I've poured over the archives and I'm not finding the exact explantion I'm looking for. Yes it's said if you reduce the weight added to the rod it will be more sensitive - but I'm not sure there is an understanding of what sensitivety means to everyone.

If I take an old rod, remove the heavy double foot guides, and replace them with lighter single foot guides (and half the thread and epoxy), it is said the rod would be more sensitive - not sure if I know what that means. If I clamped the rod butt at 45 degrees and compared the "tip sag" with heavy df guides versus lighter sf guides, I would think the "sag" would be less with the lighter sf guides. But since the rod was originally made to work with the heavier df guides to begin with, it would seem that fish nibbles would be harder to detect with lighter guides because it relied on those heavier guides to "aid" in the deflection process.

If I were to CC this rod before and after replacing the guides, there should be a noticeable difference in tip sag between the two instances. If with the lighter sf guide guides, for example, the tip sag was 1" less, then it might take a few pennies to deflect the rod to where the original deflection was for the rod when measured with heavier df guides. And it would take more pennies overall to deflect it 1/3. Is this rod now more or less sensitive? I'm sure ERN may not indicate sensitivety but something has changed with the upper section of the rod due to lightness. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I'll throw in my 2 cents to it Tim albeit from a newbies point of view!

I am thinking the same way also, reducing the about of weight in the front 2/3 of the rod in the hopes of increasing sensitivity. I agree that there is going to be an increase in potential "feel" but I've been considering other factors too.

For instance, the type of the fishing line used for said lure application/tactic. IMO the amount of stretch in the line can also contribute to sensing of the bite. Hence the use of braid and florocarbon lines due to their inherent lack of stretch and therefore a more immediate translation between fish bite and realization of bite. Granted, sometimes the take is so obvious there's really no sensing the bite, rather a quick muscle reflex on hookset.

Another factor, of which, we as angles/builders have less control over is the overall blank construction. That part is left to the manufacturers to determine the best blend in composites and resins to yield the final product. I have little doubt the manufacturers have the ability to put out a blank/rod that we could even feel the fish displace the water before it takes the lure but I am pretty sure it'll cost a fortune. I'm sure there is available technology to magnify the bite frequency (that is to say, the tip tapping on a bite), or at least, to maintain its intensity rather than degrading by the time it reaches our hands. But again, are we going to be willing to pay for it?

Lastly, the human factor. If we build a rod to be as sensitive as possible and use the "best" fishing line to transmit the bite to us the question becomes how to differentiate the true bite versus structure? Until a "smart" rod is built I don't think that will ever happen! Fisherman will be setting hooks on everything, not to say we don't already.

Okay before I get off my soap box, here's what guidelines I've come up for myself. Build the rod the best I can using the best my money and my clients can afford. Understand there are limitations in the equipment but not see them as handicaps, rather, challenges to pit wits against the fish. Finally, hook sets are free, if it feels weird then swing!

Tim,
I doubt you'll get any noticeable difference in tip sag between the different sets of guides unless you've got a very soft rod or some incredibly heavy guides. I build bass rods and I've built the same rod with micros and full size Fuji Hardloys and didn't notice any difference in tip sag. As far as sensitivity goes, I think most will agree it is the rods ability to transmit vibrations as this can be defined and measured. More sensitivity equals better able to transmit vibrations.

In very simple terms, the more weight you attach to a rod, the less it is able to transmit vibrations. I'll leave it to Emory and some others to go into detail, but it has always seemed intuitive to me. It's interesting to put different rods in customer's hands and ask their opinions after using each. I've built the same rod with the Fuji Hardloys mentioned above and AmTak titanium guides. Universally the AmTak rod "feels better" and is "more sensitive" according to the many different people that have compared the two. They don't know anything about the guides, but they always pick the AmTak rod. The usual comment is "I'm not sure what the difference is, but this one (AmTak rod) feels better".


Robert

The rod was not "made to work with heavier guides." The more component weight you add to the rod, the less sensitive (in terms of vibration transmission) it will be. In addition, the added weight will make the rod less quick in terms of reaction and recovery.

The rod will be in its most sensitive and efficient state in the form of a naked blank. Anything you add will reduce its sensitivity and efficiency. Therefore, the less weight you add, the better off you'll be all the way around.

Obviously, some compromise is always in order - you have to use components that will do the job you need to do and hold up to the intended task. But the less weight you add, the better off you'll be.

