I beg to differ with Dr Hanneman's assumption that rod characteristics can be described by static measurements alone. Spring rate and deflection angle have been engineering terms for a long time but these are not the terms used to measure dynamic response. Terms such as feels good, casts well, lot's of power, Smooth and Sweet are all terms used to describe a rod's dynamic behaviour not static measurements. An infinite number of rods can be designed to match any spring rate with any deflection angle desired. Most will not be good tools for fishing. Polar moment of inertia, center of mass, sensitivity, rebound rate, weight and material selection all have more importance than static measurement at a single defined point. Rod characteristics are best measured at the bare blank level not after finish. A rod must go from straight thru max deflection and back to straight while efficiently transmitting a finite amout of power supplied by the fisherman. Hook set must be crisp without snapping line or requiring massive amouts of arm and body movement. Every thing about a rod is due to it's dynamic capabilities not static measurements. If you want to make an educated decision on a blank this is not it. I'm presently undergoing a dynamic analysis of various blanks available to me. Both winners and losers will be evaluated. Let's see if Physics can find the definition of SWEEEEEET.

I'm assuming that your post is tongue in cheek. I will assume that when you buy a rod you ask for a specific length, not "give me something pretty long." Likewise what is SWEEEEEEEET to you may be sour to others.

The purpose of the Common Cents System is to measure a rod's inherent properties by relative numbers, not to ascribe subjective terms to how a person may feel about a rod.

If the Common Cents System is flawed, then so too is our temperature scale, lengths and weights measurements, etc. Remember, 90F is just a number, but "hot" is a subjective term. 3 pounds is just a number, but "heavy" is a subjective term. What is hot to one and what is heavy to another may not be the same thing.


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

All my senses ("feel"?) tell me this is a troll. But, I can't help myself.

Eugene - Dr Hanneman never assumes (or says he assumes) "that rod characteristics can be described by static measurements alone." . He simply provides an easily repeatable method to measure on a relative scale 3 inherent static properties of a blank. Two of which, Action Angle and Effective Rod Number, are particularly helpful because of a lack of standards for measuring and quantitatively expressing these two important properties. He wisely understands and continuously repeats to all who really listens that the CCS adds to the descriptive data and does not capture all of measurements. However, the 3 measurements that the CCS system does quantify provide a easy way to significantly narrow down choices from amongst " an infinite number of rods" so that the builder can add his/her experience and knowledge of the other factors of "sweetness" to build the rod the customer desires - based on their definition of "sweetness".

Imo, since its inception some critics have ascribed more to the CCS than its intended uses and then patted themselves on the back for pointing out its flaws of ommission.

Although I don’t use the COMMON CENTS SYSTEM quite the way it was intended, it has proved to be an invaluable tool (process) that enables me to categorize all my rods by power, action and lure ranges. I don’t rely on someone else to advise me as to which rod or blank to use for a given application, or to use the latest buzzwords, “technique specific” application. LOL. Not only do the specs provided by CCS measurements give me a quick reference to my rods relative ratings but they allow me to closely replicate new rods that give me the attributes of an existing rod that I find desirable. Or, to further enhance a given attribute by using an existing rod as a model and make appropriate adjustments to achieve the desired results. While it may not be a totally comprehensive method of analyzing a rod or blank, its relatively easy and IMO, rod building is not rocket science, so once I get my rods built, I fish them and make more subjective evaluations.
I do think that we as rod builders take for granted the fact that we have readily available good quality components and well designed blanks (which is rocket science!), so that “we” can build the “best” rods.

Seems to me someone has put up a straw man. I'll add that in my experience, there's a strange corelation between what my static measurements tell me about a rod and what my actual use tells me (dynamic experience). I've found that when I pick a rod based on some very basic static measurements, including such things as length, weight and CCS, it meets my expectations when I actually use the rod.

Sorry but my 40 years of mechanical engineering has taught me that expressed feelings on a subject may in fact have a valid scientific basis even if the individuals responding do not have a scientific vocabulary. The term "Sweet" was the first word from 3 individuals after casting one rod the fourth just asked "How much ?". There was no fifth. I didn't ask them to explain I just want to know the basis for the remark so it may be quantified for all to use. I just built the rod not the remarks. Coloring everything grey doesn't answer the question "Why that particular term ?"

The Common Cents System was designed to assign a relative number in an objective fashion to the inherent properties of fishing rods. An ERN of 5.5 is going to be the same to me, you or anyone else. The term "Sweet" may not and we may not even agree that a particular rod is indeed, "sweet." It's just a subjective term.

Look at it this way, you and I both know about how long a mile is. But do you consider a mile a long distance? You might, and I might not. And of course, everything is relative. I know how to compare an AA of 75 to an AA of 68, but what is the relative comparision between "sweet" and "super?" What about "phenominal!" Would that trump even "sweet?" How do you compare such terms on a relative basis? I certainly don't know how to do it.

