Dennis,
You asked, “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?”

My answer is that I would be happy to oblige you in this matter. Hence this new topic. However, I am not certain the discussion will be too fruitful, as I really have little to offer. Perhaps others will chime in.

First, let me clear something up. I believe you acknowledged having trouble with my approach and stated, “the entire CCS system and its evolutions is based on blank comparison ---”. That is incorrect. All the initial work was done using off the shelf, factory made rods.

It was only after it’s usefulness was recognized by Tom Kirkman that I became seriously aware of the whole rod building fraternity. Then, primarily based on the observations and data generated by others, it became apparent that converting a blank into a rod had no effect on the AA and lowered the ERN by about 0.2. Once this was recognized, builders could factor this into their calculations if they believed it was significant. These were static measurements, and I forgot about it and Superbob noted in his data base whether the measurements reported were for a blank or a finished rod.

Then, I tackled dynamic measurements and the concept of “feel”. Here, everything and anything added to the rod blank resulted in a decrease in the fundamental frequency of the resulting rod. That opened up an entirely new can of worms.

You stated, “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 useful info too.

As I previously noted, addition of the hardware had an almost negligible effect on ERN. The big effect was on frequency, as discussed in my article on that subject.

I believe most of your questions about the effects of guide parameters could be answered by a few controlled experiments and frequency measurements. However, I did not consider them particularly significant at that time.

Being a pragmatist, I recognized that while the individual components did indeed have an effect, the greatest effect was due to the addition of the fly line. Consequently, I developed the concept of the CCF. By this approach, I could define my own terms and how they were to be measured. Consequently, since such decisions were absolutely correct, by definition, I could avoid any technical arguments with “engineers”, The only matter of concern was whether this approach was useful. I believe it is—others may not.

Personally, I believe its greatest value to rod builders lies in the fact measurement of CCF allows anyone to test hypotheses and make measurements using very simple tools (a clock or stopwatch).

As for deflection being a driver of stress and measuring it, I am happy to leave that up to the “engineers”. I believe some of them have been working on things like that for many years. However, I believe we would both agree their resulting conclusions have produced little, if anything, of practical value for the average rod builder.

I would add that anyone can take the CCS measurements of the naked rod blank and then again after the rod has been constructed in order to see what changes, if any, have occurred by the addition of handles, guides, thread, finish, etc. The ERN will be affected by some amount which depends entirely on how much component weight you have added. The speed of the rod, measured with the CCF component, will show the greatest change from any component weight that has been added. We know that component weight affects the power and speed of a rod. With the CCS we can put numbers on "how much" of a change has been made and compare different component sets in order to find those that affect the performance aspects we desire by the least amount.

The blank manufacturer cannot do this for you, however, as he only has the naked blank to work with and thus has no idea how you're going to build the rod; whether or not you're going to trim it, the weight of the guides you're going to use, etc. If you want the specs for the finished rod, simply run the CCS on the finished rod once you've completed it. You cannot obtain those final rod specs, by any system, prior to actually building the rod.

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

Denis,

Your illustrations on the photo page here do not in any way undermine previous statements that the addition of guides do not change action. While there is indeed a "bowstring" effect if very poor guide placement is used and the rod is heavily loaded, where the blank initially flexes remains the same - note the important term "initially." This is a function of blank taper and unless you physically alter the taper of the blank, you have not changed the action.

On the chance that your guide locations or number of guides are so terribly lacking that you take an AA measurement and find that the tip angle has gone beyond 90 degrees you'd be well advised to revise your guide number and/or placement. Generally I would assume that anyone this far along would understand how to select the correct number of guides and place them accordingly. And if they do that the action will not be changed by such addition of guides.

The CCS is not designed to tell you if your guide placement is good, bad or ugly. So faulting it for not doing something which it was never intended to do is not really fair. Numerous articles have been written over many decades that delve deeply into the mechanics of guide placement and how to assure you have utilized enough guides and placed them properly. I would suggest referring to one or more of those if you wish to know more about guide placement and the effect it has on rod flex.

