Ste3ve,
Well, if you with your rods can rewrite the laws of physics then my hat if off to you but to be very frank I do not believe that you can reduce fatigue, increase casting accuracy, increase sensitivity or improve any piece of a rods performance that you say you can improve by adding mass. It will take more than you saying so to convince me and I do not care where you "straegically" add the mass.

Emory, one needn't rewrite the laws of physics here. I assure you that my fat cork handle on a flyrod increases mass and weight significantly. However, the manner in which it fits my large hand better and the added surface area for grip reduces fatigue greatly. Casting accuracy? If we want to talk about the 2-4-6-8 rule of fishing in relation to rod building, yes to all four numbers. Some handles can be tolerated for two hours, after that the hand cramps from having to grip the skinny handle and accuracy suffers. If one is fishing beyond the two hour period for 4-8 hours, there's no question that the added mass is in a form that can be called an asset. Fishing is an obsessive pastime for many of us and involves a time factor and ergonomics along with it.

I think I know what you are saying in terms of the effect of mass on a rod, but the rod isn't REALLY a stand alone element here. It's a tool and the human factor defines much of it in terms of utility.

It's been asserted by some that balanced points (fulcrum) on rods increase the ability for an angler to detect a bite, the optimal location of which is dependent on the individual and how they use a rod. Agreed...and I'll go further into the realm of improved performance and say that a properly located fulcrum can actually increase performance in terms of working a bait. On spinning tackle and soft (or hard) jerkbaits, a fulcrum at or near the hand makes it alot easier and more efficient to twitch and work the bait versus doing this on a very tip heavy rod. Also reduces fatigue greatly after hours of using these lures and the retrieves that are associated with them. Yeah, there's a piece of lead crammed in it's butt, but that extra overall weight is alot less tiresome than working the bait with a fulcrum situated farther up the blank. Though lighter overall, the latter case fishes heavier for some individuals. Ever do any doodling or shaking with jigs? Butt weights work nicely for me at those rod angles and do indeed reduce fatigue. Never seen a float tuber hold a rod much below the horizontal, many'll preach the advantage of a bit of weight in the butt for comfort and sensitivity.

I don't doubt for a minute that the lightest rods can potentially transmit better through the blank, maybe even a few other impressive feats along with that. It's the part where it connects to the angler that throws a wrench in things. Sometimes the seemingly sub-optimal rod actually becomes the optimal rod when the human factor is added, perhaps less efficient as a transmitter from tip to butt, but the angler can feel more of what is coming down the blank.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 06:56AM by joseph arvay.

Joseph;
That was very well said (written); maybe if I had your oracy or penmanship skills I could have saved Mr. Emory and my self some time.
Thank You

Joseph,
If you have large hands then the small additional mass that is the result of a larger handle may be a resonable compromise for you. However, I do not buy your other points.
When fishing the rod is normally a class one lever. If what you sense when a fish bites is movement then your point about the location of the fulcrum relative to your hand is bogus because the fulcrum is the point on a class one lever where there is the least movement.
The additional mass that you add to statically balance the rod results in additional inertia that must be overcome each time you attempt to move the rod as when you cast with the rod. In other words adding mass to the rod means that it requires more energy to move the rod, more work must be done.
And back to the original point of this thread, any added mass reduces the rods sensitivity for the same reason. It results in increased inertia that the fish's bite must overcome.

I do not think that anyone is being convinced of anything so why don't we just agree to disagree and let it go at that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 12:06PM by Emory Harry.

Emory;

“And back to the original point of this thread, any added mass reduces the rods sensitivity for the same reason. It results in increased inertia that the fish's bite must overcome.”

You are again correct—IF the line was tied to the back end of the handle where the mass was added.

But with the line coming in by way of the tip, any movement, sensitivity, bite detection, and feel is going to be felt and picked up before it gets to the handle or the point off location that weight is added to the handle.

A good example of this is the flag pole;
If it takes a 5 mile an hour wind to flex a flag pole two feet off center that is twenty feet long, held in the ground by two yards of concrete, and you feel this with your hand placed 3 or 4 feet off the ground.
The effects would be exactly the same if it were held in the ground by twenty yards of concrete. The cause and effect is happening at the far end from the mass deference.
Now if I were physically strong enough to hold the flag pole including concrete in my hands the effects would still be the same

Also it is not the casting that tires me out during a days fishing, I do very little of that compared to the time spent holding the tip of a heavily tipped rod above my head. That is what wears out my wrest and also effects my pitching over time. It is that weight that I eliminate by adding mass to the butt end.

But I also agree to disagree with you if that is what you choose.
Thank you for your feedback and input on this subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 12:43PM by Steve Gardner.