If we ditched our fahrenheit or celcius scales and just used terms like "sweltering" or "frigid" or "cool" to describe temperature, do you think that would be an improvement over the objective and relative scales in place now? Frankly, I think it would be a huge step backwards.

Folks will always have subjective opinions and terms to describe their rods, but with the CCS we also have an objective and relative scale behind them that allows us to quantify what it is we're talking about.

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

Eugene Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I beg to differ with Dr Hanneman's assumption that
> rod characteristics can be described by static
> measurements alone. .... An infinite number of
> rods can be designed to match any spring rate with
> any deflection angle desired. Most will not be
> good tools for fishing....

You could of course design rods using say tubular steel for whatever spring rate and deflection angle you want, and they would be total dogs to handle and fish because of the weight. However rods worth discussing are made of various grades of graphite or fiberglass. With this restriction a static measurement a la Common Cents does a reasonable but not complete job of classifying them. One further measurement that Dr. Hanneman pointed out is to measure the oscillation frequency, which is a dynamic measurement which gets at the effective mass of the rod. Of course it's possible to go further, but it gets difficult quickly. As a physicist by training, I have dabbled a fair amount with this, but haven't yet gotten to anything that satisfies me. Rods are non-linear oscillators, and simple approximations don't work at large deflections.

Mike

Precisely . This is the reason for the lengthy pursuit of the definition. Why do two manufactures rods measure the same in static deflection yet one fatigues your arm after half an hour while the other can be cast effectively all day. The answer is not subjective but science.

Eugene,

I have to say that at this point I don't really think you've fully read nor comprehended what the CCS is all about. Two rods that peform entirely different are not going to possess the same CCS numbers. DBI is a combination of ERN and AA - not a simple deflection distance. All rods are deflected to the same point in the CCS - this is precisely why it works so well. It doesn't use a fixed amount of weight for deflection, but a fixed degree of deflection based on length and then measurements are taken from that point.

Weight and weight distribution are one factor in angler fatigue. The CCF easily points out which rods can be expected to be more tiring than others.

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

Tom,
Let me start by explaining the reason for visiting this site and the CCS system to begin with.
Two weeks ago I was instructed by my customer to build a 9 Foot 4 Weight with a blank that he provided. Being unfamilar with the blank I proceeded to their web site for blank specs. This claimed the blank was indeed a 9 Foot 4 Weight IM6 with a fast action. Additional specs on butt, tip and blank weight were verified and found to be right on published specs. The ferrule measurements appeared large and wall thickness was heavy, by my judgement for a 4 Weight, but the blank checked out otherwise. After completing the rod I proceeded to the back yard strung it with a 5 Weight and after several casts concluded that it was indeed overlined. Restrung with with a 4 and the improvements were recognized on the first cast. After 20 minutes of casting my elbow was screaming. The rod blank is one that appears often in the CCS database. The rod felt heavy, slow and sluggish (Oops too subjective). Weak butt, fast heavy tip. The ERN is 5.5 and the AA is 68-70 degrees. The subject blank had a 9 Foot 5 Weight brother built by me with exactly the same problem. My customer confided that he too had built two rods from the same manufacturers blanks but his were much worse. As mentioned earlier this is a blank reviewed by many of the CCS respondents. Actually the manufacturer and taper designer are offshore only the US distributor is known.

Okay, so what?

You know the blank is a 4-weight, because the manufacturer lists it as such and since there is no standard for what constitutes a 4-weight, it is whatever the manufacturer says it is. And... it will fish nicely with a 4-weight line at some distance.

The ERN and AA are what they are. They are simply measurements. And ERN of 5.5 shows enough power to easily cast a 5-weight line with just 30 feet of line past the tip, but for longer distances it would appear that a 4-weight line would be the ticket. And... that's exactly what you determined to be the case.

I would have taken the DBI and understood what I had and coupled that with the fact that it was a 2nd generation graphite material and concluded that it most likely wasn't going to be a very crisp or lightweight blank compared to later generation graphite models. I might have even run the CCF to determine the speed of the rod, but I think I would have been able to deduce that pretty much from the weight of the blank versus the ERN. You had all the correct data there - what did you miss?

I have to say that I really don't see your point here, sorry. Where do you think the CCS failed? I don't see any such failure.

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

I think what Gene is after is a system that will tell him if he's going to like a blank or not. Sadly I don't think anybody can come up with such a thing.

If a hundred people run the common cents numbers on that blank they will all come up with the same figures. So we know the common cents system is doing its job.

But if the same hundred were all asked to describe the rod in their personal opinion, for every person that says it was "heavy slow and sluggish" you will have another that says it was "relaxed, easily load and pleasant."