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

BTW I am not an engineer myself, in a previous life i was a metallurgist & have been in the commercial fishing industry for nearly 30 yrs at the 'pointy' end of that game and currently director of several fishing operations ( amongst the largest on the east coast of Oz ), I have been a fun fishing tragic since about 5 yo & building rods since I was about 8yo. I also work in the realm of 'experimental' work and critique of the work of others in a variety of fields................that should set my background in general.
Your observations about the meaningful success of engineers in the field of fishing rods parallels my own observations.
never the less the humble fishing rod is a complex instrument and rodbuilding entails a number of engineering principles.
leading to a quest for the understanding of those principles to educate my rodbuilding decisions.

I also absolutely love your observation about 1000 negative experiments and 1 truly correct, well designed, experiment identifying the correct parameter relationships.
without the benefit of pre-existing engineering critiques of the relevant parameters, much time has been spent on teasing out the relationships of parameters in rod building and critiquing experimental outcomes in 2 & 3 way testing to be sure there were no false positives or false negatives.
My observations of built rods vs blank data ............in actual fishing use were somewhat different to yours in that I identified significant performance differences dependent on the build.
ie........quantified differences in weight, inertial effects, frequency, & line flow in guides allowing............ something significant was missing.
and
from an engineering construction perspective ............guidetrain design was a 'black art' and still is for just about everyone else I have come across.
Then the penny dropped
It was the interaction of the line with the guides on the rod that was making the difference in rod deflection, stored energy in the deflected blank , cast velocity , and even the stress on the blank ..............when it was used in realworld fishing .
Nothing was gained from any published works on the matter, other than complicated 20 page formulae on leverage describing blank deflection & what drove it.................even then they were simplified by a number of assumptions.
The quest began for simple answers.
The results are as follows:-
The torque ( as a bending moment ) at any point in a deflected rod is primarily driven by tip load under the following formula.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

The torque ( as a bending moment ) from the tension in the line between adjacent guides acts to bow the section of blank between those adjacent guides, under the following formula

[www.rodbuilding.org]

The total torque ( as a bending moment ) at any given point in the blank is then represented by the following formula

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Where the point of interest is at a guide location the formula devolves to the following

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Now classical physics also identifies that under accelleration
force = mass X accelleration

So under the accelleration of the casting motion leading up to the cast release
WT & line tension ............become not Wt............but Wt X accelleration rate of the cast rotation ( as a linear parameter )

The cumulative effect of accelleration ( not in the static test ) and the deflection effect of the line tension on the guides ..............when the formulae were applied explained what was happening
or at least it did to me...............and especially when it came to spinning & casting lures rather than flies................as the accelleration in the cast is higher.
It also identified a significant change in AA of the tip in both a static test with line & lure attached & in the dynamic of the cast.and thence why the performance was different to that predicted by CCS.& URRS.
The restults depended very much on the lure weight and blank type & the build of the rod.
The results explained why multi-modulus rods were porly assessed by CCS protocols...............as the AA changed more dramatically in that type of rod as the bowstring forces caused more deflection in the lower modulus tip section.

Along the way the formulae enabled identification of the forces generating blank failure in highsticking as the bending moment could be resolved as a stress/strain relationship on the hoop of the blank at any point ( given the relevant blank dimensions ).
The real benefit for me was understanding my guidetrain design and where to locate guides to optimise blank deflection whilst at the same time protecting the blank from excessive stress/strain. ( a work still in progress ).
Guidetrain design was no longer a 'black art'.

I trust the above explains why I believe guide dimensions and the line running thru those guides makes a significant difference to the dynamic of the rod action, with some real numbers.

Anyone who can critique the associated physics is welcome to contribute.
rod building is an evolutionary thing & we each do our bit.

