• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Interesting Vid from Mark Tunley

Thanks for that, i agree it's counter intuitive but i also get it. I'd not really given much thought but had assumed that the leverage was putting us at advantage if the rod was stiffer. I see now that it doesn't, it's the fish that gets the advantage.

His previous video, linked to in the one that you posted is also good and explains it well


(Well apart from referring to pressure when he should be talking about force!)
 
He complicates it a little with his punch in the face example.

If I was trying to explain it to someone myself I’d say…..
imagine the angler is a wheel nut, the rod is the breaker bar used to crack it lose and the fish is the poor sod at the side of the road pulling on the end of it.

Think of it like that and I think it would make perfect sense to just about everyone
 
I implemented this a couple of seasons ago and because I’m not carsting big feeders a long distance , I can comfortably get away with much ‘ softer’ rods
Personally it enhances the whole experience of the fight significantly and with no detriment to the fish.Arguably you land them quicker as you apply more pressure , but lose less fish as softer rods also absorb head shakes and violent takes
Chub battles are also enhanced
If you look at most of the barbel videos on you tube it’s not often you see a proper fighting curve
Compare this to feeder anglers catching big carp at Boddington - that’s why you pay good money for a quality blank IMHO
 
Jon Frisby said:
He'd have been better using a casting rod and a through actioned rod of the same test curve. That test is totally at odds imo...
Click to expand...
I think that was the point he was trying to make though Jon.
Using 2 completely different rods in stiffness length and test curve to prove beyond doubt which applies the most pressure for a given amount of force applied by angler.
 
Les Daniels said:
That video content very much reminded me of Kevin Baynes, whom I can quote.. "..a rod is a lever and regardless of Tc, they are defined by their action.."
Click to expand...
Kevin Baynes really knows his stuff. I have several of his rods, two of which are the best rods I've ever used. His 3 piece Specialist is something to behold - proper special!
 
I have a vague memory of Jim Gibbinson demonstrating something similar with a light fly rod vs a pike rod, each pulling on a spring balance - must be 25+ years ago.
 
Les Daniels said:
That video content very much reminded me of Kevin Baynes, whom I can quote.. "..a rod is a lever and regardless of Tc, they are defined by their action.."
Click to expand...
Spot on that quote!
I have 2 x 11foot 1.75lb rods that are completely different.
An 11 foot 1.75 korum barbel which has a powerful progressive action
An 11 foot Peregrine GTI which bends and bends right through!

Dave
 
Ian Grant said:
Going against the grain here, but sorry doesn’t make sense to me at all !
Click to expand...
Think of a seesaw Ian. Your sat on one side close to the center pivot point and a barbel is on the other side right at the end
The further away that barbel is from you, the more weight or force you need to apply to lift it. If the barbel moves closer to the center it’s easier and less force required from you to lift it.

Now apply it to fishing.
You the angler are always on the center pivot point which is where your hand is on the rod.

The rest of the rod is the other side of the seesaw with the barbel on the end.
The shorter the rod the easier it is for you to lift the weight or in fishing terms, you apply more force on the fish.

A softer rod bends easier and further, therefore making it a shorter lever over a stiffer rod.

Have I made that better or worse to grasp I’m not sure?
 
What I'm struggling to comprehend is, the science (which is obviously correct), contradicts my own experience of hook pulls. Tench are the species where hook pull is most likely in my experience (barbel the least likely). In situations on the same water (so same fish feeding on same substrates) when I've had to step up to heavier rods to cope with the weed or to cast greater distances (from 1.75lb to 2.25/2.5lb), I've definitely found hook-pull to be more of an issue. What's that all about then?
 
Joe Winstanley said:
What I'm struggling to comprehend is, the science (which is obviously correct), contradicts my own experience of hook pulls. Tench are the species where hook pull is most likely in my experience (barbel the least likely). In situations on the same water (so same fish feeding on same substrates) when I've had to step up to heavier rods to cope with the weed or to cast greater distances (from 1.75lb to 2.25/2.5lb), I've definitely found hook-pull to be more of an issue. What's that all about then?
Click to expand...
That makes sense if we are talking about a rod that is not fully loaded.
All this leverage and force talk is only relevant when we are talking about rods at there most stressed or near lock up point.
If a soft rod is only partially bent and a stiff rod is only partially bent the force required to get the soft rod to lock up point is going to be less than the stiff rod because resistance to bending is a new factor counteracting the physics of leverage. Once it’s bent right over and near on locked up then the pressure is leverage and leverage alone.
 
Richard Isaacs said:
That makes sense if we are talking about a rod that is not fully loaded.
All this leverage and force talk is only relevant when we are talking about rods at there most stressed or near lock up point.
If a soft rod is only partially bent and a stiff rod is only partially bent the force required to get the soft rod to lock up point is going to be less than the stiff rod because resistance to bending is a new factor counteracting the physics of leverage. Once it’s bent right over and near on locked up then the pressure is leverage and leverage alone.
Click to expand...
Still not sure if I am reading this correctly. Are we saying that it is an interesting discussion, but never likely to have anything to do with playing a fish, because we do not play a fish with the rod locked up !
 
Mike Thompson said:
Still not sure if I am reading this correctly. Are we saying that it is an interesting discussion, but never likely to have anything to do with playing a fish, because we do not play a fish with the rod locked up !
Click to expand...
Of course you do. If your applying maximum pressure on a big barbel heading for a snag, your rod is likely to be under it’s maximum loading and probably hasn’t got much more to bend. I’ve certainly near on locked up my torrixs a time or two.
This is the situation when a softer (shorter lever) rod is applying more pressure than a stiffer (longer lever) rod.
 
Richard Isaacs said:
That makes sense if we are talking about a rod that is not fully loaded.
All this leverage and force talk is only relevant when we are talking about rods at there most stressed or near lock up point.
If a soft rod is only partially bent and a stiff rod is only partially bent the force required to get the soft rod to lock up point is going to be less than the stiff rod because resistance to bending is a new factor counteracting the physics of leverage. Once it’s bent right over and near on locked up then the pressure is leverage and leverage alone.
Click to expand...
I think I get it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top