Got my blank from Andy today and all I can say is awesome! I have been looking for a perfect soft jerkbait blank for ever, and now I have it. The rod has an extra lively soft yet very quick to recover tip. So I can get awesome presentation on my jerkbaits. Then the blank just has an awesome "lock up" point where the tip is soft enought let the bass eat it yet when I set the hook that big hook is going through the plastic and lip of that bass. This blank is like those extra fast popping rods on steroids, and it's only 6'6". If you are looking for a soft jerkbait (fluke, shad assasin) rod give Andy at Lamar Fishing a call and ask for an EBT16646. Later, Bryan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2006 10:23PM by Bryan Thompson.

I gave the inshoe blanks a wiggle at the show myself , it was hard not to buy one...... I also took the 6wt that Andy had lined up over to the casting pool , very nice casting rod . Good luck with yours , they are sweet . John NERBS

Got Fish ?

I agree, the CTS blanks are awesome. Now if they could make them a little less cost prohibitive, without sacrificing quality. Yea Yea, I know, you get what ya pay for.

Bill in WV

Bought two at the show-worth every penny. I'm gonna put some reds on the 8 wt. fly fomorrow. If you didn't get to test cast the 6 wt. at the show, you really missed out. Thanks to Steve for a great product and to Andy for carrying them.

I'm just starting on two that I bought at the show. Actually, they are quite a value when you compare them to much higher priced blanks that are not as good! Superior blank - Good price for what you get!!


Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2006 02:44AM by Mike Barkley.

It would help if "awsome" was backed by some CCS data for these blanks. Being able to compare them with known blanks in a bit more objective manner would be of value.

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

Bryan and I are in the process of working together on a series of technique specific bass tapers that will be built on the CTS helical layup and Modulus Replacement Technology. Most of you probably don't know this, but at the tender age of 27, Brian is what I would call a rising young star on the tournament bass circut. Having just got picked up by Legend Boats as a sponsor, I think you'll hear more about him in the future. He's a really REALLY good fisherman...I know this because I spent the day with him in my boat last fall. Just so you know, CTS just acquired a new material for the helical process, which makes these blanks even lighter than they already are. Anyone who purchased blanks at the show is now taking advantage of this technology. Brian tells me that the weight of the CTS Tournament Elite series is on par with that of the St. Croix SCV series of blanks.
In addition, we have just added a new color to already dizzying array of 18 colors available from CTS. Those of you who were in Charlotte bore witness to the Bubble Gum Pink blanks I had in my booth. I could have sold 15 of them if I would have had them. SO.....add Candy Pink to your list available blank colors.

Also, we are almost finished with the popping and inshore series from CTS. Next on the list is Salmon/Steelhead blanks. Stay tuned for some really neat stuff to come from Lamar and CTS.

Stan, if you'll check the CCS website Kirkman has already posted data for a couple of blanks he purchased from me a few months ago.

Andy Dear
www.lamarfishing.com

I've been there and done that! It tells me is that the 8 1/2', 2 pc., fly blanks have a bit less power than their stated line rating with medium actions. That still leaves a lot of blanks untested.

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

The stated line rating is correct per what the CTS designer intended. Not every rod is meant to be fished at the same distance with the rated line. Obviously this creates some confusion and is one reason the CCS is so valuable, but there is nothing at all wrong or incorrect with the CTS fly rod ratings.

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

"Bubble Gum Pink". That looked more like Malibu Barbie Swimsuit pink than anything else. lol.

If what you say is true how do we compare between different manufacturers? It is my understanding from the CC site that if I wanted to choose a CTS blank similar to a 5# St Croix blank that the CTS and the SCIV would be similar in action. If I wanted similar ERN's however I would need a CTS with a CTS line rating of perhaps 7 to be of similar power to a 5 rating for the SCIV. Regardless of what an individual company designates for a power rating are we not comparing actual measurements, not the company design intention?

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

If you want to compare, you cannot use line ratings because the manufacturers do not hold these against any type standard. Any rod will throw, say, a 5-weight line at some distance. There is no industry standard for what that number on the side of your rod and blank has on it. The rod that St. Croix's designer would consider a 5-weight might be the same one that the guy over at G. Loomis would call a 6 weight and the guy at Redington would call an 8-weight. And they would all be correct..

This is why the CCS was developed - to provide a purely objective and relative means for comparing blank action and power across the board. It has a standard behind it.

Anyone that is choosing their fly rod blanks based on the manufacturer's line rating number is apt to run into trouble at some point - you don't know what length of the rated line the designed intended it to be fished with and the nomenclature on the side of the rod doesn't tell you..


