Warning – long post, so get a cup of coffee or other favoured beverage.
It's been a bit quiet, so thought I would share some of the results from a recent new surf rod test. The blank was unknown to us, but from a company that we know and respect, a 2 piece, 14' long surf rod, rated 4-5oz. Built to a typical UK surf style with a stiffer bottom section and more flexible tip section, combining basically lever and spring mechanisms for distance casting. Multiple carbon strengths used in the lay-up, with a taper cut joint for both male and female sections of the joint to reduce wear and attain a firm joint.
We built the basic elements of the rod to our normal standard of reel seat just 8"above the butt, and then a Breakaway Canon Release, and 26"of wrap on Winn Grip for the handle. Having time, we wanted to confirm that our general philosophy for guide design and placement was truly yielding the best results, when compared to alternative design ideas. We taped a set of our standard idea of 3 low riders followed by 5 small single leg guides, the first 2 low riders were reversed, the third in normal orientation – basically to act as a baseline for other schemes to be tested.
Cabo 60 with 35lb braid, and 75lb braid leader and we started a pair of anglers casting in a variety of styles, and pretty much achieved what we anticipated, a smooth very quiet flow of line through the cast, and no problems with line wraps and distances in the order of 140-160 metres, depending on casting style. First guide was about 180cms up from the reel seat.
Guides were removed and replaced with a string of Fuji KW guides, starting at the Fuji recommendation of 120cms up from the reel seat, and the rest of the train of guides followed 'Cone of Flight' spacing and sizes, started with a size 30, ending in a couple of KW10. Casting with the same other equipment as before, and it was almost immediately obvious that the line was being choked by the first and second guides, to the point of numerous 'corrections' by the anti-tangle guides, the casts that did get away were noisy and distance was struggling to achieve much above 100-110 metres – it was so dramatically poor, we didn't actually bother to measure. Change the first guide to a KW40 to see if that would immediately resolve some of the problems, a little better but still noisy, line wraps starting and poor distance.
Dug down deep in the box of older guides and found a straight size 50, and with a little gentle bending with pliers converted it into a 'home brewed' KW, taped that on. Line flow didn't improve much and braid still bunching at first and second guide.
Not to be challenged by the older 'Cone of Flight' design we shifted the whole set of guides up the blank to 150cm from the reel seat, and starting with the size 40, it much improved the flow of line, still noisy and had to really work hard with the casts to get much more than 130 metres, and still corrections being effected by the anti-tangle guides, and not just at the first guide but the second and the tip area. Pushed the whole scheme further up the blank to 180cms, and the line flow started to settle down a lot, less noise, and still the occasional line wrap starting, distance slightly improved to 135-140 metres, but still requiring a lot of power during casts to achieve those distances (probably a product of the 2 leg guides hindering the flex of the blank).
The CoF designs, even when pushed up to the unorthodox position of 180cms, had the rod feeling very top heavy and reluctant to take power during the cast, and recovery from the cast was slow and ponderous when compared to the benchmark scheme. To the point where if you were lure fishing with this design, it would achieve reasonable distance, but you would be exhausted after a short while.
Next was the more recent scheme of 'KR Concept' using smaller and taller single leg guides to rapidly reduce the coils of braid, down to straight running line flow. A set of KL25H, KL12H, KL6L and KT6x5, provided a staring point, but decided to skip the 120cm placement of the first guide, and the initial set up was started at 150cms. Casts were good, rod loading and recovery were fine, and noise was down considerably from CoF, and only a couple of line wraps were experienced, which the anti-tangle design of the guides coped with. Distance was getting better, with the odd cast into the 140-145 range, but bunching at the first guide was still apparent. Moved the whole set up further up the blank to 180cms, and the bunching and line wraps virtually disappeared – only one wrap in 10 casts. The bunching approaching the first guide also seemed to still be happening a little. So, in trying to follow the size of the first guide used in the benchmark set up, an LC16M, we tried a size 20 KL-H, but that seemed a lot worse with line wraps – probably early signs of choking at the first guide, switch back to the KL25H, and the problem resolved itself.
Whether the flexibility of the KL guides with their single leg frames is the issue, is a reasonable supposition, for when we changed the Kl25H for a LC16M, the line flow and bunching problems resolved, and there were no line wrap instances in 10 casts.
