I've gotten myself into another mess by over thinking the action of crankbait rods. If a more limber tip section assists in keeping a bass "pinned", does that same limber section restrict the lure from obtaining the maximum depth? Has anyone else experienced difficulties obtaining advertised lure depths? I've experimented with line diameter, rod length, and wide spool reels. Thanking all in advance!

This should be interesting. The preferred action of crankbait rods is described as moderate, or moderate-fast, and it means the rod will bend more over its length than fast or extra-fast actions which bend first toward the tip end and not so much over the length of the rod. FOR THE SAME POWER an extra-fast action rod will have a more "limber" or softer tip section than a moderate action rod OF THE SAME POWER. But they will load into the stiffer butt section faster. Most anglers think the moderate action more effective for keeping the bass pinned, as you say.

It is my opinion that the power and action of the rod and the reel have no effect on the depth to which a lure will dive. The density of the line and its diameter do, with more dense lines like florocarbon and gore fiber braids allowing deeper diving of the lure. Braid due to its much smaller diameter will have less resistance to cutting throuigh the water and will encourage deeper dives. Mono because of its larger diameter for its strength and its lower density will be the worse if deep diving is the objective.

If deep diving is important then use the lightest pound test line you can get away with and use FC if you don't want to use braid. Braid has no stretch so while a light pound test braid may allow deeper diving of the lure, without stretch it will not "give" under load and will make keeping a fish "pinned" more difficult. It's less forgiving to angler errors or drags set too tight.

Michael is exactly right in his description and comparison between a soft tip, and a blank that has a bend deeper into the blanks mid section. For crankbaits you want that deeper bend into the mid section of the rod. The more the rod bends, the more of the fish's energy it absorbs. And that helps keep hooks from pulling out. It also helps the fish take the bait deeper in its' mouth. I didn't use to believe the latter part until I started using mod fast and moderate action blanks for crankbaits.

He is also right about the power and action of a rod having nothing to do with how deep a bait will dive. Length of cast, line diameter, line type AND retrieve speed are the determining factors in the depth a bait will achieve. It depends a lot on the bait you're throwing, but generally speaking, at least from my experience, the slower you retrieve the bait, the deeper it's going to run. Back when David Fritts and other crankbait fisherman were doing well on the tournament trail, they were using reels with retrieve ratios of 4.3:1 or 5:1.

Those kind of gear ratios have two benefits for crankbaits. One, they pretty much force you to retrieve the bait slower, and two, they make retrieving big hard pulling baits much easier. You can reel a higher speed reel more slowly to slow the bait down, but you can't make up for the extra power the lower gear ratio affords. Throw something like a Strike King 6XD or 8XD on a reel with a 5:1 or 6:1 gear ratio and then throw the same bait on a reel with an 8:1 gear ratio, and you quickly see what I mean



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 07:33AM by David Baylor.

Good points on the reel, David. I hadn't considered the ratio, but have to agree. Similarly, for slow rolling a spinnerbait I find it hard to slow down enough with high ratio reels.

I guess I don't get it, an XF tip on a 7 - 8 ft. rod won't keep a treble hook in a fishes mouth reliably, but a 7 1/2 ft to 8 1/2 or longer XF rod keeps the treble hook in a fishes mouth just fine. Same general size lures and hooks are used for both applications and the fish caught on these longer rods are known to be a bit larger and feistier, using heavier current flows to their advantage.

Fritz is also a strong advocate for braid now. I like mod blanks and glass when throwing light weight baits

In my opinion, it's the natural frequency, i.e. the reaction and recovery that are most important here. With a lower frequency, the time interval over which forces are applied is lengthened. With a rod that reacts and recovers more slowly, the maximum force during a change in momentum is lower. This helps prevent pulling hooks from loosely hooked fish. It additionally makes it harder for a fish to introduce slack in the line to help use the lure's momentum to dislodge hooks.

For rod lengths commonly used in bass fishing, the action needs to be moderate to moderate fast, and/or a lower modulus blank to get the frequency low enough. Additionally, the faster action blanks used in bass fishing often have a pretty powerful midsection setting limits to how deeply the rod will flex before it starts to lock up and become more difficult to flex. Something like a 1 or 2 powered spin jig blank will be something offered in typical bass lengths that has a very fast action, a softer midsection and power in the butt. I've never been a fan of my SJ781 that I built for fishing small weightless soft plastics, but found it to be pretty adequate for small to mid-sized bass/walleye cranks.

