Mike,

True. However, also note, that the point is to make clear that a blanks recovery does not mean greater vibrational sensitivity - and this test can be done within a range of a single manufacturers blanks (for example, The Spin Jig Family or the Mag Bass Family, or the Cast Bass, Spin Bass within a manufacturer, that would have a similar ERN/CCS but a different recovery (TNF) and a different reading off a vibrometer. It is not necessary a manufacturer versus a manufacturer comparison, although it could certainly be used that way.

Best,
Aleks

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bulk of the world's major domestic rod blank
> mfgs will be at the Expo. I know that many major
> rod manufacturers attend just to get a scoop on
> something they can incorporate in their upcoming
> rod models for the future. Seems like the Expo
> would be the best place to do it and out in front
> of all the major players instead of in somebody's
> lab where it can be claimed that that one or two
> companies stacked the deck in some way. Other than
> at Icast, where else do this many major rod blank
> manufacturers show up in these kinds of numbers?
> This is the custom rod building world's major
> event each year. So you got Rodgeeks, St. Croix,
> Thrasher, CTS, Stryker, Rodforge, Northfork and I
> think some others all in one place at one time.
> Somebody write down some test criteria and get it
> done next month. There is an opportunity here that
> you do not have anywhere else.

Vibrations whether be they be heard or felt, are vibrations nonetheless.

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

Incorrect. A pull or some sort of varied resistance is not a vibration. Water is too dense for that.

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike,
>
> True. However, also note, that the point is to
> make clear that a blanks recovery does not mean
> greater vibrational sensitivity - and this test
> can be done within a range of a single
> manufacturers blanks (for example, The Spin Jig
> Family or the Mag Bass Family, or the Cast Bass,
> Spin Bass within a manufacturer, that would have a
> similar ERN/CCS but a different recovery (TNF) and
> a different reading off a vibrometer. It is not
> necessary a manufacturer versus a manufacturer
> comparison, although it could certainly be used
> that way.
>
> Best,
> Aleks
>

I didn't mean it to sound like it was a mfg to mfg contest but I see how some might view it that way. in the meantime I am going to do an experiment tomorrow in a swimming pool. The guy that mentioned the kid's tin can and string telephone has got it right. THAT is a vibration. Will it work underwater? I am going to try and find out.

I’ve been paying attention to rod sensitivity across the fishing realm for more decades than I like to admit. I’ve also talked with with all sorts of anglers and a few industry people about the topic. I can think of very few situations where I believe vibrations were in play rather than Tom’s description of change in resistance on the line. One was last summer when fishing with a nail weighted (1/32 oz) wacky worm on braid with about four feet of fluorocarbon leader. It was getting hammered a few feet from the boat repeatedly by about four inch bass. They were snapping at it, likely trying to tear pieces off after feeling resistance. With the stretch in the small diameter worm, minimal weight, and solid line, the sharp snaps and quick releases were causing the rod tip to bounce (having less than 10 feet of line out probably helped). It almost felt electric. That was on a Rainshadow Eternity, drop shot rod. It’s a “sensitive” rod, but it was actually vibrating from a fairly unique set of conditions. Halibut make such long and fast jerks (maybe three feet) that the tip can snap back before line resistance “damps” the vibration.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, this should be held as a fun and informative discussion between hobbyists and experts. The range in bites is so large that whatever someone believes is probably at times true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2023 10:07PM by Kendall Cikanek.

Been following this thread for the duration with quite a bit of interest. Being a new builder didn't feel qualified enough to weigh in. But, planning on going to Expo and would definitely be interested in sitting in on the session that is getting into this. I appreciate all the info shared on this thread and hope that this helps to move closer to the elusive means to quantify sensitivity.

While I will be just as interested in getting the most "sensitive" rod I can for certain applications, many applications really don't require it and can even cause the angler to pull the bait away from the fish before they fully have it (along with too fast an action). With all that being said I'll probably still be in line to pickup the most sensitive blank if one can objectively be quantified.

Interested in seeing where this ends up.

Welcome back Aleks.

>>>"You can do the above at home, in a lab, in a settings with other rod builders, (or at the Expo!)"

And you can run a few blanks and report the results. I don't have as big a selection of similar blanks (based on CCS numbers) as you do. I have three blanks here. I expect you have many more. And I don't have a "vibrometer." You do.


>>"For those that want to stick by TNF - they are welcome to do so, but I would imagine that at some point, they would provide an explanation of how a higher TNF equals a more sensitive blank"

And for those who challenge TNF, as you have, as a measure of sensitivity and who have a "vibrometer" at their disposal, they are welcome to provide objective data backing their challenge. You have the resources to back up your challenge. Why don't you simply do it? I'm fine with whatever the results are. But it's clear that you are not about to verify your challenge with the objective data that would be so easy for you to generate.

My explanation of how a higher TNF equals a more sensitve blank is that in every case I've tested, my subjective evaluation has been that the higher TNF blanks have resulted in higher sensitivtiy rods. No, I don't have a vibrometer. No , I don't have a "sensitivometer." TNF has correlated with my subjective conclusions. I have yet to find an exception to the trend. Premium blanks (like RX10, PB) have had higher TNF's than lower modulus blanks (RX6-7). I have had one RX6 blank that tested close to premium blanks, and it too felt very sensitive.

