After many years of building rods, there is still something that I’ve found to be elusive if not confusing. Several of the “rule of thumb” formulas used in rod building are based on rod “length”. I.E. “number of guides”, “CCS” loading, “Action Angle”, Lure Rating, etc.

Almost all of my (Bass) rods utilize a five to seven inch grip length and I’ve always considered the grip length difference irrelevant because of the way I hold the rod at the reel. I realize that many people like longer grips so as to improve leverage or to enable two handed casts. However, it just seems to me that to get more comparative values, it would make more sense to measure a rods “effective length” from the reel seat to the tip. Perhaps on a “two handed” rod or a rod with an extended grip for leverage, the reel seat becomes the fulcrum between the butt end and the tip, making the total rod length “effective”, whereas in a “one handed” rod such as mine, the rod is rotated at the reel, making additional length behind the hand irrelevant.

In order for me(or anyone else that shared my penchant for short grips) to get comparative readings, say for CCS power ratings, I’d have to use the length from the reel seat to the tip, or otherwise I’d get a different power rating for two identical rods where the grip might vary a few inches, but were gripped identically.

It also seems odd to me that the "rule of thumb" that would suggest the number of guides based on rod length does not take into account the grip length, which could vary considerably.

Jim,
You bring up a couple of very good points. The CCS points were debated at length when the CC System was introduced and it seemed to me at the time that one could build a case for making the CCS measurements either using 1/3 the total length of the blank or 1/3 the length from the reel seat to the tip. However, I do not think that the argument for using 1/3 the length from the reel seat to the tip was strong enough to change what Bill Hanneman's developed. That having a standard that was the same for everyone was a stronger argument to use 1/3 the total length. I also think that for most blanks, other than possibly some low action angle fly rod blanks, the difference in the two approaches is going to be pretty small because of the small amount of deflection near the butt of most blanks.
You also make a very good point about the number of guides being partly a function of the length of the handle. The longer the handle the shorter what you have called the effective rod length and therefore the fewer guides required. But I think that if you use the static deflection method or any similar method that I am familiar with for positioning the guides this will dictate the number and position of the guides regardless of how long the handle is unless I am missing one of your points.

Jim,

When you see the CCS measurements, those are for the blank which is what you're starting with. You know what handle length you're going to use so you should be able to determine what you're going to end up by knowing what you're starting with. There is no way a manufacturer or another builder can give you CCS data for a rod that hasn't been built yet - the data is for the blank. And even if they did give it to you per a rod they had built, unless it had the identical handle length that you had or wanted, it would't be the same. The common denominator here is the blank, so that's what we measure.

Beyond that, rules of thumb are just that - general rules that apply in general ways for the general configuration that one might expect to see on most rods. This is why we so often say that guide placement charts aren't much good - precisely because they don't take into account handle and grip length. Just another reason why there is little substitute for static guide placement. A rule of thumb is not a commandment.

I would always prefer to tell someone why something is done and once the criteria is out there, they can and should figure out how to fulfill it. But in my time with the magazine and this website, I've seen that the majority of builders are not interested in "why." They just want you to tell them how many guides to use and where to put them. My phone rings a hundred times per day with guys wanting me to build their rod for them over the phone or via an email. They do not want to know why anything is done the way it is, just "how many guides do I use" and "exactly where do I put them." Thus, we develop rules of thumb to at least get people in the ballpark.

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

Emory,
You’re probably right. Basing the “formulas” or “rules of thumb” where it would apply to most situations does make sense. For “my” type of rods I’d probably benefit from the reel seat to tip effective length for CCS and AA comparative measurements (only against MY other rods). If I used the “accepted” formula of “total” length, there would be a significant difference in power rating of two of my rods, one 65” OAL and one 68” OAL (identical blanks, same reel seat to tip length), because of having a 3” difference in grip length, the longer one would require considerably more weight to deflect another inch.

Jim,
The difference in power might not be as big as you suspect because the rod handle is still going to deflect some. It does not become perfectly rigid when you put a reel seat and cork on it. I have some identical older Loomis blanks that I will probably never use so if I get some time in the next few days I will test two with different length handles and check them both at 1/3 the total length and 1/3 the length from the reel seat to the tip and see what happens.

Tom,
I agree with what you’re saying, but I’m normally concerned with CCS/AA measurements at the end product (finished rod). Even if I had a CCS for a given blank, it would change because I almost always shorten the butt end and sometimes the tip to achieve what I’m looking for. By using the known measurements (CCS data) of my other rods, I can usually adjust as needed to get what I want…..assuming I start with the same blank (same CCS/AA). The reel seat to tip measurement seems to make more sense to me for my purposes, although having the CCS Data (OAL) for the blank I start with gives me the point of origin.

