So I'm a supporter of the CCS site as the data allows me to make at least some form of comparison from one blank to the next. I can't say that I have enough experience to say if it works in all cases, but so far it seems like it is accurate enough.

With that said, I've been reading quite a bit of info on other sites, and found that the concept isn't particularly well recieved by some folks. Specifically speaking there are a lot of folks in the 2 handed fly world that feel that CCS isn't all that it is cracked up to be. The sentiments range from, "it's a good starting point", to full fledged "it's a total pile of crap! Some of the threads involve Dr Hanneman having to defend his work and often the replies back and forth aren't what I would call "loving".

So I'm wondering what rod builders here feel about this subject as it's mostly people who *cast* the rods that seem to have the most negatives to say.

If there is a difference or decrepency of the CCS for 2 handed rods, are there ways to tweak the CCS such that it accounts for what people feel isn't captured?

I know that the CCS is used as a guideline and won't describe the characteristics of a rod to the Nth degree, but mostly I'm wondering if the system as currently implemented is good enough as is, or if more specialized tests could be thought up to provide more meaningful feedback... Of course I would really like to get the Doc to let me know exactly what he feels, because at this point, it's his personal work that is getting attacked!

-- Cheers
-- James

James,
Sounds like there are some people out there that need a life.
I use the system to answer questions, it's I don't think, ever been designed or advertised to be the "answer." It sure makes it nice to understand why certain rods work for me, it wasn't designed to tell me which rod to use. It doesn't just work on fly rods.

I find that having the ERN and AA measurements available are a great help when looking for a blank that is similar to one I wish to duplicate. When the CCF data is also available you have tools at your disposal to help in blank selection that are much more objective than any other method I'm aware of. I'm not surprised that some disparage the CCS information as the numbers may not support popular beliefs. I'm always amazed at the extreme range of definitions that people use to define rod action as one example.

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 02:57PM by Stan Grace.

As Tom has explained many times - they aren't getting it.

Fundamentally CCS is a measurement - The ERN is application for fly rods.

The Power and Action Angle are empirical - They are what they are. it is impossible for them to be a "pile of" anything. Anyone can that that same rod and get the same result (if they do it correctly).

The ERN is an application of those measurements - One based on an individual caster. Most of the time is pretty good. But it is not the CCS system it is an application of CCS. If they want to go through and test cast Spey Rods and correlate Power and AA to 2 Handers then they would most likely find a correlation (an ERN) that works for 2 handers.

Think of it like shoe sizes. One brand of (US)10 C shoe is the same length and with as another 10 C Shoe. And you know your foot works well with a 10 C. Now you take your pet alligator and get shoes for it. You guess he needs a 10 C, but the shoe keeps falling off or his feet won't fit. That doesn't mean the 10C show wasn't 10C it means your application didn't match the purpose (and to avoid annoying the alligator - don't get alligator skin boots).

Christian

With all the ( HYPE) out there and companies making 1/2 weight fly lines only showing that this system IS NEEDED !!
Maybe it can be improved, but for now a person can find out what line to use on what blank.
I only wish I had a bare wall I could put it on

I have some one that wants a " pink " 5'7 casting blank, the only place, other then doing it myself in freezing cold, is a pink blank from Mudhole. At 6' long, this system will help to show me where to cut the blank ---- befor I cut. Saving me several blanks and money .

tell those other guys to go back into there Cave

I was trying to explain the advantages of CCS on a site. My analogy was to a thermometer. You don't have to have one to experience the weather. You can go outside and stand around to get a feel for it, call up your friends and ask them, and you can describe it with terms like "chilly", "brisk", "need a light jacket", etc. But sometimes it is easier to know that it is 63 degrees.

