I have data for 4 new Five Rivers FT models to share. I have 7 more models in my shop I will test and post, both here and in the database within the next week or so. Short versions are with butt section dropped for those looking for shorter fly rods or travel spinning rods, spin/fly combos, etc. use your imagination:

FT902-4 ERN = 7.03 AA = 78 6'9.5" version ERN = 4.60 AA = 70

FT903-4 ERN = 8.52 AA = 78 6'9.5" version ERN = 5.79 AA = 69

FT907-4 ERN = 10.33 AA = 79 6'9.5" version ERN = 8.52 AA = 74

FT908-4 ERN = 10.63 AA = 77 6'9.5" version ERN = 9.91 AA = 73

Some observations based on my FT experience and CCS experience:

Based on my casting experience with the FT863-4 and the fact that the numbers on the FT902-4 are almost identical, I would say FT902-4 will load okay with a light line like a 2 or a 3 if the caster is using a high energy sort of flick cast. In other words, very short quick stroke with sharp stops. Sort of like you're trying to cast a small jig a mile on a spinning rod. The FT903-4 seems to have a good bit more power than the FT863-4 but again, since this series of blanks seems to rely more on the tip action than the rest of the blank for casting the lighter lines, it will probably work as rated if matched up to the appropriate casting style.

When I build them, I will definitely let you know what I think but I can't guarantee that will be real soon. In any case, I personally will probably never fish either either of these light rods with a 2 or a 3 line just because I don't find those light lines very useful for the way I usually fish. I'm more of a 4-7wt. kind of guy and I expect both of these light FT rods to tear it up with those lines and the way I fish.

Also, keep in mind, as you probably know from Stan Grace's FT data in the database, and others, there is going to be a range in ERN within each model, not just in this series of blanks but all series of blanks. I guess that's just an artifact of the manufacturing process and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It does mean, however, that since this series contains a different model for each line wt., if you buy all the blanks in the series, it could well be that the FT903-4 you get could end up having a higher ERN than the FT904-4 you get. That would not be unique to this series of blanks though, just something that happens with blanks of all types. The FT actions are amazingly consistent which I think is something important that Dan can boast about since the actions of a lot of other blank series are all over the place depending on which model you get.

As usual, great finish, ferrule fit and perfect straightness. Never seen anything different from a Five Rivers blank.

I hope my input is helpful. I think this is exciting and interesting stuff, NERD that I am.

Steve

I think your data above illustrates the point I tried to make when CCS first came out. For rods at the extremes of action, either fast or slow, CCS breaks down as a predictor for matching a line to a rod. Nobody can argue with the intrinsic power numbers measured. They are what they are. How those number are interpretted however, can lead to misunderstandings. Looking at the 902-4, if you didn't know the design points of the blank, you would consider it a powerful 6wt rod, or a somewhat weak 7wt rod if you followed the ERN=ELN approximation. Here, as with all cases of using CCS, the system is best used as a comparison tool, not as a predictor of performance or "castability". The ERN=ELN approximation works best for rods in the "medium" range of action.

In your post the other day, where a fella got a 4wt blank that spec'ed out pretty high, you were right on to tell him that it didn't quite match up with his other favorites. That's the proper use of the CCS tool, to compare one blank or rod with another. When you mentioned that your friend got a bit upset and went back to the original seller with some questions, that's not really the proper use of CCS. As Dan Craft demonstrates with great skill, an X-weight rod can spec out to numbers that may be misleading if you don't take into account the design points of the rod, but that doesn't necessarily mean something was improperly labelled, or sold as something it was not.

Power is a good measurement, but it needs to be used in context. A high ERN rod can be a tip action "wrist flick" sort of rod like Dan's, where the intent is a very fast acceleration and an equally fast stop, or it could be a slow glass rod where the caster has time to read a book waiting for the line to straighten out in the backcast. Nobody would ever confuse the two in lawn casting.

Saying "someone's 6wt rod can be someone else's 2wt rod" can be misleading. Someone could easily look at Dan's FT specs and say he's trying to sell 6wt rods as 2wt rods, and I think we'd both agree that is not the case at all.

Bob

Bob,

I couldn't agree more with everything you say. Dan is not trying to sell these rods to people who like reading a book on their backcast and the design of them won't let you do that anyway. To me, with this series of blanks the most important aspect is that they all have very very fast actions. Of secondary interest is that they have loads of power. I agree that the number one and single most useful aspect of the CCS is to compare rods to ones you know you like or dislike.

