Rod Sensitivity

[Stephen B]

8 minutes ago, Junger said:

This debate comes up so much, you'd think there would be some way of standardizing a sensitivity test at this point.

I definitely agree with Junger.

 

My one question would be that if the line is in contact with the tip top with the guide insert wouldn't a harder material such as a Torzite isnert trasmit more sensitivity as it would be a harder material than SIC or Alconite?

 

[Paul Roberts]

Agree with you. Both spinning and casting rigs could be equally sensitive. I think you are correct saying that detection tension starts in line, then to the rod tip, then on down to the rod handle. Can't see it being any other way. I did a video on rods -what makes a rod t hat can FISH-and discussed sensitivity. In it I have a slo-mo clip of a strike... coming down the pipe.

[Team9nine]

Just to throw this into the mix for discussion, the one semi-valid argument I've heard for spinning being more sensitive, is that the weight of the reel naturally sits underneath the rod allowing you to lightly hold the rod more with your fingers and fingertips, as opposed to a bait caster, where keeping the reel on top requires either palming or more of a hand held "clamp" that uses larger muscles that aren't as sensitive. Just a theory, but I have to admit I have a spinning outfit that I can just about feel fish fart on my line as it's passing near them ?

[OkobojiEagle]

57 minutes ago, Team9nine said:

Just to throw this into the mix for discussion, the one semi-valid argument I've heard for spinning being more sensitive, is that the weight of the reel naturally sits underneath the rod allowing you to lightly hold the rod more with your fingers and fingertips, as opposed to a bait caster, where keeping the reel on top requires either palming or more of a hand held "clamp" that uses larger muscles that aren't as sensitive. Just a theory, but I have to admit I have a spinning outfit that I can just about feel fish fart on my line as it's passing near them ?

I would argue with you about this theory being "semi-valid"...

 

oe

[Team9nine]

13 minutes ago, OkobojiEagle said:

I would argue with you about this theory being "semi-valid"...

 

oe

Let's hear it  I've heard the theory mentioned by some, and there is enough science that I can see where the argument for it comes from. Curious to hear opinions on it one way or the other. 

[cueball]

Another source of sensitivity is the through the reel.  On a casting reel the line tightens and you feel a pulse transmitted by the spool shaft.  Similarly on a spinning reel, when the line tightens you feel a pulse through the line roller.

 

One reason fishing is so fun is all of the subjective topics that have no absolute answers.

[OkobojiEagle]

19 minutes ago, Team9nine said:

Let's hear it  I've heard the theory mentioned by some, and there is enough science that I can see where the argument for it comes from. Curious to hear opinions on it one way or the other. 

My position is, and has been, this theory is completely valid.  I also hold the belief that Fireline is braided and remains the best behaved fishing line for spinning reels, and that color preference by bass is a function of visibility against the visual background, but I got tired of arguing about it years ago...

 

oe

[grub_man]

Now on to the next bit about sensitivity.  A rod blank is most sensitive in its raw form, i.e. before reel seats, grips, guides, etc., because inertia is the enemy of sensitivity.  The more mass that gets added to the blank and how it is distributed will affect the sensitivity.  This is why the trend toward split grips, no fore grips and micro guides has happened.  These things will reduce the mass of the rod and more importantly its moment of inertia, effectively limiting the loss in sensitivity.

 

As far as spinning vs casting being more sensitive, rods on identical blanks with identical handles and equal weights, the casting rod should be ever so slightly more sensitive due to the fact that it has a lighter guide train with less mass toward the tip.  The problem is that casting and spinning rods are not made of identical parts.  Casting rods typically use a more massive reel seat.  Spinning rods have more massive guide trains.

 

I will say that spinning rods that ditch the reel seat all together are significantly more sensitive than those with a traditional pipe style reel seat.  Ditching the reel seat can save an ounce or more in total build weight depending on the design of the TN handle.

