Big Indiana Bass

Studying the Long Cane

Admit it...You've probably done it before. You know, standing in a tackle store, grabbing a new rod off the rack and then going through a series of "tests" to see if it meets your discerning criteria. Things like waving it in the air, bending it with your hand, or tapping or dragging the tip on the ground. Could you tell a diiference between the glass, composite or graphite rod choices? What about between manufacturers or models within a line based upon price points? Parabolic or X-Fast tip? Whippy or pool cue? Where are the cool studies that we could reference concerning fishing tackle? The best I've come across so far is the "Common Cents" rod testing that a small group has undertaken (see 'Tackle' archives). The more recent postings on fluorocarbon lines is another interesting piece of work. Not much beyond that though outside of some "one off" individual tests. As such, we're left to find similar studies that have cross-functional applications, at least as far as our learning or understanding abilities. That leads up to today's study of interest. 

Materials Testing in Long Cane Design: Sensitivity, Flexibility, and Transmission of Vibration by Mark D. Rodgers and Robert Wall Emerson, published in the Nov. 2005 issue of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. An interesting look into what materials and material properties are best for transmitting vibrations to users of long canes, those extended walking sticks used by the visually impaired. Not exactly fishing rods but definitely applicable at least in principle to the cause, and certainly similar to some of the impromptu "testing" I've seen anglers carry out in stores.

And as a bonus, perhaps you've heard of the Carrot Stix rods by E-21. They are made from a material called Curran which is derived from vegetables. An intersting write-up provided by The Providence Journal:

Forget graphite, fiberglass fishing rods -- think carrots  

Flying In the Face of...

Wisdom, the facts, popular opinion. You fill in the blank. I was at the store picking up some tackle at lunch today (like I need more) and bought a couple spools of line while the rebate is still in effect (last day). I wanted to try and get some fluorocarbon line in heavier test ratings to play around with, but ended up buying some copolymer line instead. Despite all the rave reviews and the incessant virtues extolled by many, both from the companies and their devout users of fluorocarbon, the data continues to suggest at the very least a big misunderstanding of the line and it's properties, if not some blatant false advertising. I came across the follow-up review of 14 brands of fluorocarbon lines as retested by the Tackle Tour website. I've also had a friend personally test these properties and come to the same conclusions:

1. Fluorocarbon is not low stretch. It stretches as much as regular mono or copolymer lines in most cases.
2. Once stretched, fluorocarbon retains a certain amount of deformity that mono doesn't
3. and finally, regardless of knot tied, you'll be lucky to get 80-90% of the lines actual breaking strength, probably less. 
4. Oops, one more. NO, fluorocarbon is NOT invisible! I have copies of the long and torturous physics calculations to prove it ;)

The article: Tackle Tour's Fluorocarbon Showdown Sequel

Hook Testing

Another thing I've been doing this week is testing hook strength. Basically I've taken a selection of hook styles and subjected them to stress, in this case a force of 15 pounds (anchor) hung from the hook. This wouldn't be that dissimilar from a big bass that was securely hooked that you were fighting. I really wanted to see what happens to these hooks under pressure more than anything, and whether they would even take such pressure.

In this first pic you'll see the 5 different styles of hooks used. From left to right we have a Gammi EWG Superline hook, then an old Weapon sproat worm hook, an Owner round bend, a regular wire Gammi EWG, and finally a Shaw Grigsby tube hook which is actually the Kahle style. Click on all pictures to enlarge, and pay close attention to hook shape and where the point is as some of the pictures are of poor quality.

The weakest hook of the bunch by far was the regular EWG. Check out the deformity of the hook under pressure. If this equivalent pressure was placed on either a hookset or a fight with a big bass the fish would have most likely escaped. The point has been so bent out that there is almost no chance of retaining a bass. I'd like to retest this hook with lighter pressures, say 5# and 10# to see the degree of deformity. Even the kink that helps hold plastics on is getting straightened.

Next weakest hook was the Kahle. In reality, this hook probably would have held onto a fish due to its sharp angle of cutback. But the curve in the shank of the hook which is supposed to help clear the plastic has been nearly straightened. This would be another good one to retest with lighter pressures.

The next 3 hooks all held up relatively well, though you'll see a decent bit of bending on all of them. Up first is the round bend. The neat thing about this and the sproat hook is how the shank flexes back under pressure to accomodate, almost like you or I bending backward to stretch. The hook stays relatively in shape though and would probably hold a fish without much problem.

