Does weight added below the reelseat affect sensitivity in any way? I´m planning of making wooden section in the middle of the rear handle. It will be like 12cm long and shaped like a thread spool. The wood will of course be bored hollow and filled with cork. I´m gonna make a fish weave in the thin part and then fill it up with epoxy to the edges to make everything smooth. The epoxy will bring some weight I´m afraid. Then theres gonna be a buttcap made of rubbercork, also kind of heavy, about 1oz. I´s gonna be like reelseat/corksection/woodsection/corksection/buttcap. My conserne here is, will the added weight affect sensitivity in any way? All the added weight is below the reelseat and when I´m fishing I´m holding the reelseat in my hand with the reelfoot between my second and third fingers. This is a spinning rod with new consept setup. Hope you did get what I´m after my english isn´t that good, well what do you think, everybody? Thanks for reading this.
-Kim-

Kim - What type of rod are you building??

Hank
On The Rocks Fishing
Wells, ME.

7´6" gatti 3-14g casting weight max 8lb line is going to be used. This is a spinning rod, Kirkman´s new guide concept is going to be used. Shimano Stradic 1000 size reel is going to be used. What do you think Hank?
-Kim-

Extra weight is never a good thing as far as sensitivity is concerned. But keeping any such weight low on the rod, near the handle or butt is not nearly as detrimental as if you were adding it higher up near the tip.

Some experiments with regards to weight versus sensitivity and casting performance are taking place now. We hope to report on them in a future issue of RodMaker.

In the meantime, I'd go ahead with your plans. While I like the best possible rod, sometimes there is more to a custom rod than just sensitivity or performance.

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

Kim,
I completely agree with Tom that added weight is never good. However, there are some who like to add weight to the butt because they feel that it will result in better balance on a rod that it tip heavy.
As far as performance is concerned, (sensitivity or feel, tip velocity and casting distance, etc.) added weight has an increasingly detrimental effect as it is added closer and closer to the tip of the rod. As far as anyone has been able to determine the detrimental effect of added weight increases very rapidly, in fact logarithmically, as it is added closer and closer to the tip of the rod.

II am not sure I completely agree, especially when it comes to spinning rods. Some years ago, I built myself two steelhead spinning rods. As they were both 8.5 feet long they were very tip heavy. I epoxied enough lead in the butt of both rods (in one of the rods that additional weight totaled 1-ounce) to perfectly balance the rod where I normally hold it. This balance was achieved with reel in place and line strung through the guides. This increased the sensitivity of these rods to the point that I am now very aware of even a breeze blowing across the rod. These rods have been in use for several years and are the most sensitive I own. Granted that today’s lighter guides would not dictate such a radical increase in weight but it did prove a point to me.

I would prefer a fishing rod to be as light as possible as I also believe this will make it more sensitive, however my experience has been that reduction in weight should never take precedence over designing a balanced spinning rod.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2005 11:22PM by James Ramsey.

James, I like long blanks myself and I have to agree with you 100% on the above post. Good balance and sensitivity go hand in hand on the longer rods, it doesn't seem to be as much of a factor on shorter blanks. Then too, there really isn't that much weight out front on the shorter blanks anyhow, at least compared to the 8'-9' ones.

On thing I am liking right now on projects is the idea of using the split-T concept to lessen (handle) weight nearer the reel and placing it at the butt end if necessary for achieving balance. From the few little experiments I have done so far, it looks like a more effective way to distribute any weight behind the reel, perhaps even using less weight to achieve the same effect.

Kim, I have modified rods in the past with too much weight in the handle/behind reel and it can kill sensitivity by making a rod butt heavy. I think his may be why some regret butt weighting even though it seemed like a great idea to have a rod that balances at 10:00. Although that may be a common fishing position, IME it didn't have the sensitivity that results from just barely having to support the blank weight as if it were neutrally balanced or just slightly tip heavy. Not to mention any rod position below the 10:00 balance point required a slight downward component to hold, a situation that really compromises sensitivity for me.

I would not have suspected that having to "push" the rod down toward the potential quarry to hold rod position while fishing would be that different then supporting some blank weight to hold a fishing position, but it is indeed a dramatic difference. In the first scenario, your force exerted is "giving" the rod to the bite, in the second it is the bite pulling against your force...very noticable difference felt though the blank. I THINK that explains the difference in the situations and it applies to bites or anything else that a lure happens to encounter.

James & Joe,
I will not argue that balance in a rod is not important, though I am not a big believer in just adding weight to achieve the balance, but I would argue that you should attempt to get as much weight out of the tip to achieve the balance as possible.

Emory, I'm a minimalist myself when it comes to what's out front...simple monocolor wraps, just enough epoxy to do the job! However, when it comes to the long blanks that additional length comes at a price (weight) and it's just in front of the reel. It's not real noticable on flyrods due to the reel being at the butt and creating alot of leverage, but build that same blank as a spinning rod and it's a bit different situation. There certainly is alot more thick, heavy section of blank on the 8' and above.

I'm a pretty tall fella myself with rather long arms so higher reel placement resulting in a longer handle is tolerable. However, there is a limit for me and moving the reel to high on the rod kinda defeats the purpose of the long blank. The counter balancing IS a trade-off in some ways, but it pays off with more functional length and sensitivity in conjunction with better ergonomic aspects.

There you have it Kim. As always, put two rod builders in a room and ask them the same question and you are likely to get two completely different answers. ;o)

Though we didn't give you a definitive answer as a group, each of us feels strongly about our observations on rods we have built. If nothing else we've given you two perspectives on the weight vs. balance issue.

Whatever you decide please communicate the results back to us. Perhaps your opinion will get us one step further to a black and white solution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2005 11:08PM by James Ramsey.