I can feel some wool being pulled over my eyes here. LOL

LOL Lynn, ain't that the truth.

First I want to say that my first post to this thread should have been a congratulations to Michael for having an article published in Rodmaker magazine. So, congratulations on that Michael.

With that said, several times in this thread it has been suggested that we do our own practical tests to "feel what you feel" so I decided to do some tests of my own to test out some of the assertions that have been made in this thread. The first test deals with the assertion that a longer rod will be more sensitive than a shorter rod , regardless of the individual rods' recovery speed. The assertion went as far to say that what you feel with a 6' rod versus a 7' rod will be so vastly different, that you won't need a physical measurement to be able to tell the difference,

Testing involved casting a Mega Bass Vision 110 using a medium heavy power 7' Shimano Compre casting rod designed for crankbaits, and then casting the same bait using a 6'1" rod that I built on a Rainshadow REVS68ML Both rods have reels with 6.2:1 retrieve ratios. Both reels were filled with 12# test Seaguar Tatsu fluorocarbon line. And as the reels were identical reels, both of them have the same length handle, so other than a possible slight variance in the spooled diameter of the line on the individual reels, the same amount of line was being retrieved with each handle revolution. During the retrieves the rods were held at a 90 degree angle to where the bait entered the water.

I made 10 casts with each rod. All casts were around 35' in length and were within 3' of being the exact same length of each other. On five of the 10 casts with each rod, I retrieved the lure slowly. On the other 5 casts with each rod, I retrieved the lure more rapidly. I used the highly scientific method of counting 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. to make sure I kept the pace of retrieve as consistent as I could. The slow retrieve was roughly one revolution of the handle per 1000 count. The faster retrieve was roughly two revolutions of the handle per 1000 count.

Results: While using the 7' rod I sensed more weight in the form of water resistance as the bait was being retrieved with the longer rod, but regardless of retrieve speed, I could not sense the subtle wiggle of the bait. While using the 6' 1" rod, I sensed less weight as the bait was being retrieved with the shorter rod, and I could not feel the subtle wiggle of the bait at the slower retrieve speed. But, I could feel the subtle wiggle of the bait at the higher retrieve speed.

Conclusion: While a longer rod will always be more sensitive in sensing weight, regardless of its' recovery speed, it won't necessarily transmit as much information as a shorter rod with a faster recovery speed.

Oh, and if anyone is looking for objective data that proves the shorter rod in my testing, which is my jerkbait rod, has a faster recovery speed than the 7' Shimano crankbait rod used in the test. I have none. I will just say that the difference is quite evident.

I did one other test, a rather ridiculous one, as well. But sharing it would make this post even longer than it already is. Suffice it to say, my ridiculous experiment confirmed that a rod tip doesn't have to move in order to feel what your bait is doing through a fishing rod.

Thank you , David on your comments on the article . And thanks for the testing and post of the results.

Lord Kelvin chimes in: "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be."

Some numbers should be available this coming week.

…………..

Don't regret, David. As this goes along, I predict we will come out of it with a better understanding of all we have been discussing. Sometimes progress is very frustrating, very uncomfortable. But enlightening.. The push for objective data on what has before been almost an "art" is paying off. We just have to keep pushing for it. The blank company that provides the data will prosper. I think the manufacturers are slowly coming to grips with this movement, keep the pressure on .

Congratulations on the article, Mick! Well done! I'm glad TNF is out there to a wider audience.

The word, "Sensitive" has many connotations, nuances, and experiences surrounding it for me. It's a loaded word. I can't define someone else's experience of sensitivity.. This is exactly why I find data and numbers a useful common ground for discussion.

Just like CCS is about substituting repeatable data for words like "Fast" and "Heavy", TNF is a data-based approach to rod speed/recovery. The way I see it, this is the lane TNF occupies on that super highway of data points around rod blanks. Combined with CCS, TNF offers a more complete picture of a blank's characteristics. A win!

I can do many things with the data TNF (and CCS) produces. Compare it. Correlate it. Categorize it. I can draw my own Conclusions about those numbers and discuss/debate them with others around a Common data set. That seems reasonable and desirable to me.

thank you, Les.

MIchael, you assert that TNF is directly tied to a rods' sensitivity. That rods with higher TNFs are more sensitive. In fact, you're adamant about it. Yet you yourself have said that your assertion is based on what you physically feel when using a rod. You can't measure what you feel, so you have no supporting numbers. Applying the Lord Kelvin quote you posted, since you can't test and support your assertion of a direct correlation between TNF and a rods' sensitivity with numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.

You certainly don't feel that to be true, do you? That because you aren't able to assign a numerical value to what you feel, that your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind? Of course you don't. Even without numbers, you trust what you can feel.