With the salmon/steelhead blanks, you are starting with a longer blank in general, which lowers the frequency. The midsection of the rod is designed to be a bit less powerful helping to keep the reaction/recovery a bit slower. It's tough to just look at a single parameter of a rod and say that it will be adequate for a particular task. What happens between the initial flex and maximum load matters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 02:33PM by Joe Vanfossen.

I think it is about having decent amount of the rod blank bend when fighting a fish to cushion against the smallish trebles pulling out. Also, a 9 foot XF rod may have just as long flexible "cushioning" section as a 7 foot mod fast rod. I think it about the length of the rod that flexes during the fight, which changes significantly with rod length (and the size of the fish!) and not the action angle.

Joe states: "the maximum force during a change in momentum is lower. " Good point, in my opinion, since it is force ( think power ) that pulls hooks, not action. If the action modulus somehow tend to lower the force, the combination is advantageous.
Peter, I agree with you about "having a decent amount of the rod blank bend. . . to cushion. . .", but what is the best combination of length, power, action, and natural frequency in the rod, and line/reel characteristics, to get it while still casting the weight of the chosen lure effectively? For many years fishermen have generally agreed with Joe's recommendations.

But, as Perer argues a longer lighter power X-fast action rod should work well for small cranks, having the length to facilitate casting and the power to match the weight of the cranks with adequate length in the cushioning tip section.

It is not simple and I think there is not a simple, single, solution.

If anyone wants a process that quickly and easily measures the true natural frequency of their blanks/rods, let me know. No expensive equipment needed.

The majority of crankbaits in my box are overrated by their manufacturer for depth. I currently use eight and ten pound test Tatsu fluorocarbon with crankbaits. It’s a slick, thin line that is slightly denser than water. My SCV based, moderate action crankbait rod likely casts as far as any with it’s tuned reel. Every variable I have in-play should maximize running depth without getting too impractical. Still, many crankbaits on this setup won’t contact the bottom at their advertised depth. There are certainly strong brand trends in how actual fishing depth corresponds to marketing depth. Megabass is the most overly optimistic. They must test their offerings with one pound test fluorocarbon in a pool surrounded by unicorns.

I wouldn’t worry about rod action and diving depth. The water spilling off of a crankbait’s bill as it wobbles is what most effectively limits its diving depth. If this didn’t happen, you would have a lure with very dead action. One could maybe change a rod’s input on a bait by tightly tying the line straight to the lure’s eye. This should deaden the bait’s wobble some and maybe result in a little extra depth. Doing this would also defeat the designed action of the bait.

At the end of you building a crankbait setup that fishes extremely well, there still won’t be an industry standard for rating diving depths. You just can’t catch fairy dust using science.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 04:33PM by Kendall Cikanek.

Try Rapala DT series. They dive to their advertised depths.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try Rapala DT series. They dive to their
> advertised depths.


I wish lure companies were more realistic, but there are other attributes more valuable in crankbaits than the honesty of their marketing team. There is action, snag resistance, sound, component quality, paint durability, and ultimately - the rate they catch quality fish. I can mentally subtract 15% off the depth rating of a crankbait that is otherwise great.

Anglers like easy fishing crankbaits and exaggerating running depths allows them to have an easier cranking bait that they happily presume is running at a greater depth. It takes some buoyancy to hold a big diving plane at a steep angle, and to float off of snags. These important attributes put substantial drag on the angler. The companies that stretch the truth are going to find customers over companies that rate honestly with unavoidable increases in cranking resistance. A wide wobbling bait that dives deep is going to also have more drag.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 11:30PM by Kendall Cikanek.

Keep something in mind - the dive depth is measured in distance from the rod tip, not the water surface. Thats where the angle that determines the depth is created (by the plug lip and angler). So i you have a plug that is advertised as diving to 10 feet (with a certain line and line distance) and you have your rod tip 3 feet above the water, the plug is only going to be 7 feet below the water's surface. The plug has no idea where the surface of the water is.

