IMO, the most important aspect of CCS and URRS is that they are OBJECTIVE measuring systems. Unlike the highly subjective and even questionably random rating systems used by almost all manufacturers.

There hasn't been a week go by, that I haven't wished for some additional figures on blanks produced. Such information makes it so much easier to seek out models for in-depth analysis. For me, this will save valuable purchasing dollars by at least eliminating blanks that aren't within a desired range of specs.

We can dance around and divert the discussion of specific issues by digressing or we can stick to the point.
CCS is an attempt to characterise blanks.
ERN & ERRS attempt to evolve the original CCS from flyrod blanks into other blanks.
The fundamental problem is the premise on which the system is based.
As stated I have enormous respect for Dr Hanneman's creation of a system of blank characterisation for flyrod blanks
However, URRS as a universal system is a 'stretch too far'
Its problem is based in the fundamental engineering of rod blanks.
The application of arbitrary test points ( 1/3 & 1/2 rod length and a defined deflection at those points) reasonably reflect the tip power of a blank but do not reasonably reflect the reserve power of the blank in universal application.
The CCS is a good measure of the capability of a relatively thin wall, relatively slow cross-section taper blank.
The test points reflect the primary working area of such a rod deflected in casting and the rate of increase in reserve power in the butt section is slow and can be reasonably predicted, with experience.
Static tests and resonant frequency give us indicative information about the capabilities of the blank & the finished rod ..........if we retest.
HOWEVER
A fishing rod is used for fishing & that involves fishing line.
The fishing line runs thru guides.
When we go fishing all of the above are interacting with the rod blank
One of the fundament premises in CCS & its evolutions beyond flyrods is that:-

"measurements obtained on the blank would be essentially
the same as one would obtain from the finished rod. (The
addition of guides, wrappings and finishing might be predicted to
very slightly change the ERN and/or the AA of a rod. "...................as quoted from the CCS document.

Tom refers to this in his post above:-
" 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."
and
" the experienced custom builder (can) easily surmise how much he is affecting the ERN and CCF by what he does during the building of the rod. "
Can the builder do this.
On what basis of understanding is the builder doing this.
Are the assumptions made in the above quotes valid.
Are they relevant to any particular fishing technique...................the "loading" characteristics of different techniques .............aren't necessarily at the defined CCS test points.
I refer back to Dr Hannemans opening quote to CCS

" If you cannot measure it, if you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Lord Kelvin

My question is...........what are the numbers that involve guides....................how valid is the assumption :-
" The addition of guides, wrappings and finishing might be predicted to very slightly change the ERN and/or the AA of a rod. "
....................when casting a real fishing rod in real fishing.
I differ dramatically in the particular statement that AA does not change with guides in the real fishing situation................and it depends on the fishing technique and rod construction greatly.
So
What are the numbers Tom K & Bill H or is our communal knowledge on this matter not Kelvinic.
This is not CCS bashing ..........its merely trying to establish the relationship between CCS based data and the real fishing rod in real fishing use.
Over to you Dr Hanneman..............the reference is your quote.

Dennis,

ERN and AA were always applicable to all blanks, not just fly rods. Fly rods are not built any differently than casting or spinning blanks. They're all just tubular, tapered shafts. The CCS will measure a length of PVC pipe, if you wish. It doesn't differentiate between rod types. If you can support it and obtain the required deflection, the CCS will measure it.

There are no numbers involving guides, nor do there need to be. ERN represents relative power and will put a number on the naked blank and also on the finished rod. If you take measurements on both, you will see a reduction in ERN on the finished rod due to the addition of component weight, most notably the guides on the upper half of the rod.

The deflection standard for ERN is an amount equal to 1/3rd of the rod's length. This amount will flex any blank into the butt area or at least call that area heavily into play. It is correct by definition and as long as it it adhered to will provide relative results. That's the important part.

Action does not change with the addition of guides. You can prove this to yourself. Flex the blank to the desired amount (you can make this whatever you want, but action is universally defined by blank designers as where the blank initially flexes). Trace that pattern on the wall. Now add guides and do it again, to the same deflection. Match it to the tracing just done. They will match perfectly. Where the blank initially flexes will not change - action is built in and determined largely by the taper of the rod.

