Just for general information, as you move to more and more powerful blanks, you won't require as much resolution. For instance, the difference the weight of a single penny will make between two very light power blanks will be far greater than the difference it will make between two very powerful blanks. For that reason, above a certain amount any such chart can certainly suffice with multiples of 10, or more.

When Dr. Hanneman has the new chart ready I will certainly publish it in RodMaker.

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

Bill,
I’m not sure I know what you mean by “I am presently loading similar length bass blanks with "900 pennies" which are not as powerful as the NFC blanks listed.” The most powerful of the NFC blanks listed at an ERN of 26.9 would be a little more than 300 Cents (331c). Is the “900” a "typo" or something other than 1/3 deflection of length?

Jon,
I applaud your change updating the blank ratings (on your web site) from “ERN” to “c” (cents) due to the cut-off in ratings over 25 on the CCS tables. You are right, the “c” values do provide useful—and VERY DIRECT—data.

Jim I agree with you in applauding Jon and NFC -

Maybe we are on the way to a better understanding!

I am visually comparing blank action and power at full load (90 degree)

Jon, great to see NFC paving the way and putting out good info for their customers.

I think this perfectly illustrates why people think CCS is more useful for Fly rods. Dr. Hanneman has mentioned several times that the conversion of Cents to ERN could not be linear due to the desire of the ERN to equate to AFTMA line ratings. The concept of a conversion for fly rod builders makes perfect sense, and it is my understanding that that segmant was Dr. Hannemans origonal target audience. I would suggest that the concept of ERN be moved to the back burner so to speak and Cents be pushed to the forefront. Let's face it....cents are objective....the ERN is by definition NOT....it is manipulated to allow the numbers to fit AFTMA line ratings....this makes perfect sense for fly builders and I have no doubt that it works great....but......it opens up the whole system to unneeded doubt. I honestly think that if Volume 1 had taught people to simple measure AA and Cents and to use that number for a description many more builders would have immediately adopted the system.....ERN could very well be implemented in similar regards to the URRS information....nice details for those who need them.

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Scott Sheets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Let's face it....cents are objective....the ERN is by definition NOT....it is manipulated to allow the numbers to fit AFTMA line ratings...

I honestly think that if Volume 1 had taught people to simple measure AA and Cents and to use that number for a description many more builders would have immediately adopted the system....
-------------------------------
I beg to differ with the above. The ERN is indeed objective. Granted, it does not have a linear conversion factor to cents. However, the conversion factors are precisely defined and consequently they are NOT subjective. Therefore, by definition it is objective.
Also, ERN values above 15 have no relationship whatsoever to AFTMA line ratings, as there are no such thing as AFTMA ratings above 15. While their limits are based on an arbitrary decision on my part, they also have been precisely defined and therefore are not subjective.

I do not believe the CCS would ever have been adopted by anyone unless it solved the problem of how to describe a 5-weight rod—a concept for which there is no objective definition. The concept of ERN (Effective Rod Number) "effectively" solved that problem. I believe anglers are more comfortable saying "I fish with an ERN=5 rod" than saying " I fish with a rod which requires between 41 and 47 cents to flex it one third of its length." Once one learns the "language" of CCS, I believe communication is greatly simplified.

Hi Guys,

Just a quick note to say thanks for the comments and the interest. However, it is only fair that I tell you that it was Jason Borger that pushed CCS on us. He did the measurements and he came up with the mathematical equation for calculating the ERNs that were off the chart. The only credit I can take is getting him to the plant and letting him run.

Jon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2009 01:51AM by Jon Bial.

Thanks Jon for the explaination.

Will Jason Borger be forthcoming with his mathematical equation?

I think this simple act will go a long ways in solving a lot of anticipated problems. If he chooses not to, then I suspect that future manufacturersf who choose to use the AA-ERN system will wind up applying there own equation at which point we builders will be back in the same situation we are in now. POWER: 1,2,3,4,5 etc.

I am happy to see North Fork adding this sensible information to their product line. It can do nothing but help builders make better buying choices. Well done!

I think that if Dr. Hannaman would simply extend the Cents/ERN table as shown in the original article and the Rosetta Stone, it would restore the credibility to the “incomplete system” and go a long ways to make it more user friendly and truly universal for ALL blanks.

He said “I believe anglers are more comfortable saying "I fish with an ERN=5 rod" than saying "I fish with a rod which requires between 41 and 47 cents to flex it one third of its length”.

I’ve been using the “system” for some time now and although I was frustrated early on because of the incompleteness of the ERN designations, I now feel comfortable referring to Power and Action as 242/68 (example). There may be yet-to-be advantages realized by having the ERN ratings readily available in a conversion table.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that. As long as the numbers remain relative, it makes little difference which you use. Just as inches and feet are interchangeable, so too are pennies and ERN. The CCS wasn't designed to measure fly rods - it was designed to measure power and action. The only thing tailored specifically for fly rods was the term "Effective Rod Number, " which was incorporated so that an equation outlining a reasonable relationship between rod power and line weight could be offered.

