Well, I finally got around to dabbling with the Common Cents System last night, and was amazed to confirm what I had experienced with this blank; namely, it is not a 4wt. I used 14.5-grain lead pellets for the ERN test (not enough pennies on hand), and it required only ninety pellets to reach the one-third mark. That number of pellets gives me a total of 1305 grains, which falls short of being able to call this blank a 4wt.

Not exactly. The blank or rod is exactly what the manufacturer claims it is. Remember, there is no standard that must be adhered to in order to rate a blank for any particular line weight. That maker may have intended it to be used at shorter distances, and a 4-weigh line may be required at those distances in order to properly load the rod. Too bad we don't have a standard and have to guess what the designer intended, but at least we do have the CCS now.

I think you'll find that it probably does excel with a 4-weight at shorter distances, which is exactly what the ERN most likely indicates. For longer regular or longer distances, a 3-weight line will probably work best for most people.

What ERN did it arrive at? What about the AA?

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

Using Dr. Hanneman's calculation and a 4wt line weighing 120 grains, we get an IP = 10 * 120 + 4 * 60 = 1440 grains. The rod required 1305 grains (the actual figure is probably less because the bag overshot the mark on the ninetieth pellet) to reach the one-third deflection point; thus, 1305 (90 * 14.5 grain pellets) / 1440 * 4 = ERN of 3.63 (using a 114 grain line as the baseline, the ERN would be 3.78). The funny thing is that almost all of my 4wt lines weight more than 120 grains (a couple weight more than 126 grains).

You are probably right about the blank being rated for short distances. From my personal experience, this blank starts to feel like a wet noodle when one tries to aerialize more than twenty-five feet of 4wt line.

One last thing: I hope to get to the recording AA this weekend.

I may be all wet here but when I started learning the CCS system I was coming up with all of my ERN's slightly under the designed weight of the blank, especially on 4 and 5 piece blanks. I then re-read the articles and the tips Tom Kirkman wrote and made an interesting discovery that I should have realized to begin with. I found that after finding the spine for all peices, I needed to assemble the rod on that line and then re-find the spine of the assembled rod. Also I paid more attention to the level factor and support factor at the butt end of the rod. I then re-rated them and came up with a ERN that was more consistent to the manufactor's desing rating. This is probably not your case with the blank in question but these things do make a difference while using the CCS system. The guide wrap line also influences the peformance of the rod as rated by the CCS system when using the same line. What I am saying is that I can make a rod for short casting distances and longer distances from the same brand, weight and length blank.

Your 4 weight lines weight different amounts at different distances/lengths. If the rod takes 1305 grains to load, then you can achieve that amount with nearly any line weight, per some length. Any rod will cast any line - at some distance.

This is why manufacturers can rate their rods with any number they like and technically, they're going to be correct. What they don't tell you is at what distance they rated the rod for. This is where so much confusion and disappointment enters the picture.

...........

Tom,

I have read the CCS articles several times and still don't seem to be able to use the CCS data the way I'd like. Some flyfishermen choose the line weight they want to cast based upon conditions, size of fly to be cast, mid-range casting, etc., and want a rod they feel comfortable fishing that line weight with. So I'd like to be able to use the CCS to target a blank if I want to fish with a five weight line for example.

It has been said one way or another that any rod can cast a range of line weights at some distance. This is true, and I understand that statement. But if i want to cast a five weight line I need to start somewhere. I believe that I have also read that ERN doesn't specify line number of a rod. I understand that statement. The ERN doesn't tell me what line weight the rod will cast best at 60 feet, or at 10 feet, with a rod with an ERN of 4.5. I understand that the ERN is just a measurment of power.

So maybe you could provide your opinion on how to use ERN assuming that all casters cast equally well (in the same manner), and that all flyfishermen want to aerialize 30 feet of line beyond the rod's tip all day long. If ERN can be used to measure the rod's power, can we use that power measurement to identify the line weight (AFTMA - assuming all line makers use the same standard) to choose for casting 30 feet?

Those of us who understand that 60 feet of line weigh more than 20 feet of line can take it from there. We might choose to go down a line weight (or more) if we think we'll be casting greater than 30 feet of line most of the day, or go up one line weight if we think we'll be casting less than 30 feet of line most of the day.

I'm just looking for a starting point.

Jeff Shafer

Okay, let me start by telling you my personal experience when I was first trying out the CCS (I don't just put stuff in the magazine because it happens to show up in my mailbox).

Over the years I've tried many fly rods for my smallmouth bass river fishing. The trial and error process resulted, after buying many, many blanks and building many, many rods, in finding a couple blanks that really seemed to be exactly what I was after. When the CCS came along, I measured them and found that both had AA readings of between 68 and 72 and both had an ERN of about 5.70 to 5.90 or so. Remember, these rods cast the distances I like to fish and with 5-weight lines. So, I now presumed that any rod with a similar AA and ERN would cast very well for me, at these same fishing/casting distances with a 5-weight line. I began looking at other blanks. I bought more, measured them and built them. In every case, the rods that I liked the best, that worked the best for me in this particular fishing situation, were those with similar AA and ERN ratings. I have yet to be disappointed when selecting a blank with similar AA and ERN ratings, in similar material construction, and find those few I've found with these numbers to also be very pleasant to use. The ones with different ERN and AA readings were all good rods, but they didn't suit me in this situation and with a #5 line.

I've followed up this testing with other favorite rods of mine of various line weights. I know what the ERN figure is going to mean to me and at what distances which lines will match, for me.

