Bobby,
If you graph deflection vs load that will give you a curve of stiffness. That is by definition what stiffness. Power is just stiffness at one given load. In the case of the Common Sense System power is measured at a load that results in a deflection of 1/3 the rods length, but I am sure that you knew that.
I think that plotting the action angle vs load might get you closer to what you are after. It would take careful measurements of how the action angle changed with changes in load to get at what you are attempting to get at, if I understand. The problem with this is I think that you are going to have a very difficult time measuring the differences in action angle except at large differences in load due to the lack of resolution when making action angle measurements.

Bobby,

You can do it by looking at it. It's simply not as hard to do as you seem to want to make it. In fact, this is pretty silly given that the points of resolution within that system are so terribly broad.

The Common Cents System is much better and I highly recommend trying it. It's much better than the broad 3 points of measurement offered by the older system.


.......

The system for defining action has been in place for something like 100 years. Most of us learned the definition of the word "initially" by the time we were in fifth grade. I have a ten year old daughter that can flex a blank and tell me where it initially flexes. Every manufacturer out there uses that system and has zero trouble figuring out where the blank initially flexes. A rod builder that can't tell where a blank flexes initially and if that place falls in the upper 1/3 rod or upper 1/2 he might want to rethink his involvement in selling rods to customers.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 08:45AM by Moderator.

So, I look at something and decide that it is either "A", "B" or "C". The next person looks at the same thing and decides that it is something entirely different than what I decided. Is this really what we want or would we rather have something with a little structure based on reasoning and logic rather than "this is the way we have always done it"?

The comment: "The Common Cents System is much better and I highly recommend trying it." makes me re-ask yet another unanswered question. "Does this now mean that we have come 'full circle' and are proposing that AA's given by CCS should now become a set of parameters used to define action?"

If you have trouble remembering what the parameters are, go back and re-read the original articles by Dr. Hanneman. There are numerous references stating that a certain range of AA's coincide with "fast", "slow" etc etc.

Emory, thanks for the insight, I will study it later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 08:46AM by Moderator.

Webster's
Definition of initially (adverb): at first; in the first place; at the beginning

Indeed it is not hard to determine where a blank first flexes when load is applied to it. The term "initially" is not quantifiable by numbers, only by similar terms or definitions. It is as the definition above states --- the first place; at the beginning. It should not be hard to put a little flex into a rod blank and notice where the flex or bend first occurs.

If you want to quantify that area by virtue of numbers then it would appear that the CCS is what you are looking for. As the AA degree number increases, the closer to the tip the area of initial flex will be.

Bobby,

Again you're mistaken. You and I have discussed this before. The Common Cents System does not use the terms "Fast" "Moderate" nor "Slow." Dr. Hanneman used that table to help readers get their head around the idea that higher AA numbers meant a faster action, while lower numbers indicate a slower action. Beyond that, those terms do not appear and are not used in the Common Cents System. It makes no sense to insist otherwise. You will not find them in any DBI nor any URRS rating. Such subjective terms don't exist within the Common Cents System. You might as well drop that notion - Fast, Medium and Slow are simply not part of the CCS.

The Common Cents System does not attempt to redefine the term "Action." It simply puts a relative number on where a blank initially flexes so builders and fisherman can have a clearer picture of which blank is faster, or slower, than another. It no more attempts to put a moniker on whether a blank is fast or slow anymore than your ruler attempts to define something as long or short.

Yes, you're correct about the trouble with the old "Fast, Medium and Slow" system. It has a somewhat subjective nature to it which is one more reason to use the Common Cents System. Your "A" may be somebody else's "B", but your 78AA will be exactly the same as the next person's 78AA. Beautiful, isn't it.

One last thing - I have no trouble banning folks for rules violations and that includes not only personal insults but purposeful troublemaking.

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

Maybe I misunderstood or read something into his question that was not there but I thought that Bobby was asking a legitimate question which is: how do blanks act under different loads. Action angle tells us what the action is at a given load but how does a blank react to different loads or maybe more importantly do different blanks with the same or simular action angles act differently under different loads. In other words can you have two blanks that have the same action angle at a deflection of 1/3 their length but different action angles at a deflection of less or more than 1/3 the blanks length.

