Christian,

I think you are missing the point of the other gentleman's post. He seems to indicate that the numbers the CCS is giving for some bass rods are "incorrect." Obviously such cannot be the case and this is what I believe Shawn was asking about.

It would appear that the CCS data has run afoul of someone's subjective opinion and the conclusion that they have drawn is that the CCS must be in error on certain types of rods. Then they are attempting to change the CCS constants of length and deflection so that the data will then match those subjective opinions.

Where he has erred, is in trusting his very subjective opinion over a scientific, repeatable system of objective measurement.

I have read some of the messages on the Bass Board and don't feel they have a good grasp of the CCS. Many are trying to take the CCS data and make it conform to the previously subjective opinions of the manufacturers. There was talk about a rod having a "medium" action and yet the CCS data showed it to have an action angle of more than 70 degrees. So they reasoned that the CCS was incorrect due to the length of the handle and decided that the deflected distance needed to be modified in order to bring the data into line with somebody's subjective opinion. Big mistake.

First of all, the CCS dispenses with terms like "fast/medium/slow" and replaces the entire action category with a new system called the Action Angle. The greater resolution and perfect accuracy of this aspect of the system is just beautiful. There is no need to try and translate or correlate the number of degrees with the old subjective fast/medium/slow system. You could call 75 degrees medium action and I could call it fast action and we'd both be correct. Better yet, we stop using fast/medium/slow altogether and just call it what it is, 75 degrees. There is no reason to try and make any AA degree reading correlate to the poor resolution offered by those now obsolete terms.

As Dr. Hanneman has often pointed out, the supported segment of blank or rod and the deflection distance of 1/3rd the total length in distance is by defintion, correct. Changing these constants only serves to bastardize the system and turn what is in reality truly objective data into nothing more than a slave to someone's objective opinion.

This same issue came up a month or so ago and I think that Jimmy has a good point. When Bill Hanneman developed the CC System he had fly rods in mind and with all fly rods, with the possible exception of srey rods, the issue is moot. But with other rods that have handles that are longer it does make some sense to make the CC measurements from the reel seat forward. In other words, make the measurements on the working part of the rod or from the fulcrum forward. When you make the measurements on a fly rod you are essentially making the measurements from the fulcrum forward because of the short handle so why not on a rod with a longer handle. It seems to me that this is a more meaningful number for rods with longer handles. Tom's point, that the data you take will not be useful to anyone else is a very good point. However, the data would still be interchangeable between different people as long as the additional piece of information, the length from the clamp or fulcrum to the tip, was included.

Arthur,
I don't see Jimmy's point as being a question of bastardizing the CC System or it being a question of it being right or wrong. I think that his point is that this is just another way of using the CC System.

Christian,
I would be careful using Q in your description of a blank. I think in bringing up mechanical Q that you are going to throw a big piece of fat into the fire and probably confuse the whole resonant frequency issue.

The length of various handles is almost never going to be the same - you don't even have a handle on a naked blank. Without a standard point for the forward support, you have no means of consistency between users. No relative data, if that's what you're after.

What is roughly the same on all rods,however, is that the point at which you eventually grasp them is going to wind up being at a point that is roughly 10% from the rear of the blank. That number wasn't dreamed up on an arbitrary basis and is very much the average for all rods, fly, spinning or casting. And even with some deviation from that 10%, the overall CCS figures will remain the very, very close to being the same (blanks flex very little over that last 10%). The whole idea of having a standardized forward support point is to ensure that we get verbatim results instead of hodgepodge numbers based on how the individual decides to take his measurements.

The same goes for the deflection distance. It has nothing to do with how the rod is used or fished (and it needn't have anything to do with those). It is a system for taking relative measurements of power and action and it does that perfectly. It cannot give a measurement that is in "error." Such is simply an impossibility.

I very much agree with Arthur that it makes little sense to try and change the system's constants in order to try and make its measurements agree with subjective opinions. In fact, that's exactly what the system rallies against - the subjective opinion of a blank's action and power.

Arguing that the deflection amount or forward support point is incorrect is like arguing that the length of an inch is wrong, or the weight of a pound, incorrect. They are what they are. The important task for the builder is to learn how to relate to the objective numbers/data provided by the CCS, instead of trying to make the objective data relate to our subjective opinions.

...............

emory, thank you for speaking up in a semi-hostile environment :) Like I said, I am not here trying to change CCS or create fights. I am just trying to make some observations on how CCS can be used differently and to maybe describe finished, long handled rods better.