So, at the end of a very busy day, we had pretty much proved to ourselves that our benchmark scheme was near optimum, we called a friend round to really hammer the casts with a full English pendulum cast, which generates a huge amount of load and line speed into the system – perhaps the ultimate test of the benchmark scheme. Results were pretty impressive, especially when a couple of casts dropped a little short of 180 metres. The final set up for these casts was 195cms to the first reversed LC16M, then a reversed LC10, followed by a LC8, and a string of KT6 guides. No hint of bunching, no line wraps, and near silent flow, as well as good recovery from the cast, and ease in loading the rod during the cast.
Not having the benefit of some accurate timing equipment to test or check on line speed during the cast, but certainly in excess of 35 metres per second in the normal casts – we came to the conclusion that higher line speeds in the casting, need an appreciable distance between reel and the first guide to cope efficiently with the coils being dragged off the reel by the flying sinker, and this measurement rewards with distances achieved.
It was certainly worth the effort to get some hard numbers for what each scheme offers in the way of performance.
Thanks Jeri, very informative post
Thank you for sharing all the hard work with us. I will certainly use this in my builds.
Nick
Excellent info! Actual hard data like this is hard to come by.
QuoteWhether the flexibility of the KL guides with their single leg frames is the issue, is a reasonable supposition, for when we changed the Kl25H for a LC16M, the line flow and bunching problems resolved, and there were no line wrap instances in 10 casts.
[Edit: removed paragraph with some analysis that was based on my incorrect assumption on guide mounting -J. ]
Also, after cutting out about 40 yards of braid that had become brittle (could hold a load but not not handle shock) on a conventional lure casting outfit, I got the thought that line to guide collision during casting is pretty damaging to braid. This outfit was only cast from a boat in open water, and the line was degraded along the whole section subject to casting stress, not just a spot or two. Individual GSP filaments are actually a bit brittle. By reducing energy lost to guide impact, improved guide placement might also contribute to braid longevity, not just casting distance. Especially with spinning tackle.
I have also been thinking a bit about blank loading during the cast, so your comments there are interesting. There is a contingent of folk who believe that rod loading doesn't store significant power, and that distance is is all about maintaining the length the lever. I suspect that this is a bit of an overstatement, but there is probably a kernel of truth. Flex contributing to acceleration at the release point, working as a shock absorber to smooth out the stroke, and other benefits beyond "storing energy" all contribute. Don't want to get off topic, but found it interesting to see how the larger rings with the COF setup affected loading and related performance aspects for this blank.
Thanks again for taking the time to write this up.
-J
180 meters!!! :o :al
Making sure I understand correctly, when you say fuji LC guides, you mean ...these?
And I'm just verifying, when you say reversed do you mean the I shaped side or the V side facing the reel?
Love getting some field data.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on May 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMMaking sure I understand correctly, when you say fuji LC guides, you mean ...these?
And I'm just verifying, when you say reversed do you mean the I shaped side or the V side facing the reel?
Love getting some field data.
Good idea to ask Jeri to verify. In my reply, I was assuming the guide shape in your photo with the V side facing the reel. Sort of kills my theory otherwise...
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on May 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMMaking sure I understand correctly, when you say fuji LC guides, you mean ...these?
And I'm just verifying, when you say reversed do you mean the I shaped side or the V side facing the reel?
Love getting some field data.
Reversed in my context is the exact opposite - the twin legs face away from the reel. This was the original and very unconventional aspect that caused so much reaction to the use and success of LC guides, as some folks deemed that it could never work being the 'wrong' way round, and such a small eye. Generally we have moved away from LC20, having found that the LC16M is high enough to do the job required or it, only now using the LC20 on rods for heavier sinkers in the 7oz range and slightly heavier braids.
To clarify further, the LC20 and LC16M are both high versions of the standard shapes, and thus bring the line of the guide more away from the blank - allowing coils space to
not to slap on the blank.
Jurelometer - was totally confused by your suppositions, but your assuming that the twin legs are away from the reel explains the wrong direction.
Quote from: jurelometer on May 11, 2022, 05:53:02 PMI have also been thinking a bit about blank loading during the cast, so your comments there are interesting. There is a contingent of folk who believe that rod loading doesn't store significant power, and that distance is is all about maintaining the length the lever. I suspect that this is a bit of an overstatement, but there is probably a kernel of truth. Flex contributing to acceleration at the release point, working as a shock absorber to smooth out the stroke, and other benefits beyond "storing energy" all contribute. Don't want to get off topic, but found it interesting to see how the larger rings with the COF setup affected loading and related performance aspects for this blank.
Thanks again for taking the time to write this up.
