CCS, Worms, and Spey Rods

First, I would like to express my gratitude to all of you who have made supporting comments in a prior thread. I hope my next article, in which I discuss tip power and butt power, will help a little more. But, here, I would like to make a couple of comments.

The major static I have received (inspired or instigated) has come from a community of “elite expert casters” who’s avowed goal appears to be to be able to cast any line with any rod a distance greater than 100 feet. While that is a laudable feat and indeed can be done with the application of enough effort and coordination, it has little to do with the average fly angler.

Repeatedly, I hear the CCS is useless because it is concerned primarily with the simple casting of fly lines—aerializing less than 50’ in length without the use of a haul or double haul. Of course, the fact that if one introduces an angler induced activity like a haul, one is introducing factors which have absolutely no bearing on the intrinsic properties of the rod. They only confuse everything amidst the physical prowess of the angler and lead nowhere except to make the results completely useless for everyone.

This brings me to Spey Rods, or to the more correct term, “Two Handed Rods.” I have indeed been looking into this subject and discussing it with several ”foreign experts.” At the moment, field experiments are on hold until the weather is more cooperative and fishing seasons open. This is to avoid confrontations with the law for waving a 15 foot stick over the water, and you really need a lot of water to test cast these rods.

Presently, we have agreed to measure ERN, AA, and frequency in the prescribed CCS manner—one just needs a larger setup. We also need data on different rods. While that problem can be solved and rods so described, the very real problem of relating ERN to line length or weight may not be so easy to solve. Besides the fact that there are no uniform specifications for lines, the differences in tapers (head, body, and running line lengths) produce a myriad of possibilities.

Perhaps foremost of the difficulties lies in the fact that the “meat end” of the line lies over 50 feet outside the rod tip and contacts the water. This has an effect on this endeavor comparable to that of trying to characterize a fly rod’s properties by roll casting.

To further compound the problems, two handed casting has spawned a multitude of different casts which undoubtedly have different requirements for the rod. This means that while the CCS values remain constant, the appropriate line depends on the method of casting used by the angler—a real can of worms.

As a relative measuremet of intrinsic power, the CCS works equally well on any rod or blank.

The problem, if you want to call it that, of applying the ERN or IP to a matching line for the 2-handed rods isn't really much of a problem. All that's needed is some testing with rods of known ERN and the lines that work best on them for particular casts and a simple equation can be derived from there.

If there is any real problem with doing this, I would have to assume it lies not in the CCS or the rods, but rather in the lack of good standards for spey and similar lines for 2-handed rods.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2006 10:52PM by Tom Kirkman.

Bill,
I do not think that the heat that you are getting is the result of Sprey rods being fundamentally different than other rods or even that the "elite expert casters" are doing something fundamentally different. The problem stems from the fact that a rod is a very complex structure. Your Common Sense System has done a great deal to define and help us accurately measure the power and action of a rod or blank, what are arguably the two most important characteristics of a rod or blank with possibly the exception of the rod or blanks resonant frequency. And I think that we should all be grateful for your CC System.
However, when you think about it a rod is a very complex structure that has not been fully characterized by ANYONE not even the major rod manufacturers. It is basically a conical structure with a varying taper, varying wall thickness, varying modulus of elasticity, varying distribution of weight, etc. etc. Evidence of the complexity is the fact that most of the major rod manufacturers are not using computer modeling for their new designs and are still using cut and try approaches. Although I must say that I think that they should be using Finite Element Analysis which is a mechanical engineering modeling tool.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the most sophisticated computer known, the human brain, is connected to one end of the rod and the fact that the Common Sense System has very definite limits. The Common Sense System while allowing us to measure the most important characteristics of a rod does not tell us how to measure ALL of the properties of a rod nor in my judgment should we expect it to. I think that after you and I are long gone people will still be struggling trying to fully characterize rods.

Hi Bill.

I've been telling this on another board too but I'll write it here so rodbuilding dudes can read it too.
The problem with ERN I have is that normal casters too easily will see that ERN = ELN. Of course the stiffness is the most important aspect in suitable line weight but so is rod length, action, material (I've asked CCS info and personal preferred line weights on a Finnish forum from cane and glass rod users - haven't got any yet thou) and possibly other variables.

I see no problem with measuring DH rods with CCS (except it may get dangerous to measure PR). But I prefer IP instead of ERN for abovementioned reason. We are characterizing a rod, not the suitable line for it (although it derives from that via personal preferences). With some DH-rod it is really important that the handle area bend too since it definately bends while casting. So the rig has to be done so that bending in the handle area is possible.