I have tested the "tink" suggestion of a poster a long time ago, who suggested that dropping a blank onto a concrete surface generated a frequency that is related to sensitivity, and I identified that frequency for a few blanks. It seemed to correlate to my objective conclusions, too. And higher modulus blanks had higher "tink" frequencies. However, as soon as guides were added, there was no dominant frequency that could be identified. So the effect of adding guides, grips, wraps, etc, was lost.

How are the results of your testing at the Expo going to be reported to those of us who are unable to attend? Would it not be better to simply publish the results here?



Norman, thank you for your comments. I agree, as I always do , with your balanced and reasoned opinions. I also do not think that TNF is the "answer all" to sensitivity. But I expect in most cases, at least with every blank I've tested, that the higher TNF blanks will have what most fishermen would consider higher sensitivity. And Aleks, remember that in a much earlier post that I stated that you and I were defining sensitivity essentially the same way. We have no disagreement on that. Maybe other posters do, but not you and I.

I disagree that the Expo is the place to verify or discredit the challenge you started 3700 forum views ago and which is still not addressed with data that is so easily obtainable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2023 09:59PM by Michael Danek.

Approximately how long does it take to perform a TNF test per rod? How long does it take to perform a Vibrometer test per Rod? Then need to have an agreed upon test for sensitivity (Tom mentioned Tug on Line test?) And somehow see if there is correlation amongst the two different methods for testing sensitivity.

>>"Approximately how long does it take to perform a TNF test per rod? "

Within 5 minutes of wanting to run a test I have the results. Piece of cake.

Adam Hinc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is zero chance that vibrations can travel
> along a fishing line in an underwater medium. The
> water will damp out any such vibrations in an
> instant. Not the same as vibrations along a line
> suspended in the air. In water you are talking
> about a medium that is almost 800 times denser
> than air at sea level. Any feeling or feel has to
> be something else. I think it is probably a pull
> or resistance as has been mentioned by others. But
> it is not any sort of vibration such as you would
> have in a musical instrument or a tin can and
> string kid's telephone. They won't work
> underwater.


For the time being I'd start with something we know to be absolutely true and even in subjective terms there is no doubt about it - a longer rod is a more sensitive rod. Why? The longer rod will almost certainly have a lower TNF than the same shorter rod but it is more sensitive.. I want to see what the vibrometer shows although I suspect it will also show "vibration" transmission to be slower or less in the longer, more sensitive rod by virtue of the specific type vibrations imparted to it. But in actual fishing situation it is more sensitive. The same crankbait pulled on the longer rod is obviously felt more strongly on the longer rod. The same fish can be felt more strongly on the longer rod. A bottom crawler rig is much more strongly felt on the longer rod. Why?

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

Why? It’s simple leverage as taught in 4th grade science.

So here is a question. Is a fast action rod more sensitive than a slower action one? I’m not sure. I think a moderate fast rod might be more sensitive, but until a couple of years ago fast and extra fast rods were ruling the light jigging world. The fast rods with more limber tips seem to be gaining a little following.

Because a longer rod is a longer lever for whatever is on the other end of the line. Which completely flips the definition of sensitivity and which I feel is likely the correct definition.

>>"Mick is measuring recovery speed and Aleks is measuring vibration transfer. Neither is measuring the rod's ability to transmit fishing information."

I know Aleks does not agree, but in every case I have tested the higher the recovery speed (TNF) the higher the subjectively evaluated sensitivity is. And is it not interesting that the highest price, highest modulus blanks, have the highest TNF's? What is the objective of highest modulus? Sensitivity.

I wonder what the TNF of the new Air 602 blanks is? I'll bet they are the highest of anything NFC has yet produced. And I'll bet NFC says they are the most sensitve blanks they have ever produced. I think I know the answers.

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? It’s simple leverage as taught in 4th grade
> science.
>
> So here is a question. Is a fast action rod more
> sensitive than a slower action one? I’m not
> sure. I think a moderate fast rod might be more
> sensitive, but until a couple of years ago fast
> and extra fast rods were ruling the light jigging
> world. The fast rods with more limber tips seem to
> be gaining a little following.


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

Of course I was asking "why" in a rhetorical sense. Although I'm not sure that many fishermen consider it.

To your question about fast vs slow action - a fishing rod is an unusual lever. It flexes, which changes the length of the effective lever. A slow action rod will ultimately be a shorter effective lever than the same length fast action rod (until fully loaded). We did an article on this in our issue on Stand Up Rod fishing. But in terms of sensitivity I'm not sure the effective length matters because we are talking about how much resistance is necessary to move the rod in any amount. But it's a good question to ponder.