None of this devalues the considerable usefulness of CCS in comparing blanks of the same type ............like for like............it also identifies the limitations of the tool..
As a measure of a completed rod in realworld fishing use it just doesn't cut the mustard IMHO.
If you want to use it to compare apples to oranges and guess .................you're doing it not me.................but a certain Lord will be turning in his grave.

As a marketing tool of either blanks or rods the marketing gurus in the different companies are laughing their sox off..................are you going to directly point out that a competitor's cheaper blank will do pretty much the same job...............pigs might fly................& the higher end of the market your product is placed in , the more you have to lose.
An independant site ( CCS data site) is where the comparative data will reside....................who trusts the smooth talking salesman anyway.
This sort of comparative information will always find its place outside the product manufacture & distribution networks.................just like it does in other crafts/ skills..............a mechanic can identify the right tool for the job and word of mouth ( not the salesman ) identifies the best value tool .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2009 09:19AM by Denis Brown.

Dr Hanneman

Many thanks for joining the discussion with this new thread.

After I quit responding to the thread yesterday, I began to realize that I must be missing something in all this and began to do a little soul searching to find the root cause. My conclusion generally was that my writing style, short and to the point, was not getting my message across and it was certainly not getting my questions answered. Lots of flack but no solutions.

When I caught up on the previous thread this morning I think I may have found the answer in Denis Brown's last post on the original thread. Denis wrote:

"..............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. "

Now for a little history and please forgive me of long windedness because I am not accustomed to using this many words.

When I first got interested in the CCS (at this point please note that I build rods for experienced bass fishermen only) I was completely satisfied that it was the answer to the problems I was having selecting blanks for specific applications. At this time, I was sticking primarily with MagBass and SpinJig blanks. Of course I later found out that the manufacturer I was using was selling me the exact same blank for both applications just with a different name. CCS helped me extract the truth from the manufacturer.

After sometime it became evident to me that there had to be something else in the world besides MB and SJ that would make a better rod for some of the specific tasks that I was looking for. When i realized that most of the blank manufacturers tried their best to keep us 'ole bass fisherpersons' neatly wrapped up in the MB/SJ box the light bulb finally came on. I started experimenting. I bought saltwater blanks, hotshot blanks, bounce back blanks, popping blanks and surf blanks and began building rods and going fishing. Well low and behold, I found some real treasures in this group. So many in fact that an analysis of my database reveals that over half the rods I build today are not MB or SJ blanks.

So what's my frustration with CCS? I have always found a need to be able to quantify (Yes, I'm sorry but I am an old engineer) by some means the correlation between the MB/SJ blanks and the other non-bass blank catagories. Since I had used the CCS successfully before, it was frustrating not to be able to satisfactorily use a system to show that a "HotShot" blank made a better 'XYZ' fishing tool than the customary MB blank. The only thing I had/have at my disposal at this time is to just put one in a fisherman's hand and let him use. That works great except for the people who don't live close enough to do this. This makes it a hard sell sometimes trying to convience a hard headed Bubba that he would be better off getting out of the box than continuing to believe what he has always believed.

Maybe like some said yesterday, "I may be trying to do something CCS wasn't designed to do.", but at least now I have the expert to help me thru this.

Of course, It may be that I'm just locked in my own little box and can't see the forest for the trees.

Thanks in advance for your help Dr Hanneman.

Bobby,

All the CCS does is put relative numbers on certain aspects of rod characteristics. How you interpret the numbers or combinations of numbers is your business. I know you had a customer that said he wasn't going to use a particular blank because the CCS AA figures told him that the blank didn't posses a "fast action." But he was mistaken - the CCS did not tell him any such thing. The CCS doesn't use subjective terms. It dispenses with them. An AA of 80 degrees is not fast, it's just 80 degrees.

I suspect what your customers need to get away from are the manufacturers' category listings. The CCS doesn't use them.

