Live bait rods are typically used to catch bait on strings of jigs and are quite different from the specific case listed above.

The length of the leader, 18 inches, the cost of the shrimp, the desired casting distance, the trouts paper mouth and the excitement of the moment creates a situation for a the use of a moderate action blank. A true fast or extra fast action blank will lock up too quickly on backcast causing you to throw off the high priced little shrimp or tear the hook out of the mouth of the fish if you are a litte overzealous on hhkset or retrieval. Nice and gentle with constant load increases casting distance and decrease rates of lost fish to to hook tear out. The moderate action of the blank will cover for some of the fishermans excitement and weaknesses -

Nearly all manufacturers describe a intermediate modulus popping 842 or 843 moderate action blank for the task described above.

Jim S you are on target - there are multiple uses - but you need to know what is required in each case. This same blank provides a shock absorber when used for crank baits and treble hooks for bass fishing. You will find the same blank listed in more than one category in most catalogs. That blank would be useless if you were attempting to drive a hook home to recover a bass from a grass mat. Complete books could be easily written on the subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2009 06:36PM by Bill Stevens.

Around here live bait rods are used for fishing with live bait on freelines, balloon rigs, etc., and the quarry is everything from striped bass to kings. The tip is light and fast so you can see what the bait is doing (now that's sensitivity when you know a strike is going to happen a few seconds before it actually does) and so the fish doesn't come up against a solid pull when he hits - the tip gives enough to allow him to easily engulf the bait.

..........

Sorry, but just catching up on this thread and have gotten quite interested.

After reading, it has occurred to me that there may be another dimension to this discussion that could get us all on the same page. Heaven forbid that should happen.

Noting that one manufacturer's "medium" designation defines a blank that may be appreciably different from 10 other manufacturer's designations of "medium" it becomes apparent that we may be being kept in the proverbial box once again.

Let's suppose that we had a way to define power on a scale of 1-100 (1 being 1/10th of an ounce and 100 being 10 ounces). And let’s suppose that we defined action on a scale of 1-100 (1 being a rod that had a uniform bend from the pivot point uniformly to the tip and 100 being a rod that only had a bend at 1% of the tip).

If it would be possible (note I said, "IF") to build a blank using the aforementioned scales, what would you call a blank that has a number 56/(power)72(action)? After all we would only have 10,000 choices to pick from.

Maybe Dr. Hanneman really is on to something that we non-fly builders can figure out how to use.

Just thinking out loud.

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

Such a method is already available - it's called "Action Angle" and is a component of the Common Cents System. And it works on all rod types, not just fly rods. The CCS doesn't have any idea what a fly rod is - it just takes the measurements of whatever you stick in there.

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

Tom

I kind of figured you would chime in here with the CCS response. Respectfully, I disagree.

The action side of the equation in the CCS is not adequate to describe blanks outside of the fly catagory. Fly rods are fly rods are fly rods are fly rods are fly rods. And they always will be.

The CCS treatise, in my opinion, is greatly lacking is a correlation of power and action. It has contributed to a stagnation of 'fresh thought' with other categories of rods (bass casting in particular) and has caused a lot of good builders to miss out on a much broader spectrum of available blanks.

Example; there are builders who first measure blanks to get the AA and automatically conclude that the blank is not suitable for the desired purpose because they don't fall within given parameters, when in fact a simple 'build try' trial would have revealed that the blank would have made a rod much superior to the ones that fall within the given parameters.

It really troubles me when we lock onto something just because it has been published and it falls directly in the lap of what the manufacturers what us to believe. "DON'T LET THE BASS FISHERMEN OUT OF THE MAGBASS BOX".

This is the same thing that most manufacturers perpetuate with "slow, medium, fast and extra fast" they are just too set in their ways to describe blanks for what they really are.

So Tom, please enjoy CCS for the great work that it is but please, don't try to 'shoe horn' everything into it. It ain't applicable.

Bobby

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.

