My data from "The Big Picture" says . . . .
Posted by: Tim Collins (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
... if I can get the terminology right - the upper section will load a 10wt line and it has a really strong butt section". If I am incorrect, please tell me what I do have, thanks.
--------------------------
To be technical, your data does not indicate the upper section will load anything. Rather, it indicates the upper section CAN BE “loaded” by a mass equivalent to the weight (280 grains) of 30 feet of a No.10 line.

The upward slope of your data for the butt section indicates the rod is relatively uniformly tapered and is typical for that type of rod.

One of the previous responses stated, “As long as the tip section shows the correct line weight for casting...”. I find this a bit confusing as there actually is no correct line weight for casting. Any rod will cast any line some distance. Consequently it is up to the angler to match the weight and length of his line to the power of his rod and the distance he wishes to cast his lure. (ERN=ELN)

While it is possible to match these values, there is still no assurance the angler will like the “feel” of the result, since the “right feel” is a personal preference known only to the angler.

Feel is essentially a function of the frequency of one’s fishing outfit, i.e., rod plus line. The maximum frequency of the rod is “fixed at birth” by the properties of the rod blank. Everything else you add to complete your outfit will lower the frequency. The line has the greatest effect.

As a general rule,for typical graphite rods, manufacturers aim to end up with a CCF value of about 84 cpm for rod plus line. If that is not satisfactory for you, you can change the frequency of your outfit by about 5 cpm for each unit of change in ELN. An increase of one ELN will decrease the frequency by about 5 cpm. This relationship may vary a bit when you get to rods of ERN > 6, but it is a good start.

Bill Hanneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be technical, your data does not indicate the
> upper section will load anything. Rather, it
> indicates the upper section CAN BE “loaded” by
> a mass equivalent to the weight (280 grains) of 30
> feet of a No.10 line.


Thank you very much Bill for the special response to my earlier thread. I think I understand what you've written but somehow I may have misunderstood the CCS from the beginning in thinking it would give me absolute information of a rod/blank thru various measurement processes - my bad. My original intent was to have some type of measurement that told me a rod could cast a normal 30' of 10wt line efficiently and have a butt section with enough muscle to allow me to land a feisty salmon from a stationary boat position without having to pull anchor and chase it all over the river because the rod's too weak to land it.

This rod does cast 10wt line like a rocket - and I'm not the best caster in the world but I can make it look like I know what I'm doing. If I have to wait until this fall to see how the rod does landing a salmon, then I'm disappointed and I do not understand the benefits of performing the various CCS measurements. I am as confused now as I was when I first read the article years ago. But thanks again for the response.

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 08:04AM by Tim Collins.

The CCS, like any other system of objective and relative measurement, doesn't "tell" you anything. It provides data from which the user must deduce what it is he's after. You won't be able to do that accurately until you have some amount of experience with the measurements in actual practice.

You won't ever find a tape measure with much more than numbers on it. No where will you find written next to a specific length "this length will be sufficient to frame a door." You won't find a thermometer with wording beside the degree readings that says, "At this temperature you need to wear a coat." Like the CCS, they provide measurements, numbers. That's all. They provide an immediate means of relative comparison but to be able to relate to the numbers as they stand alone requires some amount of practical use with them.

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

Thanks Tom, but if my data doesn't immediately indicate "something" to me without having to measure 100 rods for comparison, then I'm disappointed. By seeing the "ERN" values start to increase exponentially towards the butt section, I thought it would have some understandable laymen's meaning to it - without having to deduce anything other than what I thought was obvious. Thanks again.

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan

Tim,

But you ran into the exact same problem when you were first confronted by inch, pound or temperature numbers. You had no idea what the units represented until you had some practical experience with them.