The CCF component deals with speed; efficiency, or reaction and recovery speed. Frequency. The CCS will put a relative number on that as well.

Any of these measurements can be taken on the naked blank or the finished rod. The CCS contains enough resolution that if you have changed the power, action or speed, you'll know it by the change in the numbers. The CCS will detect and record even very slight changes in any of these characteristics. It is that sensitive.

The CCS will measure, in objective and relative fashion, the power, action and speed of any rod blank or any finished rod. Length and weight are already covered. This is all the CCS was intended to do and it succeeds in doing it.

What else is it that you wish to know? If it falls outside of these parameters, then you should set about developing a system to give you the additional information you desire.

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

I would like to play a bit of \"devil\'s advocate\" with Dennis if he might humor me.

Most catalogs give a weight for the blank. But what about after the rod is built? That weight will surely be different, will it not? What about the weight of a finished rod... we add a reel which changes the weight. If we take it fishing we may get it wet. That will also change the original weight rating, will it not? So of what use is that weight rating given in the catalog? It all goes out the window once we get into your real world fishing situation, does it not? So has our system of weight fallen down or betrayed us? Is it of no value because it is only accurate for the static blank or rod in the shopkeeper\'s rack? This seems to be your argument against the CCS so you must make the same argument against everything else having to do with measuring blank characteristics. If the CCS is flawed, all the other measurements are too, I\'m afraid, because they all change with the addition of guides, reel, line or while in use out on the water.

I suspect you are asking for information that only a crystal ball can give. I do know that what you are wishing for is not what the CCS was designed to provide. Nor am I sure that it is even necessary for most fishermen. But this in no way undermines its effectiveness or usefulness. It does what it was designed to do and many of us find it extremely useful.

Great discussion.

I used to get frustrated when I ordered a 'fast' or 'extra fast' action blank and it did not fit with what I had hoped. The blank was labeled 'x-tra fast' but when I built out the rod, tied on my favorite lure, and cast it the rod seemed to act more like a 'moderate' action. What I have learned since is that these designations ('fast and moderate' etc.) only give me a ball park idea on what type of blank I am building. Today I know I have also to consider the power of the blank, weight of guides and lure I want to throw, etc.

Identifying the ERN, AA and other data from the CCS for a particular blank (or finished rod) gives me a real comparison point against others that may be listed with the same subjective language. Yes, the only perfect match to blank A is another blank A....but it is still useful and interesting information because I like to know things....and besides, if I build a rod for a buddy and do not want to drop a ton of money on a high dollar blank, I can find similar CCS data to mimic the action and power of a favorite on a less costly blank. No, it won't be the exact same...but it will be close enough for my friend to enjoy!

I think this whole area of data collecting is fascinating and a new frontier. Sounds very practical to establish a set of measurements to facilitate better communication.

I will probably get corrected for saying this:

"Fly rods are not built any differently than casting or spinning blanks."

I would imagine they are built the same. What about designed? Aren't fly rods designed to cast the line and casting/spinning designed to cast the lure?

This difference is noted in the opening paragraph of the "NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF FLYCASTING MECHANICS" paper by Caroline Gatti & N. C. Perkins - [seesar.lbl.gov]

Maybe I'm simple minded, but to me this could be interpreted that the blanks could be designed differently thereby needing a little different rating?

Just a thought.

-----------------
AD

I see some of both sides, but I think the argument really come's down to how a builder chooses to use the numbers that come out. Regardless of Fly, Spin, Cast, Ice blank etc. you will get at minimum an ERN and AA. I agree that it doesnt necisarilly tell you all about the blank, but look at it this way.

Say you have a Joe Blow MB864..... The manufacturer is telling you it is 7' MH Fast. You get an ERN of 80 and an AA of 70 , the blank weight 2oz.(note: numbers are TOTALLY arbitrary right now).

So...Joe Blow stops making or selling blanks and you want to ballpark something close.....you pull up your chart and find a 7' blank that is 80/70 and weigh's about the same. This just gave you a STARTING point. Now you can make a slightly educated guess....get a few blanks that are close to the numbers you want and THEN see how they compare in a real world scenario....