Bill,
In regards to crankbait rods…. I must be living proof of Darwin’s Theory……the way my crankbait rods have evolved is that, although my rods are moderate Action, I’ve gone to a little heavier Power (than medium) and increased power to the tip by shortening. Might be worth mentioning that I also fish with braid. I suppose you could say that I’m trying to eliminate the “shock absorber” effect you mentioned, that most guys are trying to create. I don’t subscribe to the theory that the treble hooks are easily ripped out of their mouth.
I believe two of the conditions we try to solve for when fishing crankbaits is: One, being the fact (?) that Bass (or any other fish) will often chase prey (or intruders) and nip at the tails. These would be the ones that are apt to be lightly hooked. Obviously, a strong hookset or stiff rod would be more likely to pull hooks free. The second being, that many times a fish will engulf a lure, and in a very short period of time, reject it before the fisherman can react, or even detect it. This was filmed back in the early 70’s by Glen Lau and Bob Underwood. I’m more committed to the latter, rather than the former.
The “supporting reasons” for my choice of rod type are (in order of importance): 1. I can “work” the lure more effectively, hopefully causing the fish to commit. I usually try to work the bait erratically and not just swim it back to the boat. 2. Better sensitivity, and 3. Better overall control.
What I’m giving up (trade-offs) is casting distance (the rods are also “short”) and the ability to hook up to non-committed fish (because of the added sensitivity, I can feel the fish I lose-Ha)
Btw, this rod config. also works well (for me) for topwaters and mat fishing (worms,frogs).
I realize that I’m in the minority with my thinking and I can live with that.

I commend Messrs Kirkman and Colby for their "marketing" skills and fishing knowledge concerning the "fudging" of CC numbers while "selling" superior "task specific" fly rods. I thought all the while they were totally inside the box builders!

Mr. Spooner: We are seeking out of the box thinkers for developement of bass fishing rods. I think your are highly qualified - I do not think that anyone who fishes with a five foot six flipping stick equipped with a spinning reel every saw a box that they would fit in!

}>

Bobby,

Those people you mention don't understand the system nor are they good at using the numbers to get what they think would be suitable. In fact, with all due respect, I'm not sure you really understand it after reading your post. I don't even know what "parameters" you're talking about - they don't exist within the CCS. It may be that what you are objecting to are those "parameters," not the CCS.

Can you imagine having different measuring systems, or different lengths for an inch, for different materials? So metal stock would use a different length standard than wood. Or the temperature of water would be measured by a different system than the temperature of oil. Is a 7' bass rod a different length than a 7' fly rod? I'd hope not - 7 feet should be 7 feet, no matter what we're measuring.

No, this is exactly what makes the CCS so useful - it is relative across the entire range of rods. Remember, it has no way of knowing what type rod blank you have installed and are taking measurements of. And this is why it is purely objective and relative.

"Fast" "Medium" and "Slow" are but 3 points on a scale - very, very poor resolution. The AA scale of the CCS provides far greater resolution and puts a quantifiable number on action under a standardized measuring position, unlike the common terms "Fast" "Medium" and "Slow."

If you could provide me a scenario to better illustrate what you're talking about I might be able to make better sense of it and perhaps dig a little deeper. As it is I just can't see how numbers describing power, action and speed could do anything but help any builder or fisherman understand more about that particular blank. The CCS would never dictate that a certain blank isn't suitable for a certain application - that's a decision the user has to make. Some do a good job of it, while others do a poor job of it.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 09:37AM by Tom Kirkman.

Bill,

No one fudges CCS numbers - they are used to provide accurate relative power ratings. Once you know how to relate to those figures, you can do a great deal with them. But again, there are no parameters in the CCS - that type stuff is just in the fisherman's mind.

The CCS makes so much sense, but I'm afraid many still don't understand it.

And... if it doesn't work for all rod types, then we're all in big trouble - it's based on the same system we use for measuring temperature, length, weight, etc. If it has any faults, then so do these identical systems.

