In following the thread on the difference between casting and spinning blanks, it was mentioned that the URRS would give you the info. This is the first time that I have seen/heard this term??? Can someone explain what this is/does??

Thank you in advance,
Ron Jack

Universal Rod Rating System. It is built on the Common Cents System. The article appeared in a past issue of RodMaker Magazine.

By the way, it was recently adopted by a major rod and blank manufacturer for use in their 2010 catalog. I won't spill the beans on that yet, but they've already begun rating their products according to the system.

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

I suspect there is another slant on this topic that has never been mentioned. Blanks and rod recommendations appear in manufacturers listings for marketing reasons. The ones who make specific listings in multiple categories are doing so as an added service to aid those in selecting the most appropriate blank for the intended use. This subject appears on this board quite often and I suspect many fishermen and also some custom builders can use the added help in choosing the correct blank.

The reel choice and the quick instantaneous release of the wrist used to propel a lure with a spinning rod can be quite different than the release of a lure when using a bait-casting reel. The designers control the data points by selection of materials, diameters, patterns and tapers, which determine power and action the background knowledge to be quite helpful in providing recommendations to those who have no clue.

The URRS system noted is a tool that could be universally utilized to compare blanks for action power and other related terms. Comparison does not identify which set of numbers is applicable to any specific technique or end user requirement. Most of use who sell rods would greatly benefit if the CC System had more exposure to the fishing side of the business. It probably would help out if the winner of the Bass Master Classic would scream that he caught the winning stringer with an rod with an AA and ERN of xxxxx - which will probably happen at some point in the future. For it to happen there must be a financial incentive.

What a shame that custom builders do no drive the boat where this matter is concerned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2009 02:21PM by Bill Stevens.

Mr Stevens
Sir
What does this have to do with the beneficial aspects of a custom rod.
Blank selection is one thing
The build is another altogether.
how you build the rod can either enhance/utilse the inherent action of a rod to its fullest
or
threaten the viability of the blank.at its worst.
AA & ERN & URRS themselves are altered by the rod construction as measures of the completed rod.
The numbers are useful ( up to a point) in comparing one blank to another in making blank selection
They tell us little about the completed rod.
Or
the component selection or guidetrain design for the optimal build.
Or
the efficiency of the completed rod as a fishing tool with roles of both casting & then fighting a fish.
What benefit therefore is publication of the blank numbers for the custom rodbuilder??????????????

Is not the design criteria of the rod build itself the benefit of custom rodbuilding .............beyond aesthetics, and the end result of design for technique specific use for that rod.
Blank selection is but the first of many selection criteria in a rod & numbers for blank comparison very useful in that role
.........for custom builders or anyone for that matter
..............as a marketing benefit for custom rodbuilding...................come on now Bill................it doesn't address the key components & benefits of custom building.

Or have I missed the point & intent of your post.
Just my Oar in the water Bill.

Dennis I surmise that you did -

Denis,

The CCS and URRS are at the very minimum as helpful as the length and weight measurements of a blank. If you trim the blank, is the length measurement given in the blank specs worthless? What about blank weight? That, too, will change with the building of the rod. No manufacturer can give you length and weight specs for your finished rod - they have no idea if you're going to trim the blank or how much weight you'll add. So the ERN and CCF are in the same company as length and weight. They either all have value or none of them do. I do understand that you're not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am simply pointing out that all the other blank specs are affected by the building of the rod as well.

A finished rod will see a reduction in ERN. How much so will depend on how much component weight you add. AA will not change between the naked blank and the completed rod. Frequency will change, again, with the addition of component weight.

But just as a builder who trims a blank can subtract that amount from the original blank length spec, so too can the experienced custom builder easily surmise how much he is affecting the ERN and CCF by what he does during the building of the rod.

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

Here's the part that bothers me the most about the whole CCS.

First we load a given manufacturers 'A123' blank until we reach the 1/3 of effective length deflection point. Then we take our measurements (or read the numbers from his catalog). Then we use those numbers to find another manufacturers 'B789' blank that has the same measurements at the same 1/3 deflection. Now if we take each of the two blanks and take measurements at say 1/4, 1/2 or some other number of effective length, will each blank still have the same similar measurements as they did at 1/3?

In lots of cases, I seriously doubt it.

If I am correct, then what is the relevance of the initial 1/3 measurements other than to make fishermen and builders feel good about their choice of blanks when all they will be getting is partially good information.