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

I probably could have explained what I was seeking a better way like this - when I'm drifting (chuck n' duck, whatever) for Steelhead, I'm looking at my rod tip for that difference when the rod tip drops down because my lead weight has gotten caught on something on the bottom versus the tip throbbing up and down quickly because a Steelhead has taken off with my bait and is trying to shake it loose. Does replacing the the heavier guides with lighter ones have an increase in this detection or no change at all? Any line I use would be the same for either application, and "feeling" a hit isn't much of a factor in the winter when I'm wearing gloves - I want to "see" my rod tip wiggling to indicate a strike. I could be fishing the wrong way I think watching the rod tip move is alot easier to detect a bit than trying to wait to feel the strike - I feel I can set the hook quicker this way. Thanks.

hit a 100lb rock with a hammer and then hit 1 oz rock with the same hammer.... which one moves the most?

Regards,
-Justin

You'd still want to go lighter - if the tip is already pre-loaded with weight, it's apt to move from the boat movement or wind alone. And once that greater mass is set in motion, it will continue moving for a longer period of time (takes more force or longer time period, for it to stop). With a lighter tip, any strike is more instantly noticeable and the tip will stop more quickly. I would think this would be easier to "read."

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

Tim - Robert, Russell, et. all make good points. But here's some ideas to separate theory from fact:

1) The lighter the rod, the less inertial resistance it will have to being displaced from wherever it is as a starting point. It will take less force to make it move.
- Vibration is movement. Therefore, the vibration of the "bite" moves the lure and subsequently the line, and that movement gets transmitted up the line to the rod.
- A lighter rod requires less initial force to move it. That means it will take a lighter "bite" to transmit the vibration of the bite up the line to the rod. A lighter rod, by definition, will be more sensitive to the vibration caused by the "bite".

OK, so much for physics and logic. Now let's do the fun part:

The guy (oops, person) holding the rod may be capable of feeling very slight vibrations or almost nothing short of a direct hit by a 25lb fish pulling straight down. So the perceived (wish I could boldface and underline that) sensitivity of any particular rod depends on the holder's capability to feel the bite. I have handed the same rod with a "through the reel-seat-and-handle exposed blank to three different people and none of them reported feeling the hit the same, although the motion that simulated the bite was exactly the same.

Try this - put a 1oz sinker on the end of the line, take it out about thirty yards, and let it sit in the grass. Walk out there and with your customer holding the rod, pick up the weight. Straight up - don't tug on it. Just let the line go slack, as it does when a fish picks up the worm from a still position and pretty much goes nowhere with it at that moment. Have the customer close their eyes before you do this. Now, Can the customer "feel" the take? Some will, some won't.. It's subjective, at best.

Now have the customer reel in the weight, bumping it along the grass. Can they honestly feel the bumps? Can they feel it skittering along the tops of the grass as opposed to falling into the little spaces in the grass? Some will, some won't. It's subjective, although at a more gross level than the "pickup" test.

Now have the customer start reeling the weight with you holding it and putting some resistance to it, as though he were fighting a fish. In the middle of doing this, change directions. Run really quickly to one side of the other. Hopefully you've built the rod so it'll follow the line (i.e., the fish). Can the customer detect that change in direction as soon as it starts? Remember, because it's a change in direction, it's a change in movement, which is the other side of "sensitivity".

BTW, it doesn't matter what kind of line you use for this test - yes, brai.d or fireline may enhance the "feel", because there's no stretch, but basically, it's relative to what you get with just ol' time mono, Thry these tests with several kinds of line on the same rod and reel combo.

What you'll find is that sensitivity is a relative measurement and a subjective issue with each customer. It is also (of necessity) a compromise between what the rod is meant to do as opposed to the ultimately sensitive rod, which is no rod at all, just holing the line between your fingers.

All the CC and other weight-and-measure stuff is finite and some of it (like CC) was never meant to predict "sensitivity". Sensitivity can be enhanced but in order to meaure it you need to create tests with some constants - i.e., the reel and line are the same, the stick is the same, but the components like guides and reel seats and such are different. Or, the components are the same but the stick is different. And so on. But most of all, because sensitivity is ultimately subjective in the hands of your customer, it becomes a matter of experimentation that satisfies what he requires, within the limits of what he's fishing for. A sensitive grouper stick is not the same as a sensitive SW trout rod, but they both can be perfectly sensitive when used for what they wrere intended for.