I've followed some of these "discussions", epecially the one on site primarily focused on casting. I find it interesting that most of the negative comments come from people who self define the CCS objectives, to include things obviously not within the original scope of the work, and then set about trashing the system because it doesn't meet "their" objectives. I know it's risky to generalize, but it seems to me these are people who want to just jump over some of the basics of physics and keep fly casting in some mystical zone that is above any quantification (and apparently in some universe that has a whole different set of natural laws). It often seems that their insight into this zone is some how threatened by CCS. And, there seem to be some who flat out just don't understand the system, but can't help but to rant against its merits any way. Its hard to really understand why they dislike it so much because each time their objection is answered by Dr Bill or Tom or others, they change their objection. I think they just don't like the fact that fly fishing isn't just some Zen thing.

btw, this is not the only subject in fly fishing that over the years has generated these kinds of debates. One of the most enlightening books I read early in my fly fishing is Leonard Wright's Fly Fishing Heresies in which he took on some of fly fishing's most hearlded traditions. His book generated a lot of impassioned denials. Leonard has passed on which is a shame because based on all of the "new" traditions (some days I think the memory of the sport only goes back to The Movie) an update to his book would be timely - fly rods must have snakes to be fly rods, or if you upline, you slow the action down, or if you use a "heavier 5 weight line" it will load a fast action 5wt rod better .....

btw, I use the CCS for what I believe is its intended use - to compare blanks to get close to one I would like to try and to better match AFTMA line weights to my blanks for the fishing (casting) distances that I intend to use them most. I've recovered and helped customers recover some rods that had fallen to the wayside, just by matching the rod to a better line weight. They "feel" better too.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 03:42PM by Steve Rushing.

If the CCS system is no good, then neither are yardsticks, thermometers, odometers and weight scales. All these things are systems for taking relative measurements. They provide objective data- they do not offer opinions nor make suggestions. What you do with the data is up to you.

Most people who tend to throw off on the CCS system have never actually read the articles (until the site went online a bit ago those articles were only available in past issues of RodMaker - I know full well that many who made light of the system did not take the magazine and in discussions with them it was obvious that they had not actually read the articles).

If a rod measures out to say, an ERN of 6.2, I would defy anyone to prove that this is incorrect. If a rod measures out to an AA of 72 degree, I would defy anyone to prove that is incorrect. The numbers are what they are - they are correct by the definition of the inventor.

Keep in mind that many guys, fly fishermen in particular, want very much to believe that their rods are objects created by mystical artisians whose magic can never be explained by any scientific system of measurement. Perhaps it's cruel to shatter their dreams.

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

I have found the CCS to be very informative. I also measured the ERN of my 9' 5wt Sig V, and it came came out having an ERN greater than 5.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 04:02PM by Mark Van Ditta.

I don't quite understand that statement "...It came out high." The ERN can't be high or low - it is what it is.

If you mean high compared to the line weight rating given by Dan Craft, that again depends on what amount of line Dan rated his rod for. Your 9' 5-weight Sig V should be capable of casting lines from 4 up through probably a 6 or 7 weight. If it is a fast action blank, then the range could be even wider.

..........

I think one of the problems here is that most fly fishermen, the vast majority actually, have no real comprehension of what the number on their fly lines represent nor that it corresponds to a certain length or amount of line. So, a guy reads that his rod has an ERN of say, 5.5, decides that the CCS is saying that he has a "5-weight" rod (it isnt't) and that he should use a 5-weight line on it (not necessarily) and then finds that this line doesn't work well with his rod. So, he figures the CCS must be crap. The "crap," however, was in how he tried to use the data.

Where he has erred, is in failing to realize that the weight you put on a rod changes with the amount of line you have aerialized. The weight or load that a 4-weight line puts on a rod at 20 feet is far different than what it puts on the rod at 40 feet. Most fly fishermen do not understand this. I owned a fly shop long enough to know that 99 out of 100 fly fishermen have no knowledge of this concept. They never think about it and they tend to pay a price in terms of not being totally happy with their rods under a wide range of uses. So many guys assume that a 4-weight line is a 4-weight line at any distance. Well, it is, but the amount of weight put on the rod changes as the amount of line past the tip changes. This concept just doesn't occur to most fly fishermen.

Dr. Hanneman chose numbers to represent the ERN (I wish he had used letters instead). He did it so he could also provide a very simple conversion to line weight number for average guys at average distances (ERN = ELN with about 30 feet of line aerialized) but it does not dictate that a rod is or isn't correctly rated by the manufacturer. With the understanding that the ERN is a relative power measurement moreso than a comparitive line number, the system becomes clearer and far more useful.

