This is a procedure that I'm using for sensitivity testing.
Hopefully someone finds it useful.

That is a very direct and sensible way to measure things. I am not sure that is comparable to what happens in the water when a fish takes a bait or lure but if we are talking just about direct contact from rod tip to the hand then this is a sensible way to do it. We keep coming back to what exactly is it that we need to measure?

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We keep coming back to what
> exactly is it that we need to measure?

For me it was which material can determine a vibration better than another material...
The thinking is that it will carry over to the lake.

Tongue firmly in cheek, I use a set up like this. The line shown goes to a rod at the other end.

Joel’s method wins!!

I agree with Chris.

Define What you are testing for your purposes. Then test it. (IMO, efficient transmission of vibration through a tube is rarely a liability to my fishing.)

Joel - Your spy bait appears to have hooked that smallie in both the tongue and cheek.... Nice work! This naturally leads me astray in asking about your choice of Spy Bait rods.... Proof meets Pudding.

Les, attempting to keep this somewhat about sensitivity, spy baits seem to me to be a good test of, and practice for, a fisherman’s ability to detect bites. The bait is moved quite slowly through the water column, and doesn’t make much contact with cover. No obstructions simulating bites to sort through, yet still requires focus on what the lure is doing because speed is important and the retrieve doesn’t create much tension in the line. For many fishermen, spy baits seem to be a difficult presentation in which to develop confidence.

But not custom rod builders. (Grin. Laugh.) We have phone apps, TNF numbers, and vibrometer devices to measure the vibrations or changes in tension and such on the components we use to build the rods we build.

My favorite spybait blank is also my favorite hair jig blank, the St Croix C576MLXF. I also really like the MHX Elite-X NSJ 871 and 872. I build them just as they are, and I’ve also been known to extend them a little bit, too.

Random thought on Chris’s phone app: if there’s a phone app and technique for measuring vibration transmission in a blank, there surely can be an app applied to detect the bites we get once the rod is built, if indeed they are vibrations. Or, are we taking his too far? lol.

Chris, that's pretty cool. It appears that with the test set up mentioned, you could have the strike occur anywhere on the rod you want. That might prove interesting to see if an MTV reel seat, really does transmit vibrations better than others. I'd imagine you could test how well different grip materials transmit vibrations as well. Definitely a neat little toy for those that are more tech driven.

And Joel, that's a chunk you had there. A definite football. That doesn't happen to be from one of the Great Lakes, does it? It looks a lot like the ones I get from Lake Erie.

And at the risk of being found guilty of going off topic. LOL You are absolutely right about spy baits being difficult to develop confidence in. For me fishing a spy bait is like fishing a real light Ned rig. Hard to stick with until you start catching fish. Kind of like the problem some have with fishing off shore. If you're not catching fish you keep thinking, am I doing this right.

Though I live in a town right on Lake Michigan in eastern Wisconsin and have caught my share of Great Lakes smallmouths, I caught that particular fish in an inland lake in northern Wisconsin.

Fortunately, I've had the opportunity to develop confidence in the use of spybaits for several different species. Perhaps my 150% more sensitive custom rods played a part. lol.

Love this!

Joel,
I've seen some pics of some real hog smallie pulled out of those inland Wisconsin lake on the everything smallmouth FB group. Nice catch!!!

@Joel- if you know it's 150% more positive I'm assuming you measured it the Shimano way, glad it worked for ya ;)

@Chris I think I found a video of similar testing on YouTube, I'll try to find it again. So you have a wire connected to the phone that transfers the vibration from the rod?

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2023 01:33AM by El Bolinger.

El Bolinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you have a wire connected to the phone that transfers the
> vibration from the rod?

Yes...I suppose you could mount the phone on the rod or reel seat etc...etc.
What important is to be consistent with the test...and that holds true for any kind of testing.

Hey Chris, I found the video- it's very similar to your testing. This dude definitely set up a system that eliminates as many variables as possible with a repeatable process. If one considers vibration through a rod part of a rod's sensitivity then this test seems pretty solid.