OK, bad English, but you get the idea

Uncle Russ
Calico Creek Rods

A successful custom builder for bass rods is one who can distinguish those techniques that require highly sensitive rods for "feel type" bite detection and those that do not. For instance: Pitching and flipping are techniques where an extremely high percentage of hook sets are triggered by "sight and that sixth sence" involving line movement or lack thereof. Using these techniques a majority of fish are detected when the line is in the semi-slack to slack state and vibration or tip movement bite detection can become secondary. Some will say if you wait to "feel the bite" is similar to the old expression if you snooze you loose. In this case, the rod is primarily used as a fish recovery device - overall weight and durability issues are primary and "sensitivity" trails. Build it as light as possible so the fisherman can use it all day while powering fish out of cover without breaking the blank (bank account) and do not worry if his Adams Apple can feel the transmitted vibrations.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2008 07:30PM by Bill Stevens.

Russ;
I have a question about one of your comments

Quote; “Hopefully you've built the rod so it'll follow the line (i.e., the fish).”

I’m thinking that a rod wrapped conventional, Spiral wrapped, left or right wrapped. When the fish takes off the rods going to follow, especially the 25 pounder you refer to.

How do you build a rod so it doesn’t follow the fish?

There is a mistake in Russ’ statement. The lighter rod will be harder to move. Fact. Because it will be stiffer. The rod overloaded with heavy guides will end up being softer.

The rod that is heavily loaded with guides or whatever will be easier to move due to the momentum involved. It’s already trying to move due to the extra weight “pulling” on it.

I’m not saying that is what you want for better strike detection but he rod overloaded with guides will move easier than one with lighter guides. Of course it will also bounce around and waggle once it starts moving. That’s why I would not want it that way, it would be too hard to tell a strike from the movement causted by momentum.

Bill Colby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
There is a mistake in Russ’ statement. The lighter rod will be harder to move. Fact. Because it will be stiffer. The rod overloaded with heavy guides will end up being softer.
The rod that is heavily loaded with guides or whatever will be easier to move due to the momentum involved. It’s already trying to move due to the extra weight “pulling” on it.
I’m not saying that is what you want for better strike detection but the rod overloaded with guides will move easier than one with lighter guides. Of course it will also bounce around and waggle once it starts moving. That’s why I would not want it that way, it would be too hard to tell a strike from the movement causted by momentum.
-------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Bill - that's exactly what I was wrestling with in my mind but couldn't put it into the same words as you did. I was originally thinking it was "similar" to a fast action fly rod compared to a moderate one. The fast action mends line real well (albeit harder to cast) but a moderate action is harder to mend line with because the softer upper section is moving as much as the line you're trying to mend (but it's easier to cast I feel). Not trying to correlate sensitivety to action but I understand and agree with what you're saying. Thanks Bill.

Actually there were several mistakes in Russ's post.
1. The sensitivity of of the rod itself is not subjective and it is not relative. How much any given person feels is obviously subjective but the sensitivity of the rod itself it not subjective or relative. In fact, by definition it is impossible for anything that is inanimate, like a fishing rod, to be subjective.
2. Rod sensitivity gets complicated but is mainly a function of the mass and the stiffness. The lower the mass the less inertia to overcome and the higher the sensitivity. The higher the stiffness for a given mass the higher the sensitivity. It takes energy to deflect the rod so any deflection is lost energy in terms of what gets to the fisherman's hand. In other words the stiffer, for a given mass, the higher the sensitivity.
3. Sensitivity actually has nothing to do with weight. Weight is the affect that gravity has on an object. I will admit that it is a picky point but mass affects sensitivity but not weight.
4. The amplitude of the vibrations that are transmitted up the line are a function of three things.
Tension on the line. The more tension on the line the higher the amplitude of the vibrations.
Mass density of the line which you can think of, though it is not exactly correct, as the weight of the line.
Elasticity of the line which again is not quite correct t but can be thought of as the stretch in the line.
The less stretch and the less mass for a given length of line the higher the vibrations that are transmitted up the line will be. Braided line is significantly lower in mass for a given length than mono and also significantly lower in terms of stretch which means that the amplitude of the vibrations that travel up the line, for any given input, will be much higher with braid than with mono.

Emory -

1) Tim's question, I believe, was one of the "practical" application of the theory of sensitivity, rather than the theoretical or metaphysical. My answers were based on that assumption. If I was wrong in my assumption, then we can continue to the science part of it, but as Bill Stevens wrote, if you want "real" (and practical" sensitivity, in certain circumstances the anglere will watch the line for movement, as opposed to ever "feeling" anything at the rod at all. Theory is great but doesn't work when you throw a bare worm at a bluegill. When you do that off the end of a plain old wood stick or tree branch, sensitivity depends on your eyes.

