About a year ago there was some discussion on here about the relationship between the Common Cents system and two handed rods. The opinions seemed to be split between it working and it may work but would need some adjustments. Since then has anyone tried this enough to come up with any valid data? I'm a new spey caster so my field testing is not of much use to compare to what my CC data indicated.

Thanks,
Jeff Hunter

It has to work, it can't do otherwise, - it's taking a non-opinionated measurement just like a tape measure when used to measure the length of something.

How you use that information is up to you. You might do a search here and see how some spey casters are relating ERN to line weights. Bob Meiser has done a lot of work in this area and others have to. I'd search under "spey casting" or under Dr. Hanneman's name. There was a flurry of conversation on this last summer or fall, in case you didn't see it.

You might also try the "sexy loops" website where Dr. Hanneman and a few others have had some good exchanges on the CCS. I believe it's www.sexyloops.com

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

That was my fault for making it so confusing.

The IP/ERN is an objective measurement and is great tool for relating one rod's power to another.

But (with all applications of CCS) relating it to a line number will depend on the caster and cast.

Christian

Well put.

...........

Thanks guys. I know that it will obviously provide an objective "across the board" number for comparing rods. I was just curious as to whether there was data available that would relate to the "correct" weight realting to the first 30 feet of line or 50 feet or whatever would be practical for a spey rod. Thanks again for the info and I will check out the website and do some more searching.

Jeff Hunter

a similar discussion came up on BFHP rod and reel board:

[www.wmi.org]

basically there is a contingent of us that believe that CCS should use the "working length of the rod" for the Length measurement. Our arguement is that anything that happens behind the reel seat doesnt matter, cause when we are palming the reel/rod the only part of the rod that is deflecting aprreciably is in front of the reel seat. So, we are putting the fulcrum at the working length (front of the reel seat) and deflecting the rod. On a 7' bass rod, the working length is roughly 70-72" back from the tip and fulcrum for the deflection of the rod is put at the end of the reel seat (right where the seat and foregrip meet). We then deflect the rod the 23 or so inches (L/3) and get much nicer numbers for AA and deflection... numbers that actually correspond to manufacturer actions/powers. We have found that deflecting the 84" rods the full 28" (according to the CCS definition) was overpowering the rod actions (especially rods with long handles and rigid reel seats on built rods) and bending the rod that much compresses the action angle measurements (so that the difference between a moderate and fast rod was a matter of a few degrees).

I understand that, by definition, the CCS concept is correct. However, I think the working length is a better way to describe shorter rods with longer handles... think about...

perhaps, this same working length arguement would help descrbe a two-handed rod that has a long handle?

The trouble is, the next guy has no idea what your particular working length is - and unless it's the same as the next guy, your numbers now have no relevance except in your very own respective circumstance.

The difference in Action Angles is, in fact, often only a matter of a few degrees. With the old scale of "fast, medium and slow" or even adding in "medium/fast" you only have a spread of 4 actions to lump everything into. So, with such little resolution, you easily ended up with many blanks all labeled as "Fast" yet with each one actually having a different action. With the CCS, you have much greater resolution and that greater resolution allows you to differenciate between actions by differences as slight as one degree. We don't want to go backwards to a scale with far less resolution. Make use of the far greater resolution the system offers - in the long run, I think you'll appreciate it.

The CCS has been designed with certain standards in mind so we can get relative results and use them for comparitive purposes. There's nothing wrong with tweaking it for your own use (I'm sure many already have) but do keep in mind that any numbers or measurements you receive are no longer true CCS numbers. Please don't add them to the CCS database and if you do swap numbers with other builders, please be careful to make sure they know that your constant (deflection distance) was different than what the CCS specifies. That will cut down on any confusion. Thanks.

Spey line weight requirements can probably be addressed by my ERN+1 and ERN-1 explantion in a previous issue of RodMaker.

........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2005 09:03PM by Tom Kirkman.

Actually that's my mistake, that article hasn't run yet.

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

If you feel you need to alter the system in order to get the results you desire then you really don't need the system. A man who already has the answer doesn't need the equation. Forgive me but it seems like some have already decided what the action or power of their blanks should be and are now trying to twist the system to conform to those answers.