What were you doing to cause vibrations?

[youtu.be]

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

El Bolinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What were you doing to cause vibrations?
>
If you look at one of the pictures you will see an apparatus, I made it out of balsa wood, cork, popsicle sticks, clothes pin).
I could move the clothes pin to act as a counter balance to adjust the strike.
It has since been dismantled and made into crank baits.

El, cool test in the video you linked. And while it's probably as close as you can get to a real dragging across the bottom simulation. I don't know that the controls are stringent enough to be acceptable for direct comparison testing.

Definitely an ingenious idea of gluing rocks and mounting them in a rod dryer, but ...... the path the weight takes wasn't the same every time. That's a variable that could skew results. For comparison testing I would want to see a uniform surface, so that no matter where the weight traveled, it was hitting a consistent surface. You need consistency in testing, and IMO, there's just too much randomness in his revolving drum, test field.

Also, rod action is a variable, and my guess is that it's in play in this situation. And rod action is where I believe Michael's TNF comes into play. A faster action rod, at least in my mind, is going to increase transmitted vibrations through quicker recovery. That may seem counter to some of my posts in the It's a sensitive topic thread, but there's good reason for that.

My interpretation of the testing Aleks was speaking about in his thread, the rod blank is static and a vibration is introduced on one end, and measured on the other. So if TNF is a measure of rod recovery speed, and it is, then how would it have anything to do with transmitted vibrations in an environment where the blank is static? Logically, it wouldn't. At least not the way I see it.

On the other hand, the testing shown in the linked video, is dynamic testing. Recovery speed is going to play a role in that, as the motion of the recovering rod will add it's own vibrations to the mix. It will help you feel more. Which is why I said in the prior mentioned thread, that nobody was arguing whether a higher TNF was going to allow you to feel more.

Anyhow ..... this is why I have said many times, that bench test winners don't always win on the water. It's static testing versus dynamic testing. Fishing is dynamic,, with many things affecting what we're able to feel with a fishing rod. TNF may be the more telling test because it comes into play while the rod is in use, but sorry Michael, that doesn't mean a higher TNF will always prove better on the water, lol

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if TNF is a measure
> of rod recovery speed, and it is, then how would
> it have anything to do with transmitted
> vibrations in an environment where the blank is
> static? Logically, it wouldn't. At least not the
> way I see it.

David ( I apologize in advance if I'm misinterpreting what your saying )
TNF and vibration testing would, IMO, be equifinality...same result from different events.
...that is...if they do in fact correlate.

@Chris ah okay gotcha.

@David, I see what you're saying, but I think you unintentionally defended the test at the same time - as you end with your contention to bench tests you (which is certainly understandable) you started by saying this test is pretty close to real world fishing as a bench test can get. The difference is testing on the water would likely be more difficult to measure and more susceptible to unpredictable variables interfering.

Also, regarding the controls, the line the path takes is not a control whether the surface is consistent or the glued rocks, and the glued rocks themselves are the constant. The test compares revolutions to each other and since the stimuli is the same for each complete revolution that would be the constant. The line response to the stimuli would still be out of the control of the testers as part of the test is how the line itself responds to the surface/rocks. But in order to reduce the range of variability of line reaction one could increase the length of testing, gathering a greater range of data would help to eliminate the impact of outliers.

I also see what you're saying about rod action being a variable, but essentially the entire rod itself is the variable. I'm sure you could later compare the specs of the rods tested and eliminate variables by only comparing like rods, but in the beginning this might also either support or disprove the idea that action affects sensitivity (vibrations) comparing all rods to each other - I also had begun to attribute greater sensitivity to faster actions over the past couple of years based personal experience of "feel." But I can imagine a logical connection between static rod vibration testing and action - the materials themselves and the taper create the action which is essentially the placement of where the rod becomes its stiffest. A slower action with a less stiff rod would have a lower rigidity and it makes sense to be that would mean that it would transmit vibrations less efficiently than a faster stiffer rod.