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

Should we ignore the line rating of the Rosetta Stone for Fly Lines and Rods? Given the figures used by that chart the CTS Affinity Plus 6 that shows an ERN of 5.02 that would rate on the light end of the Rosetta Stone 5 # line designation. Using the Rosetta Stone chart as the proper designation relating ERN to line weight the CTS blanks listed are not as powerful as their stated line weight. Conversely some of the SCIV blanks are more powerful.

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

The commercial rod makers do not use the Rosetta Stone Chart. Their ratings are subjective.

Remember, an ERN of 5.5 does not designate a "5-weight" rod. It is a relative power rating, not a line rating (although you can use ERN = ELN for line matching for average casters with 30 feet of line aerialized).

What do you mean by proper designation? If I asked you to tell me what constitutes a "5-weight" rod, what would your standard be and do any manufacturers use it? This is the crux of what we're talking about here. There is no standard for what constitutes a "5-weight" rod, or any line weight rod for that matter. Any rod will cast a 5-weight line, at some distance.

The Affinity Plus 6-weight rod is great for casting a 6-weight line. It was designed for use with a 6-weight line at close to medium distances. Other manufacturers may designate a more powerful rod for their 6-weight model/s, if they intend them to be used at longer distances.

And again, this is why the CCS is so much more useful than any manufacturer's number rating.

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

If you ask me to tell you what constitutes a "5 weight" rod I'll tell you that it should perform optimally with a line that weighs between 130 and 150 grains as shown by the Rosetta Stone and has an ERN of 5.5. This is the reference we use regardless of the fact that the manufacturers are not held to it. If the Affinity plus 6 weight casts a 6 weight line better than a 5 weight line I'm at a loss to the value of the CCS and the Rosetta Stone designations. Help me!

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

"Performs Optimally"

Any fly rod will perform optimally with a 5-weight line, at some distance.

This is the problem with all the commercially made rods and their ratings - you do not know what they mean because the designer has not told you what length of line the rod "performs optimally" with. Line number is only part of the equation - length of line aerialized is the other. What length do you consider "optimal?" What length did the designer consider "optimal?" These two aren't likely to match.

The Affinity Plus 6 will perform optimally with a 4-weight line, a 5, a 6 and a 7, and even an 8, but at different distances.

The value of the CCS is exactly this - all rods with the same ERN possess the same power. All rods with the same AA possess exactly the same action. But, with the manufacturers' line ratings, no two rods with the same number will possess the same power. For this reason you should get off the line rating number kick - it has no objective meaning.

Use the CCS to do what you want to do, there is a standard behind it and it is relative and comparitive across the board. The line number ratings you're worried about have no standard behind them and thus no real meaning.

....

I used "performs optimally" by applying the CCS and the Rosetta Stone as a guiding standard. I beleve the CCS and the findings of DR. Hanneman set objective standards for measurement but I hear you telling me that I should be using the subjective numbers set by the manufacturers as they know subjectively what they intended when they designed the blank.
More to the point we simply aren't communicating well in this medium.

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

HI all,

I couldn't resist a little support on the CTS blanks. I have done 8 so far and love them. The Tournament Elite is something else and the power of these blanks has to be experienced. They may look a little "light" but I assure anyone looking to get one of these blanks, they are the "Ducks guts" (Aussie slang for great gear). The closest blanks I have seen to them are the GUSA/Hastings blanks from you own country. I haven't built a St Croix yet.


Regards
Outback

Mark,
I'm certainly not disparaging the CTS blanks. I'm only looking for some consistency in objectively comparing all blanks.

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

Stan,

No, I'm telling you just the opposite - that because the commercially made rods do not adhere to any standards, that you cannot use them as any sort of objective comparison between companies and their rods and blanks. But I am also telling you that their ratings are not wrong - for them to be wrong there would have to be a standard behind them.

The CCS is THE only objective and relative system of measurement for comparing rods and blanks. If you want to compare apples to apples, then you have to use the CCS. And two blanks from different makers with the same ERN rating will possess the same relative power. But you have to understand, that an ERN of 5.5 does not mean that you must use a 5-weight line on the blank, or that a 5-weight line is the only line that will perform optimally on that blank. Any line will perform optimally on that blank AT SOME DISTANCE.

If you plan to use the ERN extensively then you will want to become familar with about how much power it represents. With a rod possessing an ERN of 5.5, I could use a 4, 5, 6 or 7-weight line and each would be fantastic, at the proper distance. Forgive me if I'm misreading your comments here, but I think the line weight relative to the length of line aerialized is what you're missing here. Remember, 30 feet of a 5-weight line may weigh the same thing as 25 feet of a 6-weight line or 40 feet of a 4-weight line. The rod reacts to weight/load/input, not just line weight number.

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