Happenings This Past Week

I've been chatting with David Swendseid, Product Specialist Manager at Jackall Lures this past week and we're looking into doing some concurrent line testing this year. Sounds like he'll be doing some out West with a bunch of fluoro lines and possibly some type of Instron tester. That will be cool and I'm hoping to get his results when completed to post on the site. Additionally, we're brainstorming on some specific testing on my end, done 'Big Indiana Bass' style. If everything works out I'll be posting results from that endeavor later this year also.

One other interesting topic of conversation we got on was some of the Japanese rod making technology, specifically rods designed for very light line finesse applications utilizing 2-3# line. David says they're really completely different from anything available here in the U.S. There is a possibility I'll be able to get my hands on one to play with for a period of time if everything falls into place. I've got my fingers crossed that if it occurs, it might happen in time for my fall fishing bonanza. Between my deep water crappie fishing and my finesse bass jigging, I think I could give the rod a pretty thorough workout and comparison to my custom built finesse sticks that I so dearly love and use.

One key component that he did mention is that they are actually built "heavy" on purpose, which immediately set off a light bulb in my head. It makes sense from the standpoint that while there are a ton of variables involved in hooksetting, at its core is Newton's 2nd Law which states that F=m*a, or force = mass times acceleration. Everybody and their brother on bass fishing message board forums these days are all about super lightweight rods and the resultant "speed" of hooksetting (acceleration rate of the rod) to help you stick a bass. What they're all overlooking is the other component of that equation, that a rod with more mass (built "heavier") can adeqautely compensate for it's slower acceleration. In other words, while I might forego some of the ergo advantages that today's rods offer, one area I won't be worrying about with my old sticks is their ability to set the hook and bring more bass to hand (or their cost $$$).

For some additional reading on David and his design thoughts on crankbaits, check out the following article:

Cranking Cover with the Jackall MC/60

Comments

[Paul Roberts]

Sounds like fun Brian. I'm looking forward to what you bring.

As to the rod mass idea, it's dead on. As an archer I've heard this debate for years -speed vs mass. The upshot: Mass beats speed. It takes an awful lot of speed to make up for that. It wasn't even a discussion until supersonic eccentric cam compound bows hit the archery world.

But... in fishing rods I want a light rod for sensitivity. I don't quite understand mass needed to set the tiny hook used with 2lb lines. Unless you're talking about fishing heavier hooks, which is starting to sound like the "stunts" we pulled experimenting with BIG trout and salmon when the Great Lakes fishery, and fishing, was in it's infancy. For all but very special circumstance, we all went back to long light rods with some power. Makes for a better fight in the end, and doesn't kill the fish.

I do look forward to the thinking and applications behind such tackle though.

[Joe Vanfossen]

I suspect the added mass on the rod has more to do with casting and line handling than setting the hook. By using a heavier guide train, or a design that puts more weight near the tip of the rod, you are increasing the inertia of the rod. The effect of the extra inertia is that it takes more effort to start and stop the rod moving. This slows the recovery time of the rod, making it less sensitive. Not a good thing if you want the most sensitive rod you can build. But..., and it is a big but, the added mass also assists in loading the rod for casting. If you want to cast a lighter lure, you can use your guide train to help load the rod and cast the lighter lure better.

The trade off for being able to cast a lighter lure better comes at the higher end of the weight range for that rod. SInce you are using the guide train to help load the rod, you won't be able to cast heavier lures as well, as you will be loading the rod even more.

Another benefit to using a rod that is designed with more weight in the tip is that since you have slowed the recovery time of the rod, you have a rod that will 'cushion' a light line better.

When it comes to rod design, lighter generally performs better and more efficiently. However, you need to consider what characteristics are more important for the technique you are using the rod.

[Paul Roberts]

Interesting. Thanks for that Joe. Do you use tackle like this, or know of those that do? What is the application?

Makes me think an easy on/off weight might be added to the second-to-last guide for the cast, and then removed for the retrieve.

At this point, I think I'll stick to very light rod with a slower action for light stuff. But I'm all ears.

[Big Indiana Bass]

As Paul said, much appreciated on the explanation and thanks for dropping by the site. I imagine the latter explanation you gave (slowed recovery time) would be the primary reason on these Japanese rods, but that is just a guess on my part. It does bring up a question though. Slowed recovery time would commonly be thought of as representative of a rod with "moderate" action, but from your description I get the impression that the two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand? In other words, I assume you could have a very lightweight moderate action rod, or a "heavier" rod with weight added in the tip that isn't necessarily considered moderate action (a fast action rod but built with slower tip recovery)?

