TackleTour

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:52 pm**

By the way, about the expense. The history with Edison is known.
Him have invited to see and to repair an electric generator. He has come, has listened with the help of a stick. Has drawn by chalk a dagger on a housing and has said, that in this place inside it is necessary to make that and that.
For it has asked to pay to him 100 dollars.
The employer... has asked to compound accounting.
In accounting was written:
"For the fact that has put a dagger - 1 dollar;
For the fact that I know where and why to put daggers - 99 dollars".

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:03 pm**

I have been involved with golf shaft frequencies and the machines used to measure it for quite a few years now and see fishing rods going down the same path sooner or later.
I believe frequency would be a good way to determine sensitivity because it is fairly easy to check. The grey area is where it should be measured at. If one company started using, say, method A and said their rods are the most sensitive, you would have another company using method A with a different point at which the measurement is taken which gives a totally different reading. In the end an independent company would have a fixed position that all rods are measure from and we would all be back to square one.

Wondering how to tell which rod is the most sensitive and I would have to write this reply again.

Otherwise the guy at the local tackle shop says put the rod tip on someones throat and have them hummm. That always seems to work good.

Lots of sales are made that way. lol The search continues...
G

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:16 pm**

Very good food for thought. I will add my response to things effecting the rod's sensitivity, like the way an angler holds it, etc., should not effect which blank dampens the vibrations the least. You've got to take all that away...rod components/angler...just the blank and a measured amount of vibrations in...and a percentage of what is telegraphed out. I bet a flux-capacitor could do it. We just need to get some plutonium and we're there!

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:17 pm**

Grant, that golf club comparison makes em wonder if the folks at e21 have ever strapped one of their new rods on their golf club machine, assuming they have one?

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:25 pm**

One more thing- if this did become a reality, sensitivity may be replaced with the more accuracte term efficiency. I can see the threads now "3/8-1/2oz jigs...should I go with a Loomis X-Fast GLX blank boasting 88% efficiency, or a Megabass Destroyer Fast action blank @ 82% efficiency?" I think it is an easy hypothesis to determine the X-Fast blanks are going to be the most sensitive, however not always the best choice (i.e. flippin' sticks are generally mod-fast to fast versus x-fast).

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:45 pm**

JayInGrapevine wrote: Bottom line, it's possible.

Certainly, it is possible. You could probably get useful data from it. I just don't see there being one feasible testing procedure that everyone would agree on, and that everyone would accept as translating to actual use on the water. They might say "well, that tap or the stimulus applied to the tip doesn't accurately reflect actual fishing conditions," or that it doesn't cover all conditions. Some might argue that one blank, in one configuration, might resonate better than another at a certain frequency, while another blank might perform better given different stimuli. Perhaps there might even be dispute about measurements not accounting for possible nodes. Having done a lot of lab work, myself, I can say that there are a lot of people out there who seem to just want you to throw all of your data out of the window, because it doesn't "feel" right to them. It is a difficult thing to contend with, sometimes.

I don't want to seem like a nay-sayer. I think useful data could be collected, given adequate sample-size, and testing procedure. I'm just trying to reason from a company perspective. It seems like good marketing is enough to get people, and given all the possible points of contention, I would imagine most companies are content to keep people in the dark, so that they just have to take their word for it. It has been working quite well, so far, as there are certainly a lot of people out there who are easily swayed by marketing, and popular opinion. And, for the rest of the people: they will continue to trust their own perception better than lab data.

But, maybe one day, someone will take the time, and effort, to really find a way to make it all work. I would certainly be interested in seeing what could result.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:01 pm**

All of this will help to have a basic industry standard...BUT...

In hand, on the water, per the fisher...preferences will differ per rod/technique/test result/etc.

Novel idea that may come sooner or later...but won't help to resolve any more or less than what we have now from word of mouth/recs and esp with using the product ourselves. The only thing I see that will benefit the buyer is that the ad claims of the manufacturer will list the sensitivity rating per the rods' specs.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:10 pm**

dragon1 wrote:he only thing I see that will benefit the buyer is that the ad claims of the manufacturer will list the sensitivity rating per the rods' specs.

Which could raise another concern - can companies be trusted to test their own products, and submit accurate data? We already see that inaccuracies abound in the rating of lines. You would need an independent certification to really give any weight to data companies would present. Company "A" gives out figure "X," but would there be any standard to hold it against, or any way to really verify it? Barring an easy, fool-proof method, it would be unlike to see an independent body who would actually certify the data. We don't even see a third-party certification with line ratings, and that seems much easier to test.

Posted: **Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:21 pm**

Yep...

It's already taboo for some companies to even provide info on who their suppliers are for their secret blanks...

And it doesn't stop there, OEM Reels by Pfleuger, Browning, BPS, Cabelas...none of them will readily admit who makes their reels, although with some of Cabela's reels it is obvious.

Posted: **Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:16 am**

REW wrote:Theoretically, you could calculate a rod's efficiency of transferring energy, sweeping across a wide spectrum of frequencies, and perhaps using pink, or white noise, similar to when testing a driver. However, the problem I see with that is the fact that resonance, nodes, and damping would be different not only from model to model, but even withing a sample, as rods of a particular model aren't perfectly similar. Also, one could claim that this doesn't accurately represent the type of vibrations one might encounter while fishing.

Another problem that may arise is that resonance, damping, and the like, are all subject to factors outside of the rod, itself. How you grip the rod, how much tensions is applied, and even the mass applied to the rod, by your reel, hand, arm, or whatever else, could alter the rod's response. Now, this is just a theory, but taking from me experiences with musical instruments, and transducers, adding a little mass, or altering tensions can alter the response greatly. It would be very difficult, and costly, to recreate all of these scenarios in the lab. Furthermore, one manufacturer could cry foul, as even the simple act of measuring, itself, as an effect on a rod's response.

One last thing that comes to mind, as suggested by Thor, is that it is difficult to apply that data in a meaningful way. Perhaps one rod transmits certain frequencies better than another, and others less efficiently, but as a whole, they are both similarly efficient across the spectrum of recognizable frequencies. How do we say which frequencies are most important? It is possible to get a relative idea, similar to the way it is done in the audio realm, but there will still be disparity, due to the different abilities of perception each individual has.

So, it could be done, but I doubt it could be done in a way that would be satisfactory to all people. Given the time, and money, it would take to do this, and the fact that people would still find problems with the methodology, I would say most companies would rather just make the claim that their product is more sensitive, and hope you feel the same.

Great info and very well explained.
I just want to add that a measurement is possible and even not very expensive.
You need a wave generator, a speaker and a connection from the speaker to the rod tip, a rod holder that you can lock and a contact microphone coupled to a oscilloscope or even to a recorder with two lines in.
You can record the emitted signal and the microphone signal and compared them on a PC over a broad frequency spectrum.
Its obvious that is impossible to please everyone but at least you would have some data to compare with people's opinions.
Now, the important stuff, what is the frequency of a fish bitting your lure. Is ti different for a crank and a Texas rig vibration?
A good rod to feel the bottom does a good job detecting bites?
And how about does fisherman that have extraterrestrial abilities to detect a bite? What is the rods importance?

TackleTour

Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?

Re: Why can't there be advanced rod sensitivity testing?