The Common Cents System is arguably the best method for rating rods and I’ve found that making measurements of “Power” and “Action Angle” in two separate configurations are advantageous.

Taking standard CCS measurements of bare blanks using the deflection of 1/3 of the overall length facilitates categorizing and makes the selection of blanks based on the desired criteria easier…. especially now that some blank makers are providing CCS data.

ALSO, taking CCS measurements of completed rods using the deflection of 1/3 of the length from the REEL SEAT to the TIP provides a rating system that allows relative Power and Action based on the dynamics of the rod in actual use. Once the reel seat location is selected (determining “effective length”) and the rod is assembled, its characteristics change from that of a bare blank. There’s not much correlation of power ratings between the blank and the finished rod. I noted that the blank vs. rod Power ratings differ from 22 to 39%. It depends on where the reel seat is placed and the blanks taper. What this means to me is, that if someone gave me the CCS Power rating for a finished rod (based on 1/3 of the deflection of OAL), it wouldn’t necessarily be indicative of its actual Power as its used. If however, they gave me the rating based on the deflection of 1/3 of R/S to tip, I could compare it to my rods.

I list my rods by relative Power/Action ratings which makes selection much easier for a given method/technique. The same spec sheet gives me the blanks Power/AA (different) for each rod, which allows me to make blank selections to build similar rods.

It is a good tool and can be used a number of ways. I am most interested in what I am starting with so I use the figures for the rod blank as it exists. When you take measurements on less than the full length you are in effect doing what Dr. Bill outlined in the \"Big Picture.\" That can be helpful as well depending on what part of the blank you are concerned with.

If you have some numbers for rods - here is where you can put them up, and all can get the benefit of them : [www.superbob.org]

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,
I think you missed my point.

I suspect the ratings will be much closer for fly rods where the reel seat is at the end of the blank.

Phil,
Agreed....except for the rod being gripped ahead of the reel....effectively shortening the length.

No i don't think so. The CCS system can and does measure a blank - and any part of said blank so a builder can find out if they want to use the blank as a whole or just part of or an addition of said blank. if the blank is to be trimmed it can be measured first at the point of the trim - before trimming to see if the said blank will perform as the builder wants - action and lure weight to be thrown. or the reverse by extending, before gluing the parts.

I keep looking at the white wall behind the TV It would make a nice place to put the system on.

Also like said, if you have some measured blanks it would be nice to see more up on the site stated. Seems all hve forgotten the site ???

I have no place to put it up, or I would.

Bill - willierods.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2010 06:10PM by bill boettcher.

Jim,

Pardon my naive question, but why do you care about taking the ccs measurements for a deflection of 1/3 the length between the reel seat and tip? The finished rod still has the original blank length, unless you alter the blank. The blank still flexes from tip to butt, granted a little less in the butt than it did prior to the addition of grips and the reel seat. The flex is not limited to the area in front of the reel seat.

Do rods of similar action have that much variance, or does your variance between the measurement encompass rods of a lot of different actions? My intuition tells me, and it may be wrong, when you use the length from the reel seat to the tip that a fast or extra fast action rod is going to show a greater discrepancy in the numbers than a slower action rod, as the faster rods really lock up as you flex them deeper into the blank.

I'm just not sure that I understand exactly what you are getting at. The ccs measurements are a tool to compare blanks. I know that adding components will affect the ccs data, and it would be useful to have the data for finished rods. Especially if you have data on the same blank in different configurations. I'm just not sure why you change the distance you deflect the rod to take your numbers the second time.

Thanks,

Joe

Joe,

Actually, since I almost always trim blanks, I make the measurement 3 times. Once before trim, then the other two. In theory, the calculation accommodates the trimmed length, but I measure before trimming anyway.

I don’t see the characteristics/dynamics of the blank vs. the finished rod as being the same. Granted, the blank always stays the same, but we don’t fish with a bare blank.
The only time the entire length of the rod flexes is if you use the butt for leverage for either fighting a fish or for two handed casting. I think the greater discrepancy in the numbers is due to both the “effective length” (subtracted grip length) and the blank taper (A/A)
I agree that the CCS measurements are a tool to compare blanks, but I also find the second measurement even more useful for rating my finished rods (end product). You may not.

I’m emailing you my spec sheet which may clarify (or further confuse) my intent.

Bill,
The reason that I (and probably others) have not used the site is because until recently, ERN values in the range of my rods were not readily available….or I should say, not easily converted to cents (and vice versa). And as you say, there isn’t much there (casting/spinning). Maybe that’ll change with more ERN/Cents conversion Data (another issue).
Also, my primary interest is in the rod (end product) specs. Granted, the blank specs are a means to an end.

Anyway, since you still seem to miss the point…..never mind.

Be careful, the first time this was proposed the general feeling on this board was that the originator should be burned at the stake for daring to question the purity of the CCS. Now they have finally admitted the ERN nonsense was only put in to rate fly rods, I believe trying to use it for anything else is counterproductive. The fact remains that the best resource for comparing blanks that are not fly blanks uses working length (from the reel seat) and measures power in grams. The CCS site has maybe a dozen non fly rods listed, their database has several hundred blanks listed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2010 07:49PM by mike harris.

Jim,

I should have been more clear, the subtracted length plays the biggest part in the differences, and then the action or taper comes in to play. I certainly agree with you there.

I think I have a better grip on what you are doing, now. It makes sense, and as long as you are consistent with your method, it will certainly work for comparing rods. Personally, the measurements make more sense to me based on the over all length of the rod, but thanks for the clarification.

Thanks again,

Joe

Jim,
I find the type of measurements you're doing very effective in helping me understand the blanks/ rods I build. But, get ready to be blasted because these types of things are frowned upon around here. Also, you've committed blasphemy by using CCS incorrectly. There is only one CCS measurement and it is for 1/3 the blank length. I propose we call your measurement CCS#2 to avoid any heresy or confusion.