-J
Blanks in a surf situation invariably have plenty of potential for storing energy, and during some mentoring of a newish caster to competition fishing, we are going through a process of slow deliberate increasing the arc of her swing, to increase power into the blank to then be released. Starting initially with 'lesson 1', where just 180 degrees of swing arc was used, then 'lesson 2' where the arc of her swing was increased to 235 degrees, and 'lesson 3'which is on the horizon - increasing the arc of swing to 270 degrees, as with each step, she is increasing in distance. One of the great guru's of casting suggests that speed of swing is the least effective mechanism to gain power, slower and increased arc are the better route to success. A common held belief in distance casting is that technique represents 70%, while physical power just 30%.
There are obviously other aspects like 'pre-load' to the blank, before any forward stroke, which is a mechanism to introduce an early loading of the blank with energy, which is then added as the swing of the cast develops further. So, whether a blank is capable of storing energy, becomes a mute point.
A testing scheme we use for getting an idea of the power potentially available in a blank, is to load the blank at the tip to a full 90 degrees of bend, this only gives an indication but is a reasonable guide to potential. One of the more powerful blanks that we build on has a 17.5kg (nearly 40lbs) loading to achieve 90 degrees, and is capable of casting 6-7oz sinkers over 260 metres.
Quote from: xjchad on May 11, 2022, 06:00:11 PM180 meters!!! :o :al
180 metres was only mentioned as an indicator of what could be achieved with the rod and that particular guide set up, still an appreciable distance; but not praiseworthy. It is still a work in progress, as we 'learn' the new blank.
Early February in the UK, a chap at a deliberate casting event cast a 100 gram sinker to 293 metres!! That is under 4oz, and done with a hugely powerful rod.
Quote from: Jeri on May 12, 2022, 05:51:27 AMQuote from: JasonGotaProblem on May 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMMaking sure I understand correctly, when you say fuji LC guides, you mean ...these?
And I'm just verifying, when you say reversed do you mean the I shaped side or the V side facing the reel?
Love getting some field data.
Reversed in my context is the exact opposite - the twin legs face away from the reel. This was the original and very unconventional aspect that caused so much reaction to the use and success of LC guides, as some folks deemed that it could never work being the 'wrong' way round, and such a small eye. Generally we have moved away from LC20, having found that the LC16M is high enough to do the job required or it, only now using the LC20 on rods for heavier sinkers in the 7oz range and slightly heavier braids.
To clarify further, the LC20 and LC16M are both high versions of the standard shapes, and thus bring the line of the guide more away from the blank - allowing coils space to not to slap on the blank.
Jurelometer - was totally confused by your suppositions, but your assuming that the twin legs are away from the reel explains the wrong direction.
Yeah, only makes for a valid theory with the twin legs pointed back- going to edit my post to strike out the offending passage as not to confuse others.. thnx.
Still have to admit that I am not convinced on blank whacking being a major culprit. Even multiple glancing blows off the blank would be unlikely to to rob much energy compared to the more direct hits against the guide frames. I would wager that most if not all of the noise from line casting with ill-placed/wrong geometry guides is coming from guide contact and not blank contact. Which is more than a hint. But in the end, this may not be an important point to debate, because both get addressed by the same solution. It just bothers me that many discussions around the web seems to emphasize things like blank contact and ring friction, which just doesn't seem to line up with the forces at play.
From my baseball days I can tell you I would rather slip and bounce off wet grass than run into an outfield fence at full speed. The reduction of velocity at a chain link fence is pretty impressive :)
-J
Quote from: Jeri on May 12, 2022, 06:09:46 AMQuote from: jurelometer on May 11, 2022, 05:53:02 PMI have also been thinking a bit about blank loading during the cast, so your comments there are interesting. There is a contingent of folk who believe that rod loading doesn't store significant power, and that distance is is all about maintaining the length the lever. I suspect that this is a bit of an overstatement, but there is probably a kernel of truth. Flex contributing to acceleration at the release point, working as a shock absorber to smooth out the stroke, and other benefits beyond "storing energy" all contribute. Don't want to get off topic, but found it interesting to see how the larger rings with the COF setup affected loading and related performance aspects for this blank.
Thanks again for taking the time to write this up.