Emory,
Been there, done that. There is quite a bit difference. The rod handle extending behind the hand sees no force whatsoever.

Jim,

That's the problem - nobody can give you the ERN or AA for a rod that you haven't built yet. It doesn't exist and no information is going to be compiled for the same blank with different handle lengths in different increments. So any CCS info you get will have to be for what does exist and that would be the naked blank.

At that point each person has to consider what he or she is going to be doing with the blank, handle-wise, and make an educated guess how those figures will be affected once the rod is completed. The important thing is to know what you're starting with.


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2007 10:19PM by Tom Kirkman.

Tom,
Agreed. As long as I record the CCS Data on the blanks I start with, I can replicate the desired effect with subsequent finished rods even though I alter the lengths. I then re-measure the CCS data, but I eliminate the grip length factor and use the reel seat to tip as the common denominator. I admit, this probably would not be advisable for “two handed” rods because the loading dynamics is very different and the grip length is relevant.

**measure a rods “effective length” from the reel seat to the tip**

I believe the 'tip' isn't the fixed end of the lever tho. As the rod loads and you get the tip onward bending, the lever length, or effective rod length, shortens. Length, reel and grip positions being equal, a stiffer/fast rod is 'effectively' longer than a slow/parabolic one, and takes leverage away from the fisherman. No surprise you see some quite long grips show up on long stiff rods as the angler tries to reclaim leverage they traded away with blank choice.

Dave,
I think that you are right that a longer handle does improve the fisherman's leverage and decrease the fish's leverage but I would argue with you about what happens when the rod deflects. I would argue that in most fishing situations the rod is a class three lever, the fulcrum is at the butt of the rod. And as the rod deflects and in effect becomes shorter the fisherman's leverage increases and the fish's leverage decreases.

In most cases, the fulcrum is indeed at the butt of the rod. Give it some real thought and I think you'll agree. You can only pivot the rod so far with the wrist, particulary in what is not a very flexible position. Most pivot will always come from the elbow and thus the butt of the rod.

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

** And as the rod deflects and in effect becomes shorter the fisherman's leverage increases and the fish's leverage decreases.**
Thought I said that. Well, I meant to. I purposely left out the word 'fulcrum' for a reason :-) I was considering the grp as a sorta pivot point, with the butt geing the end of the levef. The other end of the lever is somewhere more towards the tip. I forget my calculus, but that is what would arrive at the answer. The more limber and bent the rod ahead of your hand position, the shorter the lever OAL and the higher your own leverage.
Should be easy enough to prove in reality. Take a slow limber rod, and a fast stiff rod with the same build dimensions. Tie off the line to a scale, fix the butt, and pull with another scale at the grip I would expect as the pressure goes up for a higher ratio to develop (pull scale / fixed scale) for the more limber rod, and for that rod to show more variability from low strain to high strain because its leverage changes more rapidly..

Dave,
When you are casting you could make an argument that a rod is a class one lever but when you are fighting a fish it is a class three lever. It will depend a little on how you hold the rod but with a class one lever the fulcrum would be near the position of your hand but with a class three lever the fulcrum is near the butt of the rod. Google "lever" or "leverage" or "lever arm" and I think you will see what I mean.

Thanks for the pointer. You are the smartest guy I don't know Emory.

Going to [en.wikipedia.org], and considering the 3rd class lever. Fulcrum is butt, big hand in middle is grip, and little up arrow on left is pressure on fish. What I'm thinking is that as the hand moves from the fulcrum to the opposite end, as would be a longer grip, that the pressure on the fish increases. Advantage grows to the angler. Now allow that bar to bend like a rod. Bends easiest neat the tip. As it bends I think it is the same effect as a higher grip and an effectively shorter rod. The easier it bends, the shorter the effective length and the greater the force applied.

Such is my hack science :-)

The fisherman's hand would be the "point of effort."

One thing we often forget is that a fishing rod is a lever but a somewhat complicated lever. It bends. Thus, a longer rod that flexes deeply ends up actually being a shorter lever than a shorter rod that doesn't flex much. This is why so many of the heavy offshore trolling rods and some stand up rods possess medium actions - they fold up a good ways right off the bat which effectively makes them much shorter levers. You gain some power advantage, but give up some advantage in length of line gained per pump. You're very much correct on this, Dave.

And remember that even though a rod is a 3rd order lever to the fisherman, it is a 2nd order lever from the fish's perspective.

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