I recently made an 8'6" bamboo rod that should be a 4 wt according to the taper I used and ,when I taped the guides on and cast it with 3, 4, and 5 weight lines, it did seem to work best at average fishing distances and a bit beyond with the 4 wt. I thought I would do the CCS test on it, just to see if it agreed. What I came up with was 40 pennies to deflect it 1/3 if it's length, which is 4.9 on the table. What I couldn't find in the article I have is the line weight that corresponds to, is 4.9 still a 4 wt, or is it so close to 5 that I should probably label this rod a5? Thanks
john

No, if you use the ERN = ELN equation, then 4.5 = 4-weight. 5.5 would be a 5-weight. You wouldn't cross the line into 5-weight territory until you pass an ERN of 5.


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

John,
I know what you mean, Tom knows what you mean, and everyone on this board probably knows what you mean. However, there is a problem with the rest of the world. It is the fact that there actually is no such thing as a 4-weight rod, except in the mind of its creator.

The only definition of a 4-weight rod is: a rod on which its designer subjectively feels the angler should use an AFTMA No. 4 line. Of course, since the designer has no idea of the distance you wish to cast or what kind of a "feel" (frequency) you, as an individual, desire, that designation has no useful meaning. Consequently, in your case, you, as its creator can call it any "weight " you might want to—its your rod.

On the otherhand, the ERN tells you how stiff the rod is, and the ERN=ELN tells you the weight of line which will best match that stiffness. Feel is up to you and can be adjusted by using different lines. Consequently if you use your ERN=4.9 rod with a No.5 line, you can call it a 5-wt rod and if you use it with a No. 4 line, you can call it a 4-wt rod, etc.. None of those designations tell anything about the strength of th erod. Nevertheless, regardless of what "weight" you want to call it, it still has an ERN of 4.9 and that is what is important. This is why the CCS does not even have the term "weight" in its vocabulary. It is hoped that in the future, anglers will generically speak of a rod like yours as something like an ERN4 rod. This will provide information without confusion.

Very well put. Thanks.

...........

Bill,
I am glad to see you posting and adding your expertise here again. However, I think that I am going to have to argue with the way you have used the terms feel and frequency. I understand the point that you were trying to make but as you probably know feel and frequency are not at all the same thing as your post above implies. Feel is subjective and difficult to define but the term frequency is not subjective it has an objective meaning, in fact it has a precise definition.

Dr. Bill and Tom;
Thank you very much for your responses. I do know what you mean about the line weights being subjective, the problem IS the rest of the world, they don't The general public expects a line weight designation on the rods they buy and don't want to hear it when we tell them it doesn't mean anything, they have to decide for themselves what line to use. Once upon a time rodmakers didn't put line weights on rods, they only put the rods actual weight on it and figured that the fisherman would know what line to use on a rod of a certain weight and length. It don't work anymore! It is nice to know that the CCS system backs up my desing tho, thanks again.
john

Right you are, Emory—technically.
In my post, i should have been more specific in noting that I was speaking in terms of "feel" as defined in the Hanneman Fly Rod Scale of Intrinsic Feel and of CCF (Common Cents Frequency) which is defined by its specific method of measurement. mea culpa.

Bill,
You and I have talked many times and I have a good deal of respect for you and the Common Sense System you developed. If you remember I was one of the early supporters of the CC System. Your system has given us a method to measure power and action and to quantify these terms. They now have definite meanings and everyone that cares to study your system understands exactly what they mean. We can now measure a given rod or blank in terms of the power and action and compare it to other blanks or rods or we can communicate among ourselves about power and action and know exactly what we are talking about. Again, several years ago when you were working on CCF, if you remember, we discussed frequency and resonant frequency several times and your Common Sense Frequency has a very different meaning than frequency or resonant frequency. And feel is something that has an intirely different meaning. In fact because it is subjective it has a little different meaning to almost everyone that uses the term.
I made the above post not to criticise or be arguementative and I am certainly not a semanacist but just to point out what I thought was an error in the use of the terms. It would not be a big deal except for two reasons. The first being that your work on the Common Sense System has made you a recognized authority and as a result many will take your words very literally as the gospel. And the second reason is that there are quite a few terms that are commonly used in rod building circles that do little but create confusion and misunderstanding. Spine is a very good example, (this time you are innocent) of a term where there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion and I believe the reason is because some of the early aurthorities on rod building used the term incorrectly.