As Les said. There are many connotations and nuances when it comes to sensitivity, and what defines it. Not all of those nuances can be measured. And even if it can be measured, the numbers may say one thing, while the results on the water go against what the numbers say should be. I'll bring up the rods I've built that I've counter weighted. Stiffness to weight ratio is a well accepted factor in a rods' sensitivity. The rods I've counter weighted would lose in stiffness to weight ratio compared to the same rod that hadn't been counter weighted. Yet I am absolutely certain that they make feeling certain things much easier, and much better, with the counter weighted rod, than I could with the same rod without counter weight added. The numbers, would say otherwise.

Years ago I shared a story about a rod that I had break when a 40"+ muskie hit my bait right at the boat. I loved that rod so I built an exact duplicate of it, but as the original rod was quite tip heavy, I counter weighted the replacement rod. I added 2 3/8 oz to the butt of the second rod. It was an eye opener, and is the reason why I have become a very staunch advocate of having a balanced rod and reel combination. Adding those weights in the manner in which I add them is a pain in the you know what. I assure you that I wouldn't go to the lengths I do, if the results weren't well worth it from a rod performance standpoint.

I'm not saying that collecting and applying that collected data won't result in a higher performing rod. It surely can, and does. But it's only part of the equation. A major factor of the equation is what we feel. And just because you can't assign a number to feel. doesn't mean it's knowledge of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.

At least not to me ...

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I did one other test, a rather ridiculous one, as
> well. But sharing it would make this post even
> longer than it already is. Suffice it to say, my
> ridiculous experiment confirmed that a rod tip
> doesn't have to move in order to feel what your
> bait is doing through a fishing rod.


I would bet that if you could take video of it and slow it down and-or enlarge it you would see the rod tip moving. I do not believe you can feel anything that does not move the rod even in very teeny tiny amounts. That would put us back to the idea that a crankbait or whatever is generating some sort of electric impulse that conducts through the line and rod. The lure is vibrating-moving so that means the line and the rod are also. Maybe it is just to small in motion for the human eye to see in real time.

David, yes, I believe that sensitivity is proportional to TNF, and by measuring TNF we have numbers that objectively represent sensitivity. And no, I cannot prove it. But it has not yet been disproven either.

Yes, it's only part of the equation. But you have to admit that the equation has more variables (things to consider, evaluate, and even measure) than it had before TNF.

Your weighted rod issue is one I've debated myself. While I have my opinion on it, I won't give it. Seems every time I do, someone has a problem with it. I'll just say, good point, worthy of consideration.

Let me just say that your comment about rod performance is appropriate since sensitivity is not the only attribute of a rod that contributes to its performance. In some cases, techniques, it's not even important.

"And just because you can't assign a number to feel. doesn't mean it's knowledge of a meager and unsatisfactory kind." I didn't say that, Lord Kelvin did. But I do agree with him. Thanks for your comments.

I wish there were a way to examine all the variables of a blank one at a time. Or get close enough to make observations based on the data.

Seems like many debates are based on different definitions and experiences of the topic. It's frustrating when it seems every team is playing by a different set of rules while moving the goal posts.

That's why I like the Hypothesis, Test, and Evaluate Results model. Both CCS and TNF fit well for me in this format.

Sensitivity defined as "Ability to transmit a vibration" is tested for vibration transmission with the appropriate equipment, and results examined.
Sensitivity defined as "Rod Speed or Recovery" is tested with the appropriate equipment to test frequency....
Sensitivity defined as "You can clearly feel the difference" is tested with blindfolds and swimming pools, and a credible sample size of test subjects for a survey? (Not making fun, just wondering how that works.)
Sensitivity defined as "Fill-In-The-Blank" can be tested against what it purports to measure....or NOT tested at all, and "A Pox on All Your Houses!" can be declared on the way out the door to fish. (Maybe the best option in the end! Ha!)

On another post, Aleks M. compared a 9-foot high modulus fly rod (HM) to a 7-foot intermediate modulus (IM) spinning/casting rod. He concluded through his tests that the IM rod transmitted vibrations better than the HM rod. These findings appeared to show that modulus is not ALWAYS the defining factor when 'defining sensitivity as vibration transmission'.

I don't doubt the results of this specific test. However, I admit to a great curiosity about how the variables of Length and Weight MIGHT also play a factor in the results. Would the same model of blank, one with IM and one with HM, show the same results? (I get it that Aleks was, IMO, just trying to find an outlier to disprove any kind of "law" or Universal Truth concerning modulus and vibration sensitivity. No harm. But the choice of test subjects to compare is also revealing to me....and makes me wonder why such different rods were used/needed to prove the point.)

Curious, not critical. (Thank you, Aleks, for making the effort and investment to wade into this sensitivity debate. You win! There are no 100% Universal Laws about sensitivity. Now, where do we go from here?)