Very true, but I'm not sure that's what these guys are doing. Considering what Dr. Hanneman wrote about in his "Big Picture" article, it's sometimes a matter of playing around with things a bit just to uncover more information about your blank for your own use in the manner you plan to build and use it.

.....

i obviously wont be submitting the answers to the CCS database, i am just trying to see if there is some open mindedness to a different way of looking at the rod measurements as to how the shorter bass RODS ARE REALLY USED and perhaps this line of thought can be applied towards stand-up or other long handled rods.

The "next" guy knows what the working length is, cause it is one of the variables in the table... just as the current table has the rod length as one of the variables... pretty simple!

in my mind, the basic CCS system doesnt reflect how a long handled bass rod fishes. I am only using the top 70" or so of a 84" rod to fish with, why not just measure the part of the rod that I am fishing with? I know for long rods and flyrods that most of the rod is used (hence the 10% rule). But on short rods with a long handle, the 10% rule adds too much error to be relavant to how the rod fishes.

here's an extreme example to try to prove my point. Take your favorite 6' fishing rod that has a pistol grip. Now, take the CCS measurement with the 10% rule and the values do a good job of describing how the rod behaves. Now, add a 3' rigid handle extension and redo the CCS measurement with taking the new overall length of the rod (9') into consideration. First, the rod will probably break the rod by trying to deflect it the L/3 value. Second, assuming the rod hasnt broke, I will now have a completely different description of the rod. The reel seat is in the same place, and the rod fishes the same (except for a longer handle), but now my CCS values do not represent the rod power/action angle.

Actually it does - what you're doing is trying to change the constants to make the system deliver the answers you feel it should give.

Furthermore, you're adding a scenario that isn't likely to occur - one of those make believe set ups that so many tried to use earlier in arguing that the CCS doesn't or can't work. It would be rare to find a 6' blank that had a handle or extension 3' long.

To put forth such an extreme example in order to suggest that there is some type of shortcoming with the CCS only proves how well the CCS works - because with any typical, average, real-world handle length, it works just as it was designed to do. Only by inserting extreme examples (which no one is likely to build to begin with) can you find flaw with the system.

The CCS isn't designed to tell you how the rod "fishes." It was designed to put a relative figure on the action and power, which it does. You wouldn't use a hammer to turn a screw and you don't want to use the CCS to do things it wasn't designed to do.


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

Just an observation...... I measured the handle lengths and reel seat positions on the 9 bass rods I own. In every case the center of the reel seat falls from 8% to 14% of the rod's total length. So a forward support at 10% of the total length seems pretty reasonable to me.

I do understand using a different deflection or support point on oddball rods but I think the system was designed to create a system for measuring and rating rod BLANKS. Once you have the finished rod in your hands you don't really need the system, do you?

Just like the current catalog ratings, the lure and line weight ratings are provided for the naked blanks or the rods built on them in conventional fashion, not for individual use after the fact.

The more I've worked with the ccs the more amazed I am what a good job Dr. Hanneman has done in considering all the variables.

That's also very true. I think the bottom line is that if you want to use the CCS for making relative comparisions (the purpose for which it was designed) then you need to use the standard constants with regard to support area and deflection distance. If you want to use it for other things, the process is entirely up to the individual user.

I'm glad people are finding various uses for the system (Remember the "Big Picture article that Dr. Hanneman penned in Volume 6 #3). My only point is that the standards and constants of the official system won't be changed from what they are now - it would be neither possible nor helpful.

Example - AMTAK will be having Dr. Hanneman rate all their new blanks and will be including the CCS figures in their next blank catalog. None of those blanks have handles on them - they're naked - and as such the 10% forward support and 1/3rd length/deflection is the starting point required in order for the numbers to have any real meaning when used for comparison to other blanks. It also covers the way that most of those blanks will be built and eventually used.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2005 10:20AM by Tom Kirkman.

please realize that I am NOT saying that the CCS system is bad. I understand the concept and validity of having a standardized way to measure and rate blanks.

i am just trying to say that there is obviously a difference between a way that a blank measures and the way it fishes, and if you take a "working length" measurement it does a better job of describing how the finished rod fishes.

obviously, my 3' handle extension is extreme, but it was just to prove a point. It does prove that there are limitations and possible "errors" in the system to describe how a rod acts/fishes. If you take my same example and put a more reasonable 6-10" handle extension, you will still have some "error"

The system doesn't describe how a rod fishes - just puts some relative measurements on some basic intrinsic properties. No error possible there.