I like a wide variety of rods for the different attributes they have. From Steffen Bros. S-glass to St. Croix SCIV to Five Rivers FT, they all are very good at doing what they are designed to do. These FT rods can be specialist rods for the "wrist flicker" OR versatile multi-line rods for those of us who don't mind adjusting our casting stroke a lot to accommodate load and other factors.

Steve

Bob and everyone else, I want to add one thing to this. Comparing rods is the strength and main purpose of the CCS. Hanneman said it himself that this is why he invented it. However, once each person tests a bunch of rods for himself, it does in fact become a very good tool for predicting what lines THAT PERSON will like on a given rod or blank. The problem is that apparently very few people have actually tested rods, all many have done is read about the system. In my opinion, and absolutely no offense intended to Hanneman or anyone else, the system can never be all that useful for predicting what line a person will like on a given rod because EVERYONE LIKES SOMETHING DIFFERENT. By the way, I'm not yelling, just emphasising and I can't use bold on this site.

I urge all flyfisherman to buy the $4 CCS pamphlet if you don't subscribe to RodMaker. Then take all your fly rods and test them. Then test everything else you can get your hands on. Then, and only then, will these numbers start to make sense in a meaningful way to YOU.

In the meantime they will still be comparative numbers that are very useful to those of us who test rods, and maybe a good bit less useful to those of you who don't.

A while ago I emailed Dan and asked if he had anything in a 10' 9wt blank and he said his FT1008-4 was actualy closer to a 9wt . I did a quick check of the blank before I started assy and the ERN was 8.84 - exactly what I was looking for. I can't wait to see how it handles Salmon fishing this fall.

Steve and Bob--you've done rodbuilders and fly fishermen a favor with your posts. Thank you. Most of you know I'm a big fan of CCS, but it must be understood as it was intended to be understood. Even after testing hundreds of blanks and knowing better, I was still surprised with the first FT's I built because of the CC numbers...I found I liked them best with the rated line every time, irrespective of the ERN. I cast a pretty wide range of actions in my fishing, but one thing I'm not is a stereotypical "fast" caster...yet I love this series! So far, I've built the 863-4, 904-4, 905-4, 906-4, 1005-4, and 1007-4 and every one of them gets fished with the line DAN rated them for. In fact the 1007-4 is a switch rod and I use an AirFlo Delta short belly spey SIX wt on it. Looking at CCS ERN numbers, who'd of thunk?!

TOTALLY PERSONAL (read: biased) observation, but as good as the 9'-ers are, the 10's are freakin amazing. That probably makes sense if you consider my statement that I'm not a "fast" caster...the 10's have a lower AA.

And Tim--you're going to fall in love. :)

By the way--our stocking order is now enroute to our Virginia and Calgary warehouses, which means beginning next week we can provide next-day shipping on Dan's entire lineup! :)

SEVENTY-NINE?

I have broomsticks that are slower than that.
Wow.

But it's all OK as I have a 908-4 here for myself. Slow by comparison, LOL.

Good thread here. The ideal way to "know" blanks is through lots of testing, lots of casting, lots of fishing, and lots of information and feedback sharing. And, maybe the testing is the least important thing in that list, but it can still save us all a lot of time and frustration. This format and specifically this site is great. The great thing to me is that with the CCS and this site, and new and innovative blank designs, such as the FT series, it can all come together here and help us learn much faster as a group. As a hobbiest, it is a great outlet where I can obsess about things that in the big picture really don't matter. To me, that is one major purpose of a hobby. I would think another very real benefit is to the PROs out there that rely on knowledge, expertise, and understanding to build better rods for customers and make more money. Some of this stuff would just take forever to learn if you had to figure it all out for yourself.

Thanks for sharing that with us Steve and keep up the great work!

If it weren't for your time and effort put into using the CCS,and your generosity to share that knowledge with us all,I doubt the CCS data base would have half the info that it currently does.You are one of the few who really makes that data base a wealth of information that the rest of us take for granted.I just wanted to take a minute to say THANK YOU for sharing all the info you have obtained with this system.I for one,truly appreciate what you do.

Whoa, thanks Tony. I'm glad the input is helpful to you and others. But, to be perfectly honest, you might be giving me too much credit. Don't confuse my nerdish obsession with this stuff with altruistic behavior.

Anyway, it's great that the database is there (thanks to Bob Hesser) and that the system exists and was published (thanks to Hanneman and Kirkman). I appreciate your note.

Steve