If you are trying to come up with a system that tells people if they will like a blank or not then good luck with that. I doubt your personal tastes will always coincide with somebody else's.

No offense to Eugene or anyone else, but I sense that many still do not understand the terminology (few fishermen do, thanks to the many advertising folks who don't know the difference between action and speed and use them interchangably). A "fast action" blank is not one with a quick reaction and recovery necessarily. Action is where the blank initially flexes. A fast action blank generally flexes initially in the upper 1/3rd of its length. A rod or blank can certainly be "slow and sluggish," and yet still possess a very, very fast action.

The AA is what it is and improves upon the 3 or 4 stage resolution used in the old "slow, medium and fast" nomenclature. The AA introduces a much greater resolution and actually puts a number on the action. An AA of 70 indicates a blank that possesses a faster action that one with an AA of say, 60. And we know that to be true.

But I believe that "Speed" is more likely the thing Eugene is refering to. Speed refers to how quickly the blank reacts and recovers and is largely determined by taper (action) and weight. The CCS frequency measurement would have been useful here, if it had been taken. I don't think it was. A comparatively low CCF number would have tipped Eugene off to the fact that his blank was likely going to be "slow, heavy and sluggish," in his opinion. As far as I know, the CCS frequency measurement is the only measurement available for rod "speed." It is certainly the only objective and relative measurement available.

You don't want to blame the CCS or say that it failed in any way, unless you want to fault the system of weights and measures as well. After all, was that blank not 9 feet in length? And it was still "slow, heavy and sluggish." There are many other blanks that are also 9 feet in length and yet they're "fast, light and crisp." Does this mean that our system of length is somehow failing? How can 2 blanks, both 9 feet in length, possess such different characteristics?


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

"blank reviewed by many of the CCS respondents". I don't agree with this point. The blanks weren't reviewed. CCS data was simply entered into the data base. The data base is not intendted for and does not have a column for judgements of design execution and/or value - design and manufacturing execution for the price (an important static quantity). It does imo have data that is critical to establishing ann apples to apples comparision of two inherent properties that materially impact casting and that can be used deductively (as Tom points out) in determining other outcome considerations important to the customer (not the least of which is budget).

Wow
this might seem an esoteric discussion to some but is a very interesting subject.
No critique on my part of the discussion of the CCS or what it was intending to do & what it couldn't do.
But some feedback on comments about rod blanks raised in the posts.
1.
The query ( & I take it as a query rather than any condemnation of inadequacy ) raised by Eugene is valid.
2.
The comment by Mike that rods are non-linear oscillators is extremely valid & at the heart of the problem that Eugene's query raises.
Isn't it the very non-linear nature of the beast that drives the issue of "feel"
3.
Comment by Jim that rod blank design is a rocket science .........I hope was made tongue in cheek .
Nothing could be further from the truth in scientific terms & its related to Mikes comment @ 2. above.
Science has huge problems with prescribing the humble fishing rod in engineering,& physics terms, because it is such a complex thing in its behavior for such a simple construction.
Rod blanks evolve more by trial & error than any application of known science & engineering ( do I hear howling in the background ??? )
Rod blanks evolve with as much science as rod building from the blank up has.
- do something once & change something next time to attempt to improve a particular aspect of the package.
Some very fundamental scientific principles & a huge amount of "trial & error" with very minute changes in OD taper & wall thickness taper having quite dramatic effects & the science does not exist to enable those changes to be predicted by desktop design.
Skilled rod designers have a well refined sense of what changes made to their initial design are likely to produce but real science it isn't.
typically several prototypes need to be produced to achieve the desired outcome ( of what we would call FEEL............a sweet feel.)
Rod design is more art & craft than science but is underpinned by some high tech science in some parts of the components used in the rod design.................the application of these components to the rod design is virtually all art. at the detail level.
( this does not demean any of the highly refined skills of rod designers................its skill not science ............so please don't anyone be offended ).
ie
an analogy is wood turning ............there's basic engineering & science involved but the wood turning itself is a skill

The Engineering world uses fishing rods as a design task for its best & brightest in modeling symposiums & workshops .
The resultant examination of how to model the simple fishing rod identifies complexities that befuddle the best brains & require simplifications & assumptions to enable headway on basic modelling.
A fairly recent effort on modeling rod behavior .................just in its loading & reflex moments.........presented at an international Engineering Design Symposium in 2006 runs to pages & pages & pages of equations & acknowledged simplifications & assumptions at that.