If you want to go at it about the physics and science, ok, but that's not what I thought Tim was asking.

2) "The lower the mass the less inertia to overcome and the higher the sensitivity. The higher the stiffness for a given mass the higher the sensitivity. It takes energy to deflect the rod so any deflection is lost energy in terms of what gets to the fisherman's hand. In other words the stiffer, for a given mass, the higher the sensitivity."

Lemme see if I've got this right. It takes less effort to overcome less mass. Isn't that what Tim was after? Or does a lighter rod NOT have less mass?

3) Read #2, above.

4) The sensitivity of the line, as elucidated in your reply, was not the issue. In fact, the tests I suggested eliminated differences in the different kinds of lines because they depend on "feel" transmitted by the rod, not the line. Again, a practical approach to Tim's question, which I believe was "is a lighter rod more sensitive?". Tim, please feel free to join in and correct me if I've just totally misinterpreted what you were asking.

Bill, I never mentioned the number of guides, weight, or any of the variables that could be applied to a blank. My assumptions in my reply were that a given rod, built a given way, using a given reel and line (and if you want to really extend the argument, balanced in a given way) would provide a certain amount of sensitivity. That's what I said, or so I thought, and that's all I meant.

Tim, I'm glad Bill's answer satisfied your query, and I learned from it too, which is exactly why I come to this BBS.

Uncle Russ
Calico Creek Rods



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2008 09:09PM by Russ Pollack.

Whoa
I've got some problems with a number of concepts in this thread.
As usual we have a number of concepts of sensitivity;
- tip sensitivity (visual movement of the tip )
- sensitivity felt at the reelseat ( when there is no direct hand contact with the line )
- sensitivity felt by hand contact with the line.

Dealing with the last context first:-

Sensitivity felt by hand contact with the line is minimally affected by the type of rod
It is primarily affected by the tension in the line between terminal tackle & hand.
This is transmitted as a longitudinal pulse in the line not a wave form.
The stretchier the line & the less tension the greater the transmission losses from the initiation of the pulse to the hand ,
and less sensitivity per se.
sensitivity by direct contact of hand to line is the most efficient sensitivity of the above 3 sensitivity concepts

Dealing with the first context next:-
Visual tip sensitivity -

The longitudinal pulse initiated in the line ( terminal tackle bouncing on the bottom, finnicky fish bite etc. ) generates a very small & rapid deflection of the tip...........this IS affected by the mass of the rod & its components as it increases inertia of the rod & therefore reduces sensitivity.
--------- this is affected by the load on the rod tip ........as the more initial deflection of the tip the more the pre-load on the tip
and the greater resistance to additional deflection movement, & the less movement is generated by a given pulse of
force up the line.
Whereas the slower weight of a fish moving off with the line is not a pulse transmitted up the line but is a gradual increase in tip load causing greater deflection of the rod tip.
In both situations of visual tip sensitivity the greater the initial tip deflection ( irrespective of cause; heavier guides, wind, water current ) the less the deflection of the rod tip from additional fish related movement & reduced visual sensitivity.)
Basically visual sensitivity is an inverse relationship to the strength of the tip.( ie it is an inverse relationship to the modulus of the blank composite as well as the 'thickness' of the tip.................. ie the more easily deflected the tip ..........the greater the visual sensitivity ).

Dealing with the second context lastly:-
sensitivity of the rod at the reelseat when the hand is not in contact with the line-

The longitudinal pulse initiated in the line ( terminal tackle bouncing on the bottom, finnicky fish bite etc. ) generates a very small & rapid deflection of the tip. This can, & often is, a small pulse which is not detected visually despite a small tip deflection being generated ( it is just so small it it difficult to perceive ). This deflection generates a vibration ( within the blank walls , with both an amplitude & frequency ) in a wave form which is transmitted down the blank & dissipates in the butt.
A number of parameters influence the efficiency of transmission of this vibration down the rod. ( ie the sensitivity of the rod in this context )
- the higher the modulus of the blank composite the greater the efficiency
- the lower the mass of the rod tip & its components the lower the inertia of the tip ( and the rod between tip & reelseat ) & the more efficient the transmission of the pulse of vibration both in its initiation and transmission down the blank.

