I thought the whole idea of building a fishing rod, was to use it? Or for someone else to use it? As I have said before ..... there is a difference in how a rod performs in a bench test and how it might perform in use, on the water. Personally, I could care less how it performs in a bench test. I care how it performs in use, on the water. And if adding weight to a rod helps it perform more efficiently in use, then that weight as improved the performance of that rod.

The idea is to use the dang thing, isn't it?

The firearm-fishrod analogy is a false one. When marksmen want their rifle to perform better they use heavier, not lighter rifles. When fly casters want their fly rod to perform better they use lighter, not heavier fly rods. In recent years the number of anglers who add dead weight to their rod to achieve "balance" seems to have diminished.

I didn't say I didn't like the term dynamic efficiency, I was only looking for a definition and how to measure it. I think I know what is meant, but would like it defined. So we can all be talking about the same thing. Same for "overall efficiency."

Less weight on a rod can have a diminishing noticeable return to the average angler. I once heard why fish with a ugly rod if you don't have to? Lay some rods side by side with one having some bling and see which one the average angler chooses to buy with both being relatively close in price. I have some with bling and some with no bling. I seriously doubt many could tell the difference in capability, sensitivity, or weight. I have found that those who diss on thread art are the ones who aren't capable of doing it.

Thread Art is not a crime
Dave Boyle