John,

If you read the article on the CCS site that I wrote about the use of the AFTMA system (or lack of use, whichever the case may be) you'll see a good method for listing line weights if you wish. Burkeheimer rods carry this type rating - 3 different line weights intended for close in, medium and long distances. It makes a lot of sense and only takes a second to explain to the customer. Something to consider.

.........

I'd have note of caution on the use for natural or resonant frequency to quantify the feel of the blank or rod. Since the frequency is a function of both the stiffness (not power or deflection load) and mass, it would be possible to have two blanks with the same frequency that have different mass, stiffness, and feel.

mark

"The only definition of a 4-weight rod is: a rod on which its designer subjectively feels the angler should use an AFTMA No. 4 line. Of course, since the designer has no idea of the distance you wish to cast or what kind of a "feel" (frequency) you, as an individual, desire, that designation has no useful meaning"

Dr Bill - I too am glad you are posting again, but candidly, this type of statement has always bothered me. While it may be "subjective", most reputable designers and manufacturers, do have an intent for the design, including the desired AFTMA for fly presentation purposes and have an "idea of the distance you wish to cast" (most probable intended fishing distances). Some even make it clear in their marketing messages. imo, their intention is to help the "average" angler, not confuse them. That is to provide one useful number for the buyers decision making - e.g., this is a rod designed to throw an AFTMA 7 line the distances most often encountered when Bone fishing on flats. The problem of course being when an angler buys this same rod to throw Clousers 40' to river smallies. It's a communication problem, but it's not necessarily a business practice issue as it sometimes comes across in posts to casting, or building, forums. Personally, I think us builders can be held accountable for some of the backlash against the CCS.

Unfortunantely, I think some builders have taken the nature of "subjectivity" in rating rods as to be totally useless, or worse, as some sort of fraudulent practices by designers/manufacturers. A good example being "production 5 wt rods" for distance casting contests. Yes, the IP for these is significantly higher than the IP for a rod that can load with a AFTMA 5 line at normal fishing distances, but for rocketing 90'+ of AFTMA 5 line, it is what the designer rates it - a "5 wt ".

Of course the subjectivity does in fact add to the misinformation and sometimes mis-trust. And of course, the CCS helps mimimize the misinformation and if applied correctly mimimize the mis-trust. Unfortunantely, I think one of the downsides of trying to equate ERN to ELN has even manifested itself among builders, especially when the system was first introduced. There were a number of posts even here that accused the designers of some sort of Macavellian intent when the ERN (IP) was different than the designer's suggested rating. Btw, this is also one reason that personally I think that the column for the manufacturer's rating on the CCS data base causes issues. I know that it is difficult to get inside the mind of the designer for something that is inherently subjective, but I think it is worthwhile to give the designer (from reputable manufacturers) the benefit of the doubt and to use their suggestions as valid input. They didn't just pluck the number out of the air. Then the builder is free to use the CCS as input into how the rod is likely to perform under different conditions than the primary on considered by the designer.

For example, I think this is why for "lighter" line weight and to a certain extent "heavier" line weight rods, the suggested line rating is pretty close to the correct "line rating", i.e., the designer has good feel for the distances that are likely to be casted and the suggestion is usually confirmed by compotent field testers. For me, it's usually the "5-6 weight" rods (I know that there is no such thing) suggestions that seem to be most problematic - and where the CCS data has been most helpful for me. I think it is blanks in this range of IP, that are exposed to the most variation of fishing and which can be often more different than the designer's intent. The example I use a lot is a "6" wt rod designed to be fished 60'+ on big open Western rivers. Then is bought by an angler because the shop sales staff says it's the "best" casting 6 wt on the market. Only for the angler to take it to one of our east coast tailwaters to be dissappointed casting < 50'. Knowing that the blank has an ERN of 7.5, and a shop staff who takes the time to discuss the angler's fishing needs, would certainly go a long way to resolving "loading problems" before the angler leaves for the river. But, in any case, I do not put the full burden of the problem at the foot of the designer.

I hope you understand that I'm not bashing the system. I use it and it's extremely helpful. It often helps me understand what the designer is trying to do and for me to help the customer decide if it aligns with his or her needs. If not, there is often an alternative within the manufacturer's line-up that does work, and fullfills the angler's desire to take advantage of other positives about the brand - eg, availability, warranty, service etc.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2006 12:55PM by Steve Rushing.

