 13' hst would not react the same way a 13' FT would react and could need a different top hand placement. 

Another problem exists with the individual caster. A guy that is 6'5 with a huge wingspan will not have the same top hand grip as a guy 5'11" with short stumpy arms..... 

It is my understanding that Terry Carrol designs Zziplex butts to work with the reel mounted very low on the butt or off of a reducer. You basically have a range on the butt that still allows the "fulcrum" butt to work.

Hope this makes sense.

Tommy


----------



## rsqchief5 (Jan 5, 2009)

Somebody needs to send in a suggestion to the show "Timewarp" on Discovery and let some pro's get video'd....that would intresting as hell to watch with time lapse video.


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

You fellas are getting close, especially Tommy. If you go back to the 3rd post you will notice that my inquiry was not essentially hand placement but the amount of torque generated to provide a working rod to grip ratio to produce max distance for a particular rod at a particular length and casting a particular weight.A caster might have his own preferance for hand spacing but that might not be the best placement for optimum casting distance on that particular rod ,so the caster has to apply usually more force to get the desired result depending on where he places the hands.If he knew the correct ratio IE: grip end (we will call force) to working end (we will call resistance)he would not run into a guessing game for the best place to mount high reel or upper hand placement for low reel.


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

Theoretically what you are saying makes sense, but in the real world, optimum hand placement is a fluid dynamic. What works best for the rod very rarely works best for a broad spectrum of casters. If one or two people can place their hands on the "sweet spot" you keep referring to and are able to utilize the rod with their hands exactly where physics say they should be, GREAT!! But as soon as a caster with any variance in strength or body size grabs the rod, all bets are off, they will not cast the rod to their fullest potential trying to replicate another persons grip. That is the bottom line in this sport, each person trying to throw their potential. If we all could throw to the rods potential, this forum would be mighty silent.  It would be interesting to see how much force is applied to the punch and pull to achieve certain distances with a consistent rod and consistent weight.

Robert


----------



## Tommy (Jan 24, 2001)

Glad to know I'm close.... 

A close grip *will* generate more tip speed *if* the caster is able to get the rod around. I routinely adjust my grip (even have different marks with electrical tape) when changing from 100 to 125 to 150 and to 175. The lighter sinkers provide less resistance and can be brought around using a closer grip making for a much faster powerstroke. I cannot bring the 175 around with the same grip as a 100g. The cast overpowers the caster, usually resulting in cutting the corner and coming overhead. The wider grip gives you the leverage to maintain control and finish the cast properly with a heavy sinker. I've come to these grip positions from literally thousands of casts.

A powercast is a very dynamic thing. No two casters hit the rod the same, heck for that matter no two casts from the same caster are the same. 

Tommy


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

What would be even more interesting is to see how much more force is required to achieve the same distance if the hands were not at the optimum placement. That would just be a study in efficiency then.

Robert


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

lucky strike said:


> You fellas are getting close, especially Tommy. If you go back to the 3rd post you will notice that my inquiry was not essentially hand placement but the amount of torque generated to provide a working rod to grip ratio to produce max distance for a particular rod at a particular length and casting a particular weight.A caster might have his own preferance for hand spacing but that might not be the best placement for optimum casting distance on that particular rod ,so the caster has to apply usually more force to get the desired result depending on where he places the hands.If he knew the correct ratio IE: grip end (we will call force) to working end (we will call resistance)he would not run into a guessing game for the best place to mount high reel or upper hand placement for low reel.


Your getting close to describing how a trebuchet works (at least in principle).

You idea would be valid -- if we attached a rod's fulcrum point to a fixed point that it would rotate around (think teeter totter) that fixed point would serve as a fixed fulcrum, then the only variable becomes how fast a pulling hand can pull the rod butt around that fixed point.

We would find that we would have to adjust the fulcrum point to offer either more speed-- or more leverage-- as we changed weights with a given rod (assumes a standard drop length for each weight. )

I don't know how much it would teach us about casting, but it would make an excellent aid in teaching the mechanics of the pull-- simply by taking everything else out of the equation. 



