Why isn't anyone putting any data for spinning and casting blanks on the CCS page?

The bulk of the people using the CCS don't frequent this or any other forum. In fact, the bulk of the world's rod builders don't frequent this or any other forum.

And there are always those builders who do not want to share their data with others, and there's nothing wrong with that. They do the work and use it to benefit their own custom rod business. They're not obligated to share. Let's all remember, even the Dale Clemens mantra "Learn by Sharing" wasn't free. You had to pay a fee in order to be part of the sharing process.

And for those who do share, good for you. But not sharing your data doesn't make you a bad person.



.........

I have often asked the same question and the answer that Tom gives is not good enough for me because this site is ti give FREE info to any and all builders ???? !!!!

Bill - willierods.com

The CCS DEata site hasn't been updated since July, 2008. I assume Bob got tired of no one contributing any info. The same reason that I quit maintining the component spec site. I had 4 people submit any info in the past 2 years while I regularly got e-mails chastising me for NOT having more info available (FREE).
Bill, The purpose of those sites was to SHARE info, not judt provide free info. If just a small fraqction of the people that used those sites would have taken the time to share their info, they would be a great source

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2010 09:23PM by Mike Barkley.

Okay, I understand. I was just curious. I have data, and went on the site to see about submitting. I saw that the data was the same that I saw years ago. I do find that it is helpful for me to have my own data and compare blanks that I get in.

Mike - I figured that since you were retired you had nothing better to do! ;) (Four more years. Yessss!)

Hang in there Chuck! I guarentee you that 6 months after you retire, You won't know how you ever found time to go to work!!!!!

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

Unless I'm missing something entirely, I don't see how the CCS applies to spinning/casting rods/blanks. For a flyrod application, It shows how a rod/blank will likely "load" with a specific amount of weight beyond the tip of the rod - during flycasting, and which part(s) of the blank will bend while casting this amount of applied load. For spinning/casting rods, when casting a lure, the weight of the lure quickly loads the rod, then is immediately "unloaded" during the outbound. I think that with spinning/casting blanks/rods, the manufacturers have to give somewhat accurate ratings to the RANGES of their products capabilities compared to what's being given haphazzardly for the "unitary" line rating's for flyrod's.

The CCS system gives rod builders a means to compare rods using a set of relative measures. This system cares little whether the intended use of the rod is spinning, casting or fly fishing. AA and ERN are measured the same way.

Thanks,
Chad Huderle

Huderle Custom Rods
Prior Lake, MN

Torin,

No, you're way off. But yours in a common misconception about the CCS.

The Common Cents System was designed to measure, by objective and relative means, action, power and speed. It will measure those properties in any rod blank that possesses them regardless of whether that rod or blank is meant to be used for casting, spinning or fly. If does not measure fly rods, nor spinning nor casting rods. It measures action, power and speed.

The casting action of a fly rod is just like that of a casting or spinning rod. All these blanks are made the same way with the same structure. They cast weight, not lures or lines. That's why a fly rod blank will easily cast a lure and why a spinning or casting blank will easily cast a fly line. The rod doesn't know what's beyond its tip, fly line or casting plug, makes no difference.

The URRS component of the CCS allows you to determine valid casting lure weight ranges for any rod blank by virtue of tip power (TP). If you want to do that.

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

We humans spend a signifcant part of our lives carefully avoiding the truth. Perhaps the objective CCS data debunks the fanciful claims of marketers and damages the dream world which is so attractive to all of us. Would you rather know you have a rod with properties identical to a slew of other (and maybe cheaper) rods, or would you rather believe you have a "sensitive, responsive rod with the power to haul the big ones out of thick cover and the balance to keep you casting all day long?"

Speed?

That includes the variables of distance/cycles and time - are you referring to resonate freqency?

How are dynamic relationships determined with static loading?

Tom,

I have read you - yourself state that we should use the manufacturer's recommended lure and line ratings to those individuals on this board who were inquiring about what weight(s) of lures and line ratings they sould use for their rods when they've tested spinning blanks using the CCS system and found their data to not quite coincide with these "prescribed" ratings. This seems to make the whole CCS testing of spinning/casting rods/blanks redundant.

There is much more RDA data for casting and spinning rods. It is also updated more frequently.

