Coming from a medicine/science background, I've always relied on randomized, double-blinded studies as the true test of statistical difference and effectiveness of any intervention. I'm pretty new to rod-building, but was curious if anyone here knows- Have blinded studies been applied to rod design?

For instance, I love the concept of the Common Cents system- but has it been verified against blinded casters' subjective evaluations of rod "feel"? Do two similar blanks on the common cents chart really have the same feel and casting characteristics when built to the same specs?

Also, in designing my new fly rods that I'm building now, I did a lot of research into guide style,type, and placement, and came up with lots of opinions and statements about performance while test-casting rods under varying configurations. I was wondering if these variables have been tested in a blinded fashion? Does a TiSic stipping guide on a fly rod really equate to a longer cast than a simple wire ring?

And last, would there be an interest in publishing the results such tests if they were performed?

I don't aim to prove or disprove anything, rather I think it would be fun to see how much some of these variables matter relative to each other in proper rod design.

I guess you can say I've been doing too much medical research, rod building, and watching MythBusters lately!!!

The Common Cents Systems is a system of objective and relative measurment. It is just as accurate and correct as is our system of inches and feet, pounds, the Fahrenheight temperature scale,etc. Does 72 degrees F feel the same to you as it does to me? Is 24 inches the same to you as it is to me? These systems simply provide data which we've learned to relate to, albeit perhaps in slightly different ways. But we all know what the numbers mean to us. It is certainly more accurate and useful than a "blind caster's subjective opinion," which it was designed to improve upon anyway. In fact, it is the "blind caster's" subjective opinion that would need to be verified, not the accuracy of the Common Cents System.

For instance, if you had two items, weighed identical at 5 pounds each, and then had a "blind tester" hold each and proclaim that one felt heavier than the other, which would you discount - the objectively measured weights, or the subjective opinion of the tester?

Blind studies have been done on rod spine orientation, weight distribution and that sort of thing. Same with guide type and casting distance (changing to harder or slicker ceramic rings does not increase distance by more than very small percentage). Of course, any time you change guide types and also change the weight of the guides, you are then faced with having to decide if any change in casting distance is due to the ring material or the weight change involved.

On the other hand, much of what gets talked about in rod building has not been scientifically tested, although it has certainly been reasonably discussed. I wonder if you have followed the articles in RodMaker on things like resonant frequency, rod balance, sensitivity, etc.? Data is available for you to make a strong case for or against certain arguments.

One of the problems with some tests regarding rod building materials has to do with the vast number of variables involved. The number of rings materials, frame styles, graphite types, etc., all add up to making it somewhat hard to perform some studies without a great deal of time and expense involved. Certainly any such test could be done, with the time, parts and effort required. Trouble is, those who are most qualified and who understand how to perform such tests are not always available to make them. And those who have the time and effort available are not always those who are qualified to perform such tests.

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

Daniel,

I don't think I can add much to what Tom has said. The flexing of a tubular graphite rod blank is a rather complex process and Emory Harry will likely respond to your post as well. The CCS system devised by Dr. Hanneman is a self-consistent system based on an assumption. This method is just as valid as assuming the mass of a piece of platinum of a designated size at a specific temperature is defined as 1.000.... kilogram on the SI scale (metric).

This method provides us with a commonly understood set of values that can be used for comparative purposes. This is no different than the relative atomic mass scale used to compare masses of atoms to one another.

All that to the good, the feel of a rod cannot be determined by the CCS system. Certainly the resonant frequency of the vibrating rod will be one variable that affects the feel of a rod. There may be others as well. I believe that rod building is as much art/craft as it is science. The CCS allows rodbuilders of all backgrounds to have a rather easy to understand method of comparing action and power of a rod. Where subjectivity arises, is in how we like the "feel" of a rod. When sage rods first came out, they were heavily hyped in the fly fishing press. I bought an 8' # 5 weight Sage blank and built a rod from it. I took the rod on four trips and on the last trip I cracked the ceramic stripping guide. When I went to repair it, I realized that I did not like the feel of that rod. I still have it in my workshop unrepaired. I have tried Sage rods at fly fishing expos and I simply don't like the feel of Sage rods. This is as subjective as you can get.