If you think I'm wrong, then sway me with some facts please.

BTW, I think Denis B is correct even though he hasn't fully learned to decipher Bill S's sometimes cryptic writing which most of us suffer with from time to time.

Bobby,
The first fact is, you obviously have not read the article on the URRS. I suggest you do so, as it covers precisely the points of your objection by also measuring TP (Tip Power) and PR (Power Reservoir or butt power).
The second fact is, there is no evidence you have ever read the article on the BIG (Bending Index Graph) Picture which allows one to compare rods on an inch by inch basis. What more do you want?

Ah......haaaaa
A few nibbles on the bait
a lesson learnt from the inimitable Stevens fella. ( Billy F...........the Stevens style was plagiarised ...........He He ).

Bill H, with the greatest respect for your work on fly rods .............you miss a key element
it has great relevance to a quote you make repeatedly in your work.
But
the numbers need to be relevant and relate to the parameters that drive deflection.
I understand the concept behind CCS & URRS & TP & PR as well as how they are derived.
They are derived from arbitrary tests and test points.
The further a rod blank shifts in a combination of OD taper and wall thickness taper , from a thin wall slow taper, the less any arbitrary test of deflection reflects the real power of the blank.
Unfortunately the real power of a blank is realised with guides on that blank ..............for the rod to be a practical fishing tool in its roles of casting and fish fighting.
No problem in my mind with a general relativity of CCS & URRS to a sense of casting deflections................rod power & fighting power I have trouble with in the approach.
the entire CCS system and its evolutions is based on blank comparison & it has grown in its range of applicability over time with your revisions & extensions.
No problem with its application to comparison of Blank A to Blank B at the designated test points.
very useful if I have Blank A and a succesful build on Blank A & selection of a Blank B that might be comparable.
What tho does it tell us about rod building & particularly the guidetrain on that rod ..............or how successful the build was/is...........other than it didn't break...............but was it optimising the blank characteristics or threatening it.
I note in your work in CCS that you assume that guides and build weight slightly affect blank characteristics .
I note a similar assumption in the work of others.
( I read reasonably widely, & read most of the published engineering modeling of fishing rods..........few and far tho are the engineering analyses of the humble fishing rod )
We have discussed , on this Board , the implications and actions of a number of the parameters of the dynamic of fishing rods
The subject of guides and their effect on blank deflection, blank stress, and the specifics of guide height & separation are quite studiously avoided.
Why
They are an integral part of the build of the rod and result in a situation where a rod ( on the same blank ) can & does have quite different characteristics depending on who and how it was built..................
A previous thread on such issues degenerated into a slanging match of personalities and was closed .............a couple of discussions on rod dynamics threatened to go the same way.
a number of members clearly indicated they would have liked to continue the subject.....................maybe now is the time.

Bill H, would you like to contribute in open forum your engineering basis for your assumption & statement in the description of CCS that guides have little effect on the characteristics of the completed rod relative to those of the blank used, and some numbers for the relative significance of guide separation & guide design on rod deflection .

To get the ball rolling................lets restrict the discussion to guide separation, guide height , and their effect on rod deflection...................given rod deflection in loading in the cast is the stored energy of the blank unleashed at the cast release................. something useful to know about , one would think.
Deflection being the driver of stress in the blank, that would seem usefull info too.

BTW.............both our email addresses are hidden...............should you like contact and/or details Tom K has both of our email addresses & I hereby allow him to make my email address available to you personally.

Lets start another thread on the subject as this thread has drifted from the original poster's query...............you can open Bill H...............I look forward to your view on this matter as I have found your published works innovative & very interesting.

Dr Hanneman

I went back and re-read my above post from last night and regretably must inform you that that I can find nothing in it that deserves your scolding. I'll let it rest at that.

Now, looking forward.

I feel it is best for the whole rodbuilding community, fishermen in genral, Rodbuilding.org and at least one blank manufacturer to once and forever let the hot air out of this balloon before more damage is done than can be corrected.

Please Dr. Hanneman; MAKE THE POST. I do want more!

Dennis

The CCS does not attempt to tell you "how successful the build was" any more than a thermometer attempts to tell you if you need to wear a coat today. Only you can answer that. To try and hammer a nail with a screwdriver and then complain about the tool is wasted effort.

