Mr. Forhan you will receive the "grilling" you refer to in your post in High Point!

It will consist of a large, tender and tasty filet de mignon topped with lump white crabmeat followed by cherry jubilee! Please feel free to invite your wife and four other guests - we will fill out the table for twelve and a toast to the bass fisherpeople of the world will be made by the one that hands me the check!

With that I will close:

Gon Fishn

Can I come too? Please...........
Jeff

Richard,
I agree with your point about the bite very often being little more than a slight increse or decrease in the tension on the line. This is especially true for Steelhead. But the degree to which you can feel that slight change is a function of the rods sensitivity and the rods sensitivity is a function of the mass of the rod and reel. Take the logic to the extreme with a mental experiment and add 20 or 30 pounds to the rod. I think that you will probably agree that if that much weight was added to the rod you would not be able to feel any subtle change in the tension on the line. You might be able to see it but you could not feel it. Adding that much weight is silly and no one in their right mind would do that but it demonstrates the point that how much you feel is determined to a large degree by the total mass of the rod and reel.
I also agree with your implied point that feel is something that is developed with time and experience. At least I know this to be the case with Salmon and Steelhead fishing. But I suspect that fishermen will develope that feel in a shorter period of time if the rod that they are using is lighter and has better sensitivity than is the case with a heavier rod.
I guess that I do not agree with you about discussions about sensitivity clouding anything. I think that discussions, as long as they remain rational, will tend to make the issue clearer over time not more cloudy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2008 06:35PM by Emory Harry.

Rich hit the nail on the head - the largest fish I've ever caught were ones that I never felt. I just sensed a change in what was going on, the line wasn't moving as fast as the current, something "seemed" odd. That sort of thing. And I "feel" most of the fish that strike my fly or lure on a completely slack line. We have five senses and it takes about 4 of them to really get in tune with what's happening out there at the end of your line.

But when people talk about "rod sensitivity" then you have to discuss that particular aspect which is, in fact, inherent to the rod and perhaps how you're using it.

So we get back to the realization that before sensitivity can be discussed, somebody needs to qualify what aspect of that great big topic is actually on the table.

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

I chose to delete this post



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2008 06:32PM by Bill Stevens.

Tom,
I do not think that sensitivity is really that hard to define if we do not try to include in the definition what we hear, see, taste or smell or even some ill defined sixth sense, and restrict the definition of sensitivity to what we feel. If we restrict the definition to what we feel then I think that we can not only clearly define it but can also quantify it and probably even come up with an acceptable, standard way of notating, quantifying and measuring it. However, if we attempt to include any of our other senses, and personally I think that this has been part of the problem up until now, then I do not think that we can come up with either a standard for notating, quantifying or measuring it.
I will sure agree that our other senses may come into play when detecting a fishes bite, particularly vision, but I think that we have to restrict the definition of sensitivity to what we feel or we will not be able to clearly define it and there will continue to be confusion and difference of opinion about what it is.
I have a definition and even a way of measuring what I call sensitivity that satisfies me but I think that we should attempt to come up with a definition that satisfies the needs of most rod builders.
I will put my definition and measurement method up as a straw man if people are interested in making a serious effort to first define it, and then to quantify and measure it. I do not think that the method that I have is satisfactory for most rod builders but it is a place to start. If we do not have a group of rod builders that are seriously interested in putting some effort into this then I guess that I too will pass.

Emory,
I agree with you - lighter is more sensitive - which is why I did what I did with bass rods and articles in Rodmaker - no foregrips, split grips, modified reel seats, etc. Where things get cloudy is where expert builders that don't fish for bass at a high level or any level give reams of eng. info intended for bass rods - and it turns out to be completely wrong. Example - the lightest Flip stick I can build would be on a Loomis GLX blank - while the most sensitive - in the hands of better bass anglers - it's absolutely the worst choice! The lightest is not the best for Flip stiks and tight line moving lure rods - but knowledgeable bass anglers that build will guide new builders well - and this site has several just such bass anglers/builders. The future of bass rods is in their hands - the industry will follow and is being well served.

Emory,
I am personally interested in your idea/concept of defining sensitivity in regards to a specific value associated with vibration/movement. I do agree with Bill, Rich, Tom and others that fish/ build bass rods, that a rating of sensitivty in that manner doesnt really matter for a good amount of our rods. BUT I can see where some would want to know the information. As Rich mentioned however, builders should be cautioned that such a measurement won't necesarily make the blank better than another one.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Emory,

My point is simply that all too often when we discuss these things, not everyone is on the same page. If you read my post again, you'll see that I mention that if we are talking about the sensitivity inherent in the rod itself, then we are not talking about the human element, but simply that which is made possible by the tool; the fishing rod. You certainly know what you mean when you say sensitivity, but the other guy may not. I still have customers that feel sensitivity is defined by tip flex.