> A caster might have his own preferance for hand spacing but that might not be the best placement for optimum casting distance on that particular rod ,so the caster has to apply usually more force to get the desired result depending on where he places the hands.If he knew the correct ratio IE: grip end (we will call force) to working end (we will call resistance)he would not run into a guessing game for the best place to mount high reel or upper hand placement for low reel


I think we underdstand your point-- do you understand ours?

Essentially it doesn't matter where that fulcrum is "best" for the rod-- it has to be "best" for the caster -- the only real benefit I see to knowing the rods best fulcrum point-- is it might allow a caster to intially purchase a rod that best "fits" them.

I think you might be suggesting that the caster needs to adapt to what is best for the rod-- we're simply saying that isn't very realistic in all cases. A caster has to work within his own abilities to get what he can out of a given rod, it certainly helps if we start with the best possible match between rod and caster.

Hope that makes sense.

:fishing:


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

Amen to Tommy_he is correct!!!- shorten the grip for lighter weight and lengthen it for heavier weight. That is what changes the ratio as in 5:1 or 4:1 or 3:1 etc; He is changing the ratio just as I described.If you go very wide you will gain leverage but lose speed and distance and if you shorten you will lose some leverage but will gain distance . Tommy is a strong guy
so bringng his hands closer together will accomplish distance on casting a lighter weight. I have no doubt that if I or we tried the same ,we couldn't manufacture the same torque on a rod with maybe 5 or 6:1 ratio


----------



## lucky strike (Jun 5, 2008)

Surf Cat, nNick at breakaway got it right!-He created an decent rod with a slightly less than 4:1 ratio that wil cast 5 oz 200 yds +.. I can attest to that. Im 5'10" 185 lbs and 63 yrs old and I have done it many times. The average and or better than average caster will benefit from his rod specs


----------



## Tommy (Jan 24, 2001)

Actually you can throw the heavier weights just as far as the light weights. The _speed_ benefits the lighter sinkers, they accelerate much faster, reach a higher top speed and then slow down fast. You have got to generate rod tip speed to get distance.

The 175 on the other hand is a different beast. It takes _power_ to make it fly. The leverage gained by a wider grip helps to generate that power, at the cost of losing tip speed. The 175 starts slower, has a much lower top speed but the mass and momentum of the lead lets it fly just as far or farther. 

That is why there are line diameter restrictions. The 175 would smoke all of the sinkers if you could throw it on the .25 diameter line that the 100g sinkers use.

Tommy


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

lucky strike said:


> Surf Cat, nNick at breakaway got it right!-He created an decent rod with a slightly less than 4:1 ratio that wil cast 5 oz 200 yds +.. I can attest to that. Im 5'10" 185 lbs and 63 yrs old and I have done it many times. The average and or better than average caster will benefit from his rod specs



I assume you are referencing the HDX ?


----------



## curtisb (Jul 21, 2004)

Surf Cat said:


> I assume you are referencing the HDX ?


Looks more like he is talking about the LDX by the weight and distance. Could be wrong thou cause both rods work equally well. I have the new HDX/GT(Grand Tournament). You have to get Nick to build it cause it is not available over the counter. It uses the HDX T-butt with a new tip section. I threw the proto-type when I was down last year for the SFCCI Tourney. Mine was second one he built(he built three total). This rod has alot faster recovering tip the the standard HDX uses and light as a feather.


----------



## sinisterfins (Sep 20, 2007)

Is there a pop quiz on material dynamics coming up ? If so I'm dead !


----------



## KConrad (Oct 14, 2007)

sinisterfins said:


> Is there a pop quiz on material dynamics coming up ? If so I'm dead !


I don't know about a quiz, I'm dead too... but I was enjoying this very academic discussion up and to the point of the "plug and run" ha ha....


----------



## kingfisherman23 (Dec 14, 2003)

Are you saying that the rod should have a fixed fulcrum/rotation point marked for ideal action? Following the basic mechanics of the cast, this fulcrum point would correspond to the right (or upper, for you crazy lefties) hand position. This would then also mean that (as the fulcrum point is designed not to move) you should move the reel/lower hand position to accommodate ideal caster grip.