Now for you - let's start by taking Dr. Hanneman's ERN = ELN equation. In such a situation, a rod with an ERN of say, 5.5, will be matched with a 5-weight line with 30 feet of line aerialized. In general, this rod would perform well with that line at distances of from about 25 to 40 feet or so of line past the tip. You can probably push out to 65 feet if you need to, if you're pretty good at shooting line. In closer than 25 feet or so, you'll most likely need to line it with a 6-weight line to make it work. Much further than 65 feet or so and you'll probably have to drop back to a 4 to keep it from "caving."

Okay, this is a pretty good working scenario for most people. But let's say you have that same rod with an ERN of 5.5 and find that with 30 feet of line aerialized you still don't feel like the rod is working for you, or that it's being overloaded. Good enough - it's time to fine tune the ERN to your personal casting style.

Let's say the rod isn't loading for you with a #5 line with about 30 feet past the tip. Okay, put a 6 weight line on it and try it again. If that makes the rod start working, then you now have a pretty good idea that for you and your casting style, the ERN of 5.5 is going to indicate ERN = ELN+1. And, you'll most likely find out that this will hold true as you move up or down in rod power with different blanks and rods. The key is finding out how the ERN relates to you. So on this same rod where I might like a combination of 4, 5 and 6 lines to cover all distances, you may find that the same ERN tells you to use 5, 6 and 7 to cover those same in close, medium and long distances.

The best way I know of to find out how the ERN relates to your personal style, is just to measure some rods you have now that you know very well - rods that you already have chosen the right line for the distances you use them for and are satisfied that you've got them well matched. You know what you like and what works for you, so work backwards and take those measurements and relate them to what you already know about those rods. Soon you'll get a feel for what line you would like on any particular rod and at any particular distance just from looking at the ERN and AA.

This may seem too simplified, but all systems of relative measurement are like this. We have to use them a bit in order to be able to relate to them. Nobody is born with an inherent knowledge of say, distance, How far is a mile? You don't know until you've walked a few or driven a few. At some point in life, you began to figure out how to relate to this measurement of a mile. Same with an inch, a pound, 50 degrees F, etc. etc. 50 degrees F is the same the world over and represents the same temperature - but you may prefer to wear a jacket because you find it cool, while I may find it warm and wear a t-shirt and shorts. Same temperature, but we relate to it differently - we've learned how it applies to our personal make up over the years.

At some point with a few rods under your belt, you'll look at a blank listed as having an ERN of say, 7.4 and you'll say, "Aha! I know exactly how much power that blank has." Then you'll see an AA of say, 68 and you'll think, "Okay, that blank will initially flex mostly in about this area." And more and more the blanks you buy won't surprise you - they'll be exactly as you envisioned them when you looked at the ERN and AA numbers. And you may say, "Okay, an ERN of 8.2 means that for my long distance flats fishing I'm going to need a #6 line." It may mean that another fisherman would choose a different weight line for his style and distance of course, even though all rods with an ERN of 8.2 will have the same power.

The key is keep in mind the relative nature of the system. You know at a glance that and ERN of 7 indicates more power than an ERN of 4. Now all you have to do is get a feel for how much power a unit of ERN represents to you and you've got the rest. Is this helpful?

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 10:11PM by Tom Kirkman.

Tom,

Yes, that was very helpful, and relates very well to my limited CCS experiences. Not long ago I finally got around to setting up an area to perform CCS measurements. I started out measuring a factory graphite rod I purchased in the early 1980’s, a rod I fished for a couple of years before starting to build my own. This rod had hung from a beam in my workshop for quite awhile until I introduced my son to flyfishing. Labeled a 4/5 weight I strung it with a five weight for him. The rod was slow in action and didn’t handle the DT five weight well on the large trout stream we fished. The ERN/AA of this rod is 3.57/56. The Loomis GL3 my son and I built together prior to a father/son trip to Yellowstone cast his DT five weight nicely under the conditions we fished. The ERN, 5.65.

More recently, I built two 7’9” rods labeled three weight by two different manufacturers. I knew going in that ERN’s for these blanks were 4+ but built them to fish a three weight line anyway. The ERN’s for these finished rods are 4.16 and 4.90 respectively and neither is fun to fish with a three weight line, especially at shorter distances. The 4.16 fishes nicely at shorter distances with a DT four weight. This was my first CCS lesson – trust that blanks that are CCS 4+ may not work well for me in short line situations.

An old favorite of mine for small streams is a Sage RP, 7’9”, three weight built from a blank. It always loads and fishes nicely with a DT three weight. The ERN, 3.12.

A more recent blank acquisition was a Winston IBIS, labeled five weight. The ERN when finished was 5.65 and I enjoy it on larger streams with a DT five weight.

I’m struggling to completely understand how to interpret the Dan Craft FT data. The 863-4 blank I built on measures at an ERN of 7.03 as a finished rod, yet the rod casts a three weight line nicely, but a four weight line a bit better (for me on large streams). Though I don’t know quite how to process this blank performance relative to ERN, it hasn’t stopped me from starting on a 904-4 FT.

Thanks Tom for providing the comprehensive response. It would be interesting to know whether a broad spectrum of casters’ interpretations would lead to the X.5 (4.5 performs well with a four weight line, 5.5 performs well with a five weight line) relationship. It seems to relate well to my casting style.

Jeff Shafer

I think you have a pretty good grasp of the how the system works and how to use to suit your personal casting style and distances.

On the Dan Craft blank, check the AA. If it is very high, say above 70 or 75, you end up being able to cast lines off the tip. This is one advantage of very fast action rods in my opinion, they will handle a wider degree of loads, either different lines or the same line at a wider range of distances.

When you see those higher AA figures indicating a very fast tip action rod, you can almost certainly expect the rod to have the ability to at least move down a line or two and still work reasonably well. Some of the Loomis GLX and older St. Croix SCIV models are also like this. Refer to part two of the CCS series, The Big Picture, for more information on how to break this sort of thing down.



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