For my style of bass fishing, I’ve found that shorter rods (5’6” to 5’8” casting and spinning) work better for me. My friends have tried to convince me that longer rods are better, but I cling to my beliefs that in addition to increased agility, the shorter lengths offer me more mechanical advantage and allow me to use shorter handles which in turn further reduces overall weight. Casting distance is not an issue for me because I fish out of a boat and I can get as close as I’d like. Anyone listening to these debates would think they’re watching a match between unarmed opponents (snicker). Anyway, I like the shorter rods and my friends are welcome to embrace their long rods. As with so called aphrodisiacs, it works for those who believe and not for those that don’t. (Reminds me of the “spiral” vs. “conventional” debate.*)

In finally getting to the point, I believe that “shorter” rods are inherently more sensitive if for no other reason than they have less mass (weight). Granted, the weight differential is away from the tip, but there none the less. It also seems to me that the “signal” originating at the tip has a shorter distance to travel and suffer less degradation. As to whether there would be a discernable difference, I don’t know.

I’d like to hear from some of you “techno’s” out there. It may come down to strictly personal preferences in rod lengths based on things other than sensitivity.

*Sorry I brought that up

Not a "techno" but I would think that a longer rod would give more of a "lever" for fighting fish and hook setting. As far as weight goes, why not use split grips? After all, the majority of the handle on a fishing rod is never touched while fishing. Eliminate the foregriip also - serves no purpose! Strictly an opinion, but I would think that things such as guides, line etc would have more to do with "sensitivity" (whatever that is).
That being said, my favorite rod is a 4 1/2' U/l but I also often fish with a 7' U/L and can't really see any difference in "feel/sensitivity" Personally, I would use what feels best to me (whatever the reason). That's the beauty of a custom rod, you can make it however YOU want.

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Mike
Yes the longer rod does give more of a lever but the longer lever means more torque required by you at the fulcrum point.. I use VERY light guides and no foregrip.

I just noticed that I spelled sensitivity wrong! Shows how much I know about it. Don't make fun of me....I've got feelings too.

Jim, I also prefer small, lightweight setups. I primarily fish trout with spinning rods and have always wondered why most use 7ft+ rods. I'm just finishing up a 5' Rainshadow spinning setup with the lightest stuff I could find. I'm supposed to give it to a friend for Christmas but I'm going to have a hard time parting with it :(

FWIW, the smaller rods are an easier fit for those of us who drive small cars.

A longer rod puts the leverage advantage to the fish. Remember, that the load times its distance from the fulcrum, is equal to the effort times its distance from the fulcrum. So if you want to whip a fish more quickly and put more pressure on him, a shorter rod is better (this also assumes the taper and action of any two rods is similar).

As far as sensitivity goes, the distance the signal has to travel is not going to be affected much by the slight difference we'd be talking about here. If we were talking about many yards or miles, then it would be something to consider. But of few feet will be of no consequence in regards to what we're talking about here.

A shorter rod would weigh less, but have the same mass density if the material is the same. Of course, the handle assembly would make up a smaller percentage of the weight of the entire rod so it would fair to say that the mass density of the entire outfit wouldn't be the same.

I'd wager that a shorter rod might indeed be more sensitive, but the difference here would so very slight, that you'd have trouble noticing it unless you were able to subject two rods to sophisticated testing equipment. The human hand isn't likely to be able to tell any difference.

.........

Anson,
Although my rods (and reels) are lightweight, they are fairly heavy action (I should say power).

Tom,
Well said, thanks

Anson,
Back in the 70's I was able to fish two to three times a week. I would split my time between fresh and saltwater fishing. So when I went bass fishing I would use my seven foot popping rods that I had made for fishing in saltwater. One day some fellows in a nearby boat asked me if I was using a surf rod and both laughed. At that time, just about every bass fisherman was using a Lew's Speed Stik which had a pistol grip handle and was five feet long. Shortly thereafter a fellow from California introduced his flipping method using a 71/2 foof rod to Texas. That seemed to change any preconceived ideas that bass fisherman had about rod lengths. By the 80's just about everyone was using longer rods as we see today. I find it much easier to stir a bass away from the motor's prop or the trolling motor with a longer rod. That is my reason for using one in freshwater without giving any thought to sensitivity.

Jim,
All other things being equal, action, power, modulus of the material, and even more important the wall thickness because wall thickness will have a significant effect on the mass density which along with elasticity determines the mechanical impedance, a longer rod will be less sensitive. However, there is not going to be much difference in rods that are a few inches different in length.

Emory,
That further clarifies what Tom said. You’ve previously told me that rod length did affect sensitivity along with the other variables that affect the resonant frequency, but you didn’t elaborate or go into whether the effect was positive or negative. I figured it might be beneficial to post this question on RB to give others (besides myself) the benefit of your wisdom.
The difference in length that I’m talking about would be about 6”(maybe 8”)as measured from the reel seat to the tip. Since I only need (or use) about 7” for the handle as opposed to a “normal” length which I think is around 12”, that accounts for another 5”. As Tom says, “the handle assembly would make up a smaller percentage of the weight of the entire rod” so I’ll assume it is of little consequence.

Ellis & Anson,
I agree, the longer rods are more practical for “flipping” or “pitching ”, or even world champion casting distances, but not necessarily for other techniques. I suspect that a bit of the “Lemming” principal” in the "long rod evolution" may be involved. I won’t elaborate for fear of getting into another of the “battle of wits” between unarmed opponents (ha).
BTW Those Lew’s speed Stiks were Mod 6-158-HOBB (5’8”long). If I recall they were made using a polyester resin. This was of course before the days of graphite rods. Good rods though.

I think that all things change over time, then change back. Look at the widths of ties in the past 40 years!
I've made several 5 foot heavy action rods, with pistol grips, for bass guys lately. There seems to be a little resurgance in these around here, which is great for me, so long as the big companies don't start making them again.

Shorter rods fit in the car easier

Sorry gotta have a laugh .... personal choice bud if it aint bruck dont fix it
go with what you are comfy with if it works leave well alone

Jim;
You can include things like crank bait rods for deep diving crank baits in which you can use the longer rod to gain extra depth, and C-rig rods were extra length aids in taking up the slack of the long leader, and probably a few others that I won’t mention because I'm unarmed and afraid to take a shot in the chest from your 5'-6" shooter

I personally like longer rods for cranks, c-rigs, topwater, jigs and such.....but I also like a short stiff rod for suspending jerks....I think they ALL have a place.


Sensitivity wise.....I never have noticed a difference.

DR

Nobody has mention accuracy. I have a few 6 ft and shorter rods I built years ago that I still use simply for that purpose. Some of the publications are starting to pick up on the change too. I've had a few people looking for "runt rods" like the ones they read about somewhere.

I agree with all the above mentioned points. I think a lot of it boils down to application. While I prefer to fish with UL stuff, I do have several other setups for stripers, steelhead, etc... The point I was chasing involves the lack of smaller, lightweight setups in situations where the biggest prize might be 5-6lbs. There ARE a large number of folks using surf or heavyweight setups to fish in small, freshwater lakes. I know it's all a matter of personal preference, but it's always amazed me how few actually use lightweight rods.