Ernie, I was fishing for bass, pitching baits to docks, and was reeling my bait in fast to make another pitch, when that muskie came charging out and took my bait just before I lifted it out of the water. No I don't think you need an ultra sensitive rod for muskie or similar very aggressive fish.

As far as your points when you bring up days gone by. Yes, many of us caught plenty of fish on rods that I would consider inferior from a sensitivity standpoint, to most of the rods I've built for my own personal use. And I too have caught fish, some very small, some not so small, where I set the hook simply because something didn't feel right. I will say that happens far more often now with the rods I've built, than it did back in the days when I used middle of the road factory rods. Is that strictly the result of using a more sensitive rod. I'd like to think so, but it could also be that I've gotten better at fishing over the years. Or that the line I use now offers far better sensitivity than the nylon mono filament I used back then.

Does the better equipment I use now help me catch more fish? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

Do we quibble in threads on this site over things as far as making a rod more sensitive that probably could never be felt by the average angler, or even an advanced angler? Some of us do. I'd like to think I don't take it as far as some, but maybe I do.

Anyhow ........... I get the point you're making, and agree. If you can't feel a difference ..... does it really matter?

Maybe someday I'll get to fish for Muskie. Sounds like fun. :-)

Les Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.



Isn't it contrary to the "lever arm argument" that Tom advocates ?

Best regards,
Pavel

Pavel. No, not at all. In the experiments Aleks Maslov of North Forks Composites conducted, the blanks are laying on a table. Leverage isn't present in the testing. The testing performed was just to determine how well a tube transmits vibrations.

From what I've gathered from reading the posts in the thread "A Sensitive Topic", it's the construction of the tube, and its' various dimensions hat make the difference in that type of testing. It also seems that the material the blank is made of doesn't play as large of a role than once thought. Although I'm not so sure about the latter part of my interpretation. The blanks tested were vastly different in type, so in a blanks with the same model number, but made of different materials, may show different results. I would certainly think it would.

The "lever arm argument" that Tom advocates, has to do with a longer lever arm's ability to sense changes in weight at the end of the lever arm, more easily. The feeling of weight is multiplied by the length of the lever arm.

When pulling a bait through the water, or dragging it across the bottom, it creates resistance. Resistance felt as weight. The longer lever arm makes it easier to feel that resistance, and any changes in resistance that may occur. Those changes in resistance, because of what they cause the line to do, take the form of vibrations in the line that the rod tip senses. The longer lever arm magnifies our feel of those vibrations.

I was actually thinking of picking up the equipment Aleks spoke of in the video of his testing, just to try some different testing of my own. If I do, An interesting test to see what affect leverage has on vibration transmission through the blank, would be to see if you could adapt the manner of testing Aleks performed on the blanks, to a fishing line attached to the tip of the blank. That would be pretty cool. If I do end up picking up the testing equipment, the latter is something I will definitely try to do.

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Les Cline Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 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.
>
>
>

> Isn't it contrary to the "lever arm argument" that
> Tom advocates ?


The input in the North Fork test comes from a speaker that is generating vibrations without pulling on the rod tip. Fishing lures do not wiggle, wobble, vibrate, etc., unless and until they begin resisting your effort to retrieve them. So that component of sensitivity testing isn't part of the current test procedure.

Alex and I have discussed the possibility of using one of the fish fighting/video machines that do generate resistance against the rod tip as the input device for further sensitivity testing. This would provide the most realistic scenario possible for such test/measurements. This may be available by the time the EXPO rolls around.

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

David, Tom

- thank you for clarification. Does it mean that you consider 'the length' itself the major factor of 'sensivity' ?

In other words: do you think that if rods in Aleks' test were actually held in hand rather than laying on a table then the longer rod (fly 9') would be more sensitive than shorter (spin 7') ?

Best regards,
Pavel

Pavel, I personally would say it depends. Back on page 2 of this thread I posted the results of an experiment I did where I cast the same bait on two different length rods, to see if the " a longer rod is going to be more sensitive than a shorter rod" postulation, is true in every case.

As with the blanks that Aleks tested, the two rods I used for the test are vastly different from one another, Like Aleks chose the blanks he used in his testing, for a specific reason, I too chose the rods I used for a specific reason. The 11" longer crankbait rod I used is far heavier than the shorter jerkbait rod that I used for comparison. Their recovery speeds, which is what TNF measures, are vastly different as well. I think the vast differences in the rods had a definite affect on the results. I think the weight, the power (its stiffness) and the action of the crankbait rod, damped some of the information coming from the bait I was throwing. Otherwise, were the rods more similar to each other, with the only main difference being their length. I have a feeling I would have felt more of what the bait was doing, with the longer rod. In fact, I'm fairly certain of it.

One thing is for sure though..... in my experiment I sensed more weight with the longer rod. And it was more than a little noticeable.

It is with great trepidation that I get back into this, but I think that the "lever arm" argument is being mis-applied/mis-interpreted. As I understand it, with blanks/rods of similar characteristics, but of different lengths, the lever arm argument states that the longer will be the more sensitive.