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

Bill,
Spinning reel??????

"Example; there are builders who first measure blanks to get the AA and automatically conclude that the blank is not suitable for the desired purpose because they don't fall within given parameters, when in fact a simple 'build try' trial would have revealed that the blank would have made a rod much superior to the ones that fall within the given parameters."

Bobby,

I've read your post again and again and still have trouble understanding it. However, from the statement above, I think your argument is against the "parameters" and not the CCS (it only provides data, not parameters for use). I agree. I don't know who set those parameters, but I think those persons (commercial rod makers?) and/or those parameters are the ones at fault. How you would get bass fishermen to ditch such "parameters" I have no idea, however.

Your quote above shows that it is the builders and their personal conclusions, not the CCS or its AA figures, that are at fault. Find out who's putting out those "given parameters" and take them to task.



..........

Tom

I appreciate your discussions.

Let me see if I can make more sense than I did last night while tired. Sorry for the confusion.

Everything you say is correct and I agree with it. The CCS system is excellent and it definately has its place.

My problem I have with CCS is the fact that we only measure when the blank is 1/3 rd deflected. The fact is that there are many blanks today that feel and act entirely differently when stressed to 1/3 rd than they do when stressed to the max. This is the reason I say that the CCS numbers keep some people from using blanks that are much more suited for their purpose than the ones strictly chosen by the numbers.

Tom both you and Bill C. commented on another thread - The simple fact that you note that fly rod fishermen do not understand what line wt numbers mean places us all in the same box with subjective ratings. The "fudging" I referred to is contained in your post.

I think the basic difference is that you see no need for the fisherman to communicate with the number side that the rodbuilder uses to select the proper blank for the task. I see more value to the CC System as a comparative tool across product lines. I do not think it will be accepted in its present form by the bass fishing public as a sales tool for task specific rod selection.

The CC System is a system to quantify - Using the present "language" to make the connection with bass fishermen will be very difficult -

I believe what Bobby is saying is that the acceptable language to the fishermen is not yet available - we feel the fisherman and the builder need a common bond pertaining to rod action and power.

If all bass rod custom builders choose to rate rods any way they choose .........Oh My!

Can you imagine the newbie struggling with all of this?

Your post:

"Again, what exactly is a "5-weight?" I'm sure, and you probably are too, that those that are telling him that don't understand what fly line numbers relate to.

What you could do, is tell him that the 863-4 is a 5-weight rod. That number on a rod is subjective anyway, and as a custom rod builder you are free to rate the rod any way you want. I used to do this quite often. A guy would come in, tell me what he was going to be doing and using on the rod, and then I selected the blank that would do the best job for him. I didn't care what number was on the blank - what mattered was whether or not it would do the job and make the customer happy."

Bobby,

I apologize for being dense this morning. I finally figured out what you are saying - some guys are trying to put square pegs into round holes and then want to blame the pegs.

Let’s say a given parameter for a certain rod type is this - “A 7’, heavy power, fast action rod.” Already we’ve been given a bum parameter. It contains one objective term and 2 subjective terms. This isn’t at all consistent. Why not use objective terms for all three? Or, change that “7” to “Long.” We can all agree on what length constitutes a “long” rod, right? But if not, then how can we agree on what constitutes a heavy power or a fast action?

This is the mistake - trying to take relative numbers and correlate them to subjective parameter terms. Impossible to do, but the CCS is not at all at fault. Give those parameters in real numbers, like we do for length, and all is well.

Please humor me for a minute. I assume you have a thermometer in your house. Please walk over to it and look at the scale. Do you see “Hot” or “Cold” or perhaps “Sort of Cool” written on it anywhere? Of course not.

What you will see are numbers - that’s all. Now for any given temperature you’ll have a number there that represents it. What that number means to you and what it means to somebody else may be entirely different. At 60 degrees, you may switch to shorts. Another guy, at that same 60 degrees, will bundle up in a jacket. So is 60 degrees, hot or cold?