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Alex, NO! Fly rods are designed to cast WEIGHT. And so are casting and spinning rods. All are designed to cast WEIGHT! Whether the weight comes in the form of a line or a lure makes no difference. The rod would have no idea what it's casting, other than that its WEIGHT.

Alex,

Rob is correct. Loading a rod requires some amount of weight coupled with the angler's input. It makes no difference if that weight comes in the form of a fly line or a spinning lure. They represent the same thing to the rod.

The same rods you use for casting lures will also cast lead sinkers, a chunk of bait, a doughball or a cat toy. And none of these requires a different design in order to cast a different type of item. A fly rod will cast a lure and a bass casting rod will cast a fly line. In fact, some fishermen prefer what are sold as fly rod blanks for use as spinning rods. And vice versa, I know people who have found casting or spinning blanks that they feel excel as fly rods.

Although some fly fishermen would like to think otherwise, fly rods are not in any way different from other rod blanks. They are all tapered, tubular shafts manufactured by wrapping a pattern flag around a tapered mandrel. They are rolled on the same tables, wound with the same cellophane, cooked in the same ovens and stripped in the same way. There is no magic foo-foo dust in a fly rod nor any additional calculations or manufacturing or design steps - they're just tapered, tubular shafts like all the other blanks.

I ran a fly shop for many years and in recent times have fished with a fly more than any other type rod. Thus I know many other fly fishers and know that many like to think of what you do as a hobby or pastime, and what they do as an art. They want to believe that their equipment must somehow be more sophisticated than an old bass casting "pole." But the truth is, they're not. And if what they do is an art, then so is what you do. And your rods require the same design and manufacturing methods that theirs do.

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

The guide issue I am concerned about is not weight ................it is the engineering inferences of the guides & the statements made as precurors to the CCS system in what are assigned
negligible impacts on CCS assigned values.
whether I know or don't know the influences of guides on that fisghing rod that always has kline on it casting or fishing is irrellevant.

Irrespective of how CCS purports to assess an optimum casting weight .................that casting weight has a line on it in the real world doing real fishing,
The question is.................what are those guides and that line doing.....................is there a difference between the impact of guides on a flyrod compared to a spinning rod.
As stated twice above..............I have great respect for Bill hanneman in developing the CCS ..................AS A BARE BLANK COMPARISON TOOL.of similar type
But don't try to get the same numbers out of a salmon/steelhead rod and a spinning rod that purport to cast the same weight.
The power reserve is vastly different in both rods & URRS might get the rating right on the spinning rod................but the rating on the salmon/steelhead rod is way off beam...................because the power reserve is held behind the URRS test point of 1/2 rod length.....................it becomes an apples & oranges thing.
CCS is great for comparing similar blanks of similar construction......................an excellent tool for that purpose.
Dont get me started on comparing a single modulus blank with a multi-modulus blank ........................it starts to look really silly there.
the AA is vastly different............so is the ERN ............and everything else derived from the comparison.....................but they will cast the same lure very effectively................so what is going on...................its obviously a limitation in the tool we are using.
but its a great tool for enabling comparison of similarly constructed blanks of similar class.
He He............in Oz an American screwdriver is a hammer.........He He
Every tool has its limitations.
CCS has its limitations...............a good mechanic knows to use the right tool for the job, and the limitations of the tool at hand....................the best designed ring spanner will not accomplish anything with a screw.................. the screw is real................its just the wrong tool for the job, irrespective of how good it is / was for the job it was designed for.

I don't use a bare blank when I fish...................I don't fish with my rod in a test rig..............I don't fish with a rod with guides and no line..... I fish with a rod, with guides & line & something on the end of it.

A statement was made in the CCS about the matter of guides & build & I am simply asking the author to provide the numbers on which the statement was based.
especially given the Lord Kelvin quotation.

Dennis,
At your request, I will open a new thread to continue discussing your previous concerns. However, I shall respond to your request for numbers here. Undoubtedly, my response will not satisfy you, but that is life.

As an analytical chemist, I have spent over 50 years generating numbers for engineers and the like. This has taught me to first to ask what they are going to do with the numbers, and if they really can justify to me the necessary expenditure of my effort, then we can discuss the precision and accuracy necessary to answer their question.