In the final installment of the CCS Series of articles, Dr. Hanneman breaks the ERN down into IP (intrinsic power) which hopefully will clear up much of the confusion.

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




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 04:22PM by Tom Kirkman.

Was looking at IP also... Some of the stuff on the other sites about CCS are definately just crap. But there did seem to be some arguments from the 2 handed sites that seemed to make sense.

For one, Skagit type casting really flexes a rod deep into the butt section. Very little of the casting those guys do occur within the first 1/3 of the rod, so hence the info from the CCS isn't bad, but rather incomplete. Perhaps having an IP rating that flexed down 2/3 more would be a nice thing to have. That way the IP of the rod can be measured for both sections, and provide a more meaningful set of data in which to compare 2 handed style rods?

In my mind, it is totally plausable to have a 2 handed rod that has the same characteristics in the first 1/3 of the rod (same ERN, same AA), but *completely* different characteristics down the next 2/3 (tape, wall thickness, number of sections, etc...) Dr Hanneman (hopefully spelled correctly) definately has put together something meaningful here, and I'm just hoping that we can continue the idea that there is a measurable/meaningful number that can be perscribed to rods of this type.

Adding fuel to this first, line standards for 2 handed rods don't exist. For instance, a lot of really good rods require hours of intense testing to find the right line for a rod. There is generally a good grain "window", that describes the weights that get flung well, but it is NOTHING like the AFTMA standards. So not only do you have to worry about the normal factors in a fly rod like line pliability, taper, etc, but now you have to worry about what grain weight (not line weight!) works well.

So in summary, perhaps the intent of the CCS isn't necessarily to be used for this application? I'm not certain. But at this point, trying to break in and make 2 handed rods is more than a bit daunting as there is little science, and more art involved. That isn't to say that rod masters like Bob Meiser doesn't make a good rod because they are built by intuition. But rather that what they know intrisicly isn't something that can be taught and digested in time periods measure less than years! Personally I don't mind it if I have to do that, but the engineer in me feels there *must* be a better way, and having useful data to look at is definately somewhere to start from!

The data is applicable for all applications. For some, however, you have to learn to interpret the data in different manners or use it differently. You do not want a system that requires flexure at different amounts for different type rods - that throws out the universal nature of the system (imagine having to keep several different tape measures in your shop for measuring different items, each with a different unit for an inch).

And keep in mind that you are not deflecting 1/3rd of the rod - you are deflecting a distance equal to 1/3rd of the total length. For some rods this can put the flexure well into the butt section.

Instead, what needs to be developed if they are looking for line recommendations, is something like ELN = ERN +1 or ELN = ERN -2, or something along those lines. There is nothing wrong with the current measurements or data the CCS is providing, they just haven't quite figured out how to use it to get what they're after. To do so would be a fairly simple matter.

Dr. Hanneman, in the next installment, also talks about breaking rod power down into various sections of a rod. The 2nd part, The Big Picture, also deals with this to some extent.

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

I will just say this about the CCS:

Before it came along, I did a lot of guessing, trial and error, and wasted a lot of money on blanks and lines trying to get what I wanted. Now that I have measured 100s of blanks and rods with CCS, the numbers mean something to me and I have no problem picking the right rod/line "outfit" to do what I want to do. That's darn useful. Use the system and then the numbers will mean something to you. The day I was born, I didn't know what 70 degrees meant either. But after 41 years, I know exactly what 70 degrees means and it's darn useful information.

This is some thread! Here are my $.02...

Up to the CCS there was no objective system to evaluate a blank that was available to the public, easy to use, and low cost to boot. Dr. Hanneman has done us all a great service by developing CCS, which allows those of us who don't work in a factory that has expensive testing equipment to evaluate and compare different blanks. What are we evaluating? The power and the action as defined in the system, NOT the performance of the rod in actual use. Everybody uses their rod(s) differently, so what suits one person may be crap to another. As others have said, CCS provides objective and understandable data for rod builders. What is so difficult to understand about that? To those who are critical of CCS, my advice is don't use it. It's that simple. Many of us are happy to have an alternative to the subjective hype that the industry uses to promote their latest magic wands. Does saying that a rod has a 58 million modulus, fast action, and is rated for a 5-wt line really mean anything? Not to me.

