Robert,

After giving this further thought - I'd like to buy those two 845's from you, if you still have them. If not, can you provide the brand and exact model numbers of same? I'm going to order the same blanks on Monday and measure them here. I want to see what you're experiencing.

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

Robert Russell Wrote: 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.
--------------------
What exactly are these "so called" industry wide standards for action. What are their values? What are their limits? Who defined the limits? Who has accepted these limits. I don't think they even exist.
On the other hand, if the "industry" wants to adopt the "standards" and "definitions" which I formulated (which were formulated relative to trout rods), that is beyond my control. What I have defined is a method for making a measurement called AA. That Is all! How individuals want to use the values is strictly up to each.

You say, you can produce pairs of rods which have essentially the same AA values but have very different "actions". My first questions would be. What is your definition of "action" and how do you determine (measure) it? The AA simply uses a one point description of a curve produced by bending the rod in a defined manner. It does not tell one what the action of the rod is. Granted, in the case of fly rods there is a general correlation between the angle formed (AA) and what the industry call fast, moderate, and slow actions. Personally, I have never seen any data correlating AA with the terms fast, moderate, or slow relative to any other type of fishing rod.

For that reason, when the URRS was established, the term AA was not included. Granted, AA is still an interesting objective number (much better than nothing) and it does allow one to visualize how a rod bends, however the strength of the tip relative to the strength of the butt is the determining factor in how a rod bends. That is why TP, ERN, and PR are the metrics used in the URRS which is applicable to rods of all types.
------------------------------
-----------------------------
Alex Dziengielewski Wrote: “I think I am confused on the 2:5:9 - I thought a rod with ERN = 5, TP = 2, PR = 9 would be written 5:2:9 based on the URRS article?”
--------------
Sorry for the delay in answering. Any confusion is my fault. In the article I did recommend using the notation with ERN first. Since it is ususally the most important value, it was written that way in order to assist data recovery from a data base-which was suggested.

From a practical viewpoint, I don’t think it really matters. Anyone using the notation recognizes the TP is always less than the ERN which is always less than the PR. A little common sense should resolve any confusion.
------------------------
------------------------
Bobby Feazel Wrote: “I'm hoping someone has a quantifiable way of obtaining the action of a blank. Currently, the only way I can find that has been proposed (by searching the internet) is to graft load vs deflection over a wide range of loads and look for distinct changes in the slope of the graft line. Remember we are looking for the point "where the rod initially flexes".
>
> My question remains: "How does one quantify: "where the rod initially flexes."
-----------------
I would suggest you look at the BIG Picture, as Tom has suggested. From it, you can decide on a point that you can live with as designating the point of initial flexing which fits your definition. Then you can read off the coordinates in terms of AA and length from tip. If your definition is constant, Higher AA angles will correlate with shorter lengths from tip.
---------------------------
-------------------------
Ken Finch Wrote: “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.”
>-------------------
The only problem with this is that after one learns the nuts and bolts, many want to know the details and are apparently too lazy to go back and seriously read the articles. Instead, they go to a forum like this and expect others to explain away their confusions.

Robert,
I think that there are two main problems with using fast, medium and slow rather than using the blanks action angle. First: Action angle gives you much, much better resolution. Fast, medium, slow just gives you three categories into which all blanks/rods must fall which is really very crude. Action angle will give you as much resolution as your care in making the measurement will allow Second: Fast, medium and slow is very often confused with the blank/rods speed or how rapidly it responds.
I agree with you that the action angle does not tell you everything about how a blank or rod flexes but it does tell you a heck of a lot more than fast, medium and slow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 08:07PM by Emory Harry.

Dr Hanneman wrote:

"I would suggest you look at the BIG Picture, as Tom has suggested. From it, you can decide on a point that you can live with as designating the point of initial flexing which fits your definition. Then you can read off the coordinates in terms of AA and length from tip. If your definition is constant, Higher AA angles will correlate with shorter lengths from tip."

Am I to understand that your suggestion is for each of us to use our own criteria for determining the point of intital flexing? If yes, then how is that a quantative way for everyone to determine the same point of flexing since any one definition will probably be different from others? If no, then more explaniation is need please.

I believe Alex and Bobby would like to quantify characteristics that they find desirable in a blank.
The action angle only defines the end point whereas the terms fast, medium and slow are gross generalities of the overall blank. Like Dr Hanneman I believe these characteristics are best observed by analyzing the tip and butt seperately then viewing the combined effect. IE slow butt with a fast tip, or a fast butt with a slow tip when combined may be the same end point. The desired characteristics may only be met by one or the other. Rods may have the same power when deflected to the same point but the journey to that point can be radically different based on location of the tapers. One may have desirable traits while the other is totally unacceptable.
My choice from the manufacturers, would be the addition of a mid length dia so I can calculate how each half will respond and then view as a cumulative effect.