Tom,
Nearly every rod on the racks at Bass Pro has a defined action on the label. In fact, the two subjective descriptions we see for nearly every blank or rod are power and action. It would seem to me any system that helps us better describe a blank/ rod should quantify both these. Why wouldn't we use AA numbers to define those terms.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2009 11:23PM by Robert Russell.

Even though the AA measurement is taken at what the CCS defines as a fully loaded rod, it refers in a relative fashion to where the blank initially flexes. So don't get hung up on the constant where the measurement is taken - a blank with a AA of 75 will initially flex closer to the tip than one with an AA of 65. It is a relative measurement regardless - it possesses the same Action Angle whether it's unflexed or flexed to an extreme limit. The AA doesn't change any more than a fast action rod can somehow become a slow action rod by virtue of how much you load it.

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

Robert,

The CCS doesn't deal with subjective terms and has no reason to do so. Trying to shoehorn subjective human opinions onto or into the CCS just isn't necessary. Where would you put the terms "long, medium and short" into your tape measure? At what point should the temperature scale read "hot" or "cold?" Surely you can see that such terms aren't necessary in a system of relative numbers.

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

I really wonder how many rod builders are not able to figure out where a rod blank initially flexes. Not many I'd guess.

On another note, I feel pretty confident that I "get" the CCS. And a rod blank only has one Action Angle. It doesn't change just because you change the deflection of that blank. It's measured at a specific point of deflection for the sake of consistency but is then applicable across the board. A blank with a 65AA retains an Action Angle of 65 whether it's flexed a little or a lot or not at all. It is a number that describes an inherent property of the rod.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 08:48AM by Moderator.

Let’s get back to the original question asked by Alex. I believe he’s referring to the dynamic profile taken by a rod blank as it’s progressively loaded.

All rod blanks, regardless of their action, will flex progressivly towards and into the butt area as the load increases. But even at the same state of deflection the route taken to get to that point will not have been the same - I think this is what Alex is referring to when he says “how the blank loads.” But the fact is, rods with similar AA figures do “load” in a similar manner.

Take a blank with a high AA, and then take one with a lower AA, and load them both to an extreme amount. Take note of the way they flex as you increase the load on each. The blank with the higher AA will always exhibit a steeper curve than the one with the lower AA and this holds true throughout the entire range of flex from the initial load to the full load.

Should the AA numbers be indentical, then you can expect the progression of the curve between initial and full load to be similar.

If you bend enough rod blanks and pay attention to their AA figures while doing so, at some point you can easily form a mental picture of how a blank is going to flex from initial to full load just by looking at the AA number.

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

Bobby Feazel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you have trouble remembering what the
> parameters are, go back and re-read the original
> articles by Dr. Hanneman. There are numerous
> references stating that a certain range of AA's
> coincide with "fast", "slow" etc etc.


Bobby I think you have misinterpreted those passages. Not likely that Dr. Bill was trying to put the old terms into categories or ranges within the new AA scale. In fact if you read the updated article that was in the magazine just a couple issues back you see that he completely left those subjective terms out altogether.

"...we find the action angle measures 62 degrees. This indicates a faster action than rods with lower AA figures and a slower action than rods with higher AA figures."

In the update Dr. Bill never once stated any particular AA as being fast medium or slow. Just faster or slower than others depending on the numbers involved. For what it's worth, I thought the updated article was much better than the original for those of us who did not really care about the background but just wanted the nuts and bolts to use the system..

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really wonder how many rod builders are not able
> to figure out where a rod blank initially flexes.
> Not many I'd guess.
>
> On another note, I feel pretty confident that I
> "get" the CCS. And a rod blank only has one Action
> Angle. It doesn't change just because you change
> the deflection of that blank. It's measured at a
> specific point of deflection for the sake of
> consistency but is then applicable across the
> board. A blank with a 65AA retains an Action Angle
> of 65 whether it's flexed a little or a lot or not
> at all. It is a number that describes an inherent
> property of the rod.
Mike,
You may get "CCS", but you're missing the point. You claim a rod with a 65AA retains the action angle whether it's flexed a little or allot is completely wrong and that's the struggle. The 65AA represents the angle at that particular load and at no other points. The problem with this is as others have pointed out or picked up but you've seemed to ignore, is that this point may not may not offer much information or may lead you to make some conclusions that are wrong.