Steve,

I have to disagree a bit. Case in point, two GUSA 5-weight blanks I purchased a couple years back. The 8 footer just seemed really, really soft when I took it out of the package. It CC'd at an ERN of 2.87. The 9 footer, however CC'd at something like 6.4. I called and talked to the designer. He said the 8 footer was designed to cast a 5-weight rod at less than 25 feet on small streams. The 9 footer was designed to power out a 5-weight line at beyond 70 feet. Nothing about those distances was included on the website or the catalog. And yet, the designer saw fit to label both as 5-weight rods.

I don't think anyone is saying that the designers aren't shooting for a definite range with the listed line weight, just that in most cases they don't tell you what that range is. The point Dr. Bill is making, is that without that additional information, the term "5-weight" or whatever is really not much help. After all, any rod will cast any line at some distance. The rod which a manufacturer labels a "5-weight" is just as easily a 4, 6 or 7 weight as well. It will most likely cast all those lines, at some distance. We just don't know what that distance might be until we get it in our hands.

I do agree that it's wrong to say the designers have been wrong or up to no good when their "5-weight" rod came out at anything other than say, ERN 5.5. You'll notice that many times I have tried to correct those who have used the CCS and said that their rod "isn't really a 5-weight" or whatever. As I've said before, since there is no standard, the designer can correctly label his rod with any number designation he wishes and he will not be wrong. The trouble with this, is that without some standard for what amount of power a "5-weight" rod will have, we are most often left to try and read the designer's mind. Something which I, at least, have never been very good at.

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

Tom;
Thanks, I didn't realize there was a CCS website, I'll check it out. Isn't there a standard length of line that most manufactures rate their rods for, ie, a fishing distance of 30' or 40'? I design my rods to cast 40' of the intended line, this is intentionally a bit beyond most fishing distances, but allows for the longer cast, some wind and flies other than dry flies. This for for bamboo trout fly rods, which are all I make.
john

That's one of the major problems - each designer/manufacturer may and in fact do rate their rods for different distances. Note the comments I made about the 2 GUSA 5-weight rods above. Both are 5-weight rods, but with a widely differing amount of power and a vast difference in their respective capability to cast a 5-weight line at any particular distance. But... they are both correctly rated as 5-weight rods.

What would have been more helpful than that "5-weight" rating to me at least, would have been the ERN rating. Give me the power rating and I can decide what line I need to fish on it for the distances I plan to cast and fish.

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

Tom - I agree with you about the technical merits of CCS and your example really drives home the point. What I was trying to express was some personal discomfort with the "marketing" of the system. imo, some builders either Inadvertently or intentionally seem to want to use the CCS as a "quantifiable" way to denegrate factory rods - and in a round about way the integrity of the designers/manufactures. imo, unfortunantely it often comes across as condescending remarks - especially concerning industry marketing strategy (hype). There is unquestionably crap marketing out there, but not all. I think the industry as a whole has done a tremendous job of growing the market and as a result we benefit from innovations and quality improvement. Only positioning CCS as an answer to a "flawed" system as some do imo hurts the cause. I I think it hurts the effort to help manufacturers understand the benefits/value of including the ERN (I actually prefer IP) with the rod and to make sure that this data point is understood and properly applied through out the entire distribution channel - especially store staff. The idea being that the "suggested" rating could be explained to the target market, but also carry additional information to help expand the targeted market (and ultimately satisfied customers). btw, the reason I like IP instead of ERN is because it comes across as additive rather than replacement. It wouldn't hurt the value of CCS in my opinion if the designer/manufacturer/ sales staff told a customer that the effective rod number for a particular rod was what was on the lablel for these specific conditions and then told the potential customer that based on IP the rod would perform better with a different AFTMA line under different conditions.

I know that I'm "preaching to the choir" and that you do in fact call the hand on builders and non-builders alike that miss represent the measurements. I just don't think that you can be in all places at all times and that a rethinking of the system from a "marketing" perspective may be warranted - including changing names of measurements (IP versus ERN) and perhaps even following your suggestion of moving the index from numbers to letters. It was once said of a famous computer company founded by engineers that had they invented sushi, they would have marketed it as cold, dead fish. The manufacturers will embrace CCS when they understand that it helps expand market share through an informed distribution channel.