I just completed reading (and rereading) Dr. Hanneman's Dynamic Characterization of Fly Rods article in the latest edition of Rodmaker. It is well written and fairly simple to understand. However, instead of giving a reference chart where a given resonant frequency or tip speed indicates a rod with either a faster or slower recovery speed (I hope I'm close in my understanding), it is to be used to check the CCF of a rod one already has and enjoys/prefers it's feel, and would use the derived number as a base line to determine if another rod will have the identical "feel" without casting it . . . . or did I miss the boat on this? Thanks.

No, I think you're pretty close. This is how things should be done because a number only means something when viewed in relation to another number. Let's say we have a rod that comes out to say, "60." What would that mean? Nothing really, until we have another number to compare to. So in order to reference the numbers, Dr. Hanneman provided a sample charte (glass, noodle, cannon, broomstick, etc.) to set the state for the relation of the involved numbers.

If you can assign a number to rod you have now, one that you are very familar with, then it becomes far more simple to take other numbers and relate to them based on the "feel" you already know.

I know there have been some discussions on resonant frequency on this board over the past couple years. But in and of itself, resonant frequency really doesn't tell you anything about a rod (unless you have the knowledge to be able to interpret the data). This is why Dr. Hanneman went with a similar yet different approach whereby a rod you already own can become your "baseline" and the resulting numbers on other rods can inform you as to how those will "feel" compared to what you already have.

.......

I also read it twice and think I like it. Resonant frequency readings would mean absolutely nothing to me and I'm not going to take the time to try and understand them. But what Dr. Bill has here is easy enough to understand and I can form my own baseline with the rods I already own. For any system to be adopted it has to be easy enough for the dubs who are going to use it to be able to do it and understand it. This one is and I think I'm probably the average dub when it comes to stuff like this.

Resonant frequency is not a relative number. It is an absolute number, at least within the accuracy that it can be measured. The resonant frequency of a rod or blank is the resonant frequency of that rod or blank, period, just like the length is the length and the weight is the weight. I will agree though that it is most useful for most people in comparing one rod to another. The major disadvantage that it has that Bill Hanneman's relative numbers do not have is that most people do not have the necessary test equipment to measure the resonant frequency on rods that have relatively high resonant frequencies. On the other hand Bill Hanneman's numbers have some disadvantages as well but it is probably not appropriate to go into them at this point.

Right, most people don't have the equipment to take resonant frequency readings nor would most know what they were looking at even if they did.

To be of the most benefit to the most people it needs to tell them what they want to know in a manner that is easy, quick, relative to something they can pinpoint and not require them to undergo too much "re-education." This is what Dr. Hanneman was after and it's where I think he succeeded.

Obviously, putting a relative number on a subjective thing such as "feel" isn't easy. What we need know are some people to run their rods through the test and see how the numbers compare to their own sense of those same rods and their comparitive "feel."

Dr. Hanneman will be featuring this new component part of the CCS in Charlotte this weekend.

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

I skimmed the article .... I'll reread it Friday night ... then I'll try to corner Dr. Hanneman on Saturday if I still don't understand the entire
System.