All any manufacturer can do when he sells you a blank is give you the specs for that blank. He has no idea if you're going to cut it, extend the length (even butt cap and tiptop add length) or how much weight you're going to add in the way of components. Thus he cannot give you the specs for your finished rod. Neither a ruler, scale nor the CCS will do that - only a crystal ball will.

Moving on to your comments about the addition of guides - they will not change the action of the rod. The AA rating will remain constant. The ERN will change - it will become lower due to the addition of weight along the blank (The resolution of the CCS is fantastic and will reflect even a minor addition of weight). The CCF will change, as additional weight will slow reaction and recovery speed.

The CCS does everything it was designed to do and does it all perfectly. The fact that it may not perform the tasks you wish for only means that you need to find the tool that takes care of those as well - but in most cases, you're going to find that that tool, is the mind and experience of the custom rod builder. Just as a hammer will indeed pound a nail, it still won't tell you what type or length nail to use, or where to place it. You have to do that.

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


Bobby,

Let me ask you this - if you measure a blank at various points, will the overall length still be the same? Is length a viable measurement then? Should we go back to "short" "kinda long" and "real long" for length specs and dump inches and feet?

What about the current manufacturer's use of "Action?" This refers to where a blank initially flexes, but all blanks depict a slow action if you flex them far enough. A fast action blank will flex to varying degrees depending on how much load you place on it. So current action ratings are hot air, too?

In order to measure something, you have to have some type of constant. This requires the blank be flexed and measured at a constant point. It doesn't matter if the numbers would be different at a different constant - it only matters that the same constant be used for each measurement. That's what makes the system relative and allows it to do what it was designed to do.

I know that one of your objections which we discussed privately was due to a person who did not understand the system and tried to shoehorn a subjective term into it. But that wasn't the fault of the CCS - it was the fault of your customer, or you for failing to explain how relative systems of measurements work.

We know it works and can prove it. The numbers are entirely relative. I do not believe you can find a blank with a lower ERN that is more powerful than a blank with a higher ERN, can you? Until you do, it's no more a bag of hot air than your bathroom scale is - it's perfectly functional and does exactly what it's advertised to do. Although many have tried, no one has yet been able to show a single instance where the CCS has not or could not perform the task for which it was intended.

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

Dr. Hanneman, at my request, has rewritten the CCS instructions. I had him leave out all the underpinnings, charts and graphs. This time, we'll just show you how to take the measurements. I wish we had done that at the start. If people had been taught about Daniel Fahrenheit's 3 reference points of temperature or how he choose to multiply the values by 4 (an arbitrary figure to rid the scale of fractions) they would probably still be arguing over whether or not it was correct and all things it won't do. But all most of us were taught was how to read a thermometer - high numbers indicate higher temps, lower numbers indicate lower temps. The CCS is just as easy and just as useful, once you learn to relate to the numbers.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2009 09:56AM by Tom Kirkman.

\"Just as a hammer will indeed pound a nail, it still won\'t tell you what type or length nail to use, or where to place it. You have to do that.\"

Well put!

No system can tell you beforehand how long a blank will be if you cut it or extend it.

No system can tell you beforehand how much your blank will weigh after you add a handle and guides to it.

No system can tell you if your construction was up to par.

No system can tell you if your guide placement allows for best application of power to the fish or the cast.

Fortunately I realize the CCS was not designed to do any of the above. That would be silly. It would also be silly to think that any system can be devised to do any or all of the above. Such a thing would not be possible. To rail against a system because it does not do what you want it to is equally silly. It only needs to do that which it was designed for.

From my reading I see the CCS as something devised to put relative numbers on action, power and speed as the blank or rod EXISTS AT THE TIME THE MEASUREMENTS ARE TAKEN. Correct? From what I can tell, it readily and correctly does that just fine.

Beyond that it is the maker of the rod that must supply any additional information or criteria. This is why some rods are better than others... some rod builders are better than others at understanding the results of each modification they intend to make to a rod blank.

Barry you have hit the nail squarely on the head. That was very well said and puts into a single sentence what others have used many paragraphs to say.

"... I see the CCS as something devised to put relative numbers on action, power and speed as the blank or rod EXISTS AT THE TIME THE MEASUREMENTS ARE TAKEN."

If you want to know how your building of the rod has changed the original rod blank, take the CCS measurements, along with length and weight measurements, before and after the rod is built. The numbers will reflect any changes that have occurred.