Robert

I agree with Mike - anything behind the reel seat on a casting or spinning rod doesn't factor into the equation as far as I am concerned.

That's why it's important to know where that rear support point is when someone measures... not everyone builds a rod on a 10" handle.

Example: Same blank - 7' - blank supported directly in front of the reel seat:
10" handle - 623g deflection, 67 AA
9" handle - 593g deflection, 65 AA

Making the handle longer has shortened the working length of the blank and changed the behavior - but it's still the same blank..

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

Mike Harris,

You are completely incorrect - the CCS does not measure fly rods - it measures action, power and speed. Any rod that possesses those inherent properties can have them measured with the CCS.

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

Tom beat me to it. I wondered when this would be brought up. The CCS does NOT measure rod blanks. It measures the action and power of rod blanks. So that means any rod blank can have those properties measured. A fly rod blank is NO different than any casting or spinning rod blank. They are all made the same way with the same materials. They are all just hollow, tapered tubes. My question for Mike would be....HOW does the CCS know if you are measuring a fly rod blank instead of a casting or spinning blank. That is one SMART system if it can tell the difference!

Think of it like this...........what does a ruler measure? The object or the length of the object? Obviously t is the length that it measures. So a ruler can measure the length of an object regardless of whether that object is made of steel or wood. The CCS can measure action and power no matter if the tube is a fly rod, spinning rod or casting rod, or graphite , bamboo or glass.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2010 09:11PM by Peter Sprague.

The CCS was in fact developed by Bill Hanneman for fly rods, fly rods with the handle near the end of the blank. I think that Jim's point is a valid one for rods that have handles that extend further up the blank. This very point came up shortly after the CCS was introduced and was promoted by Mark Gibson and several others on the Bass Fishing Home Page and I think is still being used by them. At the time I felt that the advantage gained by measuring from the reel seat forward was not worth varying from the accepted or standard CCS measurements. However, over the years I have changed my mind and I now make the measurements just as Jim outlines. With some of the Salmon and Steelhead rods that I make that have handles that extend well up the blank the differences can be significant.
I also do not make the frequency measurements by adding weight to the blank as in the CCS. I think that this is also a case where it may work OK with fly rods but results in very misleading measurements with other types of rods.
I still feel that the CCS is very useful for measuring power and action but it is just a tool. It did not come down off the mountain on stone tablets.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2010 10:07PM by Emory Harry.

The manufacturers cannot tell you what any measurements will be after you build the rod. The specs they provide, including any CCS measurements, are for the blank as provided at the time of manufacture. Once you create a rod from the blank, everything changes. The addition of butt cap and tiptop changes the length. The additional of components changes the frequency or speed. Where you locate the handle affects the power. But these are things that wise rod builders understand and take into account when looking at the specs given for the bare rod blank. Several of us have stated many times that you can measure these properties in the naked blank, and again in the finished rod, and spot any changes very easily. You can use the system in many ways, such as what Jim is doing, to suit your own purposes.

It is unfair to hold the CCS to a standard that you do not also hold the other systems of relative measurement to. It does no more, nor any less, than they do. I find it amusing that no one has ever faulted the length, weight, power or action measurements that manufacturers have been using for their bare rods blanks for a hundred years now. Each one of these properties and specs changes once the blank is turned into a rod. But no one has ever faulted any of these systems or specs for the reasons they fault the CCS. Where was the outcry against these measurements of blank length, weight, power and action prior to the CCS? Not a single one of them told you what those same properties would be once you turned the blank into a rod, And yet no one raised any objection to them. There is a gross double standard at work where the CCS is concerned. Fortunately, it won't make any difference in the long haul.

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

Tom,
I agree with everything that you said. But it seems to me that your point that everything changes when a blank is turned into a rod strengtens the case for making different measurements on a rod then are made on a blank.
Also I do not buy the argument that you have used many times about power and action angle being the same sort of measurements as the measurements of an inch or a pound. They are not the same sort of measurements. Power is a point on the stiffness curve of a blank or rod. Making the CCS measurement of power at a deflection of 1/3 of the length of the rod is an arbitrary choice that determines where on the stiffness curve power is located. Action angle is also dependent upon an arbitrary choice of the amount of deflection. Measuring an inch or a pound is not dependent upon any such arbitrary choices.

Peter, (and Tom)
I agree with you. The CCS can’t tell the difference if you are measuring a fly rod blank or a casting or spinning blank. The issue is that the measurement is for the BLANK, not the COMPLETED ROD. How much does a fly rod flex behind where the angler grips it? Wouldn’t you think that even a COMPLETED fly rod’s “effective length” (as far as dynamics are concerned) might make another measurement (in ERN value of course) useful? Btw, on a fly rod, I assume (not my field) that we’re talking 3 to 6”….not very much, but many believe that trimming a blank by that amount has a drastic affect on a rod’s performance.

I don’t mean to blaspheme or misuse the System…..or upset the purists…or stir up politics. I’m just sharing what’s been useful for me. I believe both methods have a useful purpose. And, as I said previously, if the angler uses the butt section for leverage or makes two handed casts, the entire length of blank is in play. If that’s the case, the “2nd ratings” would be less relevant.

Tom,
I’m not faulting THE System. The CCS data that a manufacturer might provide is only for the blank….it would be ludicrous to think they’d be able to predict the end product. But, if the rod builder rates the finished rod, we can compare…. not only our own rods, but to rods built by other builders who make similar ratings. You may be right by saying that “wise rod builders understand and take into account when looking at the specs given for the bare rod blank”, but perhaps by lacking the wisdom of which you speak, I found some surprising/interesting differences in the ratings.