 

When it comes to objectively measuring sensitivity, I've exchanged messages at length with a guy who was a retired instrumentation engineer and used strain gauges to measure 'sensitivity'.  The problem is that is tough to quantify, and the measurements are sensitive to how you set up your measurements and a number of other things.  That said, I've heard through a third party that one of the major players in rod blanks has been consulting with a seismologist and possibly others on performing sensitivity measurements.  Whether any of that info will make it into the public domain, only time will tell.

[Tennessee Boy]

29 minutes ago, grub_man said:

I will say that spinning rods that ditch the reel seat all together are significantly more sensitive than those with a traditional pipe style reel seat.  Ditching the reel seat can save an ounce or more in total build weight depending on the design of the TN handle.

The most sensitive rod I have BY FAR is a 30 year old original Lew's spinning rod with a graphite Tennessee handle.  I think the handle amplifies the vibrations but there could be other explanations. 

[Paul Roberts]

23 hours ago, Team9nine said:

Just to throw this into the mix for discussion, the one semi-valid argument I've heard for spinning being more sensitive, is that the weight of the reel naturally sits underneath the rod allowing you to lightly hold the rod more with your fingers and fingertips, as opposed to a bait caster, where keeping the reel on top requires either palming or more of a hand held "clamp" that uses larger muscles that aren't as sensitive. Just a theory, but I have to admit I have a spinning outfit that I can just about feel fish fart on my line as it's passing near them ?

Hmmmm... that could be. Comparing spinning to casting would require the same mass, line diam, and lure, though. I think my most sensitive rods are my UL to L spinning rods. They are also the lightest rigs I own, and use the finest lines. My most sensitive casting rigs are the lightest ones, with the right lines; They are most easily moved by tension from the fish. Not sure my MH spinning rigs are any more sensitive than my M/MH casting rigs. Again, "not sure". Which might just be saying something akin to "semi-valid"?

 

[WRB]

I have only been bass fishing for about 65 years and have always detected strikes using my finger tips in lieu of relying on rod "sensitivity", whatever that is.

Boron, graphite high modulus rods have been around since the 70's and just as "sensitive" as today's light weight high modulus bass rods. The rods today will be looked at as ancient as rods 25 years ago in a decade, yet you will need your finger tips and eyes to detect strikes.

Tom

[Stephen B]

51 minutes ago, WRB said:

I have only been bass fishing for about 65 years and have always detected strikes using my finger tips in lieu of relying on rod "sensitivity", whatever that is.

Boron, graphite high modulus rods have been around since the 70's and just as "sensitive" as today's light weight high modulus bass rods. The rods today will be looked at as ancient as rods 25 years ago in a decade, yet you will need your finger tips and eyes to detect strikes.

Tom

Your method is where the problem is underlying. For example, often bass just pick up the bait for a brief second (95% of the time undetected when they just briefly pick it up whether your holding the line or not) thus not only will you likely not feel it and also you won't see the line jump. Another issue is a lot of people don't have large enough hands to palm the reel and put there finger on the line. Also, braided line and floruocarbon have evolved a long way since the 70s along with the rods, so I'm sure equipment is much easier to detect strikes.

 

[WRB]

55 minutes ago, Stephen B said:

Your method is where the problem is underlying. For example, often bass just pick up the bait for a brief second (95% of the time undetected when they just briefly pick it up whether your holding the line or not) thus not only will you likely not feel it and also you won't see the line jump. Another issue is a lot of people don't have large enough hands to palm the reel and put there finger on the line. Also, braided line and floruocarbon have evolved a long way since the 70s along with the rods, so I'm sure equipment is much easier to detect strikes.

 

I managed to detect jig strikes at 40 yards in 20'+ deep back in '71 catching my PB 12 lb 3 oz NLMB using mono line and over 300 DD LMB using mono line including the 5 top FLMB all caught on jigs at over 30 yards and depth between 15' to 20' on jigs, the 18.6 lb in 1981' the 4 others in the early 90's on Berkley Big Game 10 lb and 12 lb mono including my PB FLMB 19.3 lbs.