Bobby Feazel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Am I to understand that your suggestion is for each of us to use our own criteria for determining the point of intital flexing? If yes,...
------
Yes, do what you want. You are the one bringing up determining the point of initial flexing. Do whatever makes you happy. The CCS doesn't concern itself with that aspect and has no intentions of doing so. The CCS simply measures an angle, that is all. That result is an objective number which does not require any subjective interpretation of "initial flexing".
-----------------------
----------------------
then how is that a quantative way for everyone to determine the same point of flexing since any one definition will probably be different from others?
------
I am certain you are correct. But, so what? I never said there was any quantitative value to using your own criteria, and I am certain there isn't any. It really doesn't make any difference to me what you do about this so called initial point of flexing, as it really doesn't concern the CCS. But then, I just said that before.

No matter what you finally decide to do, I expect you will find that rods with higher AA values correlate with shorter lengths from the tip. I believe it has something to do with the laws of geometry.

Bobby Feazel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
."
>
> Am I to understand that your suggestion is for
> each of us to use our own criteria for determining
> the point of intital flexing? If yes, then how is
> that a quantative way for everyone to determine
> the same point of flexing since any one definition
> will probably be different from others? If no,
> then more explaniation is need please.

Bobby,

That system is not Dr. Hanneman's, nor mine. It is the system that the industry has used for about 100 years now. If you have a problem with it you'd have to take that up with the folks who developed it, although most of them are long gone.

Dr. Hanneman developed the CCS AA figure in order to improve on that system by providing a means that is indeed quantifiable, objective and relative. You may not realize it, but you are making an outstanding case for the Common Cents System AA measurement.

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

Robert Russell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
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.

________________________________

I'm confused by this as well. If I understand Robert correctly, the CCS AA numbers are incorrect or misleading based on the subjective opinion of "any rodbuilder."

It could very easily be the reverse. Maybe the AA numbers are correct and tell the real story and it is the subjective opinion of "any rodbuilder" that is incorrect.

Tom, I hope when you get those two blanks you will measure them and provide the AA figures and also provide a snapshot of the two blanks with just a little flex in them. Something about this is not adding up. To obtain a higher AA reading the blank has to form a steeper curve which is also indicative of a faster action. At the same length and same deflection distance a slower blank cannot possibly form a steeper curve than one with a faster action. Something is amiss. Please follow through with these two blanks and provide the AA measurements along with the visual image for the standard action rating.

Eugene Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The action angle only defines the end point
> whereas the terms fast, medium and slow are gross
> generalities of the overall blank.

______________________________

Eugene I don't think this is correct. Although the AA number is taken at a single location, it also describes the overall generality of the blank action. A rod with an AA number of 70 will be more tip oriented overall than one with an AA number of 60.

Rob,
When veiwing the action angle of the blank this is the sum of the butt deflection and the tip deflection. For an AA of 70 degrees there are an infinite number of blank tapers.
First when loads are placed on one end of a beam the beam deflects throughout it's length, not only the tip. The butt deflection may be too small to measure but it's still there and a small deflection at the butt is magnified over the beam length. To achieve an AA of 70 there may be only 5 degrees at the butt, 20 degrees through the mid section and 45 degrees at the tip. Conversly the butt may be made softer achieving 10 degrees with the mid section at 25 degrees and a tip at 35 degrees. At the defined measure point both rods will have the same ERN and AA of 70 but how these are obtained are significantly different. This is the manufacturers trade in stock. They have the ability to control how much flex takes place in each zone. Sometimes this is gold somtimes lead. The difference between an excellent fishing rod and garbage. All rods flex under load throughtout their length. The key issue is where does the flex point accelerate and how quickly does it change ? To label a rod as a fast action but achieve it with a lot of butt deflection will result in a rod with poor damping qualities and poor accuracy. The rod may be fast as "described" but is less than desirable.
I do not believe the CCS in it's current form will address this issue and should not be expected to.
I've not seen the latest version and would appreciate it's posting rather than the version to the left, unless I've overlooked it in which case I'm sure someone will point out the error of my ways.

There is no new version of the CCS. There is a new article, which is a condensed and slightly rewritten version of the original, in RodMaker Volume 12 #4.

The AA describes overall blank action, just as the older, common system using the terms "fast, medium and slow" did. Action is defined as where the blank initially flexes. A blank with an AA of 70 will initially flex closer to the tip than one with an AA of 60 will.

