Some of the other discussions here on rods lead me to pose this topic.

Sensitivity to winter steelhead bites is a matter of some interest to those of us sick enough to freeze our butts off every winter trying for these elusive beauties. A lot of folks think that a long, light rod is likely to be the most sensitive choice. I suggest that a short, stiff rod will do a better job for detecting bites. There may be other reasons to use a longer rod, such as casting and mending. There may be reasons for using a light rod, such as being able to cast a light lure. But a long, light rod, HAS to be less sensitive than a shorter, stiffer rod. Here's why.

Consider what has to happen when a fish bites. Some motion of the lure has to be translated into movement of the rod in the handle area, so that your hand can feel it. Let's say that the movement of the lure causes the tip of the rod to move 1 inch. If the rod is 10 feet long, that tip movement would cause the handle to move a certain amount. If the rod is five feet long, the movement of the handle for the same tip movement will be much greater. Not twice as much, and I can't remember the trigonometry, but the shorter rod will translate more bite movement into felt motion for the fisherman.

The same argument applies for stiffness. For two rods of the same length, the stiffer rod is going to translate more bite motion into felt motion for the fisherman. So, logically, one should use the shortest, stiffest rod you can for drift fishing, within the other concerns of casting and controlling the line.

Something to think about in your rod selection process. Again, there are other reasons for using the long, light rods that we like. I think it's a mistake, however, to think that sensitivity to bites is a valid one.

Just a thought to provoke some discussion while we wait for the rivers to come into shape.

Constant obsessive polishing...

Seriously though its all about physics...the efficient transmissin of energy from your terminal gear through the line, imparted to your rod guides and then transmitted through your rod to your hands.

I don't think its as simple as short rod, long rod or carbon fiber v. glass. The devil is in the details of the energy transmission equation.

Sensitivity is a function of the sensing device. In this case, that's the human hand. So, how does a human hand gripping a fishing rod sense things? It senses gross movement of the overall rod, and it senses vibrations along the rod. I would guess that the sensing of vibration is much more delicate (fine-grained if you will) than the detection of gross rod deflection. Therefore, a rod that transmits small oscillations at the tip down to the grip would be the most sensitive.

A very stiff or very limp rod will do a poor job of transmitting these vibrations all the way down to the grip without a great deal of attenuation. Also, a rod with lots of discontinuities (irregular taper, bulky rod guide attachments, joints, etc.) will cause the rod tip vibrations to bounce and echo, thereby damping out what is ultimately transmitted to the grip.

Of course, there are lots of other criteria I base my rod purchases on. I like light, short stiff rods that my kids can wangle around easily. I also like rods painted ruby red

Regards.

Finegrain (former physics teacher)
Woodinville

Good points.

I have focused on gross deflection, as I suspect that is most of what the bite detection is about. While I think your points on vibration transmission are valid, I have not often seen a steelhead vibrate. My theory is that the hand must move for the bite to be felt, and that the rod is the device which makes the hand move. Therefore, for bite detection, the best rod would have zero length, infinite stiffness, and zero mass. Right?

I think Finegrain is on the right track here.

A "sensitive" rod is based upon numerous factors, there is no single factor that influences it.

The combination of action, materials, guide attatchment, reel seat configuration, handle type/design ... and so on.

Some cut it, some don't