Hello. I just did CCS testing on two rods. Thought I knew what I was doing. A custom rod marked 5wt came out to be a 3.72 ERN or a 3wt with an AA of 60 which makes it a slow to moderate 3wt. It took 32 pennies to deflect it.

THEN comes the doubt. For comparison I CCS'd an Orvis TLS Power Matrix....9' Tip Flex (9.5) 6wt. My test came out to ERN of 4.6 making it almost dead on a 4wt rod! Took 38 pennies to deflect it. It was also AA 60 degrees for a slow to moderate action. A friend said he would bet the Orvis Power Matrix 6wt is labeled exackery what it really is. My testing did not show this.

What am I doing wrong? If anything. Does anyone have an Orvis TLS Power Matrix 6wt with an Orvis rated 9.5 flex label? I wonder if someone else has done CCS on this rod and would like to know their numbers.

I checked a rod labeled 5wt and got 3wt slow....

I checked a 6wt and got 4wt slow....

I want to know I am doing the testing correctly. But now I am in doubt.

Could someone please help me out?

No, that doesn't make it slow to moderate - that makes it 60 degrees. Also, a rod with an ERN of 3.72 will easily cast a 5-weight line.

Don't try to force the numbers to conform to subjective terms. That's what the CCS was designed to do - get rid of subjective "measurements." There is no such thing as "fast, moderate or slow" in the CCS system.

ERN is power, not line weight. Remember also that any rod will cast any line, at some distance. A rod with an ERn of 5.0 will easily cast a 3-weight line and a 7-weight line, at some distance.

You're not doing anything wrong other than trying to make the CCS measurements conform to somebody else's subjective terms and measurements. There's no reason to do that.


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 11:02AM by Tom Kirkman.

Then the CCS system has absolutely no value to me at all! It appears from your answer that any rod can cast any line and there is no such thing as an action that relates to flex......I wasted my time?

The material I read states a moderate rod has an action angle of 59-63 degrees. You statement says there is no such thing.
The material I read said 32 pennies equates to an ERN of 3.72, that ERN = ELN and thus it is a rod best cast with 30' of line with a 3wt line.

But your post basically says none of this is true....or I am mis-interpreting all the results?

Now I am totally lost.

So just forget the question. I need a bigger bat to pound it into my head....and I do not think you have the time to do that...grin.

Thank ou for answering.

I will give up. Idea died at birth. I will just not measure rods and cast them with the lines I like on them.

Slow down a second and give it a little more thought. If you simply want such measurements to confirm somebody's subjective opinion, then you are indeed wasting your time. But if you want a system that puts verifiable and relative numbers on measurements, such as a tape measure, thermometer, etc., so you can make valid comparisons then you're not at all wasting your time. The only confusion I see you expressing comes from your expectation that the CCS numbers should somehow "match up" to the maker's opinion/description. That won't happen - the CCS has no opinion. It simply takes a measurement and puts a relative number on it.

If I handed you a length of 2x4 lumber and told you it was "long" and you pulled out a tape measure and found it to be 30 inches in length, would you then become concerned and think your measurement was wrong because, to you, 30 inches seems short?

The point is that the terms you're working with are the blank designers' opinion/recommendations. And that's fine, but the CCS is a system of relative and objective measurement. Expecting the two to coincide isn't altogether reasonable. Decide what you want - somebody's opinion or actual, verifiable numbers for measurement, and go with that one.

If you have a board 30 inches in length, whether its short or long is a matter of opinion. What is not in question is the fact that it's 30 inches in length. Same with your rod. If you have a blank with an ERN of 5.0 and an AA of 60 degrees, it's simply more powerful than blanks with lower ERNs and less powerful than blanks with higher ERNs. It's faster in action than blanks with lower AAs and slower in action than blanks with higher AAs.

LINE WEIGHT
From there, the Author has given you an equation of ERN=ELN with 30 feet of line past the tip. And that will change based on how much more or less you have beyond the tip. Any rod will cast any line, at some distance. What distance did Orvis, or the other rod, give for their line weight "measurement? Of course you can't answer that because they didn't specify any particular distance or range. So just how much use is that "recommendation?"

ACTION
You mis-read the statement about AA. The old subjective terms are done away with in the CCS, but the author desired that you would know which way the scale read (higher AA figures represent faster actions and lower AA measurements represent slower actions). And again, the CCS gives you numbers and far greater resolution than the old "fast, moderate, slow" system.

You seem to be questioning the CCS - what about the maker's "numbers?" Have you questioned them or asked how they were arrived at?

