For you CCS fans our there, we have posted the specs on our IM Mag Bass series. We'd love some feedback on whether this is helpful for you all.

[northforkcomposites.com]

Jon

More information is ALWAYS helpful. The old 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc power ratings were also helpful but they didn\'t translate from one company to another. So I think the CCS power rating is much better.

While we\'re on the subject............. physical weight should also be listed for rod blanks IMO. I know they used to be and not sure why most companies stopped listing them, but I think most builders would welcome seeing them listed again.

Am I the only one that would like to see dead lift ratings? The line test ratings on some rods/blanks (trevally for example) are a joke. In particular I'd like to know what a lot of the fresh water stuff can do.

Two thumbs up!! Great information to have. As more companies adopt the same system it will be even more helpful.

I would also like to see physical blank weights listed.

What handle length are you using as a base for measurements? I'm assuming these are all 6'6" blanks?

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

You don't use a handle length - North Fork has no idea what length handle each person will use. Just as any physical weight will be for the blank alone, it won't include any handle components. They also don't tell you how long the blank will be if you trim it. They tell you how long it is as they supply it.

The specs given, length, weight, power, etc., are for the blank, not the finished rod you or someone else builds.

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

It would be nice to know what the rod blank will be like AFTER you build it. These measurements could be provided.

Jon, any chance you will be listing blank weight?

Scott Sheets
www.smsrods.com

Mark Clooten Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be nice to know what the rod blank will
> be like AFTER you build it. These measurements
> could be provided.


How do you figure? If ten of us built the same blank, in our own unique styles, we would have ten unique answers. The ONLY measurements that are meaningful ... raw blank data on each model.

Mark,

No, I’m afraid that’s impossible. These questions always seem to come up whenever the CCS measurements are mentioned. Without seeming contrary or smart at anyone’s expense, I’d like to make a few observations.

Blank manufacturers have been providing blank power ratings for years. But I have never seen anyone ask them how those measurements are taken nor what handle length was involved. I have never seen a rod builder ask a manufacturer “How much will my finished rod weigh,” or “How long will the finished rod be if I trim or extend your blank?”

Blank manufacturers provid specifications for the product as they provide the product - a naked rod blank. Competent rod builders understand, and can easily surmise, how much they are going to change things in terms of weight, length, power, etc., during the construction process by any trimming, extending, adding weight, determining handle length, etc., that takes place. And if they want to know exactly what the inherent properties of their finished rod is, they simply build the rod and then measure whatever property of the rod they’re interested in. The tools to do that, tape measure, weight scale, CCS, etc., are all readily available.

The CCS power figure (ERN) is for the naked rod blank. Same with length, weight, action, etc. Anything you do or add to the blank is apt to change one or more of those original specifications. The manufacturer doesn’t have a crystal ball - it is up to the rod builder to determine how much he or she is going to change the inherent properties of the naked blank by changing it into a finished rod.


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

I would like to know the answer to what I hope was the intent of the question initially brought up by Alex.

I desire to compare blanks on my deflection board -

The numbers submitted by NFC's Jon Dial are very interesting to me -

I have never seen a bass blank that was rated a nine power in a six foot six blank - The few sevens I have seen were all in the seven foot catergory. I would like to get my head around a six foot six blank rated that powerful -

I would like to get as near his set up as possible to directly compare other blanks

His blanks were six foot six in length -

They were placed in some sort of restraint system to hold them in a horizontal position -

One the end that was supported how far was the support restraint, i.e. the fulcrum point, placed from the butt end?

I certainly will not make the mistake of calling it a handle length -

If there is a way to set up a board and load a blank with a fulcrum length of zero please explain how it is to be done.

Are we getting into splitting hairs here? As I understand the CCS system it requires the first foot (12"0) to be level. This maybe the "fulcrum" length.

Phil... I saw 10% of the rod or blank should be supported in the last RodMaker. But according to (and am sure I will be corrected) Dr Bill's original article, he didn't specify length in the original article but rather "...use a common cent to shim the front of the handle until the first foot of rod is horizontal" (photo in the latest RodMaker - pg 28 - shows the front edge of the handle on edge of the counter as well as the photos in the original article). That can be confusing.

So are rods measured differently than blanks?

6'6" blank: 10% = 7.8", first foot = 12" - a 4.2" difference. That's enough to yield different results with a 5% change in effective rod length.

I asked a simple question... was just looking for a simple answer. Wondered how much of the blank length was supported.

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

Alex,

No more than 10%. The photo you saw in the original article with the fly rod supported was, in fact, supported at a point that was roughly 10% of its total length.

However, you're going to find that a couple inches fore or aft that far back doesn't make much difference in the ERN or AA. For consistency's sake, however, I'd support at a point that is roughly 10% of the total blank length.

The support should be set so that first foot beyond that is level. This ensures the blank isn't pointing up or down which would skew the results. Any droop beyond that point is normal due to the weight of the rod itself.


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

Bill,

What exactly, constitutes a "9-power" blank? Please point me to the standards and procedure that would indicate that something is a "9-power," or any other power for that matter. Remember that one company's "9-power" is another company's "5-power."

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

I suspect NFC is wise enough about conventional terms used to to realize the importance of the third number in their list.

Their catalog listing blank power by number was released to the public before the CC data was presented.

The last number in the three digit number notes the relative power of the blank within their six foot six product line - they list blanks in a power range from 1 - 9 - quite extensive in that length.

Many of us are aware that action and power ratings in present day catalogs have no common comparison.

Some of us even put blanks on a board for direct comparison.

It would be helpful if support point lengths were standardized for various lengths of blanks to minimize data skew.

Jon,
The CCS data is very helpful. I, also, would like to see blank weights given because power to weight ratio is very important to me. I wish someone would publish a conversion chart from Cents to ERN and vice versa (...or provide the fomula), that would accomodate higher power blanks (300+ cents).

This provides some of what you want and I'm sure the formula is available in part of the Common Cents document. [www.common-cents.info]

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"

No, the chart on the “Rosetta Stone” only goes to 173 Cents and has no formula. Volume 10-4 of RodMaker has a chart (table 2) that cross references Cents from ERN, but you’d have to interpolate to derive the number of Cents to ERN. Since the ERN is derived from the number of Cents to deflect blank 1/3 of length, an updated/expanded chart giving the Cents converted to ERN would be useful. I have to assume that NFC is privy to an updated chart (or the needed formula) since they list ERN values up to 26.9 for their Bass blanks, which would be more that 300 Cents. Perhaps Jon would be willing to share that with us.

Jim,
One cent equals 38.61 grains. Check the article on URRS for the defined limits for higher ERN values. They are expressed in grains. You must convert cents to grains (multiply by 38.61). The ERN scale is not linear, so there will never be a simple conversion formula. Interpolate from the limits to get intermediate values.
I am in the process of producing a qraphical conversion chart which I feel certain Tom will publish somewhere. If not, there will be free copies next Feb. at High Point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2009 03:19PM by Bill Hanneman.

Dr. Hanneman:

I am quite sure Jon Bial with NFC used the best information available to provide accurate AA and ERN data on the new line of blanks. The listings of values for six foot six bass blanks surely required more "pennies" than presently charted. I am presently loading similar length bass blanks with "900 pennies" which are not as powerful as the NFC blanks listed.

I assume that NFC utilized your methodology and or consulting services. I am wondering if the NFC published data is current and reflects the non linear relationship you note above or will the values be revised when you complete the graphical conversion chart?