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

OK

Your numbers are indecating that a 10 line is a good -- starting point -- but IMHO you will or should try several lines to find that - Feel _ The line that loads that blank and gives you your feel that you are prabably after

How many times I have read posts Go To Your Local fishing store and try different lines

Bill - willierods.com

bill boettcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many times I have read posts Go To Your Local
> fishing store and try different lines


Based on this paragraph from Dr Hanneman:

"The power of commercial fly rods and blanks is designated
relative to AFTMALine Numbers which increase directly
with the weight of the lines. So too does the force
(weight) required to fully load the rods corresponding to
these lines. (By definition, a fully loaded rod has had its tip
deflected a distance equal to one third of its length.) This weight
is defined as the Intrinsic Power (IP) of that rod, and one
can relate the IP to the weight of the line (30 ft.) which will
fully load that rod".


I was under the assumption that I could determine what weight fly line I needed to load a rod if I was planning to aerialize 30' and "eliminate the need to go to the fly shop and try a half dozen lines to find out what one worked".

The first 30' of 10wt line is 280 grains and my 10wt line measures exactly that. But I plan to use a Rio Outbound sink tip that weighs 425 grains - so I will be shooting line, not posing for my fellow fisherman. The original intent of this exercise was to determine the butt strength of my rod - evidentally I don't know any more now than before I started.

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan

Sometimes things are so simple that they're hard to explain.

If you keep working with it, the CCS will become just as simple and useful to you as all your other systems of relative measurement have. They didn't make sense at first, either, but in short order they did.

..........

"My original intent was to have some type of measurement that told me a rod could cast a normal 30' of 10wt line efficiently and have a butt section with enough muscle to allow me to land a feisty salmon from a stationary boat position without having to pull anchor and chase it all over the river because the rod's too weak to land it."
-------------------------------
The ERN answers your question as to whether your rod will cast a #10 line, but it tells you nothing about the "muscle" YOU want or need to land your salmon in the time and manner you desire.

You need information about the strength of the butt section and that is a function of the PR or Power Reservoir of your rod. You need more information. That you should find covered in my articles on the URRS, Universal Rod Rating Systems. Here, you determine PR by determining the weight required to deflect your rod by a distance equal to one half of its length.

What you determine by this is simply a relative number, and, as Tom was trying to tell, you is that you need some experience to relate that number to the amount of force you want to use. Only you can answer that question, and only you can gain that experience by comparing the numerical value of known rods to the power you want. The PR will give you a number. You have to determine what number you want.

If you don't want to wait to try it on a fish, why not tie a big rock to the end of your line and see how the rod bends as you try to lift the rock? Weigh the rock and you should be able to estimate PR. Good luck.

Bill Hanneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't want to wait to try it on a fish, why
> not tie a big rock to the end of your line and see
> how the rod bends as you try to lift the rock?
> Weigh the rock and you should be able to estimate
> PR. Good luck.


Thanks for the tip - I may be some dumb but I'm not plumb dumb.

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan

Mr. Collins,
You have a valid concern about not wanting to measure hundreds of rods to build a frame of reference for the CCS. It can be time consuming to gather good CCS data. I would suggest reviewing the CCS data site listed on the left. There is data listed for many rods and blanks that will help you get an idea of the range of ERN/ELN numbers listed for given manufacturer line wt ratings. There are also many blank brands now publishing CCS data as an aid to their customers. PacBay Quickline, North Fork Composites, and MHX are just a few.
I would strongly suggest sticking with the CCS for a while to see if it grows on you. I'm finally at the point now that I can look at six numeric attributes of a blank (weight, butt dia, tip dia, ERN, AA, and CCF) and get a real good idea about how that blank will perform without even seeing or holding it. Not to mention what materials were most likely used in construction, etc...

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

Geoff Staples Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would strongly suggest sticking with the CCS for
> a while to see if it grows on you. I'm finally at
> the point now that I can look at six numeric
> attributes of a blank (weight, butt dia, tip dia,
> ERN, AA, and CCF) and get a real good idea about
> how that blank will perform without even seeing or
> holding it. Not to mention what materials were
> most likely used in construction, etc...


Exactly. Nobody could do this right off the bat, but with just a little practical use, it becomes almost second nature for most.