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 12:11PM by Tom Kirkman.

By the way, just in case, here is the simplest version of the CCS:

[www.common-cents.info]

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

Jim I thought Tom took a lot of time to try and answer your question. Not sure I can do any better but I’ll try. I have a 5wt. Winston rod that is nowhere near as powerful as another 4wt. Sage rod I own. How can this be? Isn’t a 5wt supposed to be more powerful than a 4wt?

I think the factory rods are well designed and I respect their designers opinion. Most are accomplished fly fishermen so their numbers are worth using. But they are as Tom said just that designers personal recommendation as to what HE would use on that rod. If you do not use the rod the same way or at the same range of distances you might be disappointed. The CCS gives you a power and action number for comparing against other rods. You cannot compare one designers opinion against another. What one deems a 5wt may be the next one's 6wt. or 7wt. No way to tell.

Relax and just run the numbers. Write them down and then use the rods. Pretty quickly you will begin to relate to the system and what the numbers mean. Then you can get some real handy use out of it. Good luck.

I thank you for your help. I am not questioning the numbers of CCS. I am questioning my testing methods because the conclusions I reach are so far removed from what I would expect. Therefore I question if I am doing thing correctly.....I am I making some mistake that I can't seem to figure out. I am perplexed and the spread between my use of CCS, the results.....compared to stated information. Pretty far stretch to test a Power Matrix 6wt and come up with a slow action 4wt.

Again I thank you for your help. But I do not build rods for people or to sell. I just build fishing poles for myself. But I am an incurable optimist. Yet I can just as easily find a line I can cast happily with on any given rod without using CCS. I do not need to know what CCS measures a blank to in order to build myself a rod I like. I thought the information would be fun to come up with, but it turns out it is not fun at all.

I will not tell someone I can test their rod and tell them what line weight is ideal for that rod, nor the action of their rod. I will just build my own rods to suit myself. I can do that without CCS and all it's confusion and grey areas.

I am not trying to be a twit here. Not in the least. Just my observation that if his printed page says a moderate action rod = 59-63 degrees, but you say it does not mean that.....I am lost. If I deflect the rod with a weight and look at his information and it says it equates to a 3wt rod, but you say it does not. It is really of no value to ME> To others yes. Not to me.

It is like saying it is....but it isn't.

Due to my lack of understanding the system.....this thread is just going to be me asking more questions because I do not understand it. And then people getting frustrated with me and angry.

I do not want to create this.

So therefore just disregard the question. I respectfully request that you disregard this quest of mine and if you do not mind, delete the thread as well. It is only heading toward me making a few people upset. 'tis a no win situation for me. So please let me out of it. And I do indeed say this with all the respect in the world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 01:26PM by Jim Williams.

Not a single person here has gotten angry, other than perhaps yourself. I'll try to take each question and explain each as well as I can, being as concise as possible.

The designations put on rods and blanks by the designers is not done according to any standards or system. They are opinions/suggestions/recommendations, etc. They are subjective. The CCS is a system of relative and objective measurement. Do not expect it to conform to or substantiate someone's subjective opinion. When you try to make the CCS numbers correlate to someone's opinion, you're apt to get frustrated. I think that's what's happened here.

ERN is a power rating, not a line number. A rod with an ERN of 3.0 is not a "3-weight rod" (there is no such thing - if there is, please direct me to what criteria a rod must conform to in order to be a 3-weight rod). If you want to use the power rating to help match a line to a rod, you can use the equation ERN=ELN, but you must understand that line weight changes as you move more or less of it beyond the tip of the rod. Therefore, ERN=ELN is designed around having 30 feet of line beyond the rod tip. If you put much more or much less beyond the tip, that equation will change.

AA is indicative of action - where the rod initially flexes. A higher AA indicates a faster action, a lower AA indicates a slower action, but none of the numbers should be correlated to any particular subjective term anymore than 30 inches of length can be considered, short, medium or long. Why use subjective terms when you have relative numbers?

You use the CCS the same way you use a tape measure, scale or thermometer. If you weigh something and find it to weigh 10 pounds, there is no need to try and term it as being light or heavy - those are subjective terms that mean nothing except to the person using them. The important thing is the 10 pounds - that can be verified and therefore used for comparative purposes. That is the point of the CCS - to have a tool that can be used for comparative purposes.

I suggest again that you read the simplified version of the CCS I linked to above. I think you'll find it to explain things much better.

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

As a matter of fact, Jim, I do absolutely nothing with fly rods, yet have tried to understand the CCS system. Until now, I was fairly lost even after reading the site several times. This thread has helped me immensely to understand the entire system so even though in the end it may not benefit yourself and be of no use to you, it can and did help others. I must thank you for asking the questions you did and Tom very much for taking out the time to explain it in great detail but without overdoing it at the same time.

Let me try another approach - it was right in front of me and I should have seen it earlier.

Jim,

Forget completely about the manufacturer's terms. Toss them out. Dump them. We're not going to compare them to the CCS numbers nor vice versa.

Now, you have two rods in front of you that have each been measured with the CCS. The first has an ERN of 3.72 and an AA of 60. The second has an ERN of 4.6 and an AA of 60. Now we have something to work with because we can compare the two rods based on relative numbers obtained from the same system.

Therefore, based on the relative CCS numbers, the first rod is less powerful than the second rod. I suspect your own hand flex test will easily confirm this to be the case. The actions of the 2, the percentage portion of where each initially flexes is going to be very, very close if not exactly the same. If you were to go a bit further and run the CCF measurement (CC Frequency), you would be able to determine which is faster or quicker in terms of speed (reaction and recovery). Of course, you already have the length in inches and could easily weigh them, so the longer and/or lighter of the two is easy to figure.

You also know how each rod feels to you, so you can begin to correlate the numbers to your personal feelings about those rods. The more rods you measure and acquaint yourself with, the more the numbers will eventually mean to you. When you first learned about weight, and someone told you that an item weighed 10 pounds, that likely meant nothing at all. But over time you began to get a feel for what 10 pounds represented to you personally. Whether you consider that amount light or heavy is then up to you to determine based on your own subjective opinion. The main thing is that you know what 10 pounds represents to you, and the CCS numbers will take on the same meaning as you work with them a little more.

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

Lets not forget. It IS possible that he might be doing something wrong. Does anyone have an orvis of the same model which has been CCSed. Compare the two to see if they fall in range with what he got? Im not saying he did do anything wrong, but there is the possibility.

I agree with Pegboy. Maybe he did something wrong. I know I've messed up when doing it a few times. Numbers where way off.

Lane

Nothing in his original statement would indicate that he did anything wrong. Of course, that possibility certainly does exist, but I have a feeling he's just questioning himself because the numbers don't seem to match the subjective line weights and terms printed on the rods.

The only thing I would advise checking is the deflection amount. A 9 footer should be deflected a total of 33 inches. As long as that was accomplished and the rod was level to begin with, his numbers should be correct.

We'll wait to hear back and then go from there. Thanks.

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

The only reason I bring this up, is in his referral to the orvis "tip flex". This indicates (and i could be wrong) that it is either a fast taper or at the very least a progressive fast taper in wich case I assume it wouldn't test that low on the the ERN or the AA. On the other hand, we all know what happens when we assume....lol.

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The only thing I would advise checking is the deflection amount. A 9 footer should be deflected a total of 33 inches. As long as that was accomplished and the rod was level to begin with, his numbers should be correct.

9x12/3=36

Perhaps I have realized my mistake. Because the 9' rod's reel seat and grip = exactly one foot......and that portion is held flat and flush against my cd bookcase top.....I did not use 108" for my calculations. I figured I am only flexing the section of the shaft between the cork grip and the tip of the rod. Therefore I used 96" to make my measurements and deflect the rod.

Was I supposed to use 9' for the calculations?...even though one foot of it is sitting flush on the table?

I thought I should be measuring the flex of the portion of the rod that is actually protruding outward from the grip and actually bending.......

I think I goofed.

Per the instructions, use the full length. That will alter your measurements just a bit. But remember, you should not try to compare the numbers of the CCS to the maker's subjective terms.

My mistake, Dr. Bill, the distance should be indeed be 36 inches, not 33.

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

Boom!! problem solved. And i'm sure tom meant 36" on the above post. 1/3 of the total length of rod.

Thanks everyone. I warned you it takes a bigger bat to bang it into me head! I could easily see that Tom meant 36" and that did not bother me at all. The lightbulb just lit. Apparently I was NOT good at following instructions and it is good that I asked.

I understand that it is a new ruler and extremely well done. My hats off to Mr. Hanneman for such a fine group of guidelines to go by. And to Tom for this clean great board. I frequent a couple of other boards. None of them exhibit as much class as this website does. I have often thought of emailing that to Tom with supporting info. But figured he has too much on his plate to wanna hear my opinion and probably because it is such a good board has already heard it a kazillion times. But it is still true.

Thank you one and all...and good night.

Curious as to how that orvis retested......