Two problems with this. A) Moving the reel up and down to get the perfect grip is a real pain in the ass . B) As you move the reel up the butt, you lose effective length and reduce the output power. I believe Terry Carroll has the right idea. Instead of having a fixed point for the fulcrum, he has designed a set area for the reel and leaves the adjustment up to the caster.

Above all, at the end of the day what really matters is that you are comfortable with the rod you are holding.

Tommy, is a "fulcrum butt" the same thing as a "tournament butt"? And if so, how does it differ from the standard butt? (To make it easier for me to follow, let's keep the explanation in terms of the HDX )



rsqchief5 said:


> Somebody needs to send in a suggestion to the show "Timewarp" on Discovery and let some pro's get video'd....that would intresting as hell to watch with time lapse video.


Hahaha I had the same thought. I started a thread in their "Show Ideas" forum regarding rod action and reel mechanics. I even linked to some of Tommy and Big Danny's videos.

Evan


----------



## billr87 (Jan 13, 2008)

how do you factor in age? maybe i could get better distance.


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

> is a "fulcrum butt" the same thing as a "tournament butt"? And if so, how does it differ from the standard butt? (To make it easier for me to follow, let's keep the explanation in terms of the HDX


When Nick at Breakaway first came out with the HDX, it was available with two different butts. The standard fishing butt was shorter, giving the rod a total length of 13'. THey also made available a "tournament butt" which was a foot longer, making the rod 14' in total length. In this case the term tournament butt was simply used to distinguish between the two different butts. --- If you ordered the rod with the tournament butt-- you were ordering a rod 14' long, otherwise you were getting the standard length fishing rod at 13'.

From what I have been able to gather, when it comes to tournament butts by companies such as Zziplex and Century, there is essentially two designs-- the fulcrum based design-- which essentially puts the top hand in an area best suited to load the rod-- and a progressive "gear box" design-- (mostly employed by Century) that allows a caster to start with both hands higher up the rod, and then gradually move them lower as they "learn" the rod. There could be more to it than that, and I may have misinterpreted some of the info that is available-- I'm certain Tommy or others may have more insight into butt design.

My opinion is that the fulcrum point is not super critical -- there is certainly room to allow for different hand placement, based on caster arm length, shoulder width, etc., to a certain degree. Since many of these rods can be used with or without a reducer-- that obviously allows for a little room on hand placement manuvering.

At the end of the day-- the best hand placement for any individual is the one that allows them to bend the rod to the best of their ability-- while still being able to generate the maximum tip speed they can attain-- irregardless of what is "best" for the rod.


----------



## FishRung (Nov 26, 2002)

For your consideration (from another forum) - http://books.google.com/books?id=-P...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPT118,M1

The conclusions reached are pretty much what you'd expect. Reducing the number of guides on the rod will increase distance by reducing drag on the running line seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

Brian


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

FishRung said:


> For your consideration (from another forum) - http://books.google.com/books?id=-P...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPT118,M1
> 
> The conclusions reached are pretty much what you'd expect. Reducing the number of guides on the rod will increase distance by reducing drag on the running line seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
> 
> Brian



Thanks for the link Brian, it was an interesting read, but I spot several problems with the analysis, altho for the most part it does tell us things we generally know from experience. I wish they would have used some decent equipment and a qualified caster-- the fact that with 4 oz weight-- best distances achieved of 63 meters--- says a lot about the caster/ and perhaps the equipment used. I didn't catch the diameter of the running line -- I'm assuming rather heavy mono-- not good for distance with spinning gear.

OK-- best distances were achieved with the heavier weight (4 oz) than a 2 or 3 oz weight. We know that if we can get a heavier weight up to speed -- it will tow the line (or bait) better than a light weight. 

Keeping in mind they were using spinning gear-- then yes the drag from the line running into the (stripper) guides is what brought distances down-- way down. Reducing the number of guides might help-- but I think more modern equipment--- braid-- lowriders guides-- perhaps a casting lesson , would have achieved much better results. 

There math is ok --- but left out any mention of wind effects/ etc.-- still it was interesting. 