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

I don't see why I have to measure 100 rods thru the Big Picture process in order to define the characteristics for one particular rod. I realize if 20 different people measured the same rod, you would see some variation in their measurements but I would think they could all decyfer whether it's was a 3wt or 12wt. I would think one rod's stand alone data should be able to be interpretted into something specific unless there some hidden agenda that I'm missing.

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan

You did define it with just one rod's measurements. And it can be interpreted into something specific by anyone that has enough experience with the system to have a good feel for what the units represent.

All you're missing is experience and that doesn't come with just one measurement from any system.

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

Tim,

"... I would think one rod's stand alone data should be able to be interpretted into something specific unless there some hidden agenda that I'm missing."

The "hidden agenda" you are missing is it is assumed you understand the concepts and measurements of the CCS and how they relate to each other. It is apparent you don't, and you probably haven't read or understood the articles I have written.

This is clearly evident, as you believe CCS can tell you whether a rod is a 3wt or a 12wt. Sorry, it can't, and it was never intended to do so. The fact is, the terms "3wt or 12wt " have no meaning in the language of CCS. They are not in the vocabulary of the CCS, as they are not objective measurements.

If you wish to describe a rod using CCS values, you must use terms like ERN and AA, In any case, one can't transmit any useful information unless both the speaker and the receiver speak and understand the same language. CCS is indeed a language. (Jargon, if you prefer.)

Thanks Tom, not sure how my analytical abilites can be understood without knowing my background but maybe someone here with the necessary experience can interpret what the data below means assuming my ability to measure accurately is not in question:

Point 1 - 12" 30* AA, 130 pennies
Point 2 - 24" 36* AA, 82 pennies
Point 3 - 36" 41* AA, 82 pennies
Point 4 - 48" 47* AA, 85 pennies
Point 5 - 60" 52* AA, 92 pennies
Point 6 - 72" 56* AA, 100 pennies
Point 7 - 84" 60* AA, 108 pennies

Overall with 1/3 deflection - 66* AA, 142 pennies.

Thanks.

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan

Tim,

My statement was meant to inform that at the present moment in time you are at the same place you were at the first time you tried to understand or comprehend inches, pounds, degrees, etc. It makes no difference what your background is - you did not understand any of those when you were first confronted by them. It took some amount of time and practical experience before those units, on their own, represented any sort of precise distance, weight or temperature to you.

What I think you would find helpful, is to run a few rods that you routinely use and like through the CCS and then consider the measurements against your use and personal knowledge of those rods. This will provide you with something to relate the numbers to.

In the meantime, you can either compare your numbers to another rod you've also run the CCS on and immediately tell if it's faster, slower, or more or less powerful. But to be able to accurately gauge how fast or slow, or how much power it has independent of another rod requires some amount of practical experience with the system. Those numbers by themselves tell me how fast your rod is and how much power it has, but only because I've measured and felt enough rods to know what those specific units of measurement represent.

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

This is starting to sound like the movie Groundhog's Day. Why can someone take my above data, compare it to "their" 100 rod calculations, and relate what the data from my rod indicates? I'm not trying to find fault but it seems there are times this forum is long on generalities but is short on specifics. What the numbers mean to me is irrelevant, I'd like to know what they mean to an experienced rod maker.

(It just dawn on me why I can't get an answer).

Trust, but verify - Ronald Reagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2012 10:27PM by Tim Collins.

From the article referenced below, your blank "... possesses a faster action than rods with lower AA figures and a slower action than rods with higher AA figures...".

Reference: [www.common-cents.info], page 2, "Interpreting the DBI"

Check out the CCS data site to the left and top of this page for data examples from other builders. It's amazing to see how many blanks of the same model, action, and power from a supplier have different AA#'s from which we now have a means to measure and compare; and help "fine tune" your blank selections - if you so chose.

Why are you trying to make it more difficult, or out to be some sort of conspiracy, or some platform from which you can throw darts at the people who are trying to help you?

Tim,

Do you consider 50lbs to be "heavy?"

If you can answer that I think I can explain why what you're asking is impossible.

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