There are some limitations, naturally. The system is limited to real world type scenarios rather than extreme examples that don't really exist and wouldn't work very well if they did..

I've extended many blanks (in fact I haven't built a bass rod in the past two years that didn't have an extension) and the system still gives me perfectly accurate results even with the extension added in. Any extension will create a faster action, which the CCS recognizes and measures, and usually a bit more power, which the CCS also recognizes. I just haven't seen the "errors" you mention and really don't know how you would even recognize such an error unless you have another system that is somehow giving different information. How do you know an "error" is present?

.........

I'm also missing something here I guess. Are you telling me that if I take a blank, extension or not and put it through the common cents paces and come up with something like AA70 and ERN 8.6 that it could somehow be incorret? I don't understand. Doesn't it have to be whatever it is?

Or do you mean that another blank that comes up with something like AA80 and ERN9.5 would actually be slower action and have less power than the blank mentioned above? I just don't think that would or could ever happen.

You and me both. No offense to anyone, but I really don't understand what errors are being discussed.

If you take a blank and measure it according to the CCS, and then extend it with a piece that is as stiff or stiffer than the butt you mount it to, and then repeat the measurements, the AA will increase by some number of degrees and the ERN would increase by some amount. And this is exactly what happens when blanks are exended from the butt. The only possibility that the reverse could be in order, would be for the extension itself to be softer or less powerful than the amount of power in the butt of the blank. And in that case the CCS would also record the difference there.

The CCS doesn't have an opinion any more than a bathroom scale or a tape measure. It just records what exists. Again, no offense intended, but I just don't understand what you mean by "errors."

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

That's sort of my point I guess. I mean how do you know the numbers the common cents readings are giving you are incorrect or in error unless you have another system that is giving you the "correct" answers. How do you know those numbers are correct??

Also not trying to start an argument, but can you tell me if these numbers are correct and how you would know if they are or not?

Berkley Lightning Rod 6' length. AA74 and ERN10.8

Are these numbers correct and what process would you use to prove they either are or are not. Thanks.

> I mean how do you know the numbers the common cents readings are giving
> you are incorrect or in error unless you have another system that is
> giving you the "correct" answers. How do you know those numbers are
> correct??

If they are repeatable. The CCS IP/ERN measurement is a measurement of Spring Constant of the rod (averaged, because of the taper). You should be able to hand that rod to a buddy and perform the same test and get the same (or fairly close) answer. Then he can hand it to a buddy and so on and so forth.

That is the advantage of this system - we assign a number that you can pass along to a friend and if he ran the test he would get that answer. Saving the trouble of loaning the rod and running the test again.

When I first started using CCS I would run it 3 times on the same rod, to make sure I go the same answer. Not because I doubted CCS, it makes sense. But because I did not have a procedure setup and worried about my testing methods. It was repeatable, so I was confident of my testing methods.

Now as to how a rod fishes CCS is one piece of a much bigger and vastly complex puzzle. A rod has fairly testable attributes like the Spring Constant (the IP/ERN), The Taper (which CCS AA gives you an idea of), The Resonant Frequency (a good indication of the maximum line speed), The Q, The Modulus of the rod, Material, Wall Thickness etc...

Then you have things that are almost impossible to test, like each individual casters' stroke/timing/ability, in combination with the lure wt, line, wind, etc. All these variables in combination are very difficult to repeat for testing (unless you have lots of money and time).

CCS is not meant to tell you how a rod fishes. It gives you a good idea of stiffness, taper, the amount of "power" the rod has.

The nice thing is that CCS does give you an approximate line number that will load that rod, for an average caster. This must be taken with a grain of salt. All the other variables mentioned above will effect how you apply CCS to a line recommendation.


Christian