Send me your mailing address and I'll send you the issue on fishing rods as "effective" levers. I think you'll enjoy it. rodmaker@earthlink.net

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

One thing I know--- neither a jig or plastic worm vibrates. You feel them if they are in contact with the bottom or other structure. So what you are feeling is indeed resistance. Once the subject of sensitivity is accepted as leverage then you can ask further questions such as if two rods are equal in length is the faster or slower action rod more sensitive? Is the softer or stiffer rod more sensitive? Is the heavier or lighter rod more sensitive. The acceptance of leverage as sensitivity is the kick-off point for everything else.

Mick and TNF never made a claim about a DIRECT correlation to sensitivity whether underwater or in outer space. It was a question, a hypothesis, and a challenge for fair and scientific tests. The point was not to prove anyone wrong or right about their definition or experience of sensitivity. The point was, to me, to try and take a subjective term and turn it into numbers that can be useful to rod builders.

When Mick stated that he wanted to see if TNF correlated to the elusive concept of sensitivity, he stated he would need a "sensitivometer" to show a correlation. Aleks made the claim that he had such a device, and that TNF was NOT always correlated to sensitivity because he had some examples of non-correlation based on the NUMBERS. He said it was 50/50 to my recollection! To me that means Half Right, not All Wrong. My next question is, Where does all this leave us in the end if you can pick and choose proofs and non-proofs 50/50? I'd like to see more curiosity than conviction in this debate. I think we all get nuances here.

TNF never made any claims to be the last, defining word on sensitivity to my knowledge.

CCS is a numbers-based system to put data in place of subjective terms like Power and Action. Why was this needed or important? For greater clarity and precision in comparing one rod to another? No one I know of says these numbers don't relate to real world fishing conditions. IP is IP and AA is AA in Alaska or the Amazon. Can TNF be TNF and you can use it as you will?

I agree with @Les statement and would hit the like if I could, "The point was, to me, to try and take a subjective term and turn it into numbers that can be useful to rod builders." I appreciate everyone's candor and I don't see this as trying to prove one side right and one side wrong. I see this as an attempt to better categorize and/or quantify sensitivity and any tests that correlate with it so that rod builders can use the info to make rods that better meet the needs/requirements of the anglers using them... I'm here to learn.

Adam, you have gotten the better of me! I submit!

I think a lot of your people need to go back and read Aleks' opening post. In it he clearly defines what the definition of sensitivity is, for the purpose of this discussion. See what it says?"

"For the purpose of this discussion, I am defining "sensitivity" as the measurement of vibration along a tube."

You can't change the definition to fit your own definition, and then call someone out with things like put up or shut up, or say that he is wrong. In an earlier post to this thread I said that we have two parties that are clearly not working with the same definition. I was wrong ..... it's a lot more than two.

No doubts fishing sensitivity is about more than just how fast a blank recovers, or how well a blank transmits vibrations. For years I have been saying that winning a bench test doesn't always mean winning on the water.

As far as we aren't feeling vibrations in real world fishing situations. Say what??? So what's happening at the lure end isn't transformed into vibrations, and those vibrations don't travel down the rod? OK ...... and the electric that enters your stereo and then your speakers isn't transformed into vibrations that we hear as sound.

And jigs and worms don't vibrate? A Senko is a stick worm, Senkos shake, which is a vibration, as they fall. You can actually see them shaking. A curly tail worm vibrates, A jig with a Rage tail craw has a trailer that is vibrating. A Bladed jigs vibrates. Spinnerbaits vibrate. The arm of a spinnerbait can shake like crazy, depending on the size and type of blade it has on it. Sure, what's causing it to shake is a change in water resistance as the blade rotates, but that blades water resistance has been converted to a vibration. All of the movements that we feel are converted to vibrations by the time they get to the rod. It's not magic. There is a whole lot more magic involved in converting 110 V AC current into music that comes out of a speaker, than there is with what goes on with a fishing rod and line.

As far as musical notes coming from a rod during a fishing situation. I've never heard a musical note I thought my rod was making, but I have from my fishing line on windy days. And as far as the rod making music, it could very well be making sounds that are just too low frequency for a human to hear. Oh, and despite how much more dense water is than air, sound still travels through it. Even the surface of water, which has a tension, won't reflect all the sound that is made above water. Ever been underwater in a swimming pool and here people standing outside of the pool, talking? How about music that may be playing?

And finally ..... Lynn,,,,,, you are the man !!! LOL And I think you'll understand if I say I don't plan on looking at my rod tip while my bait is sliding down the face of a rock or along the trunk of a dead fall in the water. I watch my line, and if I can't see it shaking when that kind of stuff is happening, I sure as heck ain't gonna see any movement in my rod tip. Now just because I can't see it shaking, doesn't mean it isn't.

It's kind of like that rod blank making sound thing I spoke of earlier. For all I know it's making sounds only an elephant could here. Or maybe a whale? Sound travels really well underwater. That's how whales talk.

And Flipper ....... can't forget Flipper.

What you feel on the end of fishing rod is not a vibration. It is resistance as leverage. I can't imagine this is even debatable.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you feel on the end of fishing rod is not a
> vibration. It is resistance as leverage. I can't
> imagine this is even debatable.
>
> .............


Correct. To put it plainly it is resistance creating leverage on the rod that is interpreted falsely or otherwise by fishermen as vibration.