Does tip-action have *anything* to do with sensitivity? Having issues with my CNQ after NRX.

[cyclops2]

If you let a lure rest on the bottom ? The swallowed & deep gut hooks are / have to occur.  I have deep throat hooks if I use live worms on a spinner. I reel quite fast with a split shot 2 to 3' ahead of the lure.  If it looks & feels meatish ? They suck in DEEPER & FASTER.  Why I only use no barb hooks.  They come out in less than a 1/2 second with no ripped open flesh wounds /  holes. I can usually just unhook them without handling their slime protection.

[J Francho]

On 5/2/2022 at 6:41 AM, Deleted account said:

I'm rubbing my quartz pyramid pendant... 

[WRB]

3 hours ago, MickD said:

Some rods transmit those axial forces better (so that they can be felt) than others.  Compare an old Ugli Stick to a modern graphite rod.  

 

  Most rod experts for many years have believed that sensitivity of the rod is proportional to the stiffness to weight ratio.  

Sensitivity is proportional to the price paid?

Tom

[MickD]

You may be surprised that your apparently joking comment is most likely true.  I have tested many blanks and rods of all price points and have found that the true natural frequency (TNF) is generally higher on the higher priced "premium" blanks and rods.  Most experts believe that sensitivity is proportional to true natural frequency.  One thing that is obvious is that the higher the TNF, the faster the recovery from deflection.

[RDB]

18 hours ago, WRB said:

Sensitivity regarding rod feedback is misunderstood and used terminology.

I think most everything about rod terminology is confusing to the average angler and much of it has been created by the manufacturers.  
 

Personally, I view the tip as a separate subjective measure that is not provided by the manufacturer.  In my view, it as what happens beyond the action.  When I say I want a certain rod to have a little more tip, for me that means I want the blank beyond the action to have more flex v. a comparable rod.  For example, I have a Steez and NRX that on paper have the same specs but the NRX has almost twice the tip flex v. the Steez at the same pressure.  Is that the correct terminology for tip?  I don’t know but it’s the correct terminology for my purposes.  I prefer the “softer tip” NRX because I feel like I can work the bait better, not because of the sensitivity.  Until there is a more uniform, simplified way to compare rods that is understandable to the everyday fisherman, this will continue to be a topic of confusion.

 

I have caught WAY more big bass on low to medium end rods than high.  I choose high end because I can afford them, they are more pleasurable to fish, and I deserve to indulge in the things I enjoy the most.  Sensitivity was never a problem in my broke days but in my hands, the NRX rods are fantastic.

[QED]

10 hours ago, RichF said:

This will be a very unpopular suggestion but…quit using Senkos and neds. Those 2 baits account for the majority of gut hooked fish.  One of the biggest reasons I almost never use them.  

 

I use those lures very frequently and have never gut hooked a fish with them.  Catch and release works fine for me using those baits. YMMV.

[Fishingintheweeds]

On 5/1/2022 at 11:23 AM, ACGOG said:

I hate gut hooking fish. Absolutely hate it. Every time I pull a bass out of the water and I don't see the hook poking out of the mouth, I couldn't care less how big it is - I just want to get the hook out. Up until recently, I've only had it happen a couple of times.

 

The rod I have been using forever for my Senkos, TX Rigs, and recently Ned Rigs is my trusty NRX 803s. I love this thing. After my experience with the NRX, I turned into a bit of a G.Loomis fanboy so I thought spending the money on a Conquest was a no-brainer. I picked up an 842s second hand, and a member here was kind enough to trade me a 782s. The 782s has become my new Senko/TX/Ned Rig rod for the past two weeks.

 

With this rod, however, the past two times I've picked up a smaller fish and didn't even realize it was there until I went to pull back to get a little action on the bait. I always keep a close eye on my line but I'll also occasionally look for action elsewhere on the water or near to where I'm standing while I'm slowly reeling it in. On my NRX I'll feel the little nibbles or the bite and then snap my attention back to set the rod and reel it in. On the CNQ this is proving to be substantially more difficult, which I find extremely odd.

