While reading a post regarding a CTS blank...it turned into a debate for lack of a better word regarding the use of the CCS data.

I don't know of any manufacturers currently using this system. Are any manufacturers using this system? It seemed logical to me that the companies that produce a lot of blanks for rodbuilders might be the first to adopt this type of system. Do any of you have any plans to adopt such a system.

I hope to understand from manufacturers what their position on this is?

Kerry Burkheimer has expressed a great interest in using this system to me on numerous occasions, although he has yet to actually implement it. The foks at AllStar expressed a keen interest in it as well, although they no longer have a blank program for rodbuilders.


Regards,

Andy Dear
www.lamarfishing.com

Dan Craft and TFO have both made efforts to get the CCS data to potential customers. Andy Dear was also doing it for All Star and Burkheimer blanks, although he is a vendor not a manufacturer. As far as I know, the big manufacturers like St. Croix, Loomis, Batson, PacBay, etc, have not done it yet. I hope the manufacturers respond. A couple years ago, I wrote a letter to the president of St. Croix and got an immediate response saying that some sort of standardization would be a good thing and was in the works. I don't know of any other standardized measuring system so we'll see...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2006 01:18PM by Steve Kartalia.

Though many here would like to see adoption of the CCS by manufacturers, it’s unlikely that many will benefit from doing so. Manufacturers sell “four” weights, “five” weights, “six” weights, etc. Each line weight is a subset of their product line offering and they already have to, through marketing studies, predict how many of each line weight will sell so they don’t under/over produce. Imagine that after they produce 1000 “five” weights they incur the added cost of having someone run a CCS on each one. The result will be a bunch of 5.01’s, 5.25’s, 5.80’s, 6.21’s (oops), etc. How exactly would they offer these disparate blanks in either finished rods or rod blanks? Who wants a 5.01? Or a 5.80? (I know, Kirkman). Other than rod builders, who will recognize these numbers? And who will educate everyone so that the buying public stops entering a rod shop to say: “My buddy was fishing great with a “five” weight, so give me one of those”? There will be pandmonium

The only hope is that distributors will take the initiative and offer CCS ratings on the blanks they stock, right? Not quite. What happens when the distributor finds no one wants that 5.01? Or the “five” weight with a 6.21 rating? Or, what happens when I buy a 5.62 and measure the ERN and AA after I receive it and by my measurements it’s a 5.29? Ouch….

So I really don’t think there will be many manufacturers or distributors who will be willing to take the risk that goes along with offering CCS data for the blanks they make or stock. Some may be willing to measure a few blanks upon request, but that may be the extent of it.

Jeff Shafer

I think they will adopt it, over time. All casting and spinning blanks already come with a relative power rating and fly rods will be next. The sooner the consumers ask for it, the sooner they'll get it.

........

I'm adding to this post not because I have anything new to add, but because I want to encourage maunf. & suppliers who might be reading to CC rate their rods & lines.
All rods/blanks have a market, I just want to know what I'm buying before ordering. I have no problem with a 5 wt. that ERN's @ 5.01, for some uses that would be a good 4 wt., for others a 5 wt.
Published ERN values should encourage buyers to ask for a rod based on anticipated permormance & not have to reley on how much a certin maunf. usually miss labels their product.

Gil,
Amen!

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

Double Amen. Manufacturers shouldn't be scared to publish them just because it reveals some manufacturing variation in the finished product. Most products have this, especially when the process can not be fully automated, as in blank manufacturing. The difference in power of 0.5 ERN is not a huge difference in actual casting and fishing. I mean, when I spin fish I am using a range of lure weights on the same rod all day long and it doesn't bother me one bit. Many fly anglers make way too much out of very minor differences in these numbers. The more you use the CCS, the more you will realize that the variation being discussed here is not even noticeable. You can measure it with pennies, but I bet most of us can't feel it when we're fishing. Like Gil says, we just want a better idea of what we're buying before we buy it and now there is a system to provide that information. SO USE IT. I don't buy a car with "a moderate" amount of horsepower. I would like to know the number.

Jeff is right on one thing. When a company's 3wt. has more or the same power as the 4wt. in the same series, guys will wonder "why do I need both". Darn good question. The answer is and always has been that each individual rod can do a lot more than most fishermen give it credit for.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2006 11:23AM by Steve Kartalia.