Not really scientific-- but a valiant effort nonetheless.


----------



## Hanginon (Jan 11, 2008)

I'm going to simplify things a little bit here but, basically, you have to remember that if two different people cast a 150 gram sinker the same distance, the same amount of energy was applied (output side of the equation). The input side is influenced by a whole bunch of factors, many of which have been discussed, and will certainly effect how efficiently energy is put into the cast.

While force (strength) and fulcrum (arm length) have been considered, how the force is applied OVER TIME during the cast has not.

The simple fact is that the person who has a high percentage of "fast twitch fibers" in their muscles is at an advantage in casting, and will certainly be able to take full advantage of a very fast responding rod. A "sprinter", if you will. Those like me, who's body types favor "endurance" sports, and who's muscles are "slow twitch", are probably better off with a slower responding rod.


----------



## Fishinbuddy (Mar 11, 2009)

opcorn: Interesting stuff here.


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

Hanginon said:


> I'm going to simplify things a little bit here but, basically, you have to remember that if two different people cast a 150 gram sinker the same distance, the same amount of energy was applied (output side of the equation). The input side is influenced by a whole bunch of factors, many of which have been discussed, and will certainly effect how efficiently energy is put into the cast.
> 
> While force (strength) and fulcrum (arm length) have been considered, how the force is applied OVER TIME during the cast has not.
> 
> The simple fact is that the person who has a high percentage of "fast twitch fibers" in their muscles is at an advantage in casting, and will certainly be able to take full advantage of a very fast responding rod. A "sprinter", if you will. Those like me, who's body types favor "endurance" sports, and who's muscles are "slow twitch", are probably better off with a slower responding rod.



Good points on the fast versus slow twitch muscles--- one issue with your "output" theory-- two sinkers could travel the same distance-- but require different amounts of energy to be applied to get the same result-- for example a line drive would require more energy (higer initial velocity) to carry the same distance as one at more of a 45 degree launch.

You may have been saying the same thing, just stated differently. 
Good discussion.


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

Ya, I think you both may be saying the same thing. If the same trajectory is assumed, both casts to a given distance will need the same energy to achieve the distance. The rod unloading will have to produce the same amount of energy. The amount of energy expended by the caster to get that will vary from caster to caster. The amount of energy various casters need to expend to load the rod, to that point, will vary depending on physical variants as well as rod variants.


----------



## Mark G (Nov 15, 2004)

thekingfeeder said:


> Ya, I think you both may be saying the same thing. If the same trajectory is assumed, both casts to a given distance will need the same energy to achieve the distance. The rod unloading will have to produce the same amount of energy. The amount of energy expended by the caster to get that will vary from caster to caster. The amount of energy various casters need to expend to load the rod, to that point, will vary depending on physical variants as well as rod variants.


Broken down in it's simplest form the energy spent to achieve the same goal, would have to be identical, keeping all other variables the same.

THe output (in this case) should simply be distance in X length.

The input (energy) required to achieve X output--- would be identical, as long as all other variables are held constant-- trajectory, drag coefficients, etc. 

Since conditions can never be held perfectly constant-- we can't use ballistic type equations to claculate what actual distances "should" be achieved-- but can come close to a hypothetical ideal-- by removing or eliminating some of the variables--- until simply left with calculating the amount of energy required to move an object X distance given a Y trajectory.

In other words-- it may seem like a smaller caster has to work harder-- but in fact (all variables held constant) he expends the same amount of energy bending a given rod to a fully bent position-- that a bigger or faster man would.

A simple analogy would be that it requires a specific amount of input energy to lift a 100 lb weight 3 feet off the ground. That a child may struggle "producing" enough energy to accomplish that goal-- doesn't change the amount of energy required.

We could discuss energy efficiency transfer equations-- which would describe inefficiencies in power transfer-- but that is another subject.

All right-- nuff techno-- babble from me.


----------



## Hudak (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe I should have explained my thoughts as it taking more effort to produce the same amount.:redface:

Robert


----------



## gloomas316 (Apr 25, 2009)

a rod is only good as the one who used it


----------

