We all know that the correct and accepted (among builders) definition of action is based on where the rod initially flexes. However, we also know that many fly fishermen do not share our definition and the misleading diagrams in many tackle catalogs could be the reason. Many diagrams show the rod being cast and the customer expects his rod to flex like that when the rod is cast. Of course, if you load it up, it keeps flexing deeper and deeper and even if the rod is a true fast action rod, it will eventually resemble the curve of a moderate action rod under load. The diagram of course does not take this into account at all or provide much useful information.

Since the CCS has come out and we have a more quantitative way of measuring action, many of us are discovering that low power rods that flex deeply in many cases are actually fast action rods. Take for example the many fiberglass fly rods that I have fooled around with over the last few years. Most have been in the 3.0-4.5 ERN range and rated as 6-7wt. rods. Most people who pick them up and cast them comment on how they are much slower action than the rods they are used to. In fact, they all have AAs of 65-73 and are faster than many of the modern graphite rods they are trying to compare them to. But, when fished with the manufacturer-desgnated line weight, they flex so deeply that this is not what people are noticing. They are noticing the whole blank in motion, not what the tip is doing under minimal load.

So, while on the one hand I can see why we should continue to use the word "action" based on it's correct definition, I have noticed a lot of fishermen being frustrated or confused - and therefore disappointed - by rod purchases based on what they think the definition of action is. Rods with tons of power are judged by anglers to be fast action even though they may not be. And, rods with low power are often judged as slow action even though they are plainly fast action based on the correct definition.

My thoughts are that if the CCS catches on and people become familiar with the DBI (ERN/AA) then they will eventually understand what's going to happen when a particular rod is placed under varying amounts of load. But, I don't see this as happening any time soon and in the meantime some sort of clarity would be helpful. Unfortunately, many of the rod manufacturers and retailers (like Cabela's fly rod action diagrams) are precisely the ones perpetuating the misinformation, even though their blank designers obviously know the real story on "action". So, playing devil's advocate here, if the rod manufacturers and the rod retailers are not using the term correctly, shouldn't we just adapt to the commonly held but incorrect definition, in the interest of better communication?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2005 11:22AM by Steve Kartalia.

The problem with the fishermen's definition of "action" is that they don't have one. Ask 5 fishermen to define rod action and you'll get 5 different answers if any at all. That's why we use the rod building definition - it's the only quantifiable definition that exists thus far.

The action charts used in many rod building catalogs are from an older Fenwick diagram that was actually quite poor. They show the same fast action blank in varying degrees of flex with the names 'Fast, Medium, Slow" next to the same blank as it is flexed deeper and deeper. That hasn't helped.

One thing that will help the CCS catch on among fly fishermen, is taking the system to them. Most have not even had the chance to hear about it. Next year in Charlotte (and other locations perhaps) Dr. Hanneman will no longer be part of the Rod Builders Show - he'll be part of the Fly Fishing Show. The information needs to make it's way into general fly fishing and fishing publications. Rod building is simply where it got it's foot in the door because nobody else would publish it.

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

Steve,
You make an interesting and thought provoking point. I think that the basic problem is that a blank is a very complex structure that is difficult, maybe impossible, to completely describe in simple terms. However, we now, as a result of the Common Sense System, have a way of quantifying power and action which I think is a big improvement over what we previously had. Previously we were using soft almost meaningless terms. We can not, as a result of the Common Sense System, completely describe the characteristics of a blank but at least we now have an agreed upon way of measuring and quantifying power and action. The Common Sense System does not permit us to completely describe the characteristics of a blank but it is a big improvement and I do not think that we want to go backwards.

Thanks for chiming in guys. As you might have guessed, I would greatly prefer all builders and anglers adopt the correct definition or else stop using the term to describe the wrong thing. And, ideally everyone would use the CCS and we can all speak about blanks quantitatively. I had never heard the origin of the misleading action diagram before. That makes a lot of sense and we all know that once something makes it onto the printed page, it often becomes either misused or misinterpreted.

Good idea having Hanneman take the information to the fishermen. They can benefit from it as much or more than builders can. Unfortunately, I feel he will meet a lot of resistance from many in the fly fishing community who hold onto old myths and opinions like it's religious doctrine. Just because someone once described a particular classic bamboo taper or Sage LL blank or Winston IM6 blank as slow action does not make it so!

All new ideas meet with resistance, but in the end, if they had much merit to begin with, they get adopted. It may not happen in the next year or two, but come back in 10 and I think you'll find the Common Cents system numbers to be in full use.

..........