Btw, I've been very busy at work but there's light at the end of the tunnel now so I could finally measure my current DH-rods.

Foreign experts, hmm.... :-)

Tom,
there is an AFFTA spey line standard. I don't think we need a standard for rods. But I think we should get all possible info about the rods - including CCS data.

Cheers,
Sakari

I agree. Also the ERN, which was set up so that you could have such an equation as ERN = ELN, was originally intended to help the average single handed fly rod caster more easily match the proper line without having to have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the system itself. Any problem related to use with spey rods isn't with the relative power rating itself, but rather in how people are trying to apply it to the line they should use.

Either way, there is nothing wrong with the CCS or ERN measurement. Once you move outside the realm of the intent of the original equation, you simply need to arrange a new equation for the task at hand. It shouldn't be too awful hard to determine if you need to refactor to something like ELN - 1 = ESLN (effective spey line number) or something along those lines. This just shouldn't be that hard to do.

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

Bill:

I know you have had to do a "thesis defense" on the CC system on the other board and I admire your tenacity in the face of some less-than-polite responses, really. However, the "elite casters" you mention are simply trying to grasp if and how they can use the CC system. Some like Sakari, Magnus, Torsten and myself have found enough of a corellation with the dynamic aspects of casting to feel comfortable using it ( and even write articles about it). Others have not. To say we are only interested in the 100+ foot cast is a mischaracterization of the situation. In addition, some of the experiments that have been spawned by the great CCS debate have been very illuminating and have certanly helped me gain a fuller understanding of rods AND casting. I am sure others have benefited from them, too.


Emory:

I agree with your assessment.


Rob

I must confess to having missed this particular debate so I don't guess I'm up to speed with whatever the objections are. I just tend to feel that anyone that has a problem with the CSS must also find fault with all other relative systems of measurement, whether it be inches and pounds or the Fahrenheit scale. None of them can possibly be wrong - the only error that can occur is with how individuals decide to interpret the data they provide.

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

So I'm glad you got a chance to chime in Bill! I'm the one who originally started the thread, so it's good to hear stuff from the horses mouth!

At this point, it sounds like you are re-iterating some points (more civially I might add than how the questions where posed to you!) that were put on the speypages site. In fact that very thread is what prompted me to write on this board in the hopes that you would chime in.

I've been giving it a lot of thought in terms of what Tom and others have mentioned on the board, and what it really comes down to is basically what you outline. The CCS data is a "point" of information that describes the characteristics of the stick in question. What seems to be happening is that people expect this one number to tell them to use "XXX" line for their rod, and everything will be fine.

The can of worms of course comes with the fact (especially with 2 handed rods) most fly rods can perform well in a variety of situations with various grain weight of line strung up in them. In fact some of the spey rods have grain windows that are much larger than the *ENTIRE* grain range of 1-10 AFTMA lines. This of course is independent of the characteristics of the blank, but it seems that it always comes back to the casters essentially asking for a number that describes the dynamic casting characteristics of the rod.

So after that long winded intro, the question now becomes. How do we get spey (2 handed casters) more comfortable with the concept of CCS? Is there some approach that you've found in your dealings with these folks that seem to get at least the point across? Have other 2 handed rod builders been able to parley the data from CCS into useful meaningful blank selection based on the customer request? Or are the factors of line on the water, casting style, etc more complex in 2 handed casting, so hence the CCS is only a minute factor in blank selection?