My strike detection technique is second to none. I run the line over my index finger tip and under the thumb pad, you can't effectively do that palming a reel, I use a small fore grip and don't hold the rod blank.

Anytime anyone wants to challenge my strike detection give it try, I am 75 years young now and don't miss many jig strikes.

Tom

[Stephen B]

18 minutes ago, WRB said:

I managed to detect jig strikes at 40 yards in 20'+ deep back in '71 catching my PB 12 lb 3 oz NLMB using mono line and over 300 DD LMB using mono line including the 5 top FLMB all caught on jigs at over 30 yards and depth between 15' to 20' on jigs, the 18.6 lb in 1981' the 4 others in the early 90's on Berkley Big Game 10 lb and 12 lb mono.

My strike detection technique is second to none. I run the line over my index finger tip and under the thumb pad, you can't effectively do that palming a reel, I use a small fore grip and don't hold the rod blank.

Anytime anyone wants to challenge my strike detection give it try, I am 75 years young now and don't miss many jig strikes.

Tom

I don't doubt your strike detection as I have no reason to. But I'm not convinced your strike detection using rods from the 70s as you stated would compete with someone (even yourself) using a NRX with flouro or braid. That's all I'm saying. 

 

The equipment (rods,reels, line, etc) is amazing nowadays.

[Catt]

6 minutes ago, WRB said:

My strike detection technique is second to none. I run the line over my index finger tip and under the thumb pad, you can't effectively do that palming a reel, I use a small fore grip and don't hold the rod blank.

 

That's exactly what my grandson Aiden does!

 

He's got a few more be fish to go ?

[WRB]

21 minutes ago, Stephen B said:

I don't doubt your strike detection as I have no reason to. But I'm not convinced your strike detection using rods from the 70s as you stated would compete with someone (even yourself) using a NRX with flouro or braid. That's all I'm saying. 

 

The equipment (rods,reels, electronics, line, etc) is amazing nowadays.

You would be wrong!

I have always used state of the art custom biuld rods since the 70's, technology helps but if you don't develop safe cracker finger tip touch skills you will miss a majority of the big bass nearly undetectable jig strikes. 

Keeping in touch is a critical jig fishing skill and few anglers ever developed it. No rod can feel a strike, they only dampen line movement and the line movement is what you feel. Rods are not a tunning fork that resonate vibrations.

Do you think bass were easier to catch in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's then today?

Tom

 

[Stephen B]

Haha. State of the art 70s will not compete with 2018 rods. I'm not going to argue as life is too short. You can think whatever you want. 

[WRB]

12 minutes ago, Stephen B said:

Haha. State of the art 70s will not compete with 2018 rods. I'm not going to argue as life is too short. You can think whatever you want. 

It's not the rod, that is my point you are missing.

Cheers,

Tom

[Stephen B]

38 minutes ago, WRB said:

It's not the rod, that is my point you are missing.

Cheers,

Tom

You have missed my point as well. I understand you are claiming to detect your strikes via holding a monofilament line and watching the line. 

 

I am saying rods, reels, line, everything has improved. Thus, if you utilize your claimed technique to detect strikes with modern high end equipment (NRX,K2, etc with a fluorocarbon or braided line) then your detection will be that much better. As you have now enhanced two different components with a more sensitive line and a better blank. Goodluck!

 

[WRB]

The rods I use are state of the art superior, IMO, to NRX the past 5 years and used Sunline Shooter FC in the late 90's to 2017 and also fished with my partners NRX rods and have first hand experience with them, good rods but not any better then what I have used in the past or today.

FC line offers good feed back due to less coefficient of drag in the water then premium mono, however poor knot and abrasion resistance in comparison and prone to fail at random times. 