So its very important to get the type of sensitivity we are referring to into context to identify the parameters of the blank that will affect its sensitivity in the specific context.

Sensitivity in this context is critical as many of the parameters are directly opposing in the specific context considered.
eg
the modulus of the blank composite
- this inversely affects visual sensitivity but directly affects sensitivity at the reelseat when the hand is not in contact with the line.
Its apples & oranges & taken out of context the relationship is invalid & we start thinking in uttlerly the wrong context, with the wrong concept of the parameters affecting the type of sensitivity the individual is concerned about.

Hope that helps clarify...................& doesn't start a war of words, that is not constructive.
Constructive critique welcome.

DenisB

War of the Words:

Sensitivity is one word ..

Many want to quantify things with scientific terms ..

When things are quantified a unit of measure gets involved ..

If and when a unit of measure gets involved when quantifing sensitivity it normally ends up with resonate frequency...

That unit of measure does not appear as a matter of course on the labels of fishing rods ... for many reasons!

We need devolope of a set of terms which expands the subject ... leaving one word with the burden of twenty different things only causes miscomunication.

Dennis it is a shame that you can not simply take a photo of "sensitivity" like the one on line pile up on a rod guide - maybe than everyone could get on the same page.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2008 09:53AM by Bill Stevens.

"Not trying to correlate sensitivety to action"

Tim - I think there is a link to "visible tip movement sensitivity" and how the action was achieved via the taper. I also think my thinking is similiar to Denis' in this regard but I'm not sure. Denis please let me know where I'm off.

I think if the "fast" action is achieved in a taper having a dramatic drop in power close to the tip (very soft tip) then it is "easier" moved by the pulse than a blank that is "fast" because the relative change in power between the last part of the mid section and the tip is not as great. If I recall correctly, Dr Hanneman in his explanation of the Big Picture gave and example of this using the Sage TCR. To paraphrase, the TCR is a 7wt rod with a 2wt tip. I also happen to think a well built Hotshot blank exhibits this type of "fast" action and why the AA can be a little misleading on x-fast blanks that have these type tapers (I remember board threads concerning Dan Craft FT blanks' AA measurements).

This x-soft tip (dramitically lower power) would also have a potential faster recovery speed depending on modulus and with light components. Speed which would be lost in the second blank if its "softness" is not a rapid change in power (taper) but simple pre-load from guide weight. In my view, the first blank has more "visible tip movement sensitivity" in that it will move earlier and more often in response to effects creating pulses (bottom, obstructions, fish bite - depending on how the species "bites"), especially if it's not weighted down with too heavy guides.

However, to Russ's point, "reading" the tip and getting the most out of an increased range (albeit small) of movement I think is a function of angler experience and/or natural capabilities. I think of the angler-rod "System". In some Systems more fish are caught because the angler part is more "sensitive" to changes in the signals from the rod part moment to moment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2008 10:35AM by Steve Rushing.

WOW - maybe I should ask simpler questions. What Denis mentioned is exactly what I'm looking for - visual tip sensitivity - but I'm not sure if there's a concensous on it here (I am a bit mentally challenged at times). All I wanted to know is if I replaced heavy guides with lighter guides at the same spacings, will I be able see the tip move more or less with the same fish strike? With the line in my hand, I can feel the tackle ticking the bottom, feel when it hangs up on the bottom, but if I'm wearing gloves in the winter, I want to be able to tell whether my rod tip is just being pulled down by a snag versus the tip pulsating up and down from a strike. Thanks.

Tim,
I believe I wrote a piece for RodMaker several years ago about your concern. Perhaps Tom can supply a reference. It was called "¢ / Centsitivity" and is a measure of the sensitivity of a rod tip to observable deformation, i.e., The mass required to deflect a horizontally held rod tip a distance of two inches or 50 mm. Value can be expressed in units of ¢ or grams.

Either one is going to move the rod tip, but having lighter guides on the rod is going to make for a better fishing rod all the way around. Making the rod lighter is not going to impede its movement from a fish strike, nor a snag on the bottom.

In fact, I think you may be going about this the wrong way. If want you want is to be able see fish strikes through a moving rod tip, I'd build the rod as light as possible and get the right blank for the job - something like a very fast action, live bait type blank. That's what they're made for and what they excel at. The tip on such a rod moves and quivers at the slightest input. They are also generally glass tips, even if the butt contains a graphite overwrap.

Dr. Hanneman's article on "Centsitivity" appeared in Volume 11 Issue #1.


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