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

If you are having trouble with a crank bait getting down - the only thing that will really help it to get deeper without adding weight in front of the bait - is to go to smaller diameter line to reduce lure lift from the action of the line.

But, if you want to continue to fish with your current line - just add clip on weights about 4 feet in front of the line that weigh just exactly as much as you need to have the bait dive to the desired depth.

The rod action and power really make no difference in how far the bait dives. However, if casting - then the speed of retreive can make a big difference. If trolling, then certainly the amount of line let out, as well as the speed of the trolling will have a direct effect on the depth of the lure as it is being pulled through the water.

Best wishes

Thank all for your advice. I mentioned reel size as a means of longer casts. Roger, I'm answering cause your statement about trolling. I troll for bass along with casting. Buck's Spoonplugs give you the ability to keep a lure at exact depth regardless of speed. The number of layers (line length) will alter depth. I'm going to try braid line again. I seem to have difficulties with backlash more so than mono, this may be caused by the amount of force casting. Lastly, I thought with braid being a floater wouldn't that hinder its ability to descend?

Depth of drive is related to line diameter, no whether it floats or sinks. It's a water resistance thing. As braid is thinner per lb test, it will have your lure run deeper when comparing the same line strength.

Jeffrey, with regard to braid on casting reels, I've done it for years and concluded that there is something about braid that gives me more problems than mono. FC is simply a no-go for me. I think the problem with braid is that it soaks up some water, becoming a little heavier, and then it sort of flies off the spool hitting the supports and causing a backlash or harsh stop. This is worse with aggressive casting, less a problem with smooth/gentle casting. If you're tryinig braid I would fill the spool as you think right, but don't hesitate to cut some off to try to keep it from contacting the supports on aggressive casts. I don't think anything casts as well on a BC outfit than mono.

My problem with braid on crankbaits is three-fold. The first is that I don’t go over .010 diameter line on the common 3/8 to 5/8’s ounce weight range of these lures. I much better like how crankbaits of these weights work on this diameter class of lines, verses thicker ones. This thin of braid is notorious for digging into itself on baitcasting reels. The second reason is that some line stretch is helpful with these baits. I find the stretch of FC to my liking and it’s greater density than nylon monofilament helps a little with depth. It’s also more abrasion resistant and stronger per diameter unit than nylon. It’s downside is that the limper, good casting selections are expensive. It doesn’t like backlashes, either. The third reason I tend to avoid braid with crankbaits is that I am very convinced that the opaque characteristic of braid cuts down on bites. I can tie Albert knots well, but thin diameter monofilament needs frequent retrying at the snap. This means that the leader is shrinking and will soon need to be replaced. The convenience of tying the snap straight to the mainline is really nice. I seldom fish a crankbait without attaching it’s eye to a snap. I don’t take the split rings off (unless the eye is really small), I just snap over the top of them and let them dangle.

For those that speak of casting problems with braided line on casting gear ... I am wondering if it's possible that the problem stems from the size line being used?

The reason I ask this is, while I rarely use braided line, two of the three things I use it for, I am making casts for distance, so I am making hard aggressive casts. The difference might be that I am using 65# braid while making these casts, versus the lighter line that you may be using?. I rarely have a backlash when using braid. And when I do, they aren't nearly as bad as when I have one using nylon, or my usual fluorocarbon line. It doesn't go nearly as deep into the spool, and unlike other line types, I have zero concern about a kink in the line causing a weak spot.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those that speak of casting problems with
> braided line on casting gear ... I am wondering if
> it's possible that the problem stems from the size
> line being used?


Finally! Now we are getting somewhere...

I use only braid on all of my reels and have zero casting issues with it. Casts much better than permanently coiled springs.