When I want to build the 'most sensitive' rod for my purpose, I am not comparing a 9-foot rod with a 7-foot rod most of the time. I am comparing a 7-foot IM rod with a 7-foot HM with a 7-foot X-Ray with similar actions and power numbers. My hypothesis is that this is where the differences in TNF (and modulus) would become more apparent. If there are anomalies, then they will appear in the data and can be explored. No harm. No worries. No right nor wrong. Comparing. Evaluating. Exploring.

This is more of the lane that I THINK Mick and TNF are driving in. IF rod speed and recovery are a factor of 'sensitivity' then TNF can be informative and useful. No one is holding a vibrometer to anyone's head.

I think the point in using such dis-similar blanks was to prove beyond a doubt that a higher frequency does not necessarily equate to greater sensitivity. While Alex did not provide TNF numbers, the visual oscillations of the two blanks were so markedly different that it should be apparent that the blank that with this test proved to be the most "sensitive" almost certainly has a lower frequency than its competitor.

Not going to put words in Alex's mouth but I strongly suspect this is why he used blanks at somewhat opposite ends of the spectrum - to leave no doubt.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Frequency, or rod speed, is a very overlooked aspect of a rod blank and isn't used often enough by rod builders. Certain techniques are better performed with rods that possess a higher rod speed and other techniques are best served by rods with lower rod speeds. The real issue is that without these numbers the customer is left trying to look at the other rod specs and figure out what the relative rod speed is. It's possible but not easy to do. Certainly not as easy as having a set of relative numbers to go by.

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

"But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Frequency, or rod speed, is a very overlooked aspect of a rod blank and isn't used often enough by rod builders. Certain techniques are better performed with rods that possess a higher rod speed and other techniques are best served by rods with lower rod speeds. The real issue is that without these numbers the customer is left trying to look at the other rod specs and figure out what the relative rod speed is. It's possible but not easy to do. Certainly not as easy as having a set of relative numbers to go by."

Good point!

I haven’t found an Apple App that I can make heads or takes of. Any suggestions or should I grab an android device just for this?

I have looked for an Apple app on line and have found nothing that looks like it will give sound level vs time in milliseconds.

If one were to buy a device I'd recommend a tablet to get the larger screen size. I know an Amazon Kindle works and any Android tablet should. There are tablets on Amazon for as little as $60.

I have stated previously that this heated discussion on what makes a rod more "sensitive" would be astronomically more significant if it in fact would make some significant difference to the average angler. Is there anyone out there who thinks that this is so?

The mere fact that there is such an enormous amount of subjectivity in the analysis of sensitivity makes the effort to qualify or quantify that sensitivity nothing more than an opinion. What if I can appreciate some characteristic that you cannot, or what if you appreciate some characteristic that I do not. Do those characteristics actually exist? Maybe...maybe not. Maybe for one party, and not the other. More importantly...HOW MUCH DOES IT MATTER to the average fisherman? And I ask this question regardless of what type of fisherman you can think of.

Dave Baylor said he tried to duplicate a rod with the same sensitivity as a rod he lost to a 40+ inch Muskie. Not for nothin', but just how sensitive does a rod have to be when fishing for fish like that? Actually, I did a whole lot of fishing before I was ever introduced to rod building, and I'm sure I fished with many a rod that most fairly accomplished fishermen would have laughed at. I likely could not count the number of times I "felt" (is that sensitivity?) fish on the end of my line during my pre rod building days and set the hook, nailing fish that I would have thought literally impossible to have been hooked based upon just how small they were! So what's the point? Well, the point is, using rods that were likely infinitely inferior to anything I use today was WAY sensitive enough for me to detect those most embarrassing catches.

So the way I look at it, to go through all sorts of hoops in order to improve the sensitivity of a rod build to such a degree (and likely such a small degree) after seemingly endless discussion of what makes it happen, why it happens, where it happens etc. etc. should be the goal of the most serious guppy gunners. Rod companies need to stop advertising just how sensitive their products are by revealing pictures and videos of enormous fish caught with those products, and start coming to their senses and show just how small a fish their product can detect! Dink Dynasty?

". . . more significant if it in fact would make some significant difference to the average angler. Is there anyone out there who thinks that this is so?'

Yes.

OK. Now that you so mercilessly pressed Tom for a list of "...other things" involved in the enhancement of sensitivity (whatever that means) of a rod, please explain if you will what significant difference knowing that rod A will be a little more sensitive than rod B is going to make to the average angler.

As an analogy, United Airlines has put a new boarding protocol into place. They are now going to board passengers by window....middle.....and aisle seats. This seemed to me to be a spectacular idea in the interest of saving time. But if what I heard from someone today is true, they had already practiced this in real time prior to the move. Apparently, it saved about two minutes overall compared to the old method of boarding. For the average passenger....does it really matter?

We don't all build for the "average" angler. I know I don't.

Ernie, if you believe this whole subject is so ridiculous and insignificant, why don't you simply ignore it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2023 03:21PM by Michael Danek.

Way too entertaining. And you didn't answer my question.