There are also two other sayings I like which I believe are relevant here. 1. If a thing is not worth doing at all, it is not worth doing well. and 2. One experiment is worth 1000 expert opinions.

In the case of the effect of guides, common sense told me that there would indeed be an effect. However, relative to the other variables I was considering, I felt this effect would be one of the least of my worries. Also, trying to quantify an undefined guide spacing to some unknown accuracy and precision sufficient to satisfy some unknown someone who might not want to accept my conclusion required an effort I was not going to put forth.

I believe subsequent work by the many investigators who have supplied data on blanks and finished rods to the CCS Data Site has confirmed the validity of my conclusion—the effect is real, but small. Granted, no numbers have been reported and you can classify it all as "expert opinions" if you wish. However, I call it something not worth doing.

As for experiments, if the effect is indeed truly significant, all you have to do is run one experiment which disproves my hypothesis . However, first we have agree on what that experiment will be and then define the numerical value which separates significant from insignificant. I can run thousands of experiments which show the effect is not significant, but that will prove nothing. One simply can't prove a negative hypothesis. All you have to do is run one to disprove it. So, I guess the ball is back in your court.

Denis,

If you want to know what effect the addition of guides has on the power, action or speed of the blank, then run the CCS before and after you build on the blank. That will give you the measurements for those characteristics before and after the additions are made and easily spell out any differences that have occurred.

It would be impossible for any manufacturer, any system, etc., to give you the "after" information for a blank that has yet to built and for which they have no idea how you're going to build it or which components you may add. For that you will indeed require a crystal ball.

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

I'm trying to get my self up to speed on the common cents system. What I don't understand is the point of the ERN. It seems like it is taken directly from the number of cents required. So why not just use that number?

Also the article online says a slow action rod has an AA of 59 and a fast rod has an AA of 66. That is only 7 points of separation. Doesn't seem like that big of a spread to cover slow, med, medfast, and fast.

Thanks

Patrick Rutledge



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2009 05:27PM by Parick Rutledge.

No, the CCS does not use the terms "slow" or "fast," in fact, it dispenses with them entirely. The table you are looking at was included only to show the general direction the scale runs. The higher the AA number, the faster the action. You will have about 40 practical degree readings in AA which will provide you with a tremendous amount of resolution. To effectively use the system, get those subjective terms out of your head - stop using them. There are no slow or fast action rods in the CCS, just relative numbers. For instance, is 25 inches a long or short length? Obviously it is neither - it is simply shorter or longer than something else with a higher or lower number. Same with the AA figures.

You could simply the use the number of cents for a relative power rating if you wished and some do, but Dr. Hanneman wished to have ERN figures that could be used in simple equations for matching fly lines to rods at various distances. For instance, ERN = ELN or ERN = ELN+2, or whatever. This required the use of power rating numbers that matched the available fly line numbers. Since they are relative in nature and taken directly from the number of cents used, they still function in relative fashion as a power rating for any rod type.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2009 08:52PM by Tom Kirkman.

Thank you.

I understood there was no more fast or slow. I was just confused when I though there was only 7 point of variance. 40 is much better :)

Thanks for explaining why the ERN is relavent.

Patrick Rutledge

As you begin using the system, I think you will find that even the widest range of blanks will fall between 50 and 90 on the AA scale. It would be rare, although not impossible, to find a blank with an AA of less than 50.

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

Tom
Your first response to Parick R with the example for 25 inches on the surface appears logical & is logical in your intent.
the underlying issue is the agreed universality of the length measurement to be used and the arbitrary basis of the measurement protocol.
Did you know there are over300 different units of length measurement in the world today ................ not much agreement on an agreed standard there unfortunately.

Denis,

My response to Patrick was intended to illustrate that units of length, or units in any other system of relative measurement, make no claim as to whether something is long or short, or light or heavy. They only have relevance to the other numbers, higher or lower, in the same system. And this holds true for any of your 300 different units of length measurement.

That was the issue he raised and I answered it. We were not discussing any sort of need to agree on a particular system of length measurement. There was no underlying issue.

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