-- Cheers
-- James


Bill Hanneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CCS, Worms, and Spey Rods
>
> First, I would like to express my gratitude to all
> of you who have made supporting comments in a
> prior thread. I hope my next article, in which I
> discuss tip power and butt power, will help a
> little more. But, here, I would like to make a
> couple of comments.
>
> The major static I have received (inspired or
> instigated) has come from a community of “elite
> expert casters” who’s avowed goal appears to be to
> be able to cast any line with any rod a distance
> greater than 100 feet. While that is a laudable
> feat and indeed can be done with the application
> of enough effort and coordination, it has little
> to do with the average fly angler.
>
> Repeatedly, I hear the CCS is useless because it
> is concerned primarily with the simple casting of
> fly lines—aerializing less than 50’ in length
> without the use of a haul or double haul. Of
> course, the fact that if one introduces an angler
> induced activity like a haul, one is introducing
> factors which have absolutely no bearing on the
> intrinsic properties of the rod. They only confuse
> everything amidst the physical prowess of the
> angler and lead nowhere except to make the results
> completely useless for everyone.
>
> This brings me to Spey Rods, or to the more
> correct term, “Two Handed Rods.” I have indeed
> been looking into this subject and discussing it
> with several ”foreign experts.” At the moment,
> field experiments are on hold until the weather is
> more cooperative and fishing seasons open. This is
> to avoid confrontations with the law for waving a
> 15 foot stick over the water, and you really need
> a lot of water to test cast these rods.
>
> Presently, we have agreed to measure ERN, AA, and
> frequency in the prescribed CCS manner—one just
> needs a larger setup. We also need data on
> different rods. While that problem can be solved
> and rods so described, the very real problem of
> relating ERN to line length or weight may not be
> so easy to solve. Besides the fact that there are
> no uniform specifications for lines, the
> differences in tapers (head, body, and running
> line lengths) produce a myriad of possibilities.
>
> Perhaps foremost of the difficulties lies in the
> fact that the “meat end” of the line lies over 50
> feet outside the rod tip and contacts the water.
> This has an effect on this endeavor comparable to
> that of trying to characterize a fly rod’s
> properties by roll casting.
>
> To further compound the problems, two handed
> casting has spawned a multitude of different casts
> which undoubtedly have different requirements for
> the rod. This means that while the CCS values
> remain constant, the appropriate line depends on
> the method of casting used by the angler—a real
> can of worms.

Wow! I can only think that the AFTMA standard for speys is more than a little complex! Geez, Rio alone has the grand spey, the midspey, the windcutter, the skagit style lines, as well as a multitude of shooting heads used for Skando casting!

It *is* nice to hear that 2 handed builders are finding the CCS useful though! Sakari, what specific aspects are you finding useful in the CCS? Is it that the IP relates better to the ephemerally defined "feel", or does it more acurattely describe how it "works" in various casting scenarios (change of direction for instance)?

Also, to qualify this, I'm a *new* 2 handed caster, so I'm still trying to grasp the art that is "Spey casting". If my questions ound naiive, they are! :)

-- Cheers
-- James

Sakari Siipilehto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Bill.
>
> I've been telling this on another board too but
> I'll write it here so rodbuilding dudes can read
> it too.
> The problem with ERN I have is that normal casters
> too easily will see that ERN = ELN. Of course the
> stiffness is the most important aspect in suitable
> line weight but so is rod length, action, material
> (I've asked CCS info and personal preferred line
> weights on a Finnish forum from cane and glass rod
> users - haven't got any yet thou) and possibly
> other variables.
>
> I see no problem with measuring DH rods with CCS
> (except it may get dangerous to measure PR). But I
> prefer IP instead of ERN for abovementioned
> reason. We are characterizing a rod, not the
> suitable line for it (although it derives from
> that via personal preferences). With some DH-rod
> it is really important that the handle area bend
> too since it definately bends while casting. So
> the rig has to be done so that bending in the
> handle area is possible.
>
> Btw, I've been very busy at work but there's light
> at the end of the tunnel now so I could finally
> measure my current DH-rods.
>
> Foreign experts, hmm.... :-)
>
> Tom,
> there is an AFFTA spey line standard. I don't
> think we need a standard for rods. But I think we
> should get all possible info about the rods -
> including CCS data.
>
> Cheers,
> Sakari

The ERN is just another way to describe the IP. Neither has much of anything to do with how the rod feels - only how powerful it is. As long as a rod with an ERN of 5, is less powerful than one with an ERN of 7 and more powerful than one with an ERN of 3, we can be sure it's working.

The CCF would come closer to describing how a rod might feel, or how you might describe the feel or perhaps a better term would be "response and/or reaction" of a certain rod or blank.


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

I think this whole debate is unnecessary for all rods. Forget ERN = ELN. First, test a rod you are familiar with from actual fishing. Then, next time you are in the market for a new rod, decide if you want more or less power and faster or slower action. Then use the numbers (ERN/AA) to pick your new rod. End of story.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2006 07:28PM by Steve Kartalia.

Bill,
A thought occurred to me that I have not completely thought through but here it is. Those casting a Sprey rod typically have one hand a couple of feet up on the rod and most of the energy that gets stored up in the rod will come from this hand and most of the feedback or feel while casting will come from this hand. Would it get any closer to what the Spray rod casters are after to make the CCS measurements from this point, a couple of feet forward?
It has been debated here a couple of times if it made sense on a normal casting rod to make the CCS measurements from the reel seat forward rather than from the butt forward and I think that a case can be made for either approach. I did not feel that the case for making the measurements from the reel seat forward was strong enough to change but the situation with Sprey rods may be a stronger argument. This should not have a significant effect on the Action Angle but would tend to lower the Power somewhat and therefore the use of a lighter line which is part of the Sprey rod casters argument. It is something to think about anyway.

