Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> Lures,Tackle, and Equipment -> Understanding the Physics of Rod Length |
| Message Subject: Understanding the Physics of Rod Length | |||
jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | BrianF. - 4/21/2015 9:58 AM Guess all I'm trying to say is we probably have not been thinking enough about rod tip speed (e.g. velocity and momentum) and how this plays into getting the most from these longer, less powerful rods. I agree with this. But Brian, would you believe me if I said 5 pounds is 5 pounds is 5 pounds, and the time it takes to get from zero to 5 pounds of applied force has no impact on whether or not that hook will puncture your hand? I hope you don't think I'm arguing just to argue. I actually really hesitated to say the above, because I think I know what you're thinking when it comes to the rod motion and hooksets, but it can't accurately be expressed in terms of force in the way that you're saying it. I think you're relating hooksets to something like driving a nail with a hammer. Push on that nail with the hammer all you want, and you won't drive it in. You could be pushing a hundred pounds or more, and it won't do more than just dent the board. Now swing the hammer and you can drive that nail a half inch per swing. It's because of the high deceleration of hammer head as it strikes the nail. The concept of a hook, line, and rod isn't the same. The fact that you want faster motion in both cases is the same, but the reason is different. For swinging a hammer, you need that hammer head velocity so you have a higher deceleration when it strikes the nail, and thus higher driving force. When setting the hook, you just want that force to hit the fish instantly to get the hooks in instantly, before things change between the hook and the fish. It becomes all the more important to have a greater hookset motion when using a longer, "softer" rod. | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | jlong - 4/21/2015 11:24 AM Brian, 5 lbs of force is 5 lbs of force. Regardless of how you got there (fast or slow). The hookpoint doesn't know the difference. I SWEAR I didn't read your post before writing this: jaultman - 4/21/2015 11:46 AM But Brian, would you believe me if I said 5 pounds is 5 pounds is 5 pounds, and the time it takes to get from zero to 5 pounds of applied force has no impact on whether or not that hook will puncture your hand? And by the way, jlong, great post. | ||
| BrianF. |
| ||
Posts: 286 Location: Eagan, MN | Okay, so maybe I mis-spoke. Forgive me 'cause I never studied the sciences in school. I'm a layperson in this regard and only trying to understand the physics to help organize my thoughts and then attempt to make improvements to my technique on the water. So, 5lbs. is 5lbs. is 5lbs. Let's forget about all that and chalk it up to a poor example on my part. Help me understand what forces are behind driving a nail or, using my earlier example, driving a straw through a 2X4. The difference between pushing these thru with slow blunt force and driving them through more easily is in speed or velocity when one object hits another, correct? Are we not getting that effect with a rod to some degree when setting the hook? This is where the concept of a rod acting like a 'spring' muddies the water for me. Brian | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | I'm kind of thinking this up as I type, so it isn't refined and may be faulty. You're not getting the same effect with a fishing rod as a hammer driving a nail or a piece of straw penetrating a board. The latter two have kinetic energy resulting in applied force that is higher than reasonably achievable by slow, steady force exertion. In the case of the fishing rod, its mass is negligible and it has no appreciable velocity prior to the "collision" (of hook and mouth) for any high impact force from sudden transfer of energy. Like said before, you need pressure to puncture a surface. Given that the hook point is constant, AREA is defined. So FORCE is the variable. Say you have to pick up a 50 lb weight and you have a very stiff spring and a more flexible spring. Attach the stiff spring to the weight and lift. The spring will elongate only slightly before "loading" up to 50 lb, at which time the weight will be lifted. Let's say your arms pulled a total distance of 3" by the time the weight was lifted. The flexible spring will elongate much more, but eventually "load up" to 50 lb, and the weight will rise. Say you had to stretch the spring 12" before the weight lifted. In each case you applied a 50 lb force. With the stiff spring you exerted force (ranging from 0 to 50 lb) for only 3" travel, while with the flexible spring you exerted force (again from 0 to 50 lb) over a 12" distance. You