If you didn't know any different you'd think this next picture was the same hook. However, this is a slightly smaller sproat style hook. For years this was the standard "worm" hook that everybody made and most all anglers threw. Sproats actually have a slight bend of the point back in toward the shank which, all things being equal, should make for the strongest hook, slightly better than a round bend. Additionally, it should also hold the fish better than a round bend due to the slightly sharper angle of the bend back.

Finally the EWG Superline hook. This one holds up much better than the standard EWG, but the cost for that is a very thick wire that would probably make hook setting a bit more difficult due to needing to apply more force to penetrate fully. However, the fact that it doesn't flex as much should help even out some of that equation.

So that is what I've got so far. I haven't tested stress at the point (versus the bend as in these pics) due to setup difficulty. Hooks should perform worse when all the pressure is applied to the point as that changes the angle of pressure making it easier to bend the hook out. You can get a feel for this by taking a pair of pliers and first trying to bend a hook out of shape by just grabbing right in the bend of a hook. Next repeat by grabbing the point and try bending. The latter should be much eaiser. Also keep in mind that this is a big reason for considering anything that might help the point of your hooks to penetrate faster (smaller hooks, thinner wire, barbless, forged, sharpening, etc.). The faster you can get that pressure transferred from the point to the bend, the greater the liklihood that the outcome will be favorable.

One other interesting part of this test was the connectors used. In this case, I used both a crosslock snap and a split ring. I believe the snaps are supposed to be able to handle much greater pressure, but both seemed to hold up fine to this amount of pressure without failure. These are just another link in the chain between you and a bass that can potentially go bad, so having none of these items fail was a little peace of mind.

Jig Hook Strength Experiment: For a similarly interesting test on jig heads and why it is important that the shank of a hook be able to flex, check out this link.

Mustad Bending Test (MB-Test): One more. Stats for a series of different hook styles and sizes, though most not used by bass anglers. MBT is in kilograms, so you'll have to multiply all numbers by 2.2 to get pounds. Regardless, you'll see many hooks just testing out around the same range that I tested at. You'll also see the relationship between hook size and strength as well as how strength matches up with certain hook styles.

Hooking Research: 30 Years Later

All this testing of barbless hooks has had me thinking and researching other aspects of hooks and hooking. Funny thing is there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information out on the web concerning this topic. I've found a few neat discussions I'll probably share later, but good old-fashioned research in this area appears to be kept close to the cuff these days. So I dug up some research in my library that is now 30 years old (that sounds so old - 1978 - but it's really not). Many of the same lines tested are still around, lines like Stren Clear Blue, Trilene XT and XL. They've probably been improved slightly formulation wise over the years, but not overly so from tests I've seen concerning things like stretch in online reports. And they did have braided Dacron years ago also, basically a precursor to our newer superlines of today. Fluorocarbon is new, but shares some similar properties of mono (stretch).

Anyway, I've been looking into hook-setting force and power. They did some cool research "back in the day" that is still probably every bit as accurate now as it was then. A bass is still a bass, even 30 years later, and basic hooksetting techniques haven't changed much either. Rods are a little longer on average (~1 - 1.5') but that can actually be a weakness, not a benefit (see 'My New Pet Peeve' post in the archives).

The research was carried out by Sports Afield, Berkley and Stren at the time. It was reported in 1978 in Sports Afield magazine and again in the Sept./Oct. 1980 issue of BASSmaster magazine. I'll summarize the findings below:

• The average angler way over-estimates his hooksetting abilities (as power generated at the hook in water some distance away). On average, the typical force from the average bass man hookset was 3 pounds.
• Fully 50% of the people tested generated 2 pounds of force or less. To the high side (the exception), 6 to 8 pounds was the most commonly seen force.
• At just 20 feet from the rod tip (flipping length), one could generate between 8-8.5 pounds of pressure at the hook. But this steadily decreased as distance increased. At 40 feet, force dropped to 6-7 pounds; At 60 feet, the same person could generate 5-6 pounds; At 80 feet, you dropped to 4-5.5 pounds; and finally at 100 feet, only 3-4 pounds of force could be generated. Keep in mind these are above average scenarios, since most people can only generate an average of 3 pounds of force.
• Sharpen your hooks! Dull hooks took significantly more force to penetrate a basses mouth, and in many cases (tougher portions) couldn't penetrate. New hooks were much better at penetrating, but sharpened new hooks were the best. It would be interesting to carry out this test today using modern hooks with their chemical sharpening and special cutting edges. It's probably not PC though, as this original test was accomplished by using a tension scale to repeatedly test penetration force in a basses mouth while said bass was held in place by assistant.
• As expected, soft/thin areas in a basses mouth took as little as 0.75 - 2.0 pounds of pressure to fully penetrate, while harder and bonier areas deeper inside the mouth took as much as 8-9 pounds of force to fully penetrate.
• Mono lines (and fluorocarbons for that matter) haven't changed in the area of line stretch. The same companies monofilament lines back then were averaging 15-20% stretch, just as they still do today.