I was building bass rods on Hot Shot blanks 20 years ago, but I never told the customers these were "Hot Shot" blanks. So they had no reason to object.

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

Dennis,

If you want to see what difference the addition of guides has made to your rod in terms of how the addition of guides have changed the flex pattern, run the CCS before the build and then again after the build with the line strung through the guides. Record any differences in the measurements. The CCS will do that for you, too, if you want.

The CCS doesn't predict the characteristics of a rod. It simply measures them as they exist at the time the measurements are taken.

There was a recent article in RodMaker detailing how the addition of guides and where they are located affect how the rod flexes, and why guide numbers and placement need to be correct in order that the original flex of the blank not be affected.

As far as the CCS supposedly not giving the "right ratings' for blanks of different types or classifications, I can assure you that you will never find a blank with a higher ERN to be less powerful than a blank with a lower ERN. And this will hold true even if the numbers being compared are between a spinning rod or a live bait rod.

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

Obviously, if you don't believe the system works or can't find a practical use for it, your best bet would be not to use it. Move on to something else or go back to what you're already comfortable using.

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

Well done Tom
Couldn't even wait to see the text before making assumptions, based on the posting of the images to be used in the text.
Component weight was not a reference & was specifically excluded in the text so as not to confuse the discussion on the parameters being discussed.
The text also identified where AA changes and why.................with AA being a significant component of the CCS values it just happens to make a significant difference
The text also identifies the role of accelleration of the lure in increasing deflection beyond that of static testing ................ both in tip load and guide generated load.
The discussion was about the significance of parameters in the real world of real fishing that were outside the scope of CCS.
I've repeatedly stated what a great tool CCS is for the right purpose.............. and my respect for Dr Hanneman in creating it.
I'm not trying to use CCS out of the context for the use of that tool.
I'm simply identifying in detail why the results I expected from the blank selected performed significantly differently on the water than in the test rig............ and the basis of what I find the limitations of the tool to be ( blank selection like for like) and the nature of the inadequacies in the protocols of CCS when trying to compare blanks that are significantly different in make-up and class...............The inherent issues are such that a certain Lord would be turning in his grave.

If the information you refer to about guide forces exists in some cranny I have not come across I would appreciate you posting the info.
I've certainly read a few rambles, but nothing that identifies the basis of the numbers on the physics involved.
All I ever read was in the "black art" realm.
I am always willing to learn................it saves time working in out it yourself............post away............... I'm sure I am not the only one interested in seeing what's out there on the subject.

As for bad or ugly guidetrains ............I haven't had one that caused a blank to fail.................but I sure found out a bunch of things about placement optimisation, and performance optimisation by trial & error ................that led me on my quest for an understanding of why.

As for your statement
"While there is indeed a "bowstring" effect if very poor guide placement is used and the rod is heavily loaded, where the blank initially flexes remains the same - note the important term 'initially.' This is a function of blank taper and unless you physically alter the taper of the blank, you have not changed the action."

I beg to differ & strongly
The 'bowstring" effect is there from the first application of any tension on the line on the rod....................increased tension merely increases its significance.............. Its relative in significance to the cross-section of the blank ................the most at risk being the small blank section at/near the tip.................at the commencement of loading .
The physics of the situation don't kick in suddenly when the guide placement is very poor or load is heavy..................its there at every load and every guide placement.
Similarly the physics of rod deflection are there all the time and the entire principle of a tapered rod is that increased load causes increased deflection so there is no such thing as "initial" deflection ................it is a dynamic moving thing.................rearwards moving with increased deflection load...............

I have been following this closely and even though I am not an engineer I have been building rods for the past 35 years. I have also folowed the growth of the CCS system and believe I understand the principles. In this months issue of American Angler magazine there is an article on fly rod actions bemoaning the fact that thre is no universal measuring system. Several engineers from the big rod building companies could not agree on a system. Now if they could not agree then how are we as builders going to get the CCS system across to them if we cannot agree on it ourselves?

