Bob Hesser and Steve Kartalia

In the next issue of RodMaker, Tom is publishing a rather long article of mine on how to determine Common Cents Frequency (CCF) and how it relates to the feel of a fly rod.

I believe most anglers will recognize the frequency of a rod is the “missing factor” needed to explain why two rods having the same ERN and AA can feel significantly different.

Use of the CCF in conjunction with ERN will now allow anglers to distinguish between rods which have fast recovery times (i.e. higher frequencies) due to their material of construction (modulus) and those whose fast recovery time results simply because they are stiffer (higher ERN)

With the publication of my simple test method (takes less than a minute) and the information it can reveal, I predict that the next “hot item” for serious rod builders will be frequency determination, and a “frequency race” will develop among the builders of what most anglers consider “fast action” rods. I will be demonstrating this technique at the upcoming Charlotte Show.

With this final part of the CCS in place, rod builders can now inscribe their rods with the notation of the rod’s ERN/AA/CCF. As a consequence of this, I believe you should give serious thought about introducing another column in the Common Cents Data Base to handle these data. Of course, this will create a whole new set of blank spaces to be filled in for the rods already listed.

Let me know if you need more information,
Bill

Bill,
I am really glad to see this and am anxious to read your article. I agree that rod speed or resonant frequency is the key missing element to your CC System. Everything shows up in resonant frequency, length, power, action angle, weight, modulus, and if you have come up with an easy way of measuring it rod builders will be able to see the affects of many of the things that they are doing and will be able to build better rods.

What Dr. Bill has come up with is not resonant frequency, per se, but it is based on a similar concept. And, in fact, that is the beauty of the CCF - it makes sense, it's relative, it's objective and yet you needn't have any specialized equipment to perform the meaurement nor to interpret the results. Anybody can do it and no special knowledge or equipment is needed outside of the information given in the article.

Will it give you the actual resonant frequency of these rods and blanks? No, but it needn't do that. I don't think rod builders or fishermen really want to know what the resonant frequency of these things are - they just want some way to compare how different rods "feel" compared to one another. Sure, resonant frequency would certainly do that, but it would also require equipment and knowledge that most won't have available. So, the CCF system provides them with an easier and more practical means for doing the same thing, at least insofar as being able to put some sort of a number on "feel" and being able to use it for comparison.


...........

Hi Bill,

I look forward to the article. Adding a column for CCF will not be a problem. As soon as the 1st set of data is submitted with the measurement, I'll note the new information and reference the article in RM. I hope others will start submitting more data, it's been pretty slow lately!

Thanks - Bob

I'm one of the slackers in this regard. I've gotten a dozen new blanks in the past month or so and simply been too sorry to run the system and enter the numbers. I'll try to get on it later this week.

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

Bill,

I'll look forward to reading your article and to start measuring CCF. I will test and report rods/blanks that I currently have in posession and those that I will acquire from now on. However, I hardly own any of the blanks or rods for which I have already reported ERN and AA. Keep up the good work.

Steve

...and I've procrastinated ordering the past Rodmaker issue (so that I can start doing this) so long, I'll just pick it up from Tom in Charlotte, now! Now who's the best procrastinator!!!!

Putter