So it doesn't really matter if you express rod power in ERN or # of pennies. They're the same thing. Saying a rod has an ERN of 24 and saying it's a 289 penny rod amount to the same thing. Both represent the exact same amount of power.

I know some want to be able to express the power strictly in ERN and that's fine. As soon as Dr. Hanneman completes the expanded chart I'll publish it in the magazine and install it in the online library here. The spring scale I'm working on will have both ERN and # of pennies listed on the scale.

By the way, the spring scale idea has become more simple that I first thought it would be. I hope to have something finished within about 30 days. My only concern is keeping the parts and pieces to a minimum so that anyone can build their own rather than having to buy something ready made. They will have to use the same scale if the read-out chart is going to work, however.


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2009 11:07AM by Tom Kirkman.

@All--Just wanted to stick my head in here quickly. As some of you have already seen on the NFC blog, NFC temporarily reverted to cents ("c") for those ERN values over 25. I wanted to be sure that any "formula" for 25+ was not only accurate, but was run past Dr. Hanneman. Dr. Hanneman and I talked on Thursday or Friday about it, and it looks like he has a graph now (at least for 1-35, as he discusses in an above post). I'd personally love to have something in software, especially something the could be easily shared, but that may be down the road a bit. And rest assured, if I ever manage to come up with anything useful to add to the CCS methodology discussion, I'll definitely do it (once it is proven and Dr. Hanneman has a look at it). I am a firm believer in an "open CCS."

I also read through the posts concerning "direct values," shall we say, in pennies. NFC is keeping track of that info in the master spreadsheet, too, and may make it available somewhere. One caveat that might be worth consideration there (and Tom and Dr. Hanneman may or may not agree), is that between production tolerances, precision of a person's CCS methods, and the fact that some blanks are so powerful (cents? more like kilos), that "to-the-penny" resolution may be "too useful" in some cases, if you get my drift.

And just to take it back to the reason for all of this...just tested an NFC prototype fly blank that came in at ERN5.5, AA62. Aiming for AA66 (or thereabouts) for production... ;-)

PS--There will be more about NFC's CCS methods on the blog next week.

JB

Edit: Forgot one very important thing: A "thanks" to you all for the encouragement to NFC as it goes down the CCS route. I think I can speak for Jon, as well, in saying that it is very much appreciated!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2009 05:43PM by Jason Borger.

Jason,

Good points. The CCS has been around now for about 6 years and we've had some previous discussions concerning the precision of the measurements. Taking the ERN and AA measurements is fairly simple, of course, but not as simple as say, measuring length with a tape measure. Obviously there is going to be some deviation between measurements of the same blank model, not because of any flaw with the CCS, but because of the minute differences between blanks (the CCS has enough resolution to easily discern those differences) and there is no way to assure that any 2 rod builders will be equally careful in their set up and implementation of the system. It's not quite as easy as reading a tape measure, almost maybe, but not quite. I'm hoping that as more and more manufacturers adopt the system, they will take pains to garner very accurate measurements.

As I mentioned earlier, as you move to more and more powerful blanks, the extremely high resolution of the CCS is not really needed. It's there, but as you say, to the penny accuracy is not nearly as important on those more powerful blanks as it is on the much lighter ones.

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

Tom--Agreed. One of things that we're trying to do on this end is hone the set-up methods so as to eliminate (or at least reduce) any miscellaneous influences (especially when dealing with the lighter-power blanks). If NFC needs to adjust methods or otherwise ends up honing the in-house results, we'll update any affected CCS value(s) with that info. As you say, the resolution is there, and it can be surprising how obvious it is on, say, a light fly rod versus a heavy Mag Bass.

I've loosely followed the development of the CCS for some time (I think from a time not too long after the first articles were originally published, since it's often part of the banter on Sexyloops.com), and it's been good to be involved in putting it to use in a production environment now. I hope that the efforts at NFC can help make some headway for the larger blank industry, and in some way perhaps help to tune methods for obtaining the values quickly (but with repeatable accuracy) in such an environment. In that vein, I look forward to putting together one of your scales!

Thanks for all you input/feedback, Tom, and for your support here on the forum.

JB

Tom and Jason,

I'm sure you may have thought about this, but my naive solution for a 'CCS Scale' would be to use a set of long coil springs (the type that collapse all the way down on themselves) with different spring constants. They can typically be deflected a sizable distance while still remaining very linear in the force it takes to deflect them. Thus with a trip to the hardware store, and a few calibration measurements a simple scale could be created for accurate and repeatable measurements.

Joe

Jon and Jason,

I just noticed that the latest CCS info on your blog is missing the AA ratings that were on the original version.