Steve: If you think a bit (and you're thinking real good), in a matter such as this there are no correct definitions, or incorrect ones, only conflicting definitions which need to be replaced by commonly-accepted definitions. There are however useful definitions (the CCS embodies those for fly rods), not-so-useful definitions (I'd argue that the CCS, as presently constructed, is of limited value for my heavier FW and SW rods), and useless definitions.

Good point. Don't see too many defenders of the flat earth theory or models of the sun going around the earth these days. I hope you are right in your prediction.

Once you define something, it becomes correct by definition. Action has long had one written definition. The CCS has its own set of definitions (not in conflict with the original Action defintion however). Action Angle is equally relevant on any rod, light freshwater or heavy surf or what have you.

Again, go ask 5 fishermen for the definition of action. If they can give you one, ask them where you can find it in written or published form. Find the definition of "The Winston Action" or "Modified Mult Modulus Action" or any of the others. Fact is, they don't exist. There is no definition behind them. They're marketing terms only.

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

Tom D., I started this post specifically based on my observations with fly rods and how people describe fly rods. I think the term "action" means the same thing no matter what type of blank you're describing, although I agree with you that the CCS was designed for fly fishermen and may be most useful for fly rods and blanks. I gotta think about that one some more though. No matter what type of blank, CCS will still always give you relative power and action you can compare to other blanks. You'll just need one helluva lot more money to test your blank.

Tom, this is semantics, but once you define something, it merely becomes defined. Correctness is not involved, since there may be other, conflicting definitions. Usefulness is, or should be, involved. If useful, a defintion may become commonly-accepted, but not necessarily. It is possible to have two, conflicting definitions that both lead to useful but quite different measurements of the same parameter.

A system could be devised, and probably has, that measures deflection of different rod blanks with a fixed weight. (Rather than, as with the CCS, a fixed deflection with variable weights.) After suitable collection and analysis of data, numerical "power" ratings could be assigned. Such a system would be useful only within a certain range of blank powers. Different weights would have to be employed to give useful numerical results for other powers. But the results from two or more fixed weights would give overlapping results, which would result in a unified system (involving stepped weights) over the ranges studied.

You can say (although I don't) that both systems are correct. Better to decide which system, if either, is more useful. Regardless of intrinsic merits, the one which becomes more commonly accepted, applied, and has its results publicly disseminated will ultimately be more useful. I applaud your efforts to move the CCS in that direction.

Except, as I said, I have problems extending the CCS easily (measurement-wise) and meaningfully (without excessive non-linear extrapolation) to my heavier spinning and casting rods.

Tom; I have had no difficluty using the CCS test on a Loomis 1266S surf spinning rod to determine the ERN as well as the AA. What part of the CCS seems inapproprate for heavier blanks or rods?
Dave

Dave: The problems were: 1. The number of pennies required, hundreds, not easy to attach securely to the tip of an unfinished blank (a finished rod is less of a problem). Not a big deal actually, I could substitute lead weights and easily calibrate those, although doing so has been discouraged by the developer and promoter of the method. 2. The fact that the results are way off Hanneman's original work for fly rods, so there is a large, necessary, non-linear extrapolation. The results obtained that way are not of much use to me, and, at least at present, to others, because of lack of data and analysis in that range.

The Action Angle is not a problem with respect to the heavier rods. Except that, as others have noted, for faster action rods (such as I use for my FW bass fishing), the measurements are quite compressed, thus subject to accuracy and precision problems in measurement. But that was not the thrust of my earlier posts.

Steve. I am reminded of the famous exchange between Alice in Wonderland and Humpty Dumpty over his misuse of the word "Glory", and his insistence that he can give the word any meaning he likes. Alice complains that he has re-defined the word, and Humpty responds that the question is who is the master, you or the word? As Lewis Carroll so comically illustrates, you can take the concept of words to a place where no intelligent communication is possible. If we define "action" and the other concepts using CCS, the Humptys will either come around, or will become irrelevant to the discourse.

Thanks Don. I agree that fewer words and more numbers would improve the situation. And it would be educational for a lot of fly fishermen who have never measured power and action with CCS. AA is pretty important to casting when you are casting small amounts of line. Once you begin to really tap into the power of any blank, the AA becomes less important and how much power, defined by ERN, the blank has takes over as the most important factor. At least that is my opinion based on my experience. So, if you cast 10' of line with a rod that measures 4.0/72 it will flex quite differently than a rod that measures 4.0/60. But if you put 50' of line in the air, the rods will become more similar in how they flex. The AA also plays a role in hooksetting, fish playing, tippet protecting, etc.

I'm not really a stickler for word use but I do find it difficult to understand why something as basic as a rod's Action is so misunderstood by not just fishermen but a lot of builders too. CCS can solve that if people would just use it.