 

Since I switched I've gut hooked 3-fish - one more than I can recall in all of my years of fishing.

 

I'm using the exact same reel and the exact same line that I was on the NRX. The only thing I can think of is that the NRX is a Medium-Heavy/Extra Fast Action while the CNQ is a Medium/Fast.

 

I mean, could it just be the CNQ isn't as sensitive as the NRX is? I know there's a lot of debate as to if "sensitivity" is actually a thing or a marketing gimmick, but I feel like I really can't feel as much as I could on the NRX. Maybe I'm just subconsciously fishing differently or something, I don't know. Maybe the fish are just hitting the lures more aggressively now? I've thought about switching to barbless or circle hooks, but I've read circle hooks aren't good for bass because they require the fish to eat it and then swim away.

 

Sorry for the long post, just getting a bit frustrated and hoping for some insight.

 

Edit: Got the power and tip actions mixed up.

Someone else may have already said these things but I have only read your post and no comments yet. 

 

Is it possible that you were fishing the same but it was more windy, for instance? That would make it harder for you to detect bites like that if the wind is blowing more also in your line. I would say that whatever rod you're using, try to feel the bite through the line, not the rod. 

 

As for the circle hooks, they're all I use on wacky rigs, just make sure the point is online with the shank. I also crush the barbs. For some reason, the Gama ones that are out there are the octopus circle hooks and the point is bent to the side, out of line with the shank. I actually use a size 4 most of the time, sometimes larger but have caught a lot of fish on a size 2 even. All you need to do to set the hook is start reeling. If you try to do your usual hookset or start doing a bunch of pulling, you're fairly likely to just pull the worm out of their mouth. Just start reeling and you should be good. 

[MickD]

On 5/3/2022 at 6:15 PM, RDB said:

Until there is a more uniform, simplified way to compare rods that is understandable to the everyday fisherman, this will continue to be a topic of confusion.

There are common terms for the rod characteristics and methods for objectively measuring them if you want to do it.  In your text you are redefining commonly used and understood terms ("action" for example).  If one wants to eliminate confusion it would be better to leave the commonly known terms alone (action, power, weight, length), using them as they are currently understood.  Dr. Bill Hanneman's work is pretty complete, not that complex, and can be found at https://www.common-cents.info/

[Dumbbassanglr]

The answer to your original question is yes the conquest could be less sensitive than the nrx because it doesn’t have as fast of an action. I personally have noticed this. My nrx+ 852 is a lot more sensitive than my nrx+ 901 and I feel it’s because the 852 is xfast and the 901 is fast. And that is actually what g loomis themselves market since they promote the xfast rods as jwr (jig and worm) in other words, bottom contact, highly sensitive rods. Don’t get caught up in the rocket science that people are trying to explain in this thread. You had the right idea from the beginning.

[J Francho]

Taper doesn't have any influence on sensitivity. 

[RDB]

On 7/17/2022 at 6:44 AM, MickD said:

There are common terms for the rod characteristics and methods for objectively measuring them if you want to do it.  In your text you are redefining commonly used and understood terms ("action" for example).  If one wants to eliminate confusion it would be better to leave the commonly known terms alone (action, power, weight, length), using them as they are currently understood.  Dr. Bill Hanneman's work is pretty complete, not that complex, and can be found at https://www.common-cents.info/

I’m not redefining anything…I simply stated that I PERSONALLY consider tip separate from standardized, one size fits all actions.  Pro’s make that distinction all the time.  The only real leap I may have made was to assume those descriptions were endorsed my the manufacturers (pretty sure they are).  A common rod I like and have shared on this site specifically uses descriptions of their tip softness (separate from action) to distinguish their rods v competition on their website and videos.  Sorry I set you off…it wasn’t my intention.  I have learned a little bit about rod terminology in my few months of experience but acknowledge I’m still learning.

Just so you know, I promise it wasn’t me who infused terms like soft and tip into bassin’ lexicon and I’m certainly not trying to get others to follow my lead.  Thanks for the tip on the book.  I may need the audio version, preferably no higher than 5th grade level.