i hope the CC system becomes widespread in use. i hope i can get off my butt and order the back issues so i can read up on everything written so far; having a benchmark or common foundation would be best for everyone and i know i personally lack full comprehension. but it all reminds me of the basic dynamics of language itself. in english, there are fundamental rules for arranging words, or even something as basic as spelling. regional dialect, ignorance or laziness is always a culprit, an obstacle to communication and widespread adoptance. and there are a lot of builders and buyers without internet access or knowledge of seminars which could provide the education.

moving hanneman's presentation outside the rodbuilding circle is a GREAT step.

eric
fresno, ca.

In fact, the length of an inch is based upon the distance between the tip and first joint of one man's thumb. Not your or my thumb, but that of the originator. Many of our most useful systems of measurement have constants that were rather arbitrary in their origin.

But what is important is not where they came from nor what they are based upon, but that they are consistent in use. This makes them totally objective as they do not fluctuate or change.

The common cents system is certainly totally objective as well. It makes no judgements nor assigns no labels. It only takes measurements. Any subjective part is left up to the user. Is a blank with an AA of 65 a fast action blank? The CCS does not make any such distinction; it only provides us the measurement and tells us that a blank with an AA of 65 is faster than a blank with an AA of 60 yet slower than one with an AA of 70. It shows us that a blank with an ERN of 8.5 is more powerful than one with an ERN of 6 and yet less powerful than one with an ERN of 10. That is all.

This is no different than asking someone if an object that measures 3 feet in length is a long object. You cannot answer the question until you have something to compare it to. All we know is that it would be longer than an object 2 feet in length and shorter than one 4 feet in length.

All these systems, including the CCS, are totally objective and most important, relative systems of measurement. What their constants are based upon is really of no consequence.

Mr. Doyle, Your suggestion will not work and it has been tried before. The trouble with it is that you would need to have rods with exactly the same actions or flex patterns otherwise that fixed weight deflection will not be relative across the board. Dr. Hanneman's approach of using a percentage of rod length and deflecting to a standard distance and then measuring he weight is much, much better.

In the scenario you provide, less powerful blanks could actually end up with higher power numbers than more powerful blanks. The action of amount of tip flex confuses such fixed weight systems. This is why I believe the earlier ones that were briefly in use have died out.

I would suggest you read the excellent article on surf rods in the volume 7 #1 issue of RodMaker. The manufacturers weight range suggestions are helpful and accurate but most don't know how to read them. I thought the article greatly helped understand how a person's casting ability and power figured into which end of the range you need to look at. It certainly helped me determine what part of the range would apply to me for my ability and strength.

The CCS doesn't know whether it's measuring a fly rod blank or a surf rod blank. It's going to be accurate for either. It sounds to me like what you need to do is develop a chart or conversion to take the measurements for action and power (AA and ERN) and correlate those to your requirements for casting weight ranges for the type rods you're working with.

This wouldn't be hard to do. If you have a good assortment of surf rods and already know what the best casting weight ranges for each is, you can begin charting the related DBI for each and possibly find a correlation to the best casting weights. Having some known and/or correct weight ranges to begin with will aid greatly in getting a good conversion. It would certainly be an interesting project.

The equations I've listed here in the past were arrived at in similar fashion. I find them to work very well for the rods I'm dealing with.

That's the nice thing about the CCS - once you have the data you can use it to develop your own conversions for things like casting weight ranges. Add in the CCF and you can possibly do even more.

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