Tom,

We are in complete agreement and that was the reason I added the following to my previous post...

"There are more variables at work than simple line tension and static weight of a rod and in some forms of bass fishing a balanced rig trumps line tension and weight(within reason), in regards to sensitivity"

Tom,
You hit the nail right on the head!!

I think that we need another term about fishing rods besides sensitivity.

I think that we need a term like fish catching ability.

As several posts have mentioned above, one rod catches fish and one fish doesn't.

It really doesn't matter - if from a scientific standpoint if it is more sensitive or not.
The only thing that matters - is that for that particular fisherman for that particular technique - one rod catches more fish than a different rod - using the same technique.

If light weight is required, so be it. If a very stiff, or a very limber rod is required so be it. If heavy line is required, or very light line is required, so be it.
If a big reel, a little reel, big guides, little guides, few guides, or many guides are required to catch fish - so be it.

Just appreciate the fact that for one particular fisherman one rod catches many more fish than a different rod. Whether one calls it sensitivity, balance - or the "just right" factor - is really not important.

The important thing that as builders we can all build a better rod that is suited for a particular fisherman using a particular technique to put more fish in the boat.


Take care

Roger

Mmmmm..... seems rods aren't the only things capable of being sensitive around here - not to mention unbalanced... Hey wait... that might be me! But I can feel my pulse and a tick on the other end of the line!!!! :>)

Doug & Roger,
We are not going to be able to build the best possible rods or improve the rods that we build unless we understand what the real variables are and we are not going to be able to have rational conversations about these variables unless we have a common understanding of what the words that we use mean. I do not actually believe that there is a problem with the words. I think that the meaning of the word sensitivity can be clear and straight forward and well understood. In fact, I believe that I can quantify it and even measure it. But if people attempt to include into the meaning of sensitivity subjective elements or anecdotal evidence then a rational discussion or quantifying it or measuring it is no longer possible. All that is then possible is to just throw nonsense at each other and I think that is where this discussion is now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2010 09:49PM by Tom Kirkman.

Mr. Harry...

If you wish only to conduct your testing and analysis in a lab that's fine by me. BUT... I happen to use my fishing rods in the real world and unfortunate as it may be... user input is required to catch fish. It would take more than a few hands full of fingers to count all the scientific "poofs"... I mean "Proofs" that have gone down in a flaming ball of failure as these "proofs" were applied. "Well it worked on paper....." Also unfortunate is the fact that without user input(subjective though it may be) there's wouldn't be more than a hand full of rods to cover all fishing possibilities. To discount subjective analysis as worthless is rather foolhardy in my opinion.

You can not measure nor quatifiy what I feel nor how I feel it. Nor can you quantifiy how I want to feel it. You may in fact be capable of recording those "after" I give you my subjective opinions. But the chances of you successfully building a rod for me that agrees with my personal style, method and desires in a particular rod, based on lab analysis, range between slim and none.

Doug,
Frankly, the last thing in the world that I want to do is try to measure or quantify how you feel or attemp to quantify your subjective opinions. In fact, I think that it is a waste of time for us to discuss it any longer. If you want to discount any rational analysis or proof that is your business, your right.
Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? I know where you can get some magic fufu dust that you can put on your rods to make them catch more fish? While you are at it you might try to put a little on your head as well.

Emory,
I have read and understood all of your arguments. As I suspect that you are, I am also a well trained professional in the field. I do understand all of the variables of which you speak.

I think that the issue is that sometimes folks get all tied up in the use of a word, when mayby that is not really the word that should be used.

You talk about sensitivity. Sensitivity can really only be a factor to be measured, if there is something to sense, and if there is a means to convey that factor.

With a slack line, there is no connection to the rod that allows the factor to be sent to the rod. (I agree with your argument).

With respect to the other argument on feeling the tap on the slack line. I agree, but I also disagree with the statement. I often fish feeling the same slight tap on the "slack" line.
I think that the real issue, is the fact, that it is more than likely that when a tap is actually felt by a rod that is really very ( do I dare say it) very sensitive - that as the fish has taken the bait, the slack in the line has actually been removed enough, so that the tap is really NOT felt on a slack line, but actually on a tight line. I line can have a curve on the surface due to wind and or currents, but if the jig or bait is very very light, the line is still taunt enough to actually convey the vibrations of which Emory speaks.

Yes, if a heavy jig or lure is fished, then the line will be straight as it is fished to exhibit the character of a tight line. But in the case of a very light jig, the line can actually have an "apparent" slack character, but still be tight enough to convey the tiny vibrations of which Emory speaks.

Thanks again for every ones understanding and thoughts.

Be safe and catch a bunch. It is much more fun and ultimately more enjoyable than worrying about the semantics or the why of something works better than something else.