Generally the specs that manufacturers list for their blanks are target specs. They could easily do the same for the ERN and AA figures. They already given them for length, lure weight, power (spin and cast). If you measured each individual blank you would find some variance from blank to blank from the target spec. Some don't even match the length shown in the catalog. The better quality products don't vary as much, but some variance is unavoidable in any product with this much hand labor involved.

My point is that variance between blanks has not stopped them from listing these other measurements, so it shouldn't stop them from listing ERN and AA.

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

I agree that all blanks will have a market and that an educated buying public will sift through all the information. And if the buying public was entirely made up of buyers who were educated in how CCS can benefit them, then I think that manufacturers and distributors would jump on the boat. I'm going to guess that in terms of buying power we're in the minority so thus far there hasn't been enough incentive for manufacturers and distributors to do so. Remember, the marketplace is perfect.

Jeff Shafer

Steve....mostly I agree with your comments....but the reason it is more important to fly fishers is because the rod has to have the correct action to cast the line which propels the fly. Spin fisherman rely on the weight of the lure to load the rod....you can put on a heavier lure much easier than changing a fly line if you need to add weight and at much less expense.

I am a bit disappointed that no manufacturers have posted any comments....many are sponsors here

Joe, I don't think I made my point very well. When I fly fish I almost always use the same line, a DT5-F which for me can deliver just about any fly I have in my box. If I'm fishing huge flies, I'll use a bass taper WF-7-F. I fish these two lines on basically all my fly rods, which range in ERN from 2.6 up to 7.4. When I'm on small water and casting short, I'll use a shorter rod with less power. When I'm on big water I'll use a longer rod with more power. I don't even care anymore what the manufacturer's line rating is. If I happen to be using that line, then most likely it's purely by coincidence. By making small adjustments in my cast, I can make the rod do what I want it to do.

I also like the way Tom put it about "target specs". Close is good enough I think so the manufacturers need not worry. Just give us the target ERN and AA. We are already plenty used to blanks that do not exactly meet the target specs for tip top size or butt diameter, or length. Happens all the time and really doesn't cause any serious problems.

I'm also disappointed the blank manufacturers don't have anything to say on this subject. First big company that does it is going to be regarded as forward thinking, customer-oriented visionaries. Personally, I could care less about all the techno-bable they feed us (zero-gravity, IPC, ART, cross-scrim, hoop strength, modulus, epoxy resin systems) and would trade it all for some objective power and action numbers.

Joe,
I agree that spinning rods rely on lure weight ratings but I can't help but think that the AA or action rating would be helpful in choosing blanks. I often hear folks refer to rod action relative to their favorite casting and spinning rod but very few can define it. I build and use mostly fly rods but when I have asked folks for the attributes that a favorite walleye rod has the replys become very subjective.

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

Dr. Hanneman developed the CCS and implemented it so it would be easy for people to understand without having to learn much about it. That was his thinking when he coined the ERN = ELN thing. In fact, while the ERN is a not a line number, if you use that equation, you will find that for most average fishermen fishing and casting at what would be considered average distances (20 to 50) it works extremely well.

The consumer would still have to understand (as they once did) that most any rod will easily handle 3 line weights. A heavier line for in close, the rated line for average or mid-distances and a lighter line for reaching out far. That all went out the window when maximum distance became the selling point for fly rods.

If you read my article on this subject (on the CCS website) you can see that even the AFTA system, if it were actually used by the rod makers, would be fine.

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

Steve...I see your points and a very interesting way to look at things. I normally don't go up or down more than 1 line weight either way for a given rod.
Might have to try it.

You obviously have some experience and many rods I would think. I supposed I was looking at it from the point of someone without much knowledge or only one or 2 rods. Perhaps a first timer getting into fly fishing..or someone without the experience to know which rod would be best to purchase to suit his/her needs.

It is easier to get away with fishing the "wrong" rod for a spin fisherman than a fly fisher...or should I say going farther outside the guidelines for a particular rod. Not to say an experienced fly caster can't make it work.

To sum it up...I think this is more important information to have, to be able to characterize fly blanks than spinning or casting rods.

Joe, I agree with the way you've summed it up, especially for a beginning caster or someone who really has a strong preference for how loaded the rod feels when casting. And, yes, actually I would be embarassed to say how many different rods I've cast in the last 7 years. A combination of obsession, curiousity, and restlessness which is obvious when you look through the CCS database.

Consider writing a letter to a rod or blank manufacturer asking your initial question in this thread. Like I said, I did and I got an answer. But I'm still waiting for action on this. The more people that ask, the more likely it is that the system will be adopted.