In my judgement the CC System is the only system we have that allows us to easily measure and quantify some of the characteristics of a rod. We are far better off now with this simple, easy to use system then we were before it was introduced. We can now measure the rods power and the rods action which are probably the two most important characteristics of a rod and the two most important characteristics when comparing one rod to another. Does this mean that the CC System tells us everything that there is to know about a rod or blank, heck no. There are many other characteristics or properties of a rod that the CC System does not measure. A modern fishing rod is actually a complex structure that would require many sophisticated measurements using sophisticated test equipment in any attempt to completely characterize it. I think that the CC System does very well what it was intended to do and I do not think that the CC System should be faulted for not doing what it was not originally intended to do or because it does not tell us everything that we might want to know about a rod.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2006 09:50PM by Emory Harry.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The data is applicable for all applications. For
> some, however, you have to learn to interpret the
> data in different manners or use it differently.
> You do not want a system that requires flexure at
> different amounts for different type rods - that
> throws out the universal nature of the system
> (imagine having to keep several different tape
> measures in your shop for measuring different
> items, each with a different unit for an inch).
>
> And keep in mind that you are not deflecting 1/3rd
> of the rod - you are deflecting a distance equal
> to 1/3rd of the total length. For some rods this
> can put the flexure well into the butt section.

Doh! My bad! I read it, and read it wrong! My apologies... With that said, it does really make a lot more sense!

>
> looking for line recommendations, is something
> like ELN = ERN +1 or ELN = ERN -2, or something
> along those lines. There is nothing wrong with
> the current measurements or data the CCS is
> providing, they just haven't quite figured out how
> to use it to get what they're after. To do so
> would be a fairly simple matter.

Hmmmm... it'll be interesting to see if there is an easy way to convert ERN into the "grain window" that so many 2 handed guys like to refer to their rods "power" in.... Maybe this in itself would provide more "informative" information (even if it is telling someone the same temp in Farinheit in Celcius!)

>
> Dr. Hanneman, in the next installment, also talks
> about breaking rod power down into various
> sections of a rod. The 2nd part, The Big
> Picture, also deals with this to some extent.

Now THAT is something i can't wait for! :) Thanks for a lot of clarification on this in terms of misunderstanding on my part!

When we measure a single handed rod, we support about first foot of the rod, shimming it so the next foot or so is level and make the measurement. When we hold and cast that rod, our hand is 3 or 4 inches from the end of the handle, that is to the end of where we support it for the measurement. This reflects how it is held and used. To do a CC measurement on a two-handed rod it seems to me that it should be supported to 3 or 4 inches in front of where the upper hand is placed because that reflects how it is actually held and used. I don't know whether anyone has considered this in the two-handed forums, but it would seem to me a good starting point. I think it was Einstein who said that scientific explanations should be as simple as possible but not more so. Perhaps something does need to be added to the CC system for two-handed rods.

Mike

The position the rod is in for taking the measurements is not necessarily intended to mimic the position it would be held or used in when casting. You will also find that on 2-handed rods, the portion of the rod between the hand holds does indeed flex and "move" during the cast. It doesn't become static behind the forward hand.

I would leave the proceedure and measurement data alone and instead concentrate on an appropriate application of the ERN figure. Instead of ERN = ELN, I would focus on something like ERN = ELN +/- X and go from there. That way the proceedure remains the same for all rods and you simply convert ERN by means of a different factor for something like the 2-handed models.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2006 09:35AM by Tom Kirkman.

No good idea goes unchallenged, nor should it. I use the CC system in much the same way as many on this board. However, I am also cognizant of the fact that for the system to gain widespread use outside of the rod building community, it has to pass some acid tests. The CC system is getting a pretty thorough examination by a number of skilled casters, including several who also happen to be engineers and scientists (myself included). Some of these guys are pretty influential in the fly fishing world and if they can be brought on-board, then the system will gain much needed support. Simply dismissing their doubts as invalid will do little to help give the system credibility outside the rod building community. Rome wasn't built in a day.


Rob