Chris C, keep in mind that David's rod performed better with the weight by his definition of performance, maybe not yours.

Phil E, are you talking only about fly rods when you say a rod does not store energy? Either way, I think you are wrong, but please clarify. I repeat my question, if a rod doesn't store and release energy, then a broomstick will cast as well as anything the rodmakers have devised, right? Clearly, the lure being propelled is not being pushed; it is being thrown by the energy provided by the fisherman and delivered by the rod. Some rods deliver it more efficiently than others. A broomstick will not do it efficiently. I think your problem is that you believe that the line is released while the rod is still bent backwards. The line is released as the rod tip is going forward. Unless one is trying for a pile of line in front of him.

Mo. You are right. While on the water do try to release while the rod is still bent backward and report back.

I'm in the process of trying to teach a newbie how to efficiently cast, and it's a challenge. In the boat I hear his "whish" as he makes his cast, must be at high tip velocity to make the noise, yet his cast doesn't go far. I make a relatively gentle back-then-forward motion with the rod, all in one integrated motion, no high velocity "whish" noise, and the cast goes much farther than his. With relatively little effort on my part. Must be magic.

When I do something to a rod that makes it "fish better" it has become more efficient in my eyes. I think my buddy feels the same. It's a matter of perception.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chris C, keep in mind that David's rod performed
> better with the weight by his definition of
> performance, maybe not yours.
>
> Phil E, are you talking only about fly rods when
> you say a rod does not store energy? Either way,
> I think you are wrong, but please clarify. I
> repeat my question, if a rod doesn't store and
> release energy, then a broomstick will cast as
> well as anything the rodmakers have devised,
> right? Clearly, the lure being propelled is not
> being pushed; it is being thrown by the energy
> provided by the fisherman and delivered by the
> rod. Some rods deliver it more efficiently than
> others. A broomstick will not do it efficiently.
> I think your problem is that you believe that the
> line is released while the rod is still bent
> backwards. The line is released as the rod tip is
> going forward. Unless one is trying for a pile of
> line in front of him.
>
> Mo. You are right. While on the water do try to
> release while the rod is still bent backward and
> report back.
>
> I'm in the process of trying to teach a newbie how
> to efficiently cast, and it's a challenge. In the
> boat I hear his "whish" as he makes his cast, must
> be at high tip velocity to make the noise, yet his
> cast doesn't go far. I make a relatively gentle
> back-then-forward motion with the rod, all in one
> integrated motion, no high velocity "whish"
> noise, and the cast goes much farther than his.
> With relatively little effort on my part. Must be
> magic.


My definition of performance? I just looked at the title of this thread again and realized this thread IS NOT about facts it's about personal feelings about weight so I'll admit I was wrong and took peoples own personal feelings about weight & compared those personal feelings to the actual facts and physics aspect of weight and how it relates to rod blank performance .

Lynn and Michael, you are exactly right. And I need to make a correction to my earlier post. I meant to say that I have NEVER caught a fish with my rod laying on the deck of my boat.

I'm reading that my deep personal feelings on this subject fly in the face of actual facts.Well here's a fact that physics will back up. It is easier to accelerate the tip of a tip light rod than it is a tip heavy rod. Because of this, the rod is more efficient at performing a task. The weight made the rod more efficient in use. It has absolutely ZERO to do with the comfort of fishing the rod. The comfort comes down the road as the fatigue from a long day of fishing starts to set in. Also, it is easier to detect bites with a tip light rod, versus one that is tip heavy. While I doubt the latter can be proven with physics, it most certainly is a fact that many far more accomplished anglers than I, would attest to.

The title of the thread is, "how important is weight". In the original post Todd wondered if the extremes that some builds go to to reduce weight, really makes a difference. It quickly became a discussion centered on the guide train. I clearly understand that guide train weight is the most important weight to be concerned with on a fishing rod. But even the lightest guide train is not always the most efficient IN USE. I add more guides than most probably do and I do it for a reason because it makes the rod more efficient in use. Those extra guides help to protect the rod blank when the rod is put in precarious positions while landing a fish, and they help to utilize more of the blanks power.