To date I have taken measurements on over 400 rod blanks and have not seen a single instance where a blank with a higher ERN has proven to have less power than a blank with a lower ERN. Nor when a blank with a higher AA has been less fast than a blank with a lower AA. It will be a pleasure to see a manufacturer dump the stupid "slow, moderate and fast" nonsense and adopt a relative action system with single degrees of resolution. Same with power ratings.

I have also stopped arguing with those who do not yet grasp what the system does and allows a rod builder to do. I just use it and enjoy a constructive advantage over my competitors.

Because I am a simple person the best I can do is a simple reply!

There is one question that some have asked and I have developed what I feel is an equally simple answer. When someone asks me where the CCS deflection standard came from, I tell them... Dr Hanneman got it from the same shop that supplied another bloke with the length for the centimeter (or inch-whatever your case may be). They are either both right or both wrong. So argue against both, or against neither.

I believe Bobby Feazel's Q pertained to what would happen if you took the measurements at different points. He thinks the numbers would be different and I believe he is correct. But this is exactly why you do NOT take the measurements at different states of deflection. In order for the numbers to be relative in nature they must all be taken from the same point of deflection. A standard point has to be chosen and stuck with. If you use different deflection amounts then your system will not be relative in nature.

Dr. Hanneman's article explained why he chose that amount of deflection for his standard and I believe he was wise in how he went about it. In order to measure power you have to get into the butt of the blank. That is where the mainstay of blank power resides. In the lower area near the butt. Any blank that is deflected to the standard listed in the Common Cents System will be flexed into the lower area where that power resides. Less would not have done it and more is not necessary IMO. It just seems "about right."

I have never understood the furor over the Common Cents System. Maybe I am missing something but it seems simple and perfectly clear to me. Just as the length measurements tell you if a blank is longer or shorter than another blank, the CCS numbers tell you if a blank is more or less powerful than another blank. Or if a blank has a faster or slower action than another blank. And after you use it enough you can instinctively look at the numbers and actually have a very good idea of how much power or what the action is just at a glance of the numbers.

Like Bill, I have yet to have an instance where a higher numbered ERN has less power than a lower numbered one. Or found a faster actioned blank to have a lower AA number than a slower actioned one. It seems dead on to me.

Ken

Although my previous post may have been mis-leading, it was my intent to compare two blanks at multiple points, not to compare blank 'A' and 'B' at different points. Yes, the blanks will reveal a different set of numbers at 1/2 than at 1/3 but what I am looking for is proof that each blank will exhibit relatively the same set of numbers at any given point. Otherwise they are not the same blank even if they are co-incident at the 1/3 point.

In spite of the fact that I have read and re-read all the articles numerous times, when someone gives me (or I obtain myself) a set of measurements at the 1/3 point, what am I supposed to do with that information since it is probable that the only blank I am likely to find close to blank 'A' is another blank 'A'? It may be out there but the chances of me finding it will be slim.

If I am correct in my hypothesis, then the only thing gained from URRS is a method for knowing that one blank has more or less power or is faster or slower. Is that really all we custom builders need to be concerned about?

In-spite of the emotional aspects some of us seen to generate around this, I am really struggling with this very important issue, especially since I perceive it to get bigger and uglier once one manufacturer goes public with it.

The measuerment systems for blanks are neither bad or good.
They do tend to oversimplify blank design by description of the blank in static terms.
This is easily understood by most people and will benefit the overall understanding.
The acts of casting and fishing a particular blank is not however a static condition but rather dynamic and must be reviewed from a different perspective. What we wish to describe is how a blank responds to dynamic loading.
How a blank dynamically deflects is based among other on materials and rate of change of the diameter (how quickly the diameter reduces in a distance of rod length and where these changes are located not strictly diameter at a point. Static deflections will not show this.
Two blanks of identical static conditions can be infinetly different in their dynamic response.
This is where the actual rod designers succeed or fail. This is the magic that separates a great fishing rod from a spring. The spring can be defined by static measurements. The great rod requires dynamic testing, R&D, and a lot of wasted energy getting all the tapers to work with each other to a common task. The rod manufacturers trade is the design and placement of these tapers and should be their secrets. They would be foolish to publish this data so anyone can just say make me one of these. How we work with these secrets is how we succeed or fail at our builds.
We can place components where we want to or we can attempt to work with the blank tapers and place them where they are most needed. This does not mean we can take a poorly designed blank and magically transform it into a wonderful fishing tool. It does mean that there will be better and worse executions. We can disguise flaws so they become less noticable. It also means that we can take a well designed blank and muck it up with a poor execution.
Until we can accurately measure dynamics conditions all measurement systems will be based on static responses and only provide a minimum of quantifiable data.
It may be 60 degrees but the windchill is a real killer in the rain. Static and dynamic.