Take care
Roger

Roger and Emory...

If you'll review my first post on this subject I'd ask you to note a few things.

1.) I never mentioned sensitivity
2.) I never suggested anything was felt on a slack line - I described it as semi-slack. For the line to truely be slack, in the strictest sense of the word, the rod and reel would have to be laying on the bottom of the lake along with the bait unless one was using floating line or netrual bouyancy line.
3.) I suggested what we were really feeling was line movement "...as the fish inhaled the bait."

Regardless... it appears this topic has taken on the tone of "Don't confuse me with the facts! I've already made up my mind!"

Emory... apparently you are an end user of fufu dust being aware of the source and such. Should the occasion ever arise that I wished to use some... maybe I'll just borrow some of yours before making a purchasing decision. Just depends on how I feel at the time - I"m sensitive about that sort of thing! Good day!

Roger,
I am going to try to say this one more time. The sensitivity of a ROD or how well a ROD will transfer the energy in the fish's bite to the fisherman's hand can be measured and quantified. Once this energy gets to the fisherman's hand it becomes feel and is subjective and cannot be measured or quantified, at least not by me and I do not think by you either.
In my judgment this means that we have to restrict our discussions about sensitivity to the rod and not confuse the discussion by including fishing techniques or feel or anything that is inherently subjective.

The handlining example was offered to suggest if "sensitivity" is your highest priority then forget "balance" and throw your rod away. If casting distance, ease, and accuracy is a high priority you will be obliged to make some concessions to balance; static or otherwise. In this imperfect world we are obliged to make compromises on most issues. Every aspect of a completed rod is the result of compromise, including the rod's weight, length, power, action, and "sensitivity."
We all strive to build the rod which most pleases its user, even though the specifications of the user often defy reality. If a user wants to add weight to a rod to gain the feeling of balance then so be it , even if the user paid a premium price for the lightest possible blank and rod building materials. Rodbuilders apparently disagree whether the definition of "sensitivity" is a subjective or an objective measurement. Rodbuilders who rely upon empiricism and physical science before beliefs and anecdotes will continue to object when physics and scientific measurement are dismissed or misrepresented in the practice of their craft. Subjective clients of rodbuilders will continue to insist upon a rod that "feels right," even if it defies Newton's laws of physics.

Frank Downey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This may be a stupid question,but here goes.Where
> should a rod be balanced at?is it the center of
> the reel or at the foregrip?I would think it is at
> the reel,but I want to know from the
> experts.Thanks

Can we get back on topic. Frank's original question is fairly simple and has nothing to do with many of the recent replies.

Robert - you are correct on all fronts.

Frank - To truely "balance" a rod/reel the balance fulcrum point would be at the location in the center of the palm of your hand supporting the weight. In the world of compromise that Robert addressed in the previous post - "perfect" balance as applied to a rod/reel is not really feasible. If you were to place any portion of the reel, with a standard baitcaster, forward of the fulcrom, balance point, the weight you would have to add would not be feasible. That said - the balance point most use is just forward of the reel at the location of the seat nut. A sponsor of this board has a tool for balancing rod/reels and there is a picture of the balance point I described.

Go here to see the rod balancing tool from Backlashtools.
[www.backlashtools.com]

For a fly rod.....With the rod balanced at the base of the high sign finger of my casting hand, with no line out and reel on....works for me. Carries easy for walking long distances, and I have no trouble casting with it that I know of. Works for me. I don't think an ounce or even 2 will matter much either way. Too far off and you get into the tip heavy or reel heavy area.

I actually balance my rods on a thin metal book end. I hang a plastic soda pop bottle cut in half, a hole punched on each side with twine to hang it with. I hang it off the exact center of the reel seat where the reel I will use WOULD BE. Yes, I mark both the grip and the reel seat with a pencil. I set the rod on the grip mark.....I fill the bottle with coins till I get balance, weigh it, and subtract 1.5 ounces to allow for the addition of the line weight when it will be added to the reel. I want a reel wgt to somewhat match the wgt that balanced minus the 1.5. But I only want to be in the ballpark. Not exackery spot on. Just a reference point to aim for. But that's just me. I KNOW the majority of the fly fishermen I know go for the lightest reel they can use on a rod. This is the balance point that seems to fit me...acceptable enough in all the areas.....to not skew it toward any one factor. I don't really care about all that technobable. I am with Roger Wilson on this. I want a rod easy to carry, cast, and fish with. I am not into long distance competition, maximum sensitivity or any of that jazz. Just a good fishing pole.

To each his own I think.

Jim

Jim, I agree. Perceived rod balance is purely subjective, has little to do with science or physics, and cannot be measured or described - except "It feels right to me." Fine. My only problem is the use of bogus science to justify personal taste.