Along similar lines, another question. You mentioned sensitivity, and I've read quite a bit from various sites such as rodbuilding.org that the most sensitive rod will also be the lightest weight rod. As you add weight, even if from just extra guides you will lose some sensitivity. But I keep thinking back to my physics classes and sensitivity, which I interpret as just sound/vibration transmission through a medium, is always better in a denser (i.e., heavier) object. Sound travels faster in water than in air, and I remember the experiment of putting your ear on a railroad track and "listening" for the sound (vibration) of a train miles away that was carried through the iron/steel rails to you long before you would ever see or hear the train. Why wouldn't a rod be any different, where the sensitivity of the rod is tied to its composition and not its weight? What am I overlooking here?

EDIT: Just figured out the last ? after some looking. I'm confusing frequency/speed with amplitude, and according to Emory frequency is largely irrelevant, it's amplitude that counts, amplitude transmitting best in a lightweight rod with as little extra mass added as possible.

Also, it looks like according to the string link you provided, that would help explain some of why anglers believe fluorocarbon is more sensitive than mono; while both are less dense than graphite, the density difference is considerably less in fluoro and hence you wouldn't lose as much amplitude in the material transfer, thereby resulting in better "feel". Yes?

[Joe Vanfossen]

Paul,

I don't use that type of design, but I know from reading up on rod building and experience that guide train can really affect the way a blank performs. By putting a lot of big heavy rods on a surf rod, you could build it to load and cast with an 1/8 oz. jig, but the resulting rod won't cast the weights the blank was designed for very well.

Being a hobby builder, and building essentially for myself, I tend to build them as light as I can. I don't have a lot of rod storage in my boat, my rods need to serve for multiple tasks. So, I don't build them that specialized, but I can see where those characteristics may be desirable in some circumstances.

As far as recovery time is concerned for a rod, many factors come into play, the material in the blank, the action of the blank, what components are added (and where). You are correct that you can have a moderate action rod that recovers slowly, or a fast action blank with extra weight that recovers slowly.

You could take a nice moderate action crankbait blank, or a moderate actioned trout blank and be able to cast light lures well, but you may also sacrifice lifting power in those blanks. The fast action blank with a slow recovery will still have lifting power to go with the slower recovery.

As far as line is concerned, I'm sure the density of flouro contributes some to the enhanced feel that you get, but I haven't played with it enough to really take a crack at the full explanation.

By the way, I'm glad to drop by the site. I've been following along for a few months now, and really like the format.

[Paul Roberts]

Yes, truly a great site here. Thanks Joe, for adding your expertise.

Brian, if you see this, are you thinking that FC sensitivity is higher due to, in part, to its density? I have no idea, but doesn't that contradict the argument against density in a rod? Not challenging, just not quite understanding.

Thanks. Curious as usual.

[Joe Vanfossen]

Paul and Brian,

I don't know if you guys have seen this article by Emory, but it explains the properties of a blank much better than I can in a few lines here.

http://www.rodbuildingtutorials.com/Misc.%20Tutorials/Blanks%20Characturistics%20by%20Emory%20Harry.pdf

I hope to be able to take the time to perform some resonant frequency and sensitivity measurements using Emory's methods, but that stuff is sitting on the back burner for a bit.

[Big Indiana Bass]

Thanks Joe - I've seen it and it is a very good read. Do you happen to have the link handy that you posted on the other forum to the animations concerning waves and their tendencies? That would help explain what I was referring to in my comments to Paul. I might try and track it down.

Paul, if we get that link tracked down and posted, and after reading Emory's comments, you'll see that the argument is that wave amplitude matters much more than wave frequency. Added to that, the animations show that when waves move from a less dense to a more dense medium they lose some of their amplitude (and hence a loss of "feel" would be implied), and the greater that difference in material density the greater the loss of amplitude. As such, it would make sense to me that a material like fluoro that is nearly twice as dense as mono but still less than graphite would lose less wave amplitude at the material transfer point, hence resulting in better "feel".

I'm sure there is a lot more physics involved than just that, but that seems like a logical component of the overall theory.

[Joe Vanfossen]

Paul and Brian,

Here you go.

http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/reflect/reflect.html

[Paul Roberts]

Thanks guys.

[Big Indiana Bass]

That's the one Joe - Muchas gracias :)

[Joe Vanfossen]

De nada!