-J
Blanks in a surf situation invariably have plenty of potential for storing energy, and during some mentoring of a newish caster to competition fishing, we are going through a process of slow deliberate increasing the arc of her swing, to increase power into the blank to then be released. Starting initially with 'lesson 1', where just 180 degrees of swing arc was used, then 'lesson 2' where the arc of her swing was increased to 235 degrees, and 'lesson 3'which is on the horizon - increasing the arc of swing to 270 degrees, as with each step, she is increasing in distance. One of the great guru's of casting suggests that speed of swing is the least effective mechanism to gain power, slower and increased arc are the better route to success. A common held belief in distance casting is that technique represents 70%, while physical power just 30%.
There are obviously other aspects like 'pre-load' to the blank, before any forward stroke, which is a mechanism to introduce an early loading of the blank with energy, which is then added as the swing of the cast develops further. So, whether a blank is capable of storing energy, becomes a mute point.
A testing scheme we use for getting an idea of the power potentially available in a blank, is to load the blank at the tip to a full 90 degrees of bend, this only gives an indication but is a reasonable guide to potential. One of the more powerful blanks that we build on has a 17.5kg (nearly 40lbs) loading to achieve 90 degrees, and is capable of casting 6-7oz sinkers over 260 metres.
I have been thinking some more on this: In the end we just need to look at velocity.
The blank loading is minimal argument is backed by this simple test: Lock the rod butt in a vice, and make a cast that only involves the road loading and unloading, no swinging of the rod. The result will be a fairly short cast. So they then claim that if a loading only cast achieves a distance of twenty feet, than loading is only adding twenty feet to the cast. So on a 400 ft cast, the lever is contributing 380 foot.
This always seemed intuitively wrong. How could it be possible to cast very far with a fourteen foot rigid blank with zero bend compared to a properly designed surf blank?
I believe the minimalists are wrong because the loading and lever forces are not additive.
The cast lure/sinker will go as far as kinetic energy will take it against the forces of friction/drag and gravity:
Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity
2Because the combined velocity is squared, the correct result is a much larger number than calculating the load and lever provided kinetic energy separately and just (incorrectly) adding them together.
But the complete picture seems a bit more complicated. The blank bending does shorten the lever, decreasing velocity. It is also likely that loading/unloading robs some velocity earlier the swing, but increases the velocity at point of release, resulting in more release velocity than a non bending lever would achieve. And there are probably more complex interactions at the point of swing stop and release. And then add in the secondary effects like smoothing out the stroke.
Regarding "speed of swing": What matters is velocity at the point of release. I have no doubt that avoiding focus on speed alone is good advice, but I wouldn't make the leap to claim that it is proof of the effect of loading vs. swing speed. To get back to a baseball analogy, barrel velocity determines if you are going to get the bat to the ball at the right time, and how hard you will hit it. But no batting coach worth their salt is going to encourage you to focus on swinging faster. Velocity usually takes care of itself once you get the mechanics straightened out, but the inverse is never true.
Like you say, technique over power. And if the cast is going farther, the tip is moving faster at release, so it seems unlikely that the student now has less swing speed toward the end of the cast.
My thinking now is that it doesn't actually require a huge amount of loading force to make a big difference. Because of the squaring of the combined velocity, even a little extra velocity from loading goes a long way. But the same is true for swing speed. You want as much as you can get combined.
No argument with your basic points and conclusions. But I get hung up in the why of it more than might be completely healthy :)
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on May 12, 2022, 10:53:04 PMNo argument with your basic points and conclusions. But I get hung up in the why of it more than might be completely healthy :)
I was talking about arc of rotation in the swing, and that the speed issue only leads to errors in chasing the better technique. A simple overhead thump is introducing about 135 degrees, Hatteras not much more, whereas a full UK pendulum is near double the arc of swing approaching 270 degrees, and carried out slowly, allows the rod time to bend and load. For theoretically the closer to full 90 degrees of bend in a surf blank, the more power and resultant speed is imparted to the sinker - potentially resulting in more distance.
Yet from simple calculations for the flight time and distance cast, different styles result in different sinker speeds and hence line speeds. It is the line speed that concerns the guide design and placement, especially the early part of the launch and middle part where speeds are at maximum. So, for us, the higher sinker speed styles of casting potentially produce the most problems, and thus a crucial part of our testing regime - which is why we left the last casting style to be the UK pendulum, basically the ultimate stress test of the guide design/scheme.
However, the concept that fast reduction guides leading to very small running guides translates well to short less distance orientated designs of rod, with the added requirement of increasing distance between the reel and first guide - guide frame flexibility is also an issue in getting down to the smaller or smallest first guide, with the small but not insignificant rider that the first guide is a high frame type.
I think I've stumbled onto the answer in the process of chasing a failed analogy. So here we go, with a slightly better analogy.