The idea that you can get a slower action blank to register a higher AA number doesn't hold water. Putting enough flex in the butt area to enable the tip of such a blank to enter the AA chart at a higher AA figure will cause you to exceed the mandated deflection distance for taking the measurement. I agree with Rob, "Something is amiss."


...........

Tom,
In this thread I've read mention of numerous references to TP and PR which do not occur in the CCS data on the left side. This led me to the assumption there had been an amendment to the original data. If I'm mistaken accept my apologies.

As to the two rods outlined above they are within 2% of each other on total deflection at load.
You're an engineer go thru the math.
The numbers were deliberate, albeit rounded off, to show the difference of variable rate springs.
The destination is the same just a different travel plan.
The key is the journey not the destination.

By the way no engineer believed the mass of Galloping Gertie could be destroyed by something as humble as a 40 MPH wind.

Eugene Moore

Eugene,

Okay, I misunderstood you. That is the URRS - the Universal Rod Rating System. It appeared in RodMaker Volume 10 #4. It didn't change anything in the CCS but added some additional tools for measuring additional properties of rods and blanks which folks who build casting and spinning rods sometimes like to have.

If you will take a few rods, with obviously different actions, and actually run the numbers, I don't think you can ever find a slower action blank that will record a higher AA figure than a faster action blank. The further back the rod initially flexes the more shallow the angle the tip will hit the AA scale at. You can get it to hit the scale at a steeper angle, but only by exceeding the mandated deflection distance.

I'm waiting on Robert to provide me with the exact blank models where he said this happened. I'm going to order them and take a look for myself.

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

Tom,
I too experienced a similar phenenoma on (2) 9' 5 weight rod blanks.
The first was a gen 3 graphite rated med fast the second was IM 6 rated fast.
The rods had similar ERN the first at 4.8 the second at 5.0.
Action angle for the first was 58 degrees and the second 60 degrees.
The first rod had a much stiffer butt with a lighter tip and was one of the finest rods I'd ever cast.
The second was noticably slower, dampened poorly, felt tip heavy and had terrible accuracy.
Nothing in the CCS could have prepared me for the difference.
So much for the subjective rating of fast and med fast.
This did lead me to search for the reason and create my own spreadsheet to evaluate characteristics of the blanks prior to build.
Each blank is measured at 3-4 discrete locations depending on number of sections and evaluated against a known standard who's characteristics I happened to like. Dia, length, material and taper are compared mathematically against my standard. This is used to describe tip, butt and overall against a known, if arbitray standard. It may not be perfect, based on my arbitrary use of standard, but the results have been spot-on for predicting the traits I find most appealing.

Eugene Moore

Wish Denis were here. Good discussion for him.
Denis,
If I did anything wrong I express my apology.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2009 08:47PM by Eugene Moore.

The problem is that the ratings you mention were subjective which makes them suspect to begin with. I would tend to believe the AA figures over the subjective ratings. The problem with the damping, balance and accuracy is not necessarily a reflection on the action. I can think of many other things that would cause those characteristics before the basic action would. The material it was made from, the weight distribution and a host of other things. A fast action rod can be poor in all those areas. A fast action does not guarantee quick damping, good casting accuracy or anything else.

You say the rod was noticeably slower, in what way? Are you talking response? A fast action rod can be slow to respond depending on the material its made from.

I have run every blank I have through the AA chart. The only way to get a slower action rod to intersect with the AA chart at a higher AA location is to deflect it further than the distance Dr. Hanneman laid out in the instructions. I really hope Tom can get those two blanks Robert spoke about earlier. I very much want to see both the AA numbers and what the blanks look like when flexed just a little bit.

I have not heard back from Robert thus far. He may be out fishing or otherwise occupied. But we're trying to get those blank numbers from him and I've already had an offer from a supplier to donate the two blanks so I can take both the measurements and some photos here. I do plan to follow through and will get you the results as soon as possible.

One thing I'm certain of is that often when builders and fishermen talk about rod action, they're not really talking about action as the blank designers and manufacturers define it. Most rod and blank makers publish illustrations showing the relative actions of their blanks and rods because action is where the rod initially flexes - it's a visual thing and is determined by visual means. Although action certainly affects how a rod feels and behaves, the standard ratings "fast, medium/moderate, or slow" are arrived at by visual means. Sometimes when a builder states that such and such a blank was obviously "very slow" or obviously "very fast" I think their statement is based on feel rather than a visual inspection. Many still confuse Action with Speed and they are not the same thing. One is where the rod initially flexes and the other is how quickly it responds and recovers.

At any rate, personal experiences are what they are so I am not going to discount Robert's experience. I prefer to get the same blanks in here to look over and measure. Once that's done we'll have something more to talk about.

