I can't count the times I have seen requests like the following.

"I have a customer looking for 8 ft 3wt Fly Rod Blank. The only thing that I could come up with is a xxxxx (Mfg., Model) in the right length but it is a 4wt. ... . Any of you folks know of a manufacturer out there that may have this in their line up of blanks?"

This is invariably followed by a number of responses expressing personal recommendations, sales pitches for some specific make and model, or alternatives. While this may be of sume use to the inquirer, it still requires he search out further information from each supplier before he can begin to make an informed decision.

As you are well aware, the whole problem is created by the fact no one knows what a 3wt or 4wt fly rod is. However, you are also aware there is a simple remedy—CCS.

Recognizing this forum is intended for the use of rod builders, It would only make sense that it require participants to use the language of rod builders to describe their subjects. Therefore, I suggest you make something like the following announcement

"After July 1, 2012, if the term "wt." is employed in describing a fly rod, the DBI (Defined Bending Index = ERN:AA) must also be included. For example, For short range fishing, many recommend using a 8ft. 3wt (3.5:60) rod fitted with an ELN=5 line."

As a result of such an action, data to produce an updated CCS Data Site could be easily collected.

I disagree. This site is used and frequented by all levels of rodbuilders from first timers to seasoned veterans. Many new or novice builders have no idea what your even talking about, and I suspect would find your post insulting and maybe even turn them off to asking questions, just my opinion.

When I was in grade school, there was a push to get everybody to use the metric system (a far superior system to what we use), but instead of just scrapping the old system and forcing it on us, they spent a tremendous amount of time having us convert between one and the other. In a year or so, they gave up.

I do understand Bill's point - to get folks used to using something, you generally have to require it. Once they begin, they don't look back. But you have to get them to begin. Still, I'm not yet prepared to do that. For the time being, I'll continue to use a gentle push when discussing rod numbers. I know it seems like 8 or 9 years should have been enough to get everybody on board, but in the overall scheme of time it's really not been that long since the CCS was introduced. It will catch on - it will become the standard, but it'll take a while longer yet.

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

Tony Childs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree. This site is used and frequented by
> all levels of rodbuilders from first timers to
> seasoned veterans. Many new or novice builders
> have no idea what your even talking about, and I
> suspect would find your post insulting and maybe
> even turn them off to asking questions, just my
> opinion.

agreed!

Maybe when the buyer / customer sees similar markings (ERN AA ELN) on factory rods. If I talk to a customer about CCS their eyes glaze over and they get fidgety. In my humble opinion this really only has "traction" in the fly rod domain - build some saltwater 20, 30, 50, 80 trolling rods.

Once it is put on a rod by a major manufacturer, and pout otu ther ein advertisements and catalouge - all thesheep will follow and it will catch on. The best part is those sheep will profess how much they know about the new system, when the fact is it's been out for several years already. Prime example is CTS blanks and Low Rider guides for the surf rod guys.

Tim Rajeff (Echo), North Fork, Pacific Bay and Mud Hole (MHX I think) all use it. It's coming along.

By the way, the CCS doesn't know if a blank is a fly rod blank or a tuna rod blank. It doesn't measure fly rods or tuna rods - it measures power, action and speed.

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

Modern graphite fly rods can be over lined or underlined and still cast perfectly well, depending on how much line is aerialized. Fly angler's casting strokes vary from a gentle, elbow-tucked-to-chest wave to a no-holding-back double haul. These variables have more importance in determining the "best" fly rod blank for an individual than objective measurements of any sort applied to the blank alone. It seems to me a good part of the art exercised by a rod builder lies in matching the blank to the fishing conditions where it will be used and in matching the characteristics of the blank to the casting stroke of the customer - regardless of the units used to indicate the physical properties of the blank.

Very true, of course you can make the same argument against expressing length in feet and inches. After all the "best" length for you may not be the best length of me. But I still prefer to know how the long the rod or blank is by virtue of an actual relative number.

Dr. Bill's point is that it's difficult to discuss a rod or blank without knowing some specifics about it. When someone says, "I'm looking for a 4-weight rod" just exactly what does that mean? What is a 4-weight rod? The fact is, nobody knows because it's never been defined.

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

My point is that it's probably most important to establish what the customer thinks a "4-weight rod" is when he asks you to build one: what he expects to do and what he will be capable of doing with this blank and this rod. Customer satisfaction is elusive but the first priority, and the art of determining (and convincing) the customer got what he wants depends upon the customer's perceptions more than the efficiency of objective measurements. This said, referencing the CCS system rather than the "rod weight" will make it easier to determine the expectations of sophisticated buyers of custom rods - but probably further bewilder the rest.