Dennis,

No, again the AA will not change if you take the measurements according to instructions of the CCS. The weight is hung from the tip, not through the guides. This allows one to get a correlation from where the blank initially flexes. And adding guides along the blank will not change that measurement because the blank will still flex the same way if the weight is hung from the tip of the blank.

Now if you wish to take the CCS measurements with the line strung through the guides, you may do so and although this will not provide you with across the board comparative measurements taken in the normal fashion it will provide you with comparative information for your own personal use. If this is what you wish to do - why not just do it? The CCS has the capability to record the measurements taken on the naked blank and on the rod as you have built it, with the line strung through the guides, if you wish. It will duly note any changes made between the naked blank and the finished rod by the addition of guides.

By the way, the effect of the illustrations you posted on the photo page were detailed in actual photographs and an article in a recent issue of RodMaker Magazine.

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

Sam,

You will never get a 100% consensus on anything. If you figure out a way to do it, please let me know. Enough builders are using the CCS that it has taken hold and thousands of rod builders now use and benefit from it. By this winter, 2 major blank and rod manufacturers will have adopted it over their older power and action ratings. So it's not matter of it having to be universally accepted - it's already being used.

The problem with the "engineers" from the big rod building companies is that those companies really do not want anyone to be able to make relative comparisons. There are marketing advantages in being able to say, "Our 5-weight rod will outcast anyone else's 5-weight rod." If consumers were able to ascertain that one company's 5-weight rod was actually more powerful than their competitors and thus the simple reason why it cast farther, it would ruin that marketing effort.

Keep in mind that many rod and blank companies stopped including physical weights for their products some years ago. Most do not welcome anything that would allow consumers to make such comparisons.

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

I believe part of the problem which Denis is experiencing is due to his writing style, which I must admit is quite difficult for me to easily follow.

I have seen Tom state many times that the addition of components will indeed change rod power and speed. The AA rating is not going to change because as has stated, the weight is applied to the tip, not through the guides. So within the confines of how the measurement is taken, there is no bowstring effect to deal with.

But... if you want to take measurements of the completed rod with the line passing through the guides and the weight attached to that line, you are free to do so. And as has been stated many times the CCS will reflect any differences in ERN, AA and CCF between the original blank and the finished rod. I suspect that you have the tool to do what you want to do but may not realize it yet. You just need to alter the way in which you are using it!

I believe part of the problem which Denis is experiencing is due to his writing style, which I must admit is quite difficult for me to easily follow.

I have seen Tom state many times that the addition of components will indeed change rod power and speed. The AA rating is not going to change because as has stated, the weight is applied to the tip, not through the guides. So within the confines of how the measurement is taken, there is no bowstring effect to deal with.

But... if you want to take measurements of the completed rod with the line passing through the guides and the weight attached to that line, you are free to do so. And as has been stated many times the CCS will reflect any differences in ERN, AA and CCF between the original blank and the finished rod. I suspect that you have the tool to do what you want to do but may not realize it yet. You just need to alter the way in which you are using it!

Not sure but I think Denis is talking about the change in rod blank bend or curve between a bare blank and one that has had guides installed and then loaded in a fishing situation.

No one, least of all me, is arguing that the addition of guides will have no effect on the way a rod flexes. Any intelligent rod builder knows that it will. In fact, Denis is stating many of the very same things I have stated repeatedly on this forum and in the magazine for over a decade now. We’ve done several articles on this subject.

The Common Cents System will easily measure and reflect any changes in power, action and speed between a naked rod blank and the same blank in finished rod form. All you have to do it take the measurements before and after the rod is built.

The Common Cents System was not designed to record nor show changes in flex profile created by the addition of guides and put into a fishing situation. But this is something you can easily do if you wish. Just support the blank horizontally and hang enough weight from the tip to deflect it to whatever degree you desire. Trace the curve onto a wall behind the blank, or photograph it. Then, add your guides and string the line through them. Add the same amount of weight to that line and then compare the curve of the blank to your previous tracing or photograph.

