This is why I wish Dr Hanneman had chosen something other than ERN as a term. I think it brings the temptation to mix and match subjective designer ratings, what's left of the AFTMA alledged standard and the CCS. I think of "ERN" as a power index (realizing index is not necessarily the proper term) and nothing more. I also ignore the manufacturer's rating column on the CCS data base. To me it just adds to the confusion. Since tyring to keep all the grain weight ranges of the AFTMA standard in my mind is tough and because power as measured by the CCS should be the ELN at around 30', I just apply a variation of the old rule-of-thumb: if the casting distance is going to be significantly less than 30', if think of the blank's power as being the stated power plus one, 30-50' as the power as measured, > 50' the power minus one. I use approximation as the starting point for ELN. Then test cast. I know this reads like semantics and mind games, but my issue with the CCS has not been technical, it's been marketing. It has always seemed to me that the terminology was set to keep some semblance to the legacy thinking. I think this has hurt more than helped. imo, the new system should have also introduced new terms that does not have the potential for overlapping definitions in common use. Common use is very hard to disgard. Just my opinion.

To go back to my original post let me say that:

1. I found the present system of identifying blanks without standards to be chaotic.

2. I was happy to read about Dr. Bill Hanneman's system for making objective comparisons.

3. I accept the CCS as my tool of choice in making comparison.

4. In any comparison I would use the same line and length to assure consistency in that factor.

5. Based on my acceptance of the CCS as my comparison tool I find that the CTS blanks listed have a bit less
power, (lower ERN) than does my standard of measurement for blanks of that designation.

6. Knowing this I can select a blank with an ERN and AA of my preference rather than relying on "awesome" or
some similar adjective that has little objective meaning.

7. I am not really concerned as to what the manufacturers intended in their designation as the cliche used here
states: "The blank isn't aware of it's designation"

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

Stan,

The only one of your points I would question is #5. Your standard of measurement and that of the CTS designer are simply different. Both are corrent, neither is incorrect. I have no doubt that the CTS Affinity Plus 6 will work fantastic with a 6-weight line, but perhaps not at the distance you normally use your 6-weight lines/rods at. And this is the problem with all the manufacturer's line/rod ratings - if you don't use your rod in the same way the designer uses his, well...

Steve,

I think you're using the CCS intelligently and have caught on to the ERN=ELN +/- 1 adjustment for varying distances.

Actually, I think the terms are fine. But the ERN could have been expressed in letters rather than numbers and to elminate confusion. Then again, working with it as you have, the ERN = ELN becomes a help rather than a hindrance.

...........

Hmmmmm....

I'm looking for the forest but can't see it through all these trees? If we can't get the companies making fly lines to standardize exactly what a 5 wt is how can we possibly rate a rod as being any weight at all. If the Fly line companies did this would it not then pressure the rod builders/manufacturers to somehow standardize what exactly a 5 wt rod needs to load.

I look look at the CCS data and do the same thing that Stan does....it gives me a guess at where a blank will likely function best. If I buy this blank and fish it with a 4wt instead of a 5wt line or vice versa it will be ok....or that is close to this blank that I know I like etc.Let's face it the lines are all so different the same blank can perform very different with different fly lines of the same weight.

The problem I see is I don't think any of the high profile rod companies are going to want to jump on this bandwagon. They don't want anyone to know that their "5 wt" rod now is really rated a at 7 wt and it isn't a really fast 5wt it is a really light 7wt....to many prospective buyers would go "oh no thanks". IMO

Is anyone or any organization beside this site and Rodmaker pushing for industry to adopt the CCS system?

The companies making the lines do abide by a standard weight for each number. Mostly, anyway. But the rod makers do not have any such standard. The number on the rod is a purely subjective rating based on the designed intended the rod to be used for.

The industry will only adopt a relative power rating if the consumers push for it.

..........

My point #5 simply says their rod does not meet the ERN I am looking for. I have not said any where in this thread that they are wrong and I am right. The manufacturer may have the finest blanks in the world but they need to meet the conditions I set as a customer to be of value to me. Question it if you wish.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2006 05:15PM by Stan Grace.

I think Tom is on the money. The trouble is the system or non-system if you will by the commercial makers. You are wanting a rod with a number to fit your idea of how it should be used. The designer and the next fisherman may have a different idea of how that rod should be used. For me, the number on that Affinity Plus #6 would be perfect for a #6 line in those conditions I fish in. So as a consumer, CTS has done a great job for me with their ratings.

But it's this difference in how we use our rods that makes the current numbering non-system useless. We need the manufacturers to adopt an across the board system~~~ a real system. They need to stop suggesting a line weight to us based on what they think we are going to do with the rod and just give us a standardized power rating from which WE can decide what line weight we need to use on it based on what we do individually with the rod.

Good point, In fact, Dr. Hanneman made the exact same comment in his response to one of the fly line manufacturers who was questioning the need for any sort of true system for fly rods. Something to the effect that since the designed had no idea how the customer was going to use the rod, he might as well dispense with trying to guess and just put the ERN on there and let the customer decide for himself what line to use.

It does make good sense, but still requires that the customer have some understanding of rod power and the relationship between fly line weight and length. In my experience, you won't find one fly fisherman out of a hundred that can tell you what the number on the fly line box means. For this reason, the rod makers try to guess what most guys will do with the rod and stick some sort of number on there.

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

After reading through this thread I can only say that this is a truly unbelievable example of double-talk. After 40+ years of fly fishing, I know what I want in a rod, namely a relatively slow action because I originally learned to cast with a Pezon et Michel cane rod. What that means to me is that if I want a rod to use a 3 weight line, I will look for an ERN of about 2.9-3.1, because the testing I've done on the rods I own that I enjoy fishing with most are in that sort of range. My 6 weight is right about 6, and my 5 weight is just a bit less than 5. If I was in the market for a 4 weight, the CTS blank that Stan mentioned would probably fit the bill just about right. Sure, I can cast my 3 weight line with my 6 weight rod and I could also cast my 6 weight line with the 3 weight rod, but why should I, neither of those situations FIT how I fish, which is almost always in the 20-40 foot range with a fairly deliberate casting stroke. If the CCS data is not intended to be used to compare blanks or rods in this way, then I have to ask what good is it. The impression I get from this thread is that it isn't to be used that way, but I cannot fathom what else it can be good for if not relative comparisons.

imo, it can be used just as you described. I think the AFTMA standard was set 30' for a simple reason, that's pretty close to where the majority of freshwater fish are casted to and caught. That's why I think the ERN=ELN for the majority of anglers, especially for light line weights (< or = to 4) and is most of the time matches the designer's suggestion.

As I've come to learn and appreciate the system I've found that it is helpful for comparing blanks to get the power I prefer for the AFTMA weight line I want to carry/present the fly. I've also come to learn that it is very helpful for narrowing matching line weight for a blank. I've found this very helpful in rods that have suggested ratings of 5 or 6 (sometimes 7). For this class of blanks, I've found the ERNs to be all over the board compared to the designer's rating. I think the reason is these suggestions tend to have the widest range intended uses. For example, is the blank intended for to be a "casting rocket" for "5wt" line or is it intended to be used to cast big Bass bug upclose? 2 rods for these 2 uses can and often do have very different ERN's. I also think that when the ERN gets above 7 or so, the ERN and designer's suggestions begin to converge again.

I think that CCS is a great data point for comparison if you know what you want and it would be a great help if known from the manufacturer (and shop owner) for matching the right rod and line for the newbies who are buying their first "all-around" 8' 6" 5wt.