I agree wholeheartedly - the most important question you can ask a customer when he inquires about a "4-weight" rod is where and how he'll be using it.

From there, however, only the CCS DBI figure will allow you to home in on the amount of power best suited to his stated needs. You sure can't do it by searching the manufacturer's listings of "4-weight" blanks. Unless, of course, they offer an ERN figure alongside of it.

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

Tom, I know you understand the problem, however I believe your analogy using the metric system misses the point. There, it was a question of choosing one of two alternatives—equally capable of transmitting the information. This is comparable to arguing whether a rod's power should be described in terms of ERN or IP (Intrinsic Power). Both systems give the same results and there are well defined conversion factors, so it matters little which one uses.

On the other hand, we (those anglers astute enough to recognize the value of objective data) all know the term 4wt transmits no precise information, whereas use of the term ERN=4, IP=1310 grains, or 33.9 cents does.

Therefore, the question becomes, "Should a communication provide some useful information, or not?"
If your answer is "Not", then fine. That is your prerogative. However, if it is "Yes", then you must require the use of objective terms somewhere in that communication.

This is not a question of offending those who do not know and/or refuse to learn the language (CCS is a indeed language), but rather the simple recognition one cannot answer their questions because the terms they have chosen to use have no objective meanings.

The sheer number of questions regarding CCS would indicate that rod builders of all skill levels are not insulted by the system, they are curious. I would attribute that curiosity to frustration with the current subjective system of measurement. I personally will continue to promote the CCS and use it to ACCURATELY define the fly and non-fly blanks we sell. Make no mistake, the CCS is BENEFICIAL to all those who care about choosing the right blank or rod for themselves or their customers. It's main problem is that it is perceived as complex. It is not complex, and I will continue to simplify it for those willing to listen until I'm blue in the face.
Think of CCS data not as the brochure for a blank but as the service manual. Pros always use the service manual and in the case of the CCS its easier to understand than the flashy brochure.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

I understand both points here and they are equally weighted with value. It comes down to preference at this time and I believe Tom has already stated his position.

While I am not highly familiar with fly rods and blanks by preference there are many that are, but I believe the following is a similar example.

Monofilament labeled as 20# test. That line could break at 17# or 35#, but unless tested and certified, generally the manufacturer of said line has free reign as to what they choose to label it. Usually it refers to breaking point at or above its rating.
In theory IGFA 100# line can be labeled as 20# test by any given manufacturer.

And while this isnt something 100% identical to the situation above as we are talking about moving to a different system altogether over time which has very very good merit, I believe the push in the right direction without requirement for now is the best option. Those who do not understand the CCS system will not be discouraged from asking questions due their inability to give correct or useful information.

Bill,

The problem is that many who are trying to get help, still do not either know about the CCS or haven't used it enough to be confident with it.Therefore they would unlikely be able to offer such precise information. Requiring that they use the CCS when using this forum would result in one of two things:

1. They would learn the CCS quickly and begin using it.

2. They would go elsewhere.

In the interest of keeping this forum open and inclusive to as many folks as possible, I don't believe any requirement to provide the DBI would be prudent at this point in time. You will note that in most of my responses to folks that don't include any aspect of the CCS, I tell them that I (and others) can be of more help if they did provide that information. So, a suggestion but not a requirement.

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

I think you would find that the majority would choose option #2 rather than try to learn something they do not see a need to learn. If they do not understand the CCS they do not know how simple and easy it is to use. If they are like me they do not use it often enough to be able to roll the different terms off the end of the tongue at a moments notice. I have to think about it and get my thoughts in order every time I need to use the CCS. I guess I need to design and build more rods but then I would have to sell them and that would turn my rod building into a JOB and that would take a lot of pleasure out of it.

OK

Ya measure or a Company measures a batch they just cooked They find a 5 wt line should work well with The Several They Measured ??
Will they measure all of that batch ??? Or just a few
And if no two blanks flex the same ?? others may need a 6 wt line or 7

Then a builder buys the blank
Builds the rod for some one cause they want a 5 wt
They fish it and find it needs a 6 or 7 to perform the way they want
Is this a 5 wt rod or 6/7 wt rod Should the blank be marked as such

Should the builder build the rod and Try Several lines on it AND have the owner try them as well to see how they like The Feel

Even spin and cast blanks are not labeled correctly usually underrated

Bill - willierods.com

Mr. Boettcher,
If a blank maker has variation in a model of 1 or 2