The more guides you use, the less change you'll see. The less guides you use, the more change you'll see. It’s that easy.


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

Problems are either universal which represents a problem with a system, or they are unique to some users only which represents a problem with how those users are going about things. Since hundreds or even thousands of people are using the CCS without having the problems listed here, I have to assume these are user oriented problems and not problems with the system itself. Others have replied to Denis so I will reply to Bobby's comment.

I really do not think any of the manufacturers have attempted to bottle up the bass blank market in the SB/SJ/MB categories. They only list blanks in those categories for the casual rod builder who needs help in figuring out what might make a good blank for his application. A good rod builder should be experienced enough not to be locked into looking only at blanks listed in a "bass" category. A blank is a blank is a blank. If the specs are in line with what you want then the blank is a good candidate no matter what category heading it may be listed under. It is your communication skill and not the CCS, that has to be relied upon to sell a customer on a specific blank that you KNOW to be a good choice.

I wonder how many rod builders here are old enough to remember the days before there were such specialized categories? About the only categories you had were Saltwater and Freshwater. Fly carried its own heading. That was about it. It has only been in the last decade or so that these category headings have expanded into all these specialized listings. I do not like them but recognize that they are helpful to novices in sorting through a truly huge assortment of blanks. They are also a sales tool for the marketing people. But experienced rod builders have to be smart enough to step outside them and to also hone their communication skills so they can effectively sell a customer on the blank that will be best for them no matter what category heading it may fall under.

I had a rod here with a broken tip, broken in between the tip top and first running guide. I cut that back to the guide for it to act as a new tip. I ran 3 lines on it, one through the blank, and one through the guides (these two I anchored to the butt). The third line is tied to the tip. I put a hook on each of the 3

Not having any graph paper or such handy I just mounted another blank on a vertical holder and set up on the floor. The rod I clamped to the top shelf of my work bench horizontally. I suspended the largest lead sinker I have from the line attached to the tip. I moved the vertical blank to touch the rod tip and marked the intersect point. Then I tried the line running through the blank. I didn’t have to move the vertical blank and the intersect stayed the same. Then I tried the line running through the guides and again exactly the same results

AHA! Great fun!

Tom made mention earlier that any change in flex profile between the naked blank and a rod with guides installed and lined would only be apparent if far too few guides were used. I plan to find out. This afternoon I embark on some comparative tests just to satisfy my own curiosity. I will report back!

Denis,
Here are some velocity and acceleration numbers for your quest.
Several years ago Sage set out to define casting technique with a casting analyzer.
The subjects were hundreds if not thousands of participants and the data was collected on laptops.
The test rod was a 590 XP with 5 weight line to make a 40 foot cast.
According to Sage the data was collected by data acqusition from a gyro mounted on the rod, can't remember if it was in front of or behind the grip.
According to their "experts" peak velocity reached 260 degrees per second with acceleration of plus and minus 2200 degrees per second per second. This was considered optimum for the 40 foot cast and was capable of creating a 25% rod load. This rotation was recorded close to the grip so is not actual rod tip speed more like rotational speed of the hand. Casting arc was plus or minus 66 degrees. Casting stop was accomplished at 30 degrees per second.
Not much but some viable acceleration data may be gleaned.
If these are of any use, Please.

Gene



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2009 06:26PM by Eugene Moore.

Tom
General trends in just about anything in life is identified by any competent observer.
Its far more useful to know why...............a lot harder tho to identify the why.
Once you actually know the "why" you can make a conscious decision to to use it for your advantage ...........or not.

I use the information for my advantage ................. now everybody has that opportunity................its called sharing.

The devil is in the detail.................without the detail you are just fumbling.
Its a shame that the discussion is being diverted by irrellevant comment.