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

Tom,
Here is some data from the blanks in the picture Bill posted (the CB80MH and 964 were pictured). At 28" deflection, note that the two Batson blanks (CBs) are both noticeably slower than the Castaways. Yet, at 32" deflection the CB80MH is fairly close to the Castaways. In fact, the slower CB80MH is actually faster than the Castaway 965. I'm not sure why you insist this idea doesn't "hold water" or others struggle with this, but it's fairly simple to see in the data. By the way, I verified my numbers with another builder and his matched. You can order them yourself and do the same.

The first 3 blanks are Castaway and the 2 CBs are Batson. The numbers listed under 28" and 32" are the weight in grams needed for the deflection.

Blank------28" Deflection---Angle----32" Deflection--Angle
963................235....................66...............317-------------73
964-------------313--------------66------------419------------73
965-------------386--------------65------------500------------71
CB80MH------337--------------62------------463------------72
CB80H --------517--------------63-----------661-------------68

Obviously, to generalize about the actions from the 32" deflection data listed above could lead you to some incorrect conclusions. When I get back home tomorrow evening, I'll do more testing and post more data for the 5 blanks above. The 845 blanks I referenced were the Castaway HM40 845 and Shikari 845. If anyone has one of the Castaway 845s, run the numbers and see how it compares to other blanks you have with similar power.

My conclusion after reviewing my data, it appears there are blanks for which AA provides data that if used for comparison to other similar blanks, will lead you to incorrect conclusions. These blanks like the Batson CB80MH listed above when flexed to levels less than AA, measure out comparatively slower, but when flexed to get the AA, measure much quicker. I've found 3 of these blanks in my data since I started doing multiple deflection points in the spring. They are the CB80MH, the Castaway HM40 845 and a trash can 844.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2009 10:48AM by Robert Russell.

I will get them ordered today. Thanks.

In your earlier post you specifically stated that you had two 845 model blanks where the one with the higher AA actually had a slower action. This is what I want to look at. I don't believe such a thing is possible, but I'll have a look for myself with the blanks you say this occurred with. The question is whether or not a slower action blank can have a higher AA figure than a faster action blank at the prescribed deflection amount.

The proper deflection amount for the AA measurement is an amount equal to 1/3rd of the blank's total length. For an 8 foot blank, the correct deflection amount for the blank is 32 inches. That's the only amount of deflection where the standard AA figure would be recorded. A blank deflected to an amount less than the prescribed amount, doesn't give you the correct AA figure.

Action is progressive and therefore the flex moves towards the butt as more and more load is applied and the angle of the tip becomes steeper. This is correct. None of your numbers above would lead me to any sort of incorrect conclusion. The models with an AA of 73 will have a faster action than those with the lower numbers.

The question remains, can a slower action blank register (at the proper deflection amount) a higher AA figure than faster action blank. I don't believe that's possible but am willing to order the same blanks you say this occurred with and see for myself.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2009 11:57AM by Tom Kirkman.

As you increase the deflection amount the tip angle on the chart is also going to increase. Simple geometry dictates this will happen. So I am not sure what your point is here. All the numbers should have increased as the deflection amount increased and they did.

There is only one AA figure for a rod blank and it is taken at the distance Tom mentioned. So the first set of numbers can be tossed away. I did not conclude anything from them other than to recognize that they are not AA numbers since they were not taken at the required deflection amount.

According to Dr. Hanneman in the recent CCS article:
“When your rod has been so deflected, (lets say) we find that the Action Angle measures 62 degrees. This indicates that it possesses a faster action than rods with lower AA numbers and a slower action than rods with higher AA figures.

My conclusion from your numbers is that the blanks with an AA of 73 possess a faster action than the others with lower numbers. If this is an incorrect conclusion then I have to assume that you are saying that the models with the AA of 73 are slower action than the ones with the lower AA numbers. Is this what you are saying? That the blanks with the AA of 73 were slower action than those with 68, 71 or 72?

You guys need to look a little closer at the data. If a greater AA means a faster action, then how do you explain the 28" deflection of the 965 and CB80MH? The CB has a faster AA and yet the tip angle when measured at 28" is notably slower. So it is slower or faster? The CBs are actually slower than the Castaway blanks (again, easily seen when flexing the blanks by hand) and when I get back home, I'll post all the data to empirically show this.

Tom,
I listed all the blanks I've referenced in my previous post with the data. There is no need look for the Castaway HM40 845, you can get the same results comparing the Batson CB80 MH to the Castaway 965 and Swampland currently has both. I'd order a 964 as well, just to compare.