had to do more work with the flexible spring than with the stiff spring. The stiff spring is analagous to a shorter and/or stiffer rod; the flexible spring is like a longer and/or "softer" rod. Repeat the procedure but with a rope. Start with much slack in the rope, then quickly pull up such that the rope tightens up and the weight just lifts off the ground. It took 50 lb to lift the weight, again. You didn't have any appreciable kinetic energy between the rope and your hand, etc. Now tie a really long rope to a 12 lb bowling ball and that 50 lb weight and fire the ball vertically with a cannon. You lifted the weight because the ball had sufficientkinetic energy prior to the rope tightening, which came from its velocity and mass. You don't get that from a fishing rod. | ||
| BrianF. |
| ||
Posts: 286 Location: Eagan, MN | Excellent reply jault. Very thought provoking. However, I'm not certain there is NO benefit from increased velocity of a rod swing. Though not like a hammer, there seems to be some benefit based on hook setting demonstrations I've seen in the past. Let's assume you are correct and there is no benefit to greater rod tip speed/velocity with a longer rod due to the lack of mass. That is, all else being equal, when setting the hook on a musky, a slow pull on your rod to, say, 10lbs of pressure exerted on the fish is as good as a quick *snap* to 10lbs of pressure on the fish. If that's the case, then I'm back to square one...not understanding what forces are in play to seat hooks past the barb when using a longer, softer rod. Maybe the force required to set the hook snuggly, and I'm talking about 7/0 to 10/0 hooks, is far less than I had originally thought? Maybe the fact that the angler has lost so much power by moving from a 6' to a 9' rod isn't such a big deal if there is still sufficient power to seat hooks after the move up in length? Brian | ||
| curleytail |
| ||
Posts: 2687 Location: Hayward, WI | How about this from a non-physics based, no math involved thought. Where do we prefer our rod tip to be pointed at the beginning of a hookset? Hopefully (but not always) pointed right at the fish right? How much does that hook have to move to set past the barb - 3/8" or so? Going from pointed straight at the fish, to moving even 6 inches, neither rod is moving much, and really, we're setting the hook more with the butt or midpoint of the rod than with the tip. In my mind, saying the 12' rod gives way less setting power than the 6 foot rod is assuming the rod is perpendicular to the fish, or at least that we need the full sweep of the rod to set the hook. I don't think it's that extreme. The hook should be set in a matter of inches, not feet, and what the long rods do then is keep a nice bend and act as a shock absorber. We can put as much muscle as we can into the rod and not likely bend or rip hooks out, and we can also let up some without worrying too much about slack line. When I started with a 6'6" rod I remember setting the hook and CRANKING like crazy to try to keep the line tight and put pressure on the fish. When I moved to an 8' rod I set the hook, and everything felt solid with good pressure all the way to the net. Now the 9' rods are even better. I don't really think we need to start worrying about hook setting power until we have a hard time actually landing fish, or the fish we land don't have the hooks buried well. | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | Curleytail makes good points about (1) the fact that the hook doesn't have to move very much relative to the fish's mouth in order for it to puncture past the barb, and (2) the fact that the rod usually isn't perpendicular to the line when you set the hook. So yes, much of the discussion is irrelevant to many cases. Brian, when you say "all else being equal", if you mean that after a strike the musky lays still with her mouth closed on your bait and the point of the hook doesn't move while you slowly (or quickly) set the hook up to the force necessary (we're using 10 lb) to puncture the mouth, then yes, the "speed" doesn't matter. Of course, that scenario is never reality. I'm not dismissing rod speed altogether. For example, when jerking a bulldawg and you get a strike on the slack after a long pull, so your rod is pointed almost perpendicular to the line when you feel the hit, you want as much motion in as little time as possible for the hookset. Also if a fish hits your bait going forward faster than the bait was moving, such that slack line is created, the longer rod will take up the slack faster with less movement by you than a shorter rod (neglecting any reeling that might be going on). The longer rods definitely shine here; the dynamics was discussed earlier. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |