Oh agree with that 100%!

What I cannot agree with is using or taking any measurement that requires me to buy special equipment or visit my local golf shop to have a measurement taken. Whats wrong with the CCS frequency measurement? If all you want to do is get a relative frequency number, that would seem to do it! And no one has to buy any special equipment to take the measurement. The CCF will surely give you a relative number to compare efficiency. It seems to be the easiest way to do this unless I am missing something.

Peter,

If you read "Why I hate" thread, you would understand that your customer has a mind of it own. Yes, I would go to another custom rod builder to get a second opinion. If you both using the same gadgets to measure & build, I think you would have the confident to assure him that it as what he ask for.


Ben

I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not use any gadgets and I will not buy any. Do not need to. If a relative comparison for efficiency is requested by a customer we already have a way to measure that and it does not require that we buy anything special to do it with.

Peter "if" is a huge word.

Do you use the "relative comparison for efficiency" to choose the proper blank to build rods?

Have you ever had a customer who asked for "a relative comparison of effeciency"?

If so which two blanks were used for a comparison?

What were the numbers reported?

Did it influence the purchase of one blank over another?

Has anyone else who uses this forum done any real comparisons of frequency for any purpose?

Can you "share" any data and the results?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2010 09:20AM by Bill Stevens.

I don’t use special equipment either. I understand what Emory is doing with frequency, but I am satisfied with the results I get using stiffness to weight ratio, both for bare blanks and finished rods.

Gentlemen,

Last night I went to the local golf shop again. This time, however; I build my raw rod on this special machine. Discovering that I can tweak the frequency while placing the guides on one at a time was facinating. Yes, the frequency can be alter dynamicly. I think this is something that worth looking at. Yes, you do not need this machine and yes it is working with Dr. Hanneman CCF system if you could do multitasks. I think with enought data, one can custom the rod to a precision unit of HertZ.

By the way, all it take to make a good friend is a friendly smile and a good Cuban Cigar !.

B en

Cuban cigar???? You near Miami area? What range of hertz were you getting?

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

California.

This experiment was to see what this machine good for and what the dynamic effect of adding on hardware.

B en

When folks speak of "efficiency" they are mostly talking about rod "speed," which is how quickly a rod will react and recover. Knowing the relative speed of a blank or rod is one of the most valuable pieces of information a competent rod builder can have at his disposal. Even if all other inherent properties, such as length, power, action, etc., are exactly the same, the speed can be different due to the material the blank or rod is constructed from.

Rod builders use "speed" every day to influence their blank selection - although most may not be aware that they're using it. They're somewhat limited in this regard, however, because the only indication they have of relative speed is the material the blank is made from. Generally, you would expect a blank made from a very high modulus material to be of quicker speed than one made from a lower modulus material, and if most everything else is the same, it would be. But as we know, the design parameters between one blank series and another of a different modulus, are not always the same. This is why an actual frequency number is better than just an educated assumption based on material. And if this is what you want to do, the CCF will certainly provide you the means to easily do it with.

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

"I think with enought data, one can custom the rod to a precision unit of HertZ."

Of course one can. However, first you have to either know or decide what value of frequency you want to produce.

Feel can be related to frequency and every angler has a different preference. That is the whole rational behind PPF and its application to custom rod building.

Gentlemen,

Speed - can be measures by a speed gun, odometer or other existing equiptment to measure the rate of change (Moving) of an object from one point to another. Speeds of Grandma, Grandpa, Adult, Teenager and Infant.

Feel - Happy, Excited, Mad and Sad..

This is what Jr. learned in school.

If I was to ask Jr. to build me a custom rod with the speed of "Grandpa" and the Feel of "Happy", I'll think Jr. would probably direct me to one of you.

I'll think we should stick to science and the Standard unit of weights and measurements where future generation can applied to.

my 2 cents.

When constructing a rod the object, in my judgment, should be to get as high a resonant frequency as possible given the rods application. The only way that the resonant frequency of a well built rod can then be altered, reduced, is by adding mass. Adding mass to reduce the resonant frequency lowers the rod's Q and will reduce virtually all of the other important properties of the rod, sensitivity, damping, tip velocity, casting distance, etc.
With all due respect to Bill Hanneman's PPF. I believe that adding mass to tune a rod to a particular PPF and lower frequency is destructive.
Look up Q factor on Wikipedia and I think that you will see my point.

Ben,

You're a little late - that ship sailed long ago. Fishing and rod building have their own nomenclature and have had for over a hundred years now. The same is true of many specialty endeavors which have their own units of measurement or terms for certain aspects of that endeavor.

Check the glossary page on this site for some of the terms used to describe the inherent properties of fishing rods. Most are not new, having been around for a long, long time.

.........

Emory,

While I agree totally with your statements just now, I have built rods long enough to know that there are some fishermen who actually wish to slow down their rods (reduce the frequency). It's not uncommon to have a person wish to take a high modulus graphite rod and make it "feel" more like a bamboo rod. I know a few guys who purposely overload their rods with additional guides so they can cast lighter lures than the blank was designed for, or to reduce the quickness for some specific fishing technique. Although I don't see the wisdom in either, I am aware that many builders do this sort of thing.

I'm not saying it's necessarily wise, just that many wish to do so and it boils down to what Dr. Hanneman has been saying - folks tend to have their own idea of what they want their rods to feel like.

.........

Tom,

Why don't rodmaker industry adopts your terminlogies ?

Ben

That is the rod building industry's terminology. That's where it came from and has been in use for many, many decades. Terms like Action, Power, Speed, etc., were coined and defined by the earliest blank and rod makers.

How to measure them varies by the system you choose, but the terms themselves have been around for a long, long time.

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

Emory,

You wrote, "When constructing a rod the object, in my judgment, should be to get as high a resonant frequency as possible given the rods application."

I agree with that statement completly, however, the operative words are not "as high resonant frequency as possible" but rather "given a rod's applicatiion". It is the application which DICTATES the desired frequency. Or putting it another way, it is the frequency which LIMITS the application

A rod is a rod is a rod. It is the application which is important, and no matter how you slice it, that is completely subjective.

I have a rod sold as a spinning rod with a CCF freqency of 95 cpm. I also use this rod for fly fishing. When I use it for fly fishing, I use a line which reduces the frequency of my fishing outfit to about 85 cpm. If I don't, I can't cast a fly line with it.

Bill,
The characteristics of a rod, despite what you think about the limits of engineering and physics, are NOT subjective, they can be very objective. Most can be measured and quantified. In time, I believe that all of the ROD characteristics will lend themselves to being measured and quantified.
People are subjective but frankly I do not really think that either you or I are qualified when it comes to making judgments about human subjectivity, physiology or psychology.
I may be absolutely wrong but I also think that most custom rod builders want to build the best rod that they can build by optimizing the characteristics of their RODS and that most are not foolish enough to attempt to optimize them to some totally subjective characteristic or feeling that an individual human being may or may not have.
You may think that adding mass to a fly rod in order to achieve your PPF is improving the rods performance but my opinion is that if you do so you must not really understand all of the detrimental affects that this added mass has on the rods performance.
Did you look up Q factor, what it is and what added mass does to the Q factor of something that is mechanically resonant like your fly rod?

Emory,

You and Dr. Hanneman are not talking about the same thing. Adding mass to a fly rod, or any rod, isn't going to improve its performance and everyone here knows that. No one has said otherwise. But it may certainly create the rod that a particular person wants. I don't like doing it and would never do it on the rods I fish with, but over the years I have had requests from many customers to add heavier or more guides in order to slow the response and recovery in order to provide them with the specific feel and qualities they wanted for their application. I know one guy who wrapped lead wire around his rod blank between the tiptop and first guide. He certainly didn't create a more responsive rod by doing that, but he did create the feel and type of response which he personally wanted in that rod.

If the utmost speed and efficiency was the goal of every fisherman, no one would ever buy another bamboo rod or use a glass tipped rod for crankbaits, etc.


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

I question if Bill is talking about adding mass in the way everyone is thinking. Perhaps the mass he is adding is the fly line? I understand it is quite common to overline these days.

I think this whole concept has a lot to do with fishing styles. Tom mentioned glass crankbait rods. I picked up one of the new yellow wright mcgill rods the other day. To me is was terrible and felt a lot like the eagle claw rods from the 60's. No way I could imagine picking such a rod for any purpose.

I'm also stuck by how much nicer steelhead blanks seem to be. They have incredible power for their weight and wonderful sensitivity. They are everything I want in a rod. I can see why Emory would be loathe to do anything to harm the performance. I have never fished for them but I can only guess they have a very light bite and nothing but a great rod will do.

A nice rod is always a joy and can help put more fish in the boat. I have fished both salt and fresh in the southeast (I lived in TN for awhile). You really don't need anything special for most fishing so I can see why so few have interest in this topic.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.