We're all sharp here so I assume everyone is familiar with the concept of impulse, as the more accurate way of predicting projectile motion. So I'll jump to the good bits. I think we are focusing on the end of the cast when we analyze the effect of rod loading. It's there too, but let's talk about the beginning.
We all understand why a 270° arc is better than say a 15° arc, the caster has more time to impart force on the projectile. Its the same reason why a longer gun barrel allows for faster rate of fire in automatics. The pulse of force pushing the bolt back is longer in duration so it can accelerate more. And we also all understand leverage. Same weight with a longer arm takes more force to get spinning.
So a 14' steel I-beam of a rod will feel 14' long from beginning of cast to end. But a 14' bendy rod probably feels like a 10' rod for the first 30° or so of the cast. So if the rod is strong enough to take it, that allows the cast to start faster thereby ending much faster. It's like 2 of the same car in a quarter mile drag race, but ones got drag radicals and the other has bald snow tires. Ignoring the quarter mile time, which one is crossing the finish line with the greater top speed?
My theory is that a rod that "loads" more is like better traction in a drag race. It sorta also hits the NO2 near the finish line, but im thinking the gains at the starting line are more consequential. I'm not sure if that was clear.
As clear as mud!
As a kid I used to fish in ponds and lakes with very light tackle and small porcupine quill floats on 11' and 12' rods, and distance with that very light payload was best achieved through a long arc cast starting slowly and building some speed towards the end and release point. The slow build up allows the angler more time to push the blank/rod through the arc, and thus allow more power into the blank, to achieve more bending/loading.
This is why casts like the Hatteras are called 'swing and swish' to imitate people trying to generate more power/bending into the blank with speed and short arc; and invariably failing to achieve the desired objective. Whereas across the Atlantic, UK anglers even if not adept at pendulum will use 'Off the Ground' casts that allow more time for the cast arc to be performed, and even in some quite low level techniques like John Holden's Easy Cast, they have the potential to achieve over 150 metres with a simple and very effective casting scheme that starts very slowly and builds the power through a slightly longer arc than say the Hatteras. Taking those OTG casts to the next level by adding rotational arc - they load through a much longer period and achieve more rod/blank loading, with potential to achieve casts well beyond 200 metres. The furthest OTG cast that I have seen recorded was in the order of 283 metres, the cast takes near 2 seconds to swing from the sinker starting on the ground, huge rotational arc and no 'swishing' noise as the power stroke develops.
Analogies to other sports or activities rarely have a true comparison, perhaps the only one really close is a golf swing - it is not about club speed, but precision of arc and weight transfer.
Quote from: Jeri on May 13, 2022, 06:22:57 AMAnalogies to other sports or activities rarely have a true comparison, perhaps the only one really close is a golf swing - it is not about club speed, but precision of arc and weight transfer.
I have to disagree here. From a physics perspective, distance in golf is all about club velocity. As long as you hit the ball square, how fast the head is moving at point of impact determines the distance. The shaft itself does not flex that much and does not store much energy. If the club head is not moving fast, the ball is not going anywhere, even if you hit it square.
I would entirely agree that focusing on swing speed when learning a swing sport (BASEBALL, golf, fly casting, distance surf casting) is a recipe for failure.
Precision of arc, weight transfer... you know you are describing the key elements of a baseball swing. The only thing different is that after the preschool level, we don't get to hit the ball off a tee during competition, unlike those pampered golfers 8)
Analogies are never exact, but can still be quite useful. The physics textbooks are full of them. I wouldn't understand anything in physics without them. I got lost on Jason's analogies as well. I expect that there is a good point behind them, but since they are applying laws of physics that don't apply to the cast (ballistics, sliding friction), it was a bit trickier for me to follow.
After rewatching some pendulum cast videos, a couple things struck me. First, how unhurried the majority of the casting stroke is. I think that this speaks to Jeri's point. The first impulse for every rookie will be to swing harder to find distance, but they will invariably need to learn to swing better instead. Timing that combination of motions is not simple. And with that long arc, too much early velocity is just going to be lost before the magic happens.
The next thing that I noticed is that there is almost two separate casting motions going on that are seamlessly joined. For the first, the closest analogy would be something like a that old Physics 101 warhorse, the trebuchet. But this is a complex trebuchet, where the base is also rotating, and the lever is flexible. Somehow this gets smoothly transitioned into the second motion, which is something closer to a traditional linear casting stroke. Jason, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you were addressing was this transition, and how there is benefit for the sinker to be moving away from the casting direction in order to facilitate loading.