This has been a rather long and quite interesting thread.

Emory I would like to make a very specific response to your post above -

I quote:

"I do not think that anyone is being convinced of anything so why don't we just agree to disagree and let it go at that".

Please consider changing "anyone" to everyone -

Many of us are convinced of something!

In most cases I think the fisherman uses the rod as a class 3 lever, although you might consider it a class 2 lever if you do not pivot at the point of effort (rod hand) and therefore negate the rod butt behind the hand. Any time that butt is stuck in your gut or is somehow held, the rod is a class 3 lever.

From the fish's standpoint, the rod is always a class 2 lever. This is something folks don't normally think about - but they should.

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

If the rod is being held it can be either a class one or a class three. However, when a rod is being cast it is usually a class one or at least a combination of class one and three. In any case adding mass to the butt will reduce sensitivity.

Emory Harry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> When fishing the rod is normally a class one
> lever. If what you sense when a fish bites is
> movement then your point about the location of the
> fulcrum relative to your hand is bogus because the
> fulcrum is the point on a class one lever where
> there is the least movement.
> The additional mass that you add to statically
> balance the rod results in additional inertia that
> must be overcome each time you attempt to move the
> rod as when you cast with the rod. In other words
> adding mass to the rod means that it requires more
> energy to move the rod, more work must be done.
>

Actually, I prefer the fulcrum to be located just a bit forward of my hand for most applications, both to avoid fatigue and also for added feel. IOW, just barely supporting the weight of the blank in front of my hand. Even when on the fulcrum, I feel more information through my hand versus a grip far distant as with an unbuttweighted rod. This leads me to wonder about the "if what you sense when a fish bites" part as well as the practical application of fulcrum theory it's relation to rod sensitivity. Obviously, one shouldn't feel much of anything on the fulcrum/neutral balance point if it were a question of rod movement and pivoting. Maybe that's not exactly what I'm feeling? I can't see how a 9' 3 wt blank is really going to move THAT much at my end on a half-hearted crappie pick-up, it's barely a tick and most certainly absorbed by flexion of the rod tip regardless of blank weight. Is this more a secondary effect within the rod that we're feeling, perhaps some vibration related to events that start at the tip and telegraphs through the rod to the hand? I doubt much of anything we feel is really a gross, primary movement of the rod where it is being held save for the turn and dash hits or hard taps. Reckon that barely visable movement of a rod tip bounces around alot through the blank material and becomes quite noticable. Some say guides play a role as well by transmitting, that could really enhance in a complicated, multi-avenued way what is actually being felt by the hand.

I won't say what the blank is doing is like a guitar string, but then it's not really a teeter-totter made of rigid material, either. Perhaps something inbetween on the vibration/rod material reaction to an initial event. You've got to admit, many 5'-6' bass rods with a reel are pretty neutrally balanced already and don't lack sensitivity on account of it from an angler's perspective.

The inertia thing is an interesting one! However, I find that after the intial movement the added weight works with me quite nicely. I guess it's more of using that butt weight momentum to kick the rod tip. I love the "cast" of split-T, butt weighted rods far more than full handles or split-T unweighteds. Some say it's in the head, my hands and wrists disagree and tell me it's real...they're veterans of factory production abuse and know when they're sore or tired. Joule's or whatever be darned, the intial effort may even be slightly more to get it going, but the rest of the move is cake on ergonomic terms. Adds up to less overall effort for the whole move.

Best way I can analogize for sensitivity on this one is to call your idea of an optimal rod build a $1.00 rod...that I would only feel five dimes worth out of. The non-optimal (ol' lead butt) rod we'll call an $.80 cent rod...that I can feel seven dimes worth out of! Initial monetary values represent the ability of the rod ITSELF to transmit anything, dimes are what I can feel.

I'm not wise enough to argue the physics or exact nature of this subject, admittedly most of that is speculative on my part. Whatever it is that we are feeling, the Laws governing it certainly don't change. With me, it's more in the translation/transmitting of those events to the angler's hand. I'll submit that it is possible to feel more from rod build that can be a dubbed less efficient/less sensitive as an object, but the practical evaluation of sensitivity is only possible when the human factor is involved.

Joseph;
I would not call your post "speculative"
More subjective, born on the time of practice experience and common sense. This seems to be lacking in a few of these posts.
Simply because your post incorporates much of your personal experience through applied use and technologies does not make it any less valid then a physics lesson born in a laboratory that has no practical application in the real world of fishing.

Perhaps, we should use two terms for what is being referred to as sensitivity in this thread.

1. Sensitivity-The amount of signal (vibrations) from the environment of the bait/lure that the angler feels via vibrations in the rod. The tick or thunk that one typically describes as a take when bass fishing will be more pronounced with a sensitive rod when compared to one that is less sensitive. Quantitatively, it could me measured as the amplitude of the vibration at the location of the hand, for some given input signal.