Yes there is a difference in how some define performance versus the way I define performance. I've seen race cars used as a comparative tool in this thread, so I'll go with that. There is on the dyno performance, and on the track performance. Winning the race on dyno will get you ooo's and ahhh's from on lookers. Winning on the track gets you a trophy and a kiss from a pretty girl. Or in the case of this weekend ..... kissing a yard of race worn bricks and chugging some hopefully ice cold milk.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joe V, if I missed it, I apologize, but did you
> answer this question?
>
> "But, one can measure an overall resonant
> frequency of a rod blank based on its hardness and
> create a relative measurement that can be compared
> across the board with other blanks producing a
> useful result to use"
>
>How do you do this, Joe?
>


Michael, this is the second time I have said this, but Joe did not write that statement you are quoting and asking him to answer. I wrote it. And I answered it the way I intended for it to relay info to others but was not clear in that out-of-context quote based on something an Emory Harry had posted here back in 2010 and reposted by yourself on page 3 here in this thread. Joe had nothing to do with my quote you have reposted twice now for him possibly thinking he wrote it? Or, maybe you would like for Joe to try and answer something I wrote instead? I could be in error here, but just trying to clarify it is all.

Some people have the idea of measuring what they call resonant frequency by counting tip swings after deflection. I disagreed with that method for several reasons and offered another more useful method in my opinion. If you read back through the comments in this thread it is all in there.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2021 11:26AM by Kent Griffith.

I did it! I made a standard back cast, storing the rod chuck-full of energy. Then I started the forward cast, and as soon as I felt the rod bend and "store power" for the forward cast I let go of the line to let the power from the bent rod flow into the line and push the lure forward, but it dropped to the ground behind me! What did I do wrong?

Let go too soon.

Let the stored energy pull the lure forward. No pushing involved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2021 12:23PM by Kent Griffith.

Phil, what you 'did wrong' is that you released too early. The rod does not push, it pulls on the lure. And you have to hold the line longer for the pull to be longer so that the potential energy in the loaded rod begins to be released and transfers into kinetic energy in the lure.

By the way, I'm not sure if you are dialoguing with me or someone else but since I dipped my toe into the conversation about stored energy, I figure that I'll reply.

The key is that the rod does not push, but pulls on the line with the lure attached.

Where is the rod's weight located? It boils down to Weight X Distance = energy. If you have a problem with science tape an ounce of weight to your reel seat and cast; then tape the same ounce of weight to your rod tip and cast. Note the difference, and mark one down for science versus belief.

I understand the pulling part the rod plays: The rod pulls the lure faster as long as I pull the rod faster - I can feel the energy I expend pulling the rod forward. I still can't understand how, after I release the line, the rod's stored energy pushes the line and lure forward - but I would welcome an explanation of how the rod pushes energy up the line?

Thanks Joe! One thing you mentioned in your post was, "the majority of anglers would not be able to tell a difference." That's my argument. I agree with you. Tom said even to an avg. angler there will be a "huge" difference in very little (2gms) added weight. I believe it was Nash that said, "it makes a world of difference." I just got home from a short fishing trip. I used two different spin rods. Bother are 7' and ML action. One a Shimano and the other a Fenwick. I'm pretty sure there has to be a difference in weight. One has 7 runners and the other 8. Both are 2 piece. I threw mostly #2 blue fo vibrax but also used other spinners. I caught fish on both. I tried to feel a difference in the rods but if I were blind folded...would not be able to tell you which one I was using. So...my comment to Tom is still that I don't believe for one millisecond that the avg. angler can tell a "huge" difference in 2 gms. I think Tom wants to believe it very bad but again...I say its @#$%&. Perhaps a very, very good angler could tell a very slight difference...perhaps.

Todd, I would say that whether 2 grams is a huge difference depends on the type of rod and weight distribution.

1. Rod Type.

I build ultralight rods. Some of my 7 feet equivalent rods are 28 grams. I am about to build a 6' 6" equivalent at under 23 grams. (sub 0.8 oz) Yes, that is very light weight and the blanks are super ultralight. With rods that light, 2 grams is absolutely noticeable depending on the weight distribution.

However, with a rod that is 150 grams, then 2 grams is less than 2% difference and less detectible.

2. Distribution.

With my UL rods, I am usually casting 1.5 to 2 grams jigs. Sometimes 1 gram and it still goes a few dozen feet. The difference between having that jig weight on the rod when casting, and when swinging the rod by itself without the jig is night and day. So if the rod is 2 grams heavier and most of it is due to using heavy guides and thick finishes etc, one can definitely detect it. It can change a rod from crisp to 'mud.'