I guess I am more interested in learning how a rod fishes in its final form. CCS (with a flyrod or a short handled reel) does describe how the rod fishes, as i am sure most would agree. Working length, IMO, does a better job of describing how a built, long-handled rod fishes. Like I said, any blank behind the reel seat on my bass fishing rod is not helping me fight the fish. Why bother measuring it then and having it "skew the results."

as far as the whole subjective opinion and my "unscientific" approach that Mr. Mercer mentions... My approach is the actually same as Dr. Hannemans. I, however, am looking at measuring how the rod fishes... What is wrong with me creating my own bastardized definitions? If I measure everything to "my" own "bastardize" definition it is no less "objective" or "scientific" than the CCS method. I am only looking to "conform" the CCS type of system to the way a rod actually fishes. Is that wrong?

Jimmy,
I agree that you have a valid point and I am somewhat surprised that others either do not see your point or react so negatively to it. It makes a great deal of sense to me. I build a lot of salmon rods that are about 9 feet long and have handles that are 18 inches long or even longer. The reel seat is about 20% from the butt of the rod not 10% and the power and action angle are both much different when measured at the 10% point or at the reel seat.
It seems to me that you are arguing, and I would agree, that the CC System is an excellent tool but it is like any tool and can be used in a number of different ways. And the way that you have suggested for making the CC measurements on longer handles rods seems to me to be a better approach if what you are after is the characteristics of the finished ROD. If what you are after is the characteristics of the BLANK itself, prior to being made into a rod, then I would agree with Tom and others.

> CCS (with a flyrod or a short handled reel) does describe how the rod
> fishes, as i am sure most would agree

No I don't agree with this.
CCS is way to objectively measure 2 (of the many) rod characteristics. It helps explain a small portion of how a rod fishes. Which is better than nothing (the way it was) but it is not the whole picture.

Just think of how many different ways you can talk about how a rod fishes.
How easy it casts
How forgiving it is
How well it loads
How well it can generate line speed/distance
How well it mends line (if you FF)
How well it fights fish

Here is a better example. These are 2 rods that test with the same ERN (7.5) and a very close AA(69-70).
Sage XP 7wt 9'6" 7.5 70
TFO IM6 6wt 9' 7.53 69

I would not say these fish the same (not even close). But I would say they have about the same power.

Christian

As to the original point about applying CCS to conventional rods.

I do think there is some validity to clamping at the reel seat/grip point. The rod under your grip will not be adding (much) to the power of the rod during use.

But as many people have brought up this point - You have to standardize it. If one builder uses a 14" lower grip and another a 8" lower grip on the same rod, they will almost certainly get a big difference in ERN and AA when they measure clamping at 14" and 8".
At that point an ERN/AA reading would be meaningless.

Christian

Emory and Jimmy,

I believe you're overlooking something. A fishing rod is either a second or a third order lever, depending upon whether you're the fish (second order) or the fisherman (third order). But in either case, the fulcrum point is the extreme butt end of the rod. The reel seat, or place where you grasp the rod, is the "point of effort."

The blank behind the seat most certainly does help you fight the fish. Don't believe it? Cut it off, and try fighting the fish without it.

The environment here isn't hostile, Jimmy, I just couldn't quite understand where you were coming from. Now after reading your last post I see you've made an error regarding the basic configuation of a fishing rod. The entire length does count - a fishing rod is a third order lever. That portion behind the reel seat does indeed help you cast, fight the fish, etc., - it all counts and you use the entire rod length whether you realize it or not.

Again, how you want to use the system for your own personal information is entirely up to you and you certainly don't need anyone's permission to measure or rate your rods any way you want. But the CCS in its original configuration is not in any way flawed nor does it contain errors.

........



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2005 07:39AM by Tom Kirkman.

I tried to make sure I wasn't being hostile or argumentative. I just wondered if Jimmy or anyone could point out an error in the common cents figures. I couldn't and still can't see how there could be an error in any numbers the system provides.

On Tom's point about the fulcrum I can see that. The part of the rod behind the seat on back to the butt is supported by your forearm or hand heel or on heavier rods by your gut or in a gimbal. So you sure do use the part of the rod the rod behind the reel seat. In fact I don't think you could use the rod without it!

No, it can't give errors regardless of reel seat location or handle extension. I think part of the issue here is one of terminology, not any flaw in the CCS.

I wasn't sure what Jimmy meant by "how a rod fishes." I think I have a better understanding of it now.