Torin,

The CCS is not subjective. The ratings you speak of are. Thus they aren't likely to coincide.

I have told folks that when buying blanks where CCS data is not available, they should fall back on the ratings that are available, which is generally the manufacturer's ratings.

"RDA" ratings are for rods built to a specific fashion and do not represent the naked blank you are starting with. They are, in effect, CCS Big Picture ratings.

...........

Bill,

Speed is the relative relationship of reaction and recovery times. It is certainly tied to frequency. In the case of the CCS, use the CCF to make relative comparisons. It is a dynamic measurement, not a static one.

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

It seems funny thought that 1000s are using the CCS and all are tight lipped about sharing data. That just strikes me as odd.

I know I have personally not shared a lot of data, except in posts, because I've never really gotten comfortable using the system. Mainly because getting simple answers is a long drawn out process.

Other systems of measurement have come much easier, don't tell you how to build rods, measure naked blanks, and there are some folks very willing to help lean how to use it. And a lot willing to share information using it.

Maybe all that plays into the big picture. I dunno.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2010 11:29PM by Alex Dziengielewski.

I myself have submitted at least 6 or 7 rods. I bet Bob has a whole plethera of information that has not yet been updated to the site. ; ) I've since stopped sending but still test every single rod I build. I think the info is invaluble even to the extent that it shows the variance of some blank manufactuters product. I feel it gets a little tough to be objective, and to pit comparisons against two or more sponsors for obvious reasons. That is why I think alot of the guys may keep the info to themselves. Just a guess though.

Alex,

It's naive to assume that everybody using the CCS is going to submit data. There are 15,000+ people that subscribe to RodMaker and less than a handful of them use this site or any other. You may find that odd, but that's the fact. The mainstream rod building craft doesn't revolve around internet rod building forums. I know 4 guys here within 10 miles of me that come by and use my CCS board to collect their own data. Not a single one of them has ever submitted any data to Bob's site. I had one by here this past week (Matt Smith from Greensboro) who measured an unlabeled rod blank he picked up at the Expo. He didn't submit his data, either. And that doesn't make him or them bad people - they just don't use the forums and internet related rod building sites. Most don't and won't. They have other things to do with their time. It's not odd at all, in fact it's quite normal.

The Common Cents System is no harder to use or understand than those systems we use to measure temperature, weight, length, etc. They're all based on the exact same system. Too many are still trying to make the CCS as being difficult or mysterious when it's not. And plenty of folks have been willing to share information about the CCS both here and elsewhere. Do a search on this forum alone and see how many times even the most simple questions about it have been answered, over and over.

Manufacturers cannot tell you what the specs for their blanks will be as finished rods. That's impossible. They provide data for the product as it exists when they produce it. The CCS can be used to measure naked blanks or finished rods (no, it doesn't tell you how to build rods). Some manufacturers have already adopted it. Two currently and a third major one to do so later this year.

It's not hard for any competent builder to take any blank specification, from length to ERN to physical weight, and fairly accurately judge what's going to change as the blank is turned into a rod. I realize this is difficult for beginners who have little experience as to the effects of trimming, adding guide weight, etc., but like most other things in life, you have to put in some time in order to gain enough experience to become proficient at anything.

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

Tom,
That's a valiant effort, but CCS lacks the the data to make it useful to most of us that don't build fly rods regardless of the reasons. RDA on the other hand has quite a bit of data.

I have no idea what this statement means "RDA ratings are for rods built to a specific fashion and do not represent the naked blank you are starting with."

And then this one , "The Common Cents System is no harder to use or understand than those systems we use to measure temperature, weight, length, etc". I literally spit my milk out when I read this statement this morning. You can't be serious? To equate the ease of looking at a thermometer or ruler with CCS is laughable and borders on hyperbole. Seems someone has had a little too much Kool Aide.

Regards,
Robert

Okay folks. I apologize for apparently starting another CCS fight. I was just asking why no one was submitting data. I found a place that has data I can use for the types of rods I build. Through a series of emails I was finally able to post some data there. I'll be glad to share the measurements I took (CCS and the other method) with anyone that emails me.

Let's just stick a fork in this thread. Enjoy your Sunday.

Peace out!

_________________________________________
"Angling is extremely time consuming.
That's sort of the whole point." - Thomas McGuane