The lever arm argument is not that the longer rod will ALWAYS be more sensitive. I will accept corrections only from Tom K since it is his argument that is under discussion.

When one is trying to isolate the influence of a variable on a result the right way to test for it is to have every other variable as close together between the test subjects as possible. So if one wants to test for the lever arm argument, then the right way is not to use widely different rods, the right way is to have two rods of very similar power, action, material, etc and test one against the other. Is the longer one more sensitive?

If your test method is subjective rather than objective, then there are other complications. As in: that wine I had last night was really great, the best wine I've had in years. (but was my conclusion influenced by the ambiance of the restaurant, or the company I was with, or the mood I was in after winning the lottery, or because I was with a beautiful woman, or. . . . ?)

The problem with trying to test for this is to get two rods of similar characteristics but different lengths. And even after that, more samples would add confidence in the conclusion. One test is usually not considered the final answer.

I have held the belief for many years that if one is using mono or FC lines, the single biggest improvement in sensitivity he can make is a cheap spool of braid. It is not an expensive rod.

I agree with you about braid Mick. And I hate to bring it up, but I have a very hard time believing that the advantage of braid is related to vibration transmission. It's because of lack of stretch. Suggesting that pulling or not pulling is what you feel with a rod. Does the pulling/not pulling equal vibration in a rod blank? I'm not smart enough to know that. I actually think that all the things we've talked about that affect sensitivity are correct in some way. There is no universal measure of rod sensitivity. It is a personal and subjective sensation that has more variables than we can measure. Guess I agree with Mick about the wine comparison too. And just like wine, no one is going to tell us exactly how a rod blank is built, leaving some variables always unknown.

Michael, the two rods I chose are the furthest apart in length of any of the rods I own, and they have widely different recovery speeds. If you go back to the first page of this thread and read the first several posts, you'll see why I chose those two rods for my experiment.

And if not ..... don't know what to say

Peter, lack of stretch equates to transmission of the input to the rod from the disturbance of the lure. Whether you call it a vibration or a thump or something else, braid will transmit it better than mono or FC, by a bunch.

David, if you want to see the effect of ONE variable on a system, you have to keep all other variables constant and equal. It's fundamental to the design of experiments. If you want to see the effect of rod length on the system, to see its effect on sensitivity, you will keep power, action, and everything else other than length the same. If you do otherwise the results are suspect. And in many cases, rigged to get the result one wants to see.

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David, Tom
>
> - thank you for clarification. Does it mean that
> you consider 'the length' itself the major factor
> of 'sensivity' ?
>
> In other words: do you think that if rods in
> Aleks' test were actually held in hand rather than
> laying on a table then the longer rod (fly 9')
> would be more sensitive than shorter (spin 7') ?


Before I can answer your question you will have to define exactly what you mean by "sensitivity." This is something that we keep running into - one defines it one way and another, another.

Regardless, you cannot feel anything on a slack line. The line has to have tension on it in order to feel anything. And fishing lures don't just start vibrating like the speaker in the test did. They resist your effort to retrieve them and it is this resistance, often felt as a cadence (vibration), that you feel. And whatever you feel on a shorter rod you will feel more strongly on a longer rod. The main variable will be the effective length of the rod (lever). The more the rod flexes under any given load the shorter the lever effectively is. We covered this in an article in RodMaker awhile back.

So it's not really about holding the rod in your hand that would make any difference. It's about the rods being pulled on, resisted, etc., however you want to state it. I think if we can get the fish fighting machine programmed with various lures, etc. we can show this to be true.

..........

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If you want to see
> the effect of rod length on the system, to see its
> effect on sensitivity, you will keep power,
> action, and everything else other than length the
> same.


Michael, is it possible ? Longer rod usually means heavier rod ( with the rest of the characteristics same / close ). If you would like to compare say 9-foot, 10lb 2-piece SS rod to 7-foot, 10 lb, 2-piece walleye rod then longer rod should be heavier unless one is made of HM and the other of E-Glass... just my 2 cents

Best regards,
Pavel

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And fishing lures don't just
> start vibrating like the speaker in the test did.
> They resist your effort to retrieve them and it is
> this resistance, often felt as a cadence
> (vibration), that you feel.

Tom, what about jigs or blade lures on a free fall ? you do not pull them nor resist them with a rod yet you feel them falling. Some lures actully vibrate when they fall, especially some metal blade / vib lures.

Best regards,
Pavel

"Michael, is it possible ? " As I stated before: "The problem with trying to test for this is to get two rods of similar characteristics but different lengths. And even after that, more samples would add confidence in the conclusion. One test is usually not considered the final answer."

To run an experiment on the influence of length to feel a bite you would do the best you can to get the other variables as close to equal as possible. That's all you can do. But you would not compare a 1.3 oz ultra light to a 2.1 oz medium heavy mag bass rod. You would do something like comparing a 6 foot 10 2 oz medium heavy to a 7 foot 2 inch 2.1 oz medium heavy. They don't have to be exactly the same, but you should try to get them as close as possible.