To put these force numbers in perspective, and to explain why even you macho bass men aren't generating the force you think you are, we need to again revisit the physics behind the fishing rod. A fishing rod is nothing more than a 3rd class lever. You gain NO mechanical advantage by using it. You don't use a third class lever to do heavy jobs. Instead, you use them to get an increase in speed and/or distance (in this case for casting baits far or taking up slack line quick). It can be written as a mathematical formula L/l = R/E, where L = length of the effort arm (your elbow, the fulcrum, to your hand that holds the rod), l = the length of the resistance arm (your elbow to your rod tip), R = the resistance weight or force, and E = the effort force.

So, to generate 3 pounds of force at the rod tip, the math would look like this: 14/90 = 3/E. In this example we are assuming 14" as the length from your elbow to your hand clenching the rod/reel, a 7' (84") rod with 6" extra distance to your elbow, and the 3 pound force the average bass man accomplishes. When you solve for E, you end up with having to apply ~19.3 pounds of force on your hookset where you hold your rod in order to generate 3 pounds of force at the rod tip. Now if you substitiute in the needed 8-9 pounds of force in some bony areas of the basses mouth, you would need to generate 55 pounds of force! Keep in mind that none of this takes into account things like line stretch, rod bending and in most cases, no locked rod butt (extra force on your hands). The true number is probably significantly higher.

Still don't believe the numbers? Try this experiment, but not with any high dollar rods - I'm not liable for rod breakage :) Find a 3-4 pound weight somewhere around your house. Maybe your wifes mini workout weights, a quart of milk, or the same amount of some paint in a can. Take your favorite rod and attach a hook or some other means just like tying on a lure, but instead attach it to the said weight. Now slowly lift the weight off the floor with your rod. Remember, this is only 3 pounds of force - the equivalent of a typical hookset or an average chunky bass. How easy was it? Does this truly represent the typical amount of pressure and bend in your rod when you're out fighting fish and setting hooks?

I'll be back with more testing I've been doing over the week on this subject, and hopefully some cool pics to go with it. And BTW, keep reading...we just passed 15,000 site views and are now averaging about 2,000 visits a month.

Crossing Their Eyes

Not sure how many people ever really give a lot of consideration to how they set the hook. There is just an incredible amount of science involved in the process, largely physics. Everything from stretch in the rod and line to characteristics of your hook. A lot of macho bass guys are definitely the "cross their eyes" type of hook-setters. For the longest time I was a speed setter, not a lot of body movement but you turned your head when you heard the rod "swoosh" as it cut through the air - fast! I have more and more been changing over to "reel setting" and am perfectly content with the results. I've compiled a list of online articles and commentaries that run the gamut, along with some specific hook basics to ponder. So what's your style?

• Controlling Your Hookset
• Mustad Hook Anatomy: Point & Barb
• In-Fisherman: All About Hooks
• Setting the Hook: How Hard is too Hard?
• Bass Pro: Saltwater Hook-Setting Basics
• Steelhead Fly Hooks: A Story

Cool Pic for the Week

A-Mart laying into a Falcon Lake brute at the recent BASS Elite Series event, and the picture (courtesy of ESPN) showing his spiral wrapped Megabass swim bait rod (follow his rod guides closely).

• Regular rod or spiral wrap? (I thought - incorrectly at first - regular)
• What is spiral wrap?
• More spiral wrap info

The Need for Speed

Reel speed, that is. Here is a little different way of looking at reels. Most manufacturers state how much line you can retrieve with a turn of the handle (usually in inches), but with some simple calculations you can figure out full spool diameter, retrieve speed in mph, and other things. Click on the chart picture for a full page version which is easier to read. A few notes here:

• The numbers, in most cases, are rounded to one decimal spot, so slight mathematical imperfections will be noted.
• Part of the assumption is a "typical" retrieve rate of 50 revolutions per minute.
• Since your rate will vary (test yourself), multiply speeds accordingly.
• I'm a line "over-spooler", so my reels have a higher "effective" retrieve ratio than stated.
• Notice for you under-spoolers or those who let their line run low, you are losing 25-30% retrieve speed or effectively giving up at least 1 gear ratio position (your 6:1 is acting as a 5:1) if you are 3/16" under-spooled.
• This is not so precise as to take into account the fact that your "effective" speed and gear ratio are constantly changing with every single turn of the handle, thereby adding more line and increasing overall spool diameter constantly.
• Hey, this is just for fun...don't send me any diatribes on improper calculations or faulty logic(LOL).