I think this is actually a key point, but we keep only thinking about loading the blank. I suspect that there is some benefit for attaining velocity by "loading" the various muscle groups throughout the body. It is difficult to push hard unless you have something to push against. Don't know anything about biomechanics, so this is just speculation, but there has to be something at play here.
The third point is that most of the tournament casters in the videos look like tall guys packing a lot of weight. One of the keys to getting distance on a trebuchet is ensuring that there is a quite large mass at the base of the lever varying by the lever arm length and payload mass. Come to think of it, these guys look a bit like a trebuchet base :)
I promise that my next post will get back on topic tying loading and guide placement.
-J
What's baseball? :(
Quote from: Jeri on May 13, 2022, 11:17:05 PMWhat's baseball? :(
It's sort of like Cricket except that it requires athletic ability ;D
-J
The various observations of Jurelometer were highlighted and expressed in a book just over 30 years ago by John Holden - Long Distance Casting, and updated some 10 years ago with Long Distance Casting II.
In the books, John takes people through the various stages of body stance, equipment and then into the finer points of technique starting with a very simple and basic cast which he calls the 'Easy Cast', though it is often referred to as the 'Brighton Cast' - for it doesn't involve any swinging of the sinker and relatively safe, though to be first developed to cope with the rules for casting/fishing on Brighton Pier on the south coast of England. Tho\is whole names issue is also one that causes great confusion and mis-understanding around the world.
John at the time of his first book, did a tour of demonstrations in the US, and was invited to stay to teach casting, and did so for many years.
The 'Easy Cast' is in fact very much based on the trebuchet, and yields tremendous power through the rod, often releasing power that the caster never new existed as the technique often shows the caster the power of the 'rod doing the cast', nothing physical required to achieve reasonable distances. I taught a young lass to cast with a 12' x 5oz rod to cast over 80 metres, she was 12 years old and quite small - technique over blind power.
John then takes the reader through various developments in technique to introduce more rotation and introducing other muscle groups, other than shoulders and arms. All these casting styles are basically with the sinker starting life on the ground, even what he calls the 'South African Cast' (though I have rarely seen anyone down in southern Africa use it. To this point, the casts all have low requirement of micro-second timing and as said the sinker is firmly on the ground at the start - huge amounts of repeatability.
The next level is basically a step backwards to the 'Hatteras Cast', which is an 'Easy Cast', but with and airborne sinker, and swinging is introduced - now timing becomes critical, but the cast in various guises still doesn't exceed the distances capable with the 'Easy Cast'.
The final step in the book is to move to the quite timing specific technique called the 'Pendulum', and the various levels of swing and direction and body rotation. And in this technique a lot of the earlier methods all come together with the addition of the very drastic swinging operations.
The whole of his books are very cleverly constructed towards gaining various skills along the way to finally bring all those skills together for the grand finale. However, the story doesn't quite end there, in that the concept of sinkers starting on the ground has lead to the development of an un-named technique being used where all the attributes of the 'Pendulum' are used, except that the sinker starts back on the ground, in precisely the spot where a pendulum would start the 'forward swing'. This technique is growing in popularity, as it does away with all the highly necessary skills of timing and body position through the cast, yet still yields distances in most casts in excess of the 'Pendulum'. And as has been observed, most of the styles actually work best and to the fullest of capability when practiced effectively in slow motion.
An observation earlier that best casters tend to be big tall chaps, is perhaps slightly erroneous. Two very good acquaintances who are well over 75 and certainly not heavy weights, and they still to this day practice and fish using the 'Pendulum' technique, and to great effect - proving that it is not about physical power, but more in balance with an earlier statement that best results are achieved with 70% technique and 30% physical power.
However, the problem is that there is no quick fix or monetary expenditure which will compensate for many hours and very many casts to perfect technique. Equally, just watching captured video clips from the book are also missing a huge amount of very valid information on stance, technique and equipment. Perhaps one of the more important on equipment is the favouring of J curve blanks/rods over C curve blanks/rods - for C curve lack the necessary bottom section rigidity to perform the leverage function necessary for distance casting.
Did you ever try to teach a kid how to throw a baseball? Kids have a tendency to throw with their arms only. In order to teach the kid you have to get the concept of throwing with your whole body. Like a pitcher. The windup, the push off the back foot, the step and the follow through. It is more of a feel than mechanics. I find it the same with casting a surf rod. Dominick