Yesterday somebody brought up the fly rod ratings used by Tim Rajeff's Echo Fly Rods, called "Tim's Power Rating."

As it turns out, Dr. Hanneman demonstrated his Common Cents System at the G.Loomis Inc., factory a few years ago and Tim was/is an employee there. No doubt, he was in the audience and likely where "Tim's Power Ratings" have come from.

I have an email in to him now but suspect we're going to find out that Echo Fly Rods are being rated via the CCS. A smart move on Tim's part.

.........

U know if Loomis adopted such a standardized power rating as the CCS it would be a very positive selling point to customers.

IT would give them the advantage to be able to say.

"Unlike other rod companies who fudge their power ratings to perform better in biased test WE are giving you the customer up front and honest power ratings for every rod we make. You can count on it. If you order a rod rated to cast a 5wt line you will receive an ELN5.5 rod balanced to an aftma 5WT line."

All they would have to do is put the Rosetta stone chart in their catalog a brief explanation of how it works and boom there it is.

It would be a very positive marketing move for them. Every consumer likes a supplier who is being up front and honest with them. I know I, as a consumer, am dead tired of hype and word twisting in all forms of advertising on all products. Heck you can't even believe ivory soap is pure anymore.

Ray

The major rod makers rely a great deal on the magazine reviews and which rods are rated to cast the test line the greatest distance. A rod with an ERN of 7.0 is going to cast a 5-weight line a lot farther than one with an ERN of 5.5.

The commercial rod makers like having the rod ratings based on the subjective reasoning of their designers for this and a few other reasons. So they don't feel the CCS is something they want to get involved with. But some will and when they do, others will fall in line. Perhaps "Tim's Power Rating" is the start of this very thing.

Do keep in mind that any fly rod will cast any fly line... at some distance. A rod with an ERN of 5.5 will cast a 3-weight line and it will cast a 7-weight line. But not with the same amount of either past the rod tip.

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

Wouldn't posting the ERN on the rods mean more if it's the ERN for the completed rod? I understand there should be little difference in the ERN between a blank and a properly built rod; however, if you could see the ERN on the blank, the ERN on a factory rod with the same blank and then compare that to the ERN on a custom rod with the same blank wouldn't you see a physical measure of how much better a custom rod is? Would it work that way? If so, would the factories hesitate to use ERN ratings?

No, the ERN is power and is built into the blank. Between a commercially made rod and the same blank built by the custom builder you won't see much if any difference in ERN or AA unless the builder of one or the other used exceptionally heavy components, in which case the ERN for that rod might be a bit lower. The ERN isn't going to show anyone that one rod or blank is better than another. It's not designed to do that - it's just a relative power rating.

Dr. Hanneman originally designed the CCS for use by commercial fly rod makers for finished fly rods. Rod builders have been the ones to latch onto the CCS in greater numbers at this time, however.

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