Bobby,

You seem to be asking the CCS to do things that you are not asking of the other relative systems that we also use for taking blank measurements. It was intended, just like the systems for length and weight, for making overall comparisons. Remember, a tape measure does not tell you how long something is - it only tells you if something is longer or shorter than another item measured with the same device.

The Big Picture and certain components of the URRS will, however, do much of what you are asking. Still, the CCS and URRS will not do everything nor take every measurement that you may wish for. But they give us one heck of a lot more information than what was available before they came along. They do at least what they were designed to do and do it quite well.

Actually, one manufacturer already uses the CCS, albeit under a slightly different name. The next manufacturer will be the second. They don't share your concerns because they know the numbers are truly relative and provide a better means for comparison than the extremely low resolution and haphazard proprietary systems currently in use.

I know from a previous private conversation that you and I had, that you had a customer who incorrectly tried to translate an AA figure into a subjective term, and that you feel the CCS was to blame for that. It wasn't - your customer was at fault. He could have done the same thing with regard to how he viewed a 7 foot rod blank in terms of subjective length and if he had, I doubt you would have faulted our system of length. These simple systems just put numbers on things - relative numbers. What folks do with those numbers is up to them. Some will use them wisely, some won't. But the systems themselves are not at fault just because some people can't relate to the numbers wisely.

Beyond that, at some point it falls on the rod builder's wisdom and experience to do what needs to be done. I think Barry mentioned it above and although a harsh reality, it's quite true - some builders are just better at this sort of thing than others.

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

Permit me to respond to Mr. Feazel because I think I can help him a bit.

\\\"Although my previous post may have been mis-leading, it was my intent to compare two blanks at multiple points, not to compare blank \\\'A\\\' and \\\'B\\\' at different points. Yes, the blanks will reveal a different set of numbers at 1/2 than at 1/3 but what I am looking for is proof that each blank will exhibit relatively the same set of numbers at any given point. Otherwise they are not the same blank even if they are co-incident at the 1/3 point.\\\"

The Big Picture will do this to a great degree as will the new TP and PR in the URRS. That is, if you really want to make such fine comparisons!

\\\"In spite of the fact that I have read and re-read all the articles numerous times, when someone gives me (or I obtain myself) a set of measurements at the 1/3 point, what am I supposed to do with that information since it is probable that the only blank I am likely to find close to blank \\\'A\\\' is another blank \\\'A\\\'? It may be out there but the chances of me finding it will be slim. \\\"

What else is out there now that will do this for you? Nothing that I am aware of, so faulting the CCS for not doing it for you would not seem fair. But you can make certain qualified assumptions that will get you very close by COMBINING the different aspects of the CCS. For instance, the ERN COMBINED with the AA can even help you form a picture in your mind of how that blank flexes as more and more load is placed upon it. But you will have to work with a system a bit and get a good feel for how these two measurements work together. You may not be at that point yet but in time you will be.

\\\"If I am correct in my hypothesis, then the only thing gained from URRS is a method for knowing that one blank has more or less power or is faster or slower. Is that really all we custom builders need to be concerned about? \\\"

Yes, is it mostly a system for determining if one blank is more or less powerful than another or faster or slower than another. And I feel this is extremely valuable information, in the same way that length and weight are. It allows us to do something that was very difficult to do before in terms of power and action. It may not be all that we need to be concerned about, but it is something we should be concerned about. Now we have the tools to take care of these particular aspects quite nicely.

\\\"In-spite of the emotional aspects some of us seen to generate around this, I am really struggling with this very important issue, especially since I perceive it to get bigger and uglier once one manufacturer goes public with it.\\\"

If having relative length and weight measurements have been helpful, then so too will be having relative power and action measurements. I see no damage being done, only additional information being provided!

At the end of the day, the solution is simple - if you find the CCS information useful, use it. If not, disregard it.

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