Looking at Line...Differently

Trips: 46 Hours: 109.0 Bass: 573 No. > 5#: 1

About 25 years ago, BASSMaster magazine ran a series of articles on monofilament line testing. Now we see line tests in magazines and online quite frequently. However, the neat thing about these tests were some of the variables covered that you don't typically hear about. In one particular test they documented transfer of energy through monofilaments at different distances using two different line ratings.

The test setup was basic but neat. Attach one end of your monofilament to a gauge down in the water at depth and then have a person set the hook at different distances and see how much energy is transferred to the hook. They did this with 8 pound and 20 pound monofilaments. They found several things. One was that as distance from the hooksetter increased (i.e. a longer cast), final force at the hook decreased. The closer the "fish" was to you when you set, the more force you delivered to the hook. Another was that 30' was the crossover point between the two different pound test ratings. In other words, at 30 feet, the force exerted at the hook was identical between the 8 and 20 pound test lines. The further you moved out past 30 feet, the more the advantage of using 8 pound line increased. Anything shorter than 30 feet and the 20 pound mono resulted in more force at the hook.

They explained this via stretch and the "bow" effect.  The heavier the line the less the inherent stretch. However, this is overcome apparently at the 30 foot mark. This is then explained by the "bow" effect, basically not having a straight line to your bait at distance. You cast, the bait sinks, but it has to drag the line with it. Eight pound test being thinner, is pulled more easily through the water column and subsequently gives you a more straight line to your bait resulting in better transfer of energy, to the point of overcoming its stretch bias.

Kind of interesting and a little eye-opening. To this day you'll still hear people refer to these explanations when talking about the subject of lines and hooksets, though many of the materials have changed (braids, fusion and and fluorocarbon). After all this time though, I realized there was also one explanation I never heard given or considered. Maybe someone at some point has thought of this, but I haven't come across it yet in all my readings.

That is the factor of surface area. Every line for a given length has a given surface area. The longer the length of line in the water, the greater the surface area. This surface area has a resulting amount of drag. You have probably experienced this before and just never thought about it. Have you ever let a bunch of line trail off your spool into the water and trolled it behind your boat to undo line twist? Notice how the more line you let out, even with no bait attached the more your rod starts to bend because of this drag? Enough line out and it can feel just like winding in a fish or heavy object.

The chart above (click to enlarge) gives you the surface area in square inches for a given pound test/diameter of line and a given length of that line in the water. Double the diameter of your line or double the distance of your cast and your surface area increases proportionately. Now imagine the difference required to catch a bass that eats your bait at 80' on 14# test line versus one caught finessing off a bed on 6# test at say 40' distance. Surface area of your line is tripled and that resulting difference in drag has to be overcome. Just something to think about the next time a fish clears the air on a long hookset and throws your bait ;)   

I "Brake" for Technical Information

From the time I bought my first Daiwa baitcasting reel, I've always felt that they have had the best magnetic braking system in the business. Apparently, I'm not the only one to think so. Regardless of whether you agree or not, do yourself a favor and drop on over to Japan Tackle and check out their article on "Brake Systems". You'll get one heck of a primer on understanding the differences between magnetic, centrifugal and manual (Cast control) braking systems and why certain types or combinations are better for various fishing applications. While there, be sure and check out their entire selection of tackle articles.

The Perfect Rod: A Matter of "Common Cents"

Have you ever found the perfect rod for your favorite technique, only to find out that the company no longer produces the rod? Or purchased a 7' MH 5 power rod in one brand and then tried to match the same rod with another brand? Both can be very frustrating experiences as there is no standard when it comes to rod classifications of power or action among companies. But what if I told you science has stepped in and resolved these issues?

Dr. William Hanneman believed that fishermen would be better served by having a system of objective and relative measurement for quantifying rod power and action, exactly what science does best. As such, he developed The Common Cents System, a system that can be used in a totally objective fashion without being influenced by the subjective opinion or bias of the person taking the measurement.

Dr. Hanneman is a fly fisherman and developed the system to classify the many hundreds of models of fly rods out there. More recently however, a group of guys from the BFHP spearheaded by MarkG began an effort to start classifying common spinning and baitcasting rods using this system. Some of the early findings are still available on the Net and can be found here and here. As the effort continued and the list of blanks and rods tested continued to grow, it became necessary to put these into a database for easy access and searching ability. The official (and always growing) website with these results can be found at The Rod Database results page.

This is an easy system to setup in your garage or work room, and will give you a way of matching even long discontinued rods with current models that will perform nearly identically to existing favorites. So perform some science and reap the rewards!