More power to the rod designers & recognition of their skills ...................if the engineers can't get detailed models...............what skill & art is in our rod designers with the magnificent blanks most of them produce...................but science it ain't.
4.
The comment that Tom makes:-
"If the Common Cents System is flawed, then so too is our temperature scale, lengths and weights measurements, etc. Remember, 90F is just a number, but "hot" is a subjective term. 3 pounds is just a number, but "heavy" is a subjective term. What is hot to one and what is heavy to another may not be the same thing."
is a bit glib.
I would prefer to use ' time' as a more apt example of the situation we are in regarding rod performance & measurement.
Time hasn't really changed , but the way we measure it sure has evolved over ages to where we now have a very exact & quantitative system of measurement . Measuring rod parameters in 2008 stands where time was in the 1700s & 1800s .................a rather inexact measurement. of the parameter itself.
We don't know it all yet & I dont think CCS tries to say it is it all.

As for CCS ...............what a brilliant simplification of a number of aspects of the behavior of a rod blank that CCS provides qualitative & quantitatve assessment of & enables comparative assessment of those aspects the CCS was designed to assess between blanks.
The designer of CCS was not able to design standardised measurement practice for all of the aspects of a fishing rod that we might like to have......................but no man alive has been able to do that so far.........................all credit for what has been done so far.
Kudos to Dr Hanneman because we have something we did not have before.
Tom K & others identify that we can make assumptions ( & reasonably valid ones ) of other aspects of rod behavior not qualified by the CCS parameters from the CCS information. ................ the bottom line though is that we still cannot quantify them .

I agree with Eugene that we cannot MEASURE all of the rod characteristics by measurements alone ...................but I add " in the context of currently designed tests " . And I think that is all Eugene is really trying to say .........and identifying an aspect of rod performance that it would be useful to have a standardised test for ( if only someone could qualify the aspect & come up with a test to quantify it ).

Lets not shoot the messenger......................... nothing in this discussion demeans the work of Dr Hanneman or the rod designers .............. it just puts a context to the issues and serves to identify what we don't know.....................yet.............or how to measure it.

" Straw Man" this isn't.....................if we don't discuss & identify what is lacking we don't strive to find an answer.
At the same time I don't believe that Dr Hanneman was trying to say that the standardised tests he designed was the 'be all & end all'.

I note from following the threads of this forum for quite a few years before joining, that this is not the first rod design / behavior subject that has identified parameters of rod behavior & design that was not well understood & deserved discussion & critique & that suffered an element of what I would call a "lack of traction" in desire to debate & discuss .............and have been categorised as myths or hocus pocus. or a "straw man " Such concepts on a site of the quality that this site is; deserve discussion as far as we are capable of taking them & either debunking them by sound assessment or embracing efforts to quantify & qualify them as best we can.
That Ladies & Gents is the future of rod design & rodbuilding in my mind.
DenisB

Few builders employ the Common Cents Frequency measurement - they should. You can take a bamboo rod, a glass rod and a graphite rod and all can have identical DBI's (ERN and AA figures) but all will feel and perform differently due to their differences in material/weight. But the CCF smokes that out pretty darn well - it is a piece of the puzzle that shouldn't be overlooked and once put to use, the Common Cents System gets as close to a "perfect" blank measurement system as anyone is likely to devise.

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

Denis,
Thank you. Open minds are hard to find around here.
Whoever said that the best of anything is easy to quantify. Follow these simple steps and life is good.
I don't need to look at the thermometer to tell me if I feel hot or cold. I accept the fact and put on a heavier shirt even if someone else says it's fine.
I have stumbled onto some quantifiable results dealing with PMI that others describe as "sweet" Oops too subjective but have neither the patience nor desire to share these on this forum.
Everything about fishing is a dynamic experience that static and linear qualifiers don't describe. My casting ranges from 20-80 feet on any given day. I fish with from 2-8 weight rods and expect them to perform equally well at all distances if I'm dredging or fishing on top.
I don't care if the rod measures right, does it feel good and does it do what it's tasked with. Everybody has a favorite rod and the others serve closet time together.

Thanks again

Eugene, I appreciate how you feel , but would hate to see a different concept not be considered .
We evolve by moving into the unknown, but at risk to ourselves.
Would you be prepared to accept PM to enable direct discussion of your concept.
If so we can both unlock our addresses in our profiles.
DenisB

Eugene,

Develope your system and present it and see where it goes. We're not close minded - just waiting on your system.

I think most folks still appreciate the Fahrenheit system - much better for most than simply having the weatherman saying "It's going to be cold today." But I hold open the possibility that some do, in fact, like that type of system better. After all, we can all agree on what "cold" means, right?

I have no idea by what you mean by a rod that "measures right." The CCS doesn't indicate if something measures "right." It simply provides data, like a tape measure, scale, speedometer, etc. It's up to you to determine if you like the rod or not.

Dr. Hanneman never said a rod could be completely defined by static measurements - only that those measurements could prove helpful.

..........



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2009 04:53PM by Tom Kirkman.