The CCS works better than other systems that used fixed weights and then assigned numbers or powers to the amount of flex, precisely because those systems could not take into account the taper or action of the rod. The CCS does and this makes it relative across the board.

The CCS is 100% correct by definition. It has to be. Is the length of an inch correct? Of course it is - it is correct by virtue of the definition given it by it's creator.

I have not seen any deviation in the CCS on heavier rods. Action Angle is action angle and power is power. A system of relative measurement does not consider what it is measuring, it just measures it. I may not be aware of what it is you are trying to do with the system.

The only problem I can see with the CCS on heavier rods is that you must use more weight to achieve the required deflection. But it will still give you the action and power on a relative scale according to the system and it will still be useful for across the board comparisons.

The word Action is misused mostly because the advertising people took it and used it incorrectly. And we all get the various rod company catalogs and find those baseless action terms there. It's something that has gradually seeped into the minds of most fishermen and even many rod builders. But again, ask them for a definition of action and you'll find that most can't give you one nor can they tell you where to locate one.

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

I've had no problem with the common cents numbers on even heavy rods. The ERN is a relative power rating and I've yet to see a rod with a higher number possess less power than a rod with a lower number. So I too am having trouble understanding what Tom (Doyle) is speaking of. I don't believe you would even find that a rod with a higher ERN is less powerful than a rod with a lower ERN.

The one thing that I do find people to mis-understand is the whole concept of a relative power rating. The ERN is not a suggested casting weight. It is a power rating. It is possible to take a power rating and somewhat convert that to a casting weight such as Dr. Hanneman did with his Rosetta Stone chart, but the ERN itself is a power rating, not a casting weight.

You're right - I did forget that some builders are trying to use the ERN as a casting lure weight figure. It is a relative power rating, not a casting lure weight.

You can,however, use the Big Picture on the rod's tip area to measure and convert to casting lure weight if you want. Or you can use the earlier equations I gave on converting ERN to casting lure weight range. But this generally isn't necessary as most casting and spinning rod blanks already come from the factory with a suggested casting weight range.

..........

I like the system, but, Dr. Hannemen says there is nothing subjective about CCS. I say there is, his definition. Where did the 30% flex come from and its penny-weight corelation to line weight? This has bothered me the whole time.
As far as taking it to the massses, remember the resistance from the FAOL board? However I think most of the nay-sayers there came from the artical saying "look what I devised" with out telling people how to do it themselves. Telling the masses "how", instead of just "what", may work

The thrill is not in the kill

Dr. Hannemen did tell them how. Precisely how, in the articles. Many of the "naysayers," however, hadn't actually read the articles. They picked up bits and pieces from message boards and then made unqualified judgements based on a real lack of factual information. I participated in some of the discussions on FAOL and in some cases some off those most vehemently opposed to the system were asked if they had actually read the articles. Many if not most said that, no they had not actually read the articles.

The CCS is not at all subjective. Let me ask you this - where did the length of an inch come from? Does it matter? Or is it most important that that that length is a standard; a constant and that it can be used to take relative measurements.

The deflection equal to 30% of the rod length and using pennies as a weight constant do not make the CCS subjective. Because it is a system of relative measurement and treats each rod the same and measures each one by the same constant, it is purely objective.

Many people tend to overlook that the CCS is in no way different from other systems of relative measurement - length, temperature, etc. Constants have to be devised and/or set by the originators. But that does not make the final system or its measurements subjective.

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

Arthur: If I were trying to evaluate the relative power of several rods, then I could chose a single weight that would deflect all of them appreciably, measure that deflection (D), and then "define" a "Relative Power" (RP) value as the amount of deflection corrected by the length (L) of the rod. The ratio D/L would probably do for that purpose (this would need to be tested with data from actual rods). These measurements would be very easy to obtain. I would not argue that RP measurements are correct, merely that they are defined as the value D/L. I would expect the RP values so obtained to have the same relative order as ERN values, though the slope and curve of plots of the two sets of values would surely be different. RP values would not be immediately or directly useful for assigning casting weights, this would follow if at all only after extensive data collection, analysis and correlation with casting performance (difficult to obtain). In other words, a similar situation as with the CCS.

Tom K: The "suggested casting weight range" that manufactuers provide with surf rods are notoriously unhelpful. This is not only my experience, it is a constant refrain of posts on various surf fishing boards. Everyone is asking, "Will this rod really handle 8 oz?" Or, "I need a rod that's sweet at 6 oz., where can I find one?" There is a real need for a way to objectively answer such questions about casting weights.