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

On another note, I've been around rod building, and fishing, a good while. I don't know it all but I know quite a bit. And I know a great many people in the rod building and fishing industries. Rich Forhan is arguably the most influential custom rod builder of all time insofar as affecting and influencing commercial rod market trends. If he was pushing "fluff" he would have been exposed by now. And I can assure anyone that the bass tournament market, in which Rich has made a name for himself, is the most demanding market of any in the entire spectrum of the fishing world by virtue of the money at stake there. You either get results, or you're yesterday's news. Rich has gotten results and proved himself over the long haul.

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

Tom,
I am afraid that I do not agree with you. I think that there is more "Fluf" in the selling of bass rods then there is for all other types of rods put together.

Richard,
Pardon me for being a little testy but I find your comments, no doubt aimed at me, about "not fishing for bass at a high level or any level" and "giving reams of eng. info intended for bass rods-and it turns out to be completely wrong" to be insulting. I may have disagreed with you but I did not insult you. At least I did not intend to.
I was simply attempting to help clear up the confusion around sensitivity and I did not expect to be insulted. But then I did not realize that you have it all figured out and that physics is different for bass rods than it is for other types of rods.
By the way, bass fishermen may think so but most of the techniques used by bass fishermen are not unique to bass fishing nor were they first used bass fishing and your comment that "the lightest is not the best for tight lines and moving lure rods" is simply wrong. Tight line moving lure techniques are used in many different types of fishing and in every case a lighter, more sensitive rod is superior. I would explain to you why but I realize that you do not buy all of that "reams of eng. info".

As someone who also builds rods for serious tournament bass fishermen, I would advise others wanting to get into this market to pay close attention to what Rich is saying. He is on the money. Sometimes lighter is not better depending on the technique being used. Each rod must be taylored to the job required and this means that sometimes there are things more important than weight and that the sensitivity required does not always involve the rod.

I chose to delete this post



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2008 06:34PM by Bill Stevens.

Emory is correct in that there is a lot of fluff in the bass fishing market, although not at the level where Rich Forhan is building his rods. At that level, the tens of thousands (sometimes much more) of dollars involved pretty much separate the chaffe from the wheat. Fluff doesn't cut it at that level - no one can afford to take a chance on equipment that doesn't work. One lost or missed fish could cost you a fortune.

..........

Funny this should come right now, I just left another builders shop were he was sharing with me an article that he was reading.
Written by Pro Bass angler David Fritz, (arguably one of the best crank bait fishermen alive today).

In the article he was explaining that using the most sensitive rods for crank baits (a tight line technique). Costs good anglers a lot of fish because their reaction times can be so quick that they actually set to hook as the bait is being sucked into the fishes mouth, resulting in either not hooking the fish, because it is pulled out before he has a chance to close his mouth, or lost fish because it is just hooked toward the outer tender part of the lip and the fish can many times pull off.

Here's where stuffing lead into or wrapping lead around the tip of the rod would do a world of good. The added inertia would not only slow the "feel" of the bite to the angler but the added mass at the rod tip would delay the hookset. Anglers could then use low-stretch gelspun without fear of prematurely jerking the bait out of the fish's mouth. This looks like a "win - win" situation.

Back when I was a little tyke, I was walking down a dirt road one day with my Grand Pa. Seems as though one of the neighbors had a very boisterous old hound that thought nobody should be walking down his road.

Being a little spunky I commenced to throwing rocks at the old hound and then matters got really bad. Seems as though I had to take cover behind Grand Pa because the old hound had gotten the best of me.

Grand Pa said: "Boy, if you want that old hound to leave you alone, best to ignore him and keep on walking down the road.

Marc sorry your balancing thread got side tracked.

Steve,
I think that you may be confusing two different properties of a rod, sensitivity and response time. Sensitivity is, or at least as I define it is, how much of the energy at the end of the line or the tip of the rod, if we are only talking about the rod, that gets to the fishermans hand in the form of movement. Response time is a function of the rods resonant frequency and is an entirely different characteristic of the rod. This may be the source of the difference of opinion between Richard and myself as well.
As you no doubt know some bass fishermen have for some years believed that with "tight line" techniques the normal fast action graphite bass rods react too quickly when setting the hook resulting in the fisherman pulling the lure from the fish's mouth or even pulling the hook through the tissue in the fish's mouth. To counter this many have gone to either graphite rods with much lower action angles or to glass rods. Going to the lower action angle rod or to a glass rod results in a rod with lower resonant frequency or slower response time.
Part of the confusion may be the result of the fact that the characteristics of the rods design and the properties of the materials used in the rod that result in slower response time also tend to result in lower sensitivity but they are two seperate things. It seems to me that the ideal rod would be one with high sensitivity and slow response time but I think that this is going to be nearly impossible to achieve. Resonant frequency goes down at the square of length so a somewhat longer rod that was high in sensitivity may be a parcial solution. I do not know if this has been tried or not. The effect of the slower response time of a longer rod will be partly offset by the increased leverage of the longer rod.

Richard,
I think that this confusion may be the source of the difference of opinion between you and I about the "tight line" technique rods. In any case I apologize for being so blunt in my response to what I perceived to be your insults. I find myself as I get older no longer putting much effort into being diplomatic.

Bobby, what a great way to put it.

Lance

Emory - no problem.

Bobby - good point.