Since this thread started I have been thinking about your CC System and the criticism that has been aimed at it. In fact, I went back and read some of the critical threads on another board. It seems to me that at the heart of the criticism is that it is not understood by some and others expect it to do things that it cannot do and will not accept it for its strengths and recognize that it has limitations.

Emory,

I think that changing the measuring point would be a huge mistake. Not only would it ruin the across the board nature of the CCS, but the CCS isn't measuring the cast, it's measuring the relative power of the overall blank. It would be a shame to see the CCS broken down so that ERN and AA figures would no longer be relative from blank category to blank category. It would almost put us back to where we were before, with each company having its own system for rating action and power.

The CCS and/or the ERN aren't failing spey rod users - this shouldn't even be an issue. What is lacking is a means for converting the ERN or IP into something that will help these fellows find the best matching line for what they're doing. The answer, I think, isn't to change the way the measurements are taken, but rather in taking the data and using it in an equation that will then provide the information they want.

I guess it just goes against my grain to try and change the data gathering process to fit the expected result. I'd rather see the data used as is but in a way that provides something helpful.

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

Tom,
Yes, after a little more thought I think that you are right. If you look at the bigger picture what I suggested would most likely be a mistake. Gee I hate to give up so easy though, usually I am more hard headed.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The CCS and/or the ERN aren't failing spey rod
> users - this shouldn't even be an issue. What is
> lacking is a means for converting the ERN or IP
> into something that will help these fellows find
> the best matching line for what they're doing.

I think this here may be the sticking point from our side of the fence (ERL == ERN == matching line). For me, I'm not looking for a line number, but rather a measure of power and if you would a potential measure of "feel". I'm hoping that a similar AA and ERN will equate to a similar (non qualitative term) of feel and action. Now if you are saying that the ERN or IP is an effective tool for this, then I would agree that the CCS is a decent system. But if someone is trying to look a 2 handed caster in the face and tell him that he needs a 450 grain line to cast "this rod", then they (the teller) is speaking from a weak position.

> The answer, I think, isn't to change the way the
> measurements are taken, but rather in taking the
> data and using it in an equation that will then
> provide the information they want.

Since the line isn't usually ariealized to load the rod during casting, I don't know if an equation to convert from ERN to line weight is going to help too much here. There's a *TON* of different ways to load a rod from the water, and this all comes back down to the users casting style.

>
> I guess it just goes against my grain to try and
> change the data gathering process to fit the
> expected result. I'd rather see the data used as
> is but in a way that provides something helpful.

Well, sometimes the data gathering being one way and the expected result saying something else means that there is a disconnect either on how the data is gathered or how the data is used. In this case I'm still thinking that CCS is a good number, but potentially incomplete. I could be that I don't have some of the info you are priviledged too, or perhaps I really need to continue to study the system. BUT, I'm really trying to get as much info as possible to find out more about CCS and how it relates to 2 handed styles of casting.

I don't think the CCS will ever say that anyone needs a 450 grain line to load their rod. You'd have to look at the ERN and from your personal experience related to what you know each unit of ERN represents, decide what grain line you need.

I'm not sure the CCS relates at all to casting. It measures the intrinsic properties of the rod, not the cast or the caster. It's up to you to relate that data to your cast.

Let me ask you this (and I'm not trying to be smart or funny at your expense) - if I measure a board and it turns out to be 30 inches in length. Do I have a short board or a long board?

My point is, that everything is relative to something else, and until you have something to compare to, well... You don't really have anything.

So, if you have a rod for which you have found the line that works best for you and your casting style, I'd take the CCS readings on that rod and see how the numbers look. Get yourself a baseline from wich to compare, up or down, subsequent CCS numbers.

I really think that once you do this with a few rods, and even start to notice how the combined ERN and AA can affect things, you'll begin to find the system very useful. But you've got to have that baseline to do what you want to do. The numbers are just numbers until you can correlate them to a known entity.

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



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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2006 09:42PM by Tom Kirkman.