In your field of medicine, you use double blind tests to eliminate personal bias of both the one giving the treatment and the one receiving the treatment. This is because there are so many variables that you can't control and human beings are extremely complex systems. In my area of analytical chemistry, we use replicate samples, measure the mean, the standard deviation, and the relative standard devaition from the mean in parts per thousand to measure our precision--accuracy is something different.

In rod building we can be somewhat scientific as well. When I decided to use the New Concept for guide distribution on spiining rods, I taped a set of guides in the old cone of flight, system took the rod out to a public park and made ten casts and measured the casting distance using a hundred foot measuring tape. I then repeated the test after using a second set of guides using the New Concept guide system. I found that the New Concept system increased my average cast by 15%. i think this is about as scientific as we can get or need to get in rod building.

Mike Blomme

Thank you very much for your answers- I am new to this and just started subscribing to Rodmaker (2 issues so far, very nice), so my question is an attempt to try to find out what really matters in rod construction. This page is awesome for getting information and opinions on lots of things, I was just wondering what kind of variables had actually been tested. I do hope to continue to learn from this site and the magazine, and follow the discussions and arguments from the past.

It is interesting that I bring up the "scientific" aspect of rod building, when I truly feel it is not nearly as important as the artistic aspect. In medicine, I know that the art of medicine is more important that the "evidence-based" science of medicine, same goes for rod-building. But what the science does let us do is find out what varibales truly do matter so that we can then proceed with the art and craftsmanship.

I agree wholeheartedly that the common cents system is an accurate and RELIABLE measure, just as Fahrenheit or pounds or kilograms is. Reading the articles, I am very impressed with the thought that went into the system. I wonder though if anyone has tested the VALIDITY of the system. Does it measure what it is supposed to measure? I am not trying to cast doubt on the system, just asking a few basic questions. Just remember, if Dr. Hanneman hadn't asked these same questions before, we wouldn't have the CCS system.

Mike, your example of casting the rod ten times is just what I'm wondering about- has anyone done this in a blinded fashion? I think it would be fun to test set-ups exactly as you describe, exept have a friend cast it next time blind-folded so he doesn't know what he's testing!

Now, let me wrap this all up by saying I am aware of the limitations of email and forums for this type of discussion, but that's the best I have right now. If we were all sitting in a room right now, I promise I wouldn't sound like a smart-aleck new guy to the craft who is questioning the wisdom of the masters! ;-) I know that's how it comes across here. I truly respect the people on this board, most or all of who have built hundreds or thousands more rods than me. The main point of all this discussion for me is to try to figure out how to best focus my efforts, where to best place my emphasis. For example, should I spend 10 hours checking and rechecking the static test on a new fly rod, or should I spend that ten hours elsewhere? Should I pay $300 for the name brand blank, or does the $30 blank with the same CCS valuses feel and fish exactly the smae? My main point was wondering if some of these variables had been tested before which would allow me to gauge the relative importance of many of these choices in rod building. I hope no one is offended or senses any disrespect in my questions.

The CCS is valid. No doubt about that. It measures power, action and a relative scale of frequency. And it does so by the very means employed to do each. A rod with an ERN of say, 6.5, is in fact, more powerful than one with an ERN of say, 3.8 and you would only need to load up the rods and lift something with them to see that this is true. Same with action. An AA of 75 is faster than one with an AA of 65, and you can see this just by watching where the rods flex. Same with the frequency portion - as the numbers change so too does the time it takes the rod to recover.

The scientific part of rod building is certainly as important or more so, than the artistic portion. What good is a beautiful rod if it doesn't cast well, or won't fight a fish effectively, or perhaps won't hold up to do the job needed. Certainly, form should follow function if we're talking about fishing rods that are intended to be used.

Casting tests have been done by machine in order to eliminate human input/error. Myths on spine relative to accuracy and distance have been debunked and so to, some of the myths on ceramics creating longer casts than standard steel guides (not necessarily so).

There are plenty more things that haven't been tested, although at least some of them fall into the category of natural and physical law and would seem to be only common sense (sense, not cents in this instance). But if you wanted to test any of the many things that still haven't really been put under scientific scrutiny, I'm sure you'd get the green light from most everybody here.

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