I'll give you a specific example. The picture Bill Stevens posted of 2 8 foot crankbait blanks showed blanks with very different flex patterns, but nearly the same tip angles, 72 vs 73 degrees. If you look at those pictures, you can see clearly the rods have different flex patterns, one has a flatter flex. If you were to hold both blanks and flex them by manually flexing the tips, you'd see that the blanks a very different, one being much more moderate than the other. Yet, if you look at the AA, the blanks are very similar. This is just one of many examples I could give you where blanks that have similar AA are really not very similar in action.


Tom,
CCS deals with power and that is just as subjective as action. As I posted, the 2 subjective descriptions you see on nearly every single rod or blank sold in the US are power and action. If you can't shoe horn action, then how are we measuring power? It seems to be a simple matter of coming up with acceptable definitions just as has been done with power. It is by assigning, measuring and apply a range of quantity that we've taken the subjectiveness out of power.

This quote from you, "...we find the action angle measures 62 degrees. This indicates a faster action than rods with lower AA figures and a slower action than rods with higher AA figures" is part of the problem. I don't believe this statement to be true in all cases. The AA only measures the tip angle for a blank loaded to flex to 1/3 its length and trying to compare it to another blank and make a judgement about differences between the 2 actions might lead you to some false conclusions. Look at the crankbait blank picture posted by Bill. Clearly the actions are very different, notice the flex in one is much flatter, but their AAs are within 1 degree of each other. If you were to conclude the blanks had very similar action using the logic in your quote above, you'll be mistaken. Looking at the picture you'd know the blanks have different actions. If like me, you have both blanks and take the time to play with them, you'd quickly see they are different and that one is much more moderate.

No, the AA is a single action measurement that holds true across the entire spectrum. Remember the measurement is a relative number that is used to compare the action of one rod against another. A rod with an AA of 65 has a faster action than one with an AA of 55. This holds true in any position or amount of flex.

Bill's photo isn't a good representation of how to compare blanks. I've explained why before. When I have time today I'l go over it again.

The CCS doesn't use subjective measurements for either action or power. It is already objective and relative and there is really no need to add words when you already have numbers. The Volume 12 #4 issue of RodMaker has the CCS definitions for action and power. They're already in place and are displayed as relative numbers.

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

Tom,
I think that you may be missing what Robert is attempting to get at. The action angle and the power are measured at a given amount of blank deflection. At any other deflection the power, number of pennies required to deflect the blank a lesser amount, would be less or required to deflect the blank a larger amount would be more. Also at a lesser deflection the angle of the tip will be lower and at a larger deflection the angle at the tip would be higher. If you want to say that action angle is only at a deflection of 1/3 the blanks length and any other deflection is not result in an action angle then by definition you are correct in which case I guess we need a different word for the angle of the tip at a deflection of other than 1/3 the blanks length.
Some amount of deflection had to be selected for the sake of consistancy and 1/3 the blanks length seems perfectly reasonable to me, however, I think that the selection of 1/3 the blanks length is somewhat arbitrary. There is no law of physics that dictated 1/3 the blanks length.

Emory,

Yes I understand, but the measurements, as outlined within the CCS, are taken at a particular point. At any other point, they cease to be the AA and ERN as you would use them to label or describe the power and action per the CCS.

The point of the AA is not really to provide you with a tip angle measurement at any specific point, but rather to provide you with a means of determining if one blank is faster or slower than another. Even though the measurement is taken at a single point of deflection, it remains relative to all other AA numbers across the board. In other words, a blank with an AA of 65 is inherently faster in action than a blank with an AA of 55. This will hold true at any point of deflection because it is based on which blank initially flexes closer to the tip. If you had to start listing AA numbers at various points of deflection, well... what a nightmare. Kiss such a system a quick goodbye. The single AA measurement does exactly what it was intended to do - provide a means for determining if one blank has a faster or slower action than another.