I recognize that I am on the extreme end of ultralight and that my comments may not apply to most here who built bass rods and such.

Phil, like everyone says, too early. Don't judge, just wait until the rod gets to about 10:00 on its way forward, then release. Not before. I really think you know all this.

FWIW, what some here are calling "resonant frequency" is actually natural frequency. Resonant frequency is a driven condition (external forces). A rod flexed and released is not a driven condition.

FWIW, a fishing rod isn't a third class lever when it is being cast. It is a third class lever when it has it's gimbal secured in a fighting chair and you are pulling on the fore grip.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Phil, you ask "how, after I release the line, the rod's stored energy pushes the line and lure forward - but I would welcome an explanation of how the rod pushes energy up the line?"

I believe that after your release the line, there is very little additional gain in energy from the rod straightening if any. So the straightening of the blank is already starting to happen before you release the line. That is because your initial acceleration is faster than the latter part as you get close to your release point. That faster acceleration bends the rod faster than the latter part where you are not accelerating as much or may even not be accelerating. Note that speed and acceleration are two different things. Acceleration adds to speed, but you can have zero acceleration for constant speed, and even negative acceleration with positive speed.

If you slow the sweep of your casting arm just before you release the line it will give the rod time to push the line behind the sinker or lure and make it go faster. Simple.

Todd,
Congratulations on creating a post followed and responded by so many people. However, it must be disqualified from possibly being the highest number of views and posts due to how many posts were not directed at the original question. lol

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

100% Mark, we're being led down the rabbit hole more and more these days!

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand the pulling part the rod plays: The
> rod pulls the lure faster as long as I pull the
> rod faster - I can feel the energy I expend
> pulling the rod forward. I still can't understand
> how, after I release the line, the rod's stored
> energy pushes the line and lure forward - but I
> would welcome an explanation of how the rod pushes
> energy up the line?

The rod, if a spinning, or casting, transfers energy from the forward motion of the rod tip, pulling the line in the direction of the tip movement, and accelerates the lure. When the casting motion is stopped, it is the momentum of the lure weight that takes over, stripping more line from the reel spool, until it either hits the water, or is stopped by friction. Remember, objects in motion will remain in motion, at a constant velocity, and direction, until acted upon by some other force. The forces in play are wind resistance (friction with the air), Line resistance with the spool, and through the guides, and acceleration due to the force applied by the caster. When you think about these factors,it becomes clear what makes the lure move in the direction you want it to go.

Air esistance is a big one. Large, light weight spoons are easily styopped, or blown sideways by wind. vier, more compact lures, have more mass, and are less affected by the wind. They do hoever, put more of a load on the rod blank during the casting stroke. I have broken rods by trying to cast lures that were too heavy for the rod.

So, a ballanc between the speed of acceleration (the speed of the casting stroke), the mass of the lure, the suppleness of the line, and the wind conditions all have to be thought about. On a windy beach, a heavier rod strength, and heavier lure will cast effectively. An ultralight will be pretty much worthless. On the other hand, on a fairly calm day, on a stream, that same ultralight will help as the light lures won't be so apt to spook fish.

Son't worry, whether fishing with flies, streamers, or lures, a few times on the water, and this all starts to become second nature. I could flip a worm expertly just upstream of a log while stream fishing, or cast my minnow/worm/lure right where I wanted it by the time I was ten years old, with never yet having a phisics class. Don;t over think it. Just get out there and fish. Even if you get skunked, time on the water is a great day.

Tight Lines and frisky fish.

RJF

Mark, I learned a lot from the thread. Mostly that nobody knows for sure. Same with spinning or not spining. Most of this other than the physics expert is opinion hear say or reading other articles and gaining g an opinion. For me it is common sense with some experience added. I do believe that a very good angler could possibly detect to a very small degree if there was 2gms difference in a weight of a rod. Of course, 2 gas on the tip top would most likely be noticed. However, I absolutely, unequivocally disbelieve Tom's comment that even an average angler could tell a "huge" difference in 2 gms distributed on a rod. And Nash tagging along with "a world of difference." Yes, I agree weight matters but to what degree is another issue.