We are discussing rod sensitivity and what I am telling you is don't rely on the rod to detect strikes. Does a well balanced state of the rod help?, yes but only if the angler has the skills to interpret what the lure is doing.

Would I have caught more giant bass using today's state of the art rods and reels....I dought it based on the past 10 years. Do I enjoy using light weight rods the past 5 years, yes. is strike detection any better no! Have I caught any giant bass over15 lbs using FC line and jigs with light weight state of the art rods...no, the giant bass are no longer live in the lakes I fish but I catch lots of 8 lb to 9 lb bass.

Tom

 

 

 

 

[jbrew73]

Well I’m glad that it’s finally settled. .........Stay tuned until icast 2019, Toms fingers are being cloned as we speak. They will be available in all sizes and colors.  Guaranteed to catch DD bass or your money back!   ?

[Team9nine]

9 hours ago, WRB said:

 

My strike detection technique is second to none. I run the line over my index finger tip and under the thumb pad, you can't effectively do that palming a reel, I use a small fore grip and don't hold the rod blank.

Anytime anyone wants to challenge my strike detection give it try, I am 75 years young now and don't miss many jig strikes.

Tom

Tom - similar to this?

 

 

Gary Klein was the first pro I saw fish this way when worm or jig fishing (late 70s/early 80s). Hank also seemed to have that same (or similar) style.

[Catt]

I've owned

Fenwick's Lunkerstick™, Kunnan's Kunnan Stik, Original Falcon Carolina Lizard Dragger, even a couple Boron rods.

 

We're they as sensitive as today's rods?

 

How does one measure that ?

[MickD]

One thing to keep in mind is that if the rod is pointed at the lure, as in bonefishing with flies,  it's out of the sensitivity "equation."  Then it's all about the line.  Logically, the closer you point the rod at the lure, the less its characteristics will affect sensitivity.  When fishing with the tip high, then that is when the rod's characteristics will most affect sensitivity (along with the line).

 

Seems like we should shut our computers down and go fishing.  ?

[Tennessee Boy]

This is a very interesting discussion.  The importance of rod sensitivity is something I've thought a lot about and honestly it's something I'm not sure about any more.  Here are some random thoughts on both sides of the sensitivity argument that I would love to hear your comments on.

 

1) When it comes to detecting bites,  familarity with your tackle is more important than the tackle you use.  When I was a kid,  I averaged probably 15 hours a week during the summers fishing creeks.  I always used the same cheap rod, reel, and line and 95% of the time the same crankbait.  It was like I had a camera on my lure when it came to detecting strikes or when the lure hit something.  It wasn't superior equipment,  it was the fact that I was so in tune with the feel of the cheap equipment I was using.  

 

2) Fishing rods are pretty simple.  You can get a quality rod with the desired length and action for under $100.  The only way a company can justify charging hundreds of dollars for a rod is to sell it's sensitivity.  So companies put a lot of marketing money in to pushing the importance of rod sensitivity and the superiority of there rods.

 

3) Feeling what's happening to your lure through your line and rod reminds me of something many of us old guy did as kids before texting and cell phones.  We tied string to two cans and talked through them. It's amazing how well this works.  The can was critical in this set up.  You could not hear what the other person was saying by feeling the line with your fingers. Does a fishing rod serve the same purpose as the can in amplifying the vibrations coming through the line?

 

4)  About 40 years ago,  I was in a tackle store with a buddy of mine when he showed me how to test the sensitivity of a rod.  He would lightly drag the tip of the rod across the floor to feel the texture of the floor tiles.  I was amazed at how well you could feel the floor through the rod.  I was convenced that I could tell a difference between the cheap rods and the more expensive rods.  I few years ago,  I was in Bass Pro Shops and I had a friend hand me random rods to see if I could pick out the better rods using this test.  I completely failed this test.  I couldn't even tell the difference between the graphite and fiberglass rods.  Was it all in my head before?  Are all rods equally sensitive now?  Am I just getting old and can't tell the difference any more?