Now if you wanted to plot a chart or graph of the progressive nature of the rod’s flex you could do that via the “Big Picture” with AA measurements taken on different portions of the blank. But if you just want to know if one blank is faster or slower in action than another, then the single AA figure is enough to do that. And this was the point of having it in the system to begin with. It certainly does exactly what it was intended to do.

The deflection distance used in the CCS is indeed somewhat arbitrary, but so is the length of an inch and yet no one disputes the accuracy of our system for measuring length.

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


Getting back to the photo Alex and Russell have mentioned - Bill is using a means for comparison that uses the same load and then looks at deflection amount, rather than using the same deflection distance and then measuring the load required to get them there. Understanding that - we can look at the photo and make some comparisons.

Obviously blank #A has a faster action than blank model #B by a little bit. And if you were to take the CCS measurements on them you would indeed find that #A has a higher AA than blank #B does. Note that the curve of #A is steeper than that of blank #B. And this will remain true from the initial flex on through to what would be considered a full load. At the point where the CCS measurements are taken, they will not have the same AA figure.


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

Tom,
Yes, I think that you are right. Deflecting the blank to 1/3 its length and then measuring the angle at several points on the blank, as you suggest, is a better way to go to get at what I think that Robert may have been attempting to get at. It would be easier and quicker than what I had suggested. The difficulty with the measurement though will be the same and that is the lack of resolution and the parallax when making action angle measurements.

I can now relate to AA and ERN - I will sleep quite well tonight!

Tom,
I have personally measured both those blanks and the AA when loaded to 1/3 blank length is nearly identical. This would lead me or anyone else using the CCS to assume the actions are nearly identical. Yet the picture shows the blanks are noticeably different. In fact, I recorded the data for the two blanks at much different times and would have never guessed they were even close to the same AA. Anyone that picked up these would note that one is noticeably slower than the other. I knew that one was moderate fast and the other was closer to extra fast from playing with them. Only after seeing Bill's picture did I even look at the AA for these two blanks and was very surprised to see they had nearly identical AAs. In fact, I went out and measured both rods again to make sure I had the data correct and I did.

The data provided by CCS and the AA is in this case misleading. Here are two blanks with nearly identical AA and very different actions. So to your original claim that AA allows you to compare the actions of different rods, I'd say maybe, but maybe not. Here is a clear case where using the AA to compare actions will lead one to an incorrect conclusion. I could give you 3 or 4 other pairs of rods where comparing AA would lead to incorrect conclusions. As an example, I have two 845s that have similar ERNs and the one with the higher AA actually has a deeper flex/ slower action. Any rod builder that picked up both would easily recognize the blank with the higher AA as the blank with the slower action.

Finally, I'm confused by the aversion to using the industry wide standards for action, especially considering Dr. Hanneman provides definitions. There is absolutely nothing subjective about the term "fast action" when it is defined as an AA of "above 66" as Dr. Hanneman does. As in the length of an inch, it may be arbitrary, but it is objective.

Robert,

Looking at them, they are nearly identical, although not quite. They differ only slightly in the photo - one of them is not "noticeably slower" in the photo. This is where subjective terms run into trouble. From that photo I'd say one of them is only slightly slower, or slightly faster, than the other.

The one that you say was "extra fast" - did it have a higher AA number than than the other one? I'm betting that it did and if so, everything is as it should be.

I've run the numbers on hundreds of blanks, and not yet experienced what you say you have. Not saying your experience isn't geniune, just that I have yet to see it. If you make it to the Expo we can take some minutes and try to duplicate your scenario at Dr. Hanneman's booth - there will be plenty of blanks there to run the numbers on. Something doesn't sound right (if I'm reading your terms correctly) and I'd like us to take the measurements in person. If those are Castaway blanks, maybe Bill and Lance can set those exact two aside for us to work with.

Dr. Hanneman didn't include those terms (fast, medium, slow, etc.) in the CCS. DBI and URRS quotations contain only numbers. The CCS provides a standard for describing action and it is expressed in numbers. I'd have to think about it, but I can't recall any system of relative measurement that uses words instead of, or in companion with, the numbers.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 06:07PM by Tom Kirkman.