As I was reading the above it also struck me that the prevailing methodology for putting braid line onto baitcast reels is based on heavier is better even though reel brand manufacturers void warranties over it calling it abuse of the reels when putting too heavy a line on it. I worked for years as a warranty reel repair tech and I can tell you I had to deal with numerous brands over this issue. It is one of the first things they ask when we go to them with a warranty repair we want the brand to pay for. And as a reel tech, I can say the spinning reels of the 60's used a hard steel that would snap or break if someone tried to bend it. Try it with old Penn SS reels. The main shaft is super hard steel, but today's reels do not have this type of steel usually, and so I sat on a bench daily repairing, replacing, and even bending back to straight an endless stream of bent spinning reels main drive shaft because of fishermen putting too heavy a line on the reels and asking them to deliver more than they were made to deliver, so they pick up the extra in the line size and then put the weight on the rod and reels, and the reels bend and break under this abuse. We saw less damage with baitcast reels due to design differences, but the brands still consider too heavy a line as warranty breaking abuse.

I can't tell you how many fishermen around here love putting 50lb plus on their reels- or heavier. I ask some of them why and I always get the same answers... don't want to break off the line so go heavier and since braid is smaller, matching line size diameters is their only concern. A few say if they do not use larger heavier braid line then they are guaranteed line digs happening all the time. Really?

I use 20 to 25lb braid and don't seem to have all the problems others do. But then again, I am self trained to keep line on my reels packed tightly at all times and maybe this is why I don't have the problem? By simply paying attention to how the line stacks on the reel I can avoid line dig issues.

ADDED- I consider using braid line heavier than the brand recommends as making the fight with a fish unfair to the fish and less sportsmanlike. It is called fighting a fish, not hooking and yanking it out with a crane. I want my gear to be more balanced with the targeted species and give the fish a chance- which is why I am now moving back to softer tipped rods, and away from MH's to Mediums. Going too heavy was a mistake as I see it.

As for the depth lures will go with various lines is really up to the fishermen. As Kendall mentioned you can not trust the depth claims of various lure manufacturers. Some live up to them, some don't. I never worry about it and don't even keep track of those stats on my lures. I simply switch up until I get what I want where I want it. When I throw on a rat'l trap it has no trouble getting down there.

Just checked with Rapala on depth controllers and this is what they say: "Many factors like line weight & trolling or retrieve speed effects lure swimming depth. Depths indicated are the range of depths that a lure family swims under optimum conditions."

Optimum conditions is not explained. But notice rods are not included in the depth dept. at Rapala? Line weight- which I did not consider- and retrieve speed are most important? I sure wish Rapala would have elaborated more than just saying "many factors."

I think what happens more or less is from line drag in the water. Mono and FC slip or cut through the water easier with less line drag and so lures can possibly reach deeper depths than with braid because it has pockets or holes between the weaves that add up in line drag resistance through the water and so I think my braid line is doing more skiing on the water than cutting through the water. That's my take on it. As resistance to flowing through water increases, the lift also increases keeping braid up higher in the water column. Just the nature of the beast. Reduce line size and you can cut this line drag in half or so.

I don't view rods as primary lure depth controllers. That would be me more than anything else. I can use a 5 foot rod and hit bottom and I can use a 10 foot rod and hit bottom.

So to answer Jeff the OP here, I'd have to say no that the rod action does not prevent the lure from obtaining maximum depth. Rods don't have a say in this part of the game really. Lure depth depends on retrieve speeds, and even depends on water clarity. Clear water no problem. But dirty water with lots of particulate matter suspended in the water column is just more stuff the lure and line has to move through and try and cut through, and if it offers resistance, then lure depth is compromised this way as well.

Rods don't control depth as I see it. I can have a 2 foot rod and line out of the tip is mere feet from my nose, or I can have a 10 foot rod with the line flowing out of the tip 12 feet from my nose. Makes no difference where in space above the water this line out of the rod tip is or how long or how soft or stiff a rod is. Makes no difference. It is all in how the fisherman uses it. So sometimes rather than questioning the equipment, sometimes we have to question what we are doing or not doing to get what we want.

If you want a lure to go deeper, you can choose smaller diameter lines, and in the old days fishermen use to keep some sticky lead weights in their boxes just for this problem. Cut the piece you need, stick it on the lure, check balance and movement right at boat and start casting and see if it don't get down there better. Otherwise change lures to get the desired depth. And forget all about those ratings claims! Fish my good man! Don't think about it! Enjoy it! Ha!

And how's that trolling motor repair coming along? Never heard the resolution of it or what was wrong?



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2021 10:04AM by Kent Griffith.