Mr. Fahrenheit would tell you that 60 degrees is warmer than 50 and cooler than 70, but that’s about it. He didn’t specify whether 60 degrees was hot or cold. He wasn’t interested in subjective opinions, just in a method that allow you compare temperature on a numerical and relative scale. You have to decide for yourself if you need shorts or a jacket.

We know the CCS AA figures are accurate- a blank with an AA of 80 is more tip oriented than one with an AA of 75, and less tip oriented than one with an AA of 85. But what constitutes a “Fast” action in the CCS? Nothing - the CCS doesn’t use subjective terms. You should never call an AA of 80 “Fast” any more that you sould call 60 degrees “Hot.” An AA of 80 isn't fast or slow, it's 80.

Your thermometer doesn’t tell you to wear shorts or put on a jacket. That part is up to you. You learn through experience how to relate to the numbers according to your personal tastes, whether we’re talking AA or Fahrenheit. Anybody that is trying to put quantifiable numbers into parameters which are given in subjective terms is making a mistake. But it’s not the numbers that are at fault, it’s the person who’s trying to use the tool in the wrong way.

If you want to use the CCS for selecting bass specific rods, then you need to completely toss out "terms" and use nothing but numbers. Instead of that "7-foot, Heavy Power, Fast Action Rod," use something that looks like this - 7', ERN 11-11.8, AA 75-80, CCF 60-65. Then we'd have square openings for our square pegs to fit into.
.................

Tom

Haven't read my response two posts ago have you?

Yes I did, that's all covered pretty well in the Big Picture, part II of the CCS.

All measurements in such a system have to be taken at a standard position if they're going to relative. Thus the 1/3 distance/deflection.

However, the measurements outline in the Big Picture allow you to break things down much further by using the CCS on sections of rod blanks and under different deflections. This sounds exactly like what you're after. Maybe.

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

From the article...


...a DBI can be determined over any length of a rod blank, tip, mid-section, or
butt one might choose. By combining such measurements, one can create that BIG
Picture. Let me show you how.

Dr. William Hanneman


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 12:16PM by Tom Kirkman.

Bass rods are my main business. I use the CCS to dial right in on techique specific rods. It has never let me down nor do I expect it ever will.

Over the years I have by trial and error come up with blank models that work well for different techniques. In the last few years I have been running the CCS numbers for them and listing them in my notebook under the different categories they fit into. Now I have a range of action and power figures that I KNOW will work for specific uses. I add more each time I find a rod that works extremely well for the given purpose. This process of back figuring to build such a database has been a real help to me and my customers.

More builders should also record the CCF numbers. This can mean a lot on crankbait rods where you may not want a rod that reacts too quickly.

At this point I can use my own database to match CCS numbers to blanks that will do what I expect them to. This is one way to use the CCS for bass specific rods that I’ll bet few have thought of. I half way started not to even mention it. No use giving the competition an edge. Hopefully none of you guys are in my area.

OK I give. Gotta get some fresh air.

Bobby,

I don't think anybody is trying to get you to "give." Some are able to use it for their purpose and some aren't. As Dr. Hanneman said, "If you find it useful, use it." I use it on everything from fly rods to bass rods to live bait rods and haven't run into any problems. Others don't use it at all. If you don't find it useful for what you're trying to do, so be it.

It's entirely possible that I still don't know what you mean by "suggested parameters." I don't know who's doing the suggesting and if they're using real numbers or just vague terms.

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

Bill,

The CCF is the most underused part of the system. That's a shame, because it really adds some very important information related to action, taper, weight and material, all in one scoop.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2009 02:28PM by Tom Kirkman.

I hate trying to type what the right side of my brain told the left side what I should say -

We all missed a golden opportunity in High Point!

The rods were there -

The builders were there -

The fishermen were there -

Shouda, Couda, Wouda -

Maybe next time we can all take advantage of the reel action and power of the group!

Extra Heavy