For the effect on fish fighting that any particular reel seat location has, he'll want to remember that the load times its distance from the fulcrum, will be equal to the effort times its distance from the fulcrum. Beyond that, he'll want to stick with the standard CCS length, support and deflection constants, but run "The Big Picture" (Volume 6 #2) with the CCS to gain more insight on how his rod is working, section for section.

The Volume 8 #2 issue of RodMaker will have Dr. Hanneman's CCF (Common Cents Frequency) system and I think it will help even more.

..............

Jimmy,
I really hate to abandon you and leave you out on a limb but I am starting to come around to Tom and others point of view. I am still thinking about it but Tom's point about the lever arm and how the rod is used is starting to convince me. I really hate to admit that I am wrong but I am starting to agree that we may be just introducing unnecessary complexity.

Wow, this has gone a different direction than I anticipated when I started the post. But it has brought up a couple of good points, at least to me. The original concept of the CCS leaves no room for error because it is a pure measuring tool. It doesn't mean that a blank with an ERN of 8.2 is necessarily going to cast perfectly for me with an 8 wt line. But it does mean that whatever line does work best for me on that rod, is also going to work well for me on the next rod that CC's out at an 8.2. And, if another person measures another rod using the original CCS, his 8.2 will mean the same as my 8.2.

The other side of that is Jimmie's point. If he tweaks the system to measure his rods or blanks in a different manner because he wants a reading from the reel seat or wherever, as long as he is consistant in his application of measurement, his data will be as valid to him as those using the original system.

Bottom line is that using the CC system as designed cannot give you an incorrect reading. It can only give you what is there. What we do with that information and how it relates to our casting or fishing styles, reverts back to at least a small measure of subjectivity. If I measure out a rod on which an 8 wt line works for me, is that going to work the best for Tom or Emory or Jimmie? Maybe, maybe not. Someone used the analogy of a tape measure and I think that was very appropriate. When King whoever decided that 1 foot was officially the length of his feet, Not everybody's feet fit his foot. It's the same here.

As for hostile, I thought you guys were pretty calm. Check out some other boards of you want to see hostile.

Jeff Hunter

You've hit the nail on the head, Jeff. And the more I've thought about, I've just been overlooking the answer to Jimmy's (and others') problem the whole time. Shame on me.

Dr. Hanneman is a pretty smart cookie. The CCS is fine as is, but if you want to find out more about how any particular rod set up is going to work, you run his "Big Picture" on just that section of rod you wish to know more about.

Jimmy's answer was already there - Dr. Hanneman had already seen the need and provided a solution. Leave the CCS as it is so we'll continue to have relative across the board numbers, but run a "Big Picture" test whenever you want to break a rod down into shorter sections.

................

i re-read the "big picture" article.

1) Hanneman was using the "working length" deal to measure smaller sections of the rod. (he measured the rods in 1 foot sections, moving back from the tip)

2) On some of the rods measured in the article you will notice a big difference in AA and power between the point 7 and the 0 point on the rods. This is what I was finding in my measurements between measuring the whole rod and measuring the same rod at the reel seat (basically I was doing a point 7 to point 0 comparison)

I still argue that my measurement at the reel seat is more accurate for me and the way I bass fish (palming a reel), because it does a better job of describing the part of the rod that I am using. I understand that I need a butt of the rod to fight a fish, but honestly, I dont care about measuring the properties of the butt as long as it is sufficiently "stiff" to allow me to fight a fish.

So, in conlusion and going back to the orginal post, perhaps people measuring two handed rods or long handled rods will find more relevence in the values from measuring the "working length" of the rod than the base CCS numbers.

When you run the CCS over the total blank length you aren't measuring just the butt, you're measuring the length of the rod as it is used when fishing. You do use the whole thing, even that part behind the reel is playing a major role in how the rod fishes. The numbers given are for the properties of the entire rod or blank, which is what most of us take fishing.

The Big Picture can be helpful when comparing rods or blanks section by section. It helps show you what is taking place in a rod or blank as you move back through and along its length, hence "The Big Picture." If this method is more helpful to you in proving the particulars that you want to know then by all means use it, or any variation of it that you want. The beautfy of the CCS is that used correctly, it can do many things and do them all very well.

I suspect you'll be very interested in the Common Cents Frequency article in the Volume 8 #1 issue. It adds another very valuable tool to help you further discern what to expect from any rod or blank.

...................

Jimmy, I don't think you have to argue. If using the CCS to compare YOUR rods to YOUR rods, it makes sense to use it however it works for you. However if you are measuring a particular rod or blank and I want your data to compare with other rods or blanks, the system has to used consistantly. The system is what it is.
Tom, really looking forward to the article you mentioned

Jeff Hunter