2. Bite Detection-The multi-faceted act of telling when a strike occurs. Usually a combination of visual cues and sensitivity for a rod held in the hand. Angler fatigue and awareness plays an important part in bite detection. Bite detection is very difficult to verify quantitatively, as there are many elements, but qualitatively anglers know what to do when a trolling rod flexes deeply, or their line starts running off in an odd direction, or when they hear or see a top water lure get attacked.

I think we can all agree that adding mass to a rod will decrease sensitivity as defined above. However, adding weight may produce some characteristics in a rod that may be desirable to the angler. We are also entering a realm where ergonomics are at play. The human muscle structure gives a person certain strengths. For instance, many people can move more weight with a bicep curl than they can move with a tricep extension. These muscle systems are complimentary.

When it comes to holding a tip heavy rod all day vs. a tip light rod all day, perhaps as a number of people above agree, the muscles in the wrist are more apt to pushing a tip light rod down vs. holding the tip weight of a long rod up all day. It may also be possible that bite detection, as defined above, is improved by using a tip light rod when it comes to using a rod for flipping and pitching (in bass fihsing), by allowing a small pull on the line to equate to a rotation of the rod in the anglers hand, even when the lure doesn't smack into the gullet causing the typical tick, a case where a sensitive (as defined above) rod does nothing for you. I know that the angler needs to stop and start the extra weight each time, but perhaps the muscles that govern the rod movement are more apt to handle a rod that has certain mass distributions better than others.

Now, I am no expert in biology or ergonomics, but this is how I see things. I understand all sides of the exchange above, and believe that a change in terminology may be necessary to bring ideas in line. So, I propose these or modifications of these definitions as possible terms to describe what is currently lumped into "sensitivity".

Joe

Joe,
I think that we should be careful with our definitions. I do not think that defining sensitivity in subjective terms is useful. If we cannot define it in objective terms that can be measured and quantified then our definition is not really very useful. The definition that I have used can admittedly get a little complicated but it is totally objective and can be measured and quantified.

Steve,
I would add to the statement above that it is sometimes surprising how uncommon common sense is.

Emory,

I like your definition of sensitivity, and attempted to describe it in somewhat general terms. Perhaps, I got a little too general. I agree that sensitivity as you define it is quantifiable. How would you define sensitivity explicitly?

Would you mind sharing more about the way that you quantify sesitivity? I understand that you use a strain meter attached to an oscilloscope and measure the peak voltage. How do you quantify sensitivity? Do you use the voltage, and calculate the amplitude of the vibration? Do you consider things other than the amplitude of vibration at the location of the hand? Also, what are the standards that you use for the impulse signal? One more, do you measure it with only the rod, or the rod/reel system? I would love to attempt some measurements on my own, in the future, and will when time allows.

Edit to add some more questions:

Sorry, I know you also talk often about the resonant frequency as it relates to the sensitivity of a rod, and perhaps this would be another important quantity to consider or measure. In this case, do you have measurements of the resonant frequency of a particular blank at various stages in the build process, to give us an idea of how much the resonant frequency changes throughout the process?

My goal, is to understand sensitivity in an objective way, and the quantities that are good indicators of that objective description.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2008 12:29PM by Joe Vanfossen.

Joe,
If you will send me an e-mail [[email protected]] I will explain both how I define sensitivity and also how I measure it. The explainations get a little long winded for a post here.

Thanks Emory. Much appreciated.

Joe

Steve Gardner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph;
> I would not call your post "speculative"
> More subjective, born...
>

Thanks, Steve! This stuff is hard for me to find words for and I'm committed to learning more about what exactly it is that goes on in a fishing rod when its being held. Bright side of it all is that I know how to get the results I desire, just not sure why it all works that way. Not a biz-builder myself so it's always feasible to tear down and experiment further on the same blank, some of the great results I've gotten still confound me as to why. Plenty of logical arguments out there to tell me something shouldn't work the way it does, but it often seems to pan-out differently in reality. In the back of my mind, there's a voice that tells me "that's not all there is in play here" when something works well when it oughtn't.

Have to search here and google around a bit on the levers and classes as well as Emory's frequency testing stuff. Ironically, you're post saved me a search when I checked the board the other day...the mention of lever in this thread got me thinking and a new thread gave me a head start.

Emory, I found some of the posts on your testing...interesting approach and I'll read more, really looking for stuff on vibration and how it pertains to rods. I feel alot of stuff through a 9' blank and not certain that it's all of the same exact nature and direct cause. But, hey...it gets to me nicely!