I'm with you in that bench tests vs real world on the water experience doesn't always correlate nicely, but they do give us some data points to compare to each other and to on the water experience.

IP and AA are static tests that certainly correlate to real world experience - it gives us a frame of reference more so than he said she said this rod is more sensitive or has a fast action or is a medium light.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

Sensitivity
Any test set up that results in measuring some type of response of a rod or blank has merit and sadly limitations. In order for it to have validity the test set up must remain the same for each test. The results will be a comparison of one rod to another. If one rod or test is set as a standard and given a number then all other rods tested can be given a value relative to that number or standard.

Attaching the phone to the rod and measuring response gives a "system" response because the weight of the phone will influence the rod response.

"There are many theories about the accuracy of a measurement. They can be summed up to what is called the “observers’ effect” which simply means that often the instruments or sensors used, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. The most common example is measuring tire pressure, as soon as the pressure gauge is applied some air escapes and the pressure in the tire changes from its original state. This uncertainty of the pressure change before and after can be minimized by how much air escapes and how quickly the measurement is made. The method and instruments used have limitations and the confidence level of these measurements is determined by assigning limits for acceptance. These limits are designated as “tolerance”. "

When using a phone to measure vibration in a rod one must consider the effect the mass of the phone adds to the system, it may or not be negligible but it is still a factor.

The tests presented here are valid as system responses and not for absolute responses of the rod itself. Example;

System"BELLS” shows that rod “A” is more sensitive than rod “B”.. and

System"WHISTLE” shows that rod “A” is more sensitive than rod “B”.

Both systems agree rod “A” is more sensitive than rod “B” and that is what is important. It all comes down to which system you have the most confidence with.

Given the material and equipment available to the home craftsman excellent results have been achieved and should be encouraged.

If one requires absolute numbers then non-contacting test equipment has to be used which may not practical or available to the home craftsman.

Have fun

John, I completely agree that all that is important is that the tests show which is more sensitive, or in CCS, which rod is more powerful, or has a faster action, etc.... That's all that matters.

El, the line path is not a control, the path the weight takes is. If you watch, you will see the weight hits the same rock on different sides and even misses some of the rocks that the weight hit on the previous pass. It's far from being constant or consistent. You should appreciate this. If you are looking to assign a value as to if rod A is 140% more sensitive than rod B, then you need far more stringent testing than what is depicted in that video. But if all you are looking for is which is more sensitive, then yeah, it's more than adequate. But if you want to know how much more sensitive. It's not going to cut it. Not for those that demand objective measurements be dead accurate. BTW, I am not one of those people.

As far as taper affecting a blanks vibration transmission ability, you're right, And stiffness would seem to also be a determining factor, But .....

"You can take the exact same pattern, material, process, and just change the mandrel slightly (which changes the inside diameter/hole size/taper) of a blank, and the one with the bigger hole on the inside will be "stiffer", and will have a higher TNF, but , it will not be more vibrationally sensitive than the other pattern."

That quoted line is from Aleks Maslov, and his first post in the "A Sensitive Topic" thread. So it seems that stiffness isn't a determining factor in vibration transmission. I know it isn't as far as feel on the water goes, Going just be feel, my rod built on an RX 10 blank is considerably less stiff than the rods I have built on X ray SJ 736 blanks, and I can't tell which one is more sensitive,

And if you are comparing one rod to another, don't you think you should be comparing rods that are very similar to each other? Otherwise, whats the point of comparing them? And CCS is a great example of static testing that correlates well with on the water performance. And static load guide placement transfers very well to on the water performance as well. But not all static testing does correlate to on the water performance.

Stiffness to weight ratio is a static test. I have a couple of rods I have added more than 2 oz of weight inside the butt of their blanks. How do you think they would fair in a comparison of stiffness to weight ratio? Not very good ...... not very good at all LOL

Anyhow ...... objective data is great n all ....... but it will never replace feel.