Emory

I'll tend to support you in your hardheadedness. Where does the connection between the amount of weight it takes to deflect a rod 1/3 of its lenght and ERN come from? Presumably Bill measured quite a number of rods and related the manufacturers line weight ratings to deflection weights. And where did the manufacturers ratings come from? Probably from a combination of something like an in-house CC like measurement, and from the opinions of expert casters in their employ, casting the rods with the standard AFTMA line weights. My overall point is that the CCS is based on an industry consensus. Such a consensus at best is only beginning to emerge for double-handed rods, and we shouldn't be surprised if there are difficulties. As to what we should take for our measurement point on DH rods, I think it's a matter for further research. Perhaps the the ERN - x for the standard point will do the job or maybe moving it up will do it better. I think we should keep an open mind.

Mike

Mike,
I agree with you that some of the choices made may have been a bit arbitrary and there may well be differences in double handed rods and their use that the CCS does not address and I would also argue that questions about the system, debate about it and even criticism of it are probably healthy. If it can not stand up to the heat then it has an inherent weakness or shortcoming that will be exposed. But I also agree with Tom on his point that now that the CCS has been established, is gaining some acceptance and its usefulness has been to a large degree proven we should be careful with any adjustments or changes.
I think that the biggest problem with the CCS is that there are some that are trying to get it to do something that it cannot do. It has set a standard for defining and measuring the power of a rod and the action of a rod which are simple and straight forward and superior to what we had previously.
Frankly, I am only luke warm about CCF but that is another whole discussion which will no doubt come up again and which I think that you can contribute a great deal to. I hope that you stay tuned. I for one enjoy and look forward to your knowledgeable and well thought out posts even when you catch me off base and pin my ears back.

The length of an inch is certainly somewhat arbitrary - it's the distance between the inventor's thumb knuckle and thumb tip. Pretty scientific, huh? But where the constants come from or what they're based upon make no difference. The important part is that those who use them learn how to relate to the distances, weights, units, etc., that they represent.

I would go back to one of my original arguments which I feel proves the CCS has no inherent weaknesses or shortcomings - I have a rod here that I have taken the CCS measurements on. The AA is 72, the ERN is 5.65. I will challenge anyone to prove these figures are incorrect. I'll have the rod in Charlotte next month and welcome anyone to disprove these figures.

This rod is also more powerful than rods having a lower ERN and less powerful than those having a greater ERN. It has a faster action than rods with a lower AA and is slower in action than rods with a higher AA. Again, I offer a challenge to anyone to prove this is in any way incorrect.

I feel that Emory makes a really good point, in that many fishermen are trying to make the CCS do things it was not meant to do. The only thing that would come from changing the points at which the measurements are taken is to ruin the relative nature of the system.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2006 09:54AM by Tom Kirkman.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think the CCS will ever say that anyone
> needs a 450 grain line to load their rod. You'd
> have to look at the ERN and from your personal
> experience related to what you know each unit of
> ERN represents, decide what grain line you need.

That comment was related specifically to you stating that having an equation to fine line weight. I think I either misunderstood what you said or something, :) I think we in a round-about way both feel the same thing :) I'll consider that horse beaten, bruised, and dead :)

> Let me ask you this (and I'm not trying to be
> smart or funny at your expense) - if I measure a
> board and it turns out to be 30 inches in length.
> Do I have a short board or a long board?

I think that the analogy that you give is a bit less than accurate. I would think that it's more like:

Dude1: "I have a 150 HP motor, it's powerful."

Dude2: "How many foot pounds of torque at 5500 rpm?"

Dude1: "I have a 150 HP motor"

What we have is one set of measurements giving a number to some specific attribute. We are Dude1. The Dude2 would be the spey world saying, that's a good number, now I need to find out more! Neither are incorrect in what they are asking, but they *are* looking for different things.

> My point is, that everything is relative to
> something else, and until you have something to
> compare to, well... You don't really have
> anything.
>
> So, if you have a rod for which you have found the
> line that works best for you and your casting
> style, I'd take the CCS readings on that rod and
> see how the numbers look. Get yourself a baseline
> from wich to compare, up or down, subsequent CCS
> numbers.
>
> I really think that once you do this with a few
> rods, and even start to notice how the combined
> ERN and AA can affect things, you'll begin to find
> the system very useful. But you've got to have
> that baseline to do what you want to do. The
> numbers are just numbers until you can correlate
> them to a known entity.

Yeah, perhaps... But like the origianl post asked.. Are there other things that we can do to the CCS to help get *more* from what we know about rods? Maybe the whole point of this is:

The CCS is the baseline on what most measurements are made. Based on the CCS can we get specialized tests for specific applications, or are their ways the CCS can be extended generically to glean more data?



-- Cheers
-- James

PS Tom, I really appreciate the talk on this :) Hopefully it isn't too pedantic!