"No one, least of all me, is arguing that the addition of guides will have no effect on the way a rod flexes..............TK"
At no point did I refer to numbers of guides.....................Blind Freddy knows thats a separate issue.
The discussion in the specific thread was about the nature of forces in ANY guidetrain.
...............an explanation of elements of forces that are the difference between rod performance on the testrig and rod performance on the water .
................application of the detail of the information in the post enabling assessment of rod performance in areas guessed at in the past, and in ways you might not have thought about before................. some very technique specific uses for advantage.

" The Common Cents System was not designed to record nor show changes in flex profile created by the addition of guides and put into a fishing situation. But this is something you can easily do if you wish. Just support the blank horizontally and hang enough weight from the tip to deflect it to whatever degree you desire. Trace the curve onto a wall behind the blank, or photograph it. Then, add your guides and string the line through them. Add the same amount of weight to that line and then compare the curve of the blank to your previous tracing or photograph........ TK "

EXACTLY
Been there done that.
That image and comparison quickly identfies the change in AA ( which you seem to have difficulty in recognising ) which occurs in the difference between tip hung weight, weight hung from line thru guides, and the the same in actual casting....................... that AA is a fundamental parameter of the tables................so it changes the assigned numbers in the tables.
I hope the current thread enables others to understand why.
To see the relative impact of cast accelleration tho ( a significant factor itself ) you can't do that on a testrig..............a significant point that needs to be noted.

It depends on the relative lure weight , the relative power of the rod, the casting / fishing technique the rod is being used for & the blank design ..........as to how much change there is.
It relates to how much of the blank is flexing
and, obviously,
the stress/strain on the flexed section of the blank at that time.

" As far as the CCS supposedly not giving the "right ratings' for blanks of different types or classifications, I can assure you that you will never find a blank with a higher ERN to be less powerful than a blank with a lower ERN. And this will hold true even if the numbers being compared are between a spinning rod or a live bait rod....... TK "
A perfectly valid observation of general trend
BUT
What does it tell me about applicability between comparisons of single modulus blanks, multi-modulus blanks ( low modulus tip & high modulus butt ) or a "woomera" style multi-modulus blank.( high modulus tip, medium modulus mid section )...................not a great deal of detail.................but does a great job of comparing two blanks of similar construction and class..........a very useful tool as the first step in blank selection at the commencement of a build to replicate a previous build for a particular technique
Perfect tool for that job.

My rods get used for fishing, not hanging on a testrig..................I want them to perform optimally fishing..................I want to understand the difference between testrig results and fishing performance .................and it helps to know why............not just guessing...............its part of the skills shift from being a rod assembler and a rod craftsman................but its just a small but important skill in a large rodbuilding knowledge base .
Guessing is "black art" stuff.
Sure I use a test rig................I have several................they are different to the ones most people have, as not only are they designed to be used for classical rod deflection tests, they are designed to examine torque and deflection at rod orientation other than at horizontal too.

PeterS...................you are right on the money

RichardK...............No its not user oriented problems..............the appropriate tool is used for the job it does properly, the discussion is about the limitations of the use of the tool and the reasons performance of the end product is different between testrig and real use on the water............... knowing what not to use a tool for is part of the skillset that comes with the toolkit, assumptions are made without reading the instruction manual, the MSDS , TDS, etc, and taking the salesman's pitch with a grain of salt..............thats life isn't it.
The opposite side of the coin is assuming that the results of using the tool in one situation is relevant to the outcome of its application/ interpretation / expectation in another situation.
.................. this is the commonest user oriented error.

If I were you, I would simply not use the CCS - if you can't get it to provide you with the information you desire, find something that will.

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

Thanks Eugene
Useful info from an additional source
Sage sure went to a lot of trouble to collect the data.

Thanks. I really enjoyed reading this discussion as I'm sure a lot of people did.