Michael ...... a 1.3 oz ultra light, and a 2.1 oz medium heavy bass rod? Interestingly enough, those weights just so happen to correspond with the weights and power descriptions of an NFC FW701 IM blank, and an NFC MB705 HM blank. Pretty sure I saw those blanks mentioned elsewhere in the forum. Should I be suspicious?

Ah well .... since the weights and power descriptions of the blanks you offered in your post, match perfectly with the aforementioned blanks, I'll use those in this example as well. .

Those two blanks are the same length. So while you could justifiably use those two blanks for comparison purposes in other types of experiments, you would not want to use them to run an experiment on the influence that rod length has on feeling a bite..

To run a experiment on the influence of length on sensitivity, you need to use rods where one of them is sufficiently longer in length than the other. A 6' rod compared to say, a 7' or 8' rod. As for the example of the length of rods that you say would be a more fair comparison. One of the caveats mentioned was that one rod be sufficiently longer than the other., I don't know if a 4 inch length difference would qualify as being sufficiently longer. But it may ......

Anyhow ..... as I said previously. Read back through this thread, and you'll see why I chose the rods I used in my experiment.

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Kirkman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> And fishing lures don't just
> > start vibrating like the speaker in the test
> did.
> > They resist your effort to retrieve them and it
> is
> > this resistance, often felt as a cadence
> > (vibration), that you feel.
>
> Tom, what about jigs or blade lures on a free fall
> ? you do not pull them nor resist them with a rod
> yet you feel them falling. Some lures actully
> vibrate when they fall, especially some metal
> blade / vib lures.


In what you described as a lure, free falling through the water column, the water places tension on the line therefore the lure is still pulling on the rod tip so yes, you will feel it. But if you were to cast that lure out, and once it hits the water, lower the rod or the move the rod forward so that the lure is falling on a truly slack line that water tension cannot overcome, you will not feel the lure as it falls.

In the test that Alex performed, suppose you hung the speaker from the rod tip with a line. No doubt you would feel the vibrations produced by the speaker. However, if you were to either lower the rod tip or raise the speaker just enough to put slack in the line, do you think you would feel the vibrations then? We need to get away from the idea that a fishing line functions similar to an electrical wire passing an electric current. The line forms a mechanical connection between the lure and the rod tip. Any resistance on the part of the lure will then act on the rod, provided of course, that the line is under tension. On a non-tensioned line that can’t happen.

…….

Tom,

I think I can cofirm your observations regarding line tension from my fishing exerience. Morover, there is a techinque when fishing with a slack line to detect the bites by observing the point of contact of the line where it enters the water - the bite can be observed as the little movement of the line, not felt.

However, I think that 'lever arm argument' while theoretically plausible can be of little practical value due to the reasons discussed above: longer rod usually means heavier and slower rod (more material, more guides, more thread, more epoxy etc) thus other factors come into play that negatively influence potential benefits of the length. I used to fish a lot with long spinning rods ( 9' or 10' ) but overtime intuitively moved into shorter / lighter / faster rods that I consider overall better performing (an yes, more sensitive to me).

Best regards,
Pavel

I haven't found the "lever arm argument" to be theoretical. Hopefully Alex can get the fish fighting simulator programmed for lure retrieval and then use different length rods to show the difference in sensitivity.

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

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
>
> I think I can cofirm your observations regarding
> line tension from my fishing exerience. Morover,
> there is a techinque when fishing with a slack
> line to detect the bites by observing the point of
> contact of the line where it enters the water -
> the bite can be observed as the little movement of
> the line, not felt.
>
> However, I think that 'lever arm argument' while
> theoretically plausible can be of little practical
> value due to the reasons discussed above: longer
> rod usually means heavier and slower rod (more
> material, more guides, more thread, more epoxy
> etc) thus other factors come into play that
> negatively influence potential benefits of the
> length. I used to fish a lot with long spinning
> rods ( 9' or 10' ) but overtime intuitively moved
> into shorter / lighter / faster rods that I
> consider overall better performing (an yes, more
> sensitive to me).

As Tom has mentioned, the lever arm principals may have been a theory discussed by cave men back in the day, but have been solidified as physical fact for quite some time. What amuses me is that two rods identical in every way except for their length will of course differ in their physical weight. So that is issue 1. Another undeniable issue because lever arm physics are what they are, is that what is really happening at the end of the lines of those rods when fishing them with identical lures is that it will take more effort to retrieve the same lure with the longer rod than the shorter rod. The lure will be able to exert more force (resistance) on your end of the longer rod. And if work is defined as force times distance, at the end of the day, the guy with the longer rod surely had to work a lot harder after casting that lure several hundred times than did the guy with the shorter rod. That's issue 2.

Yet...I see discussions on the use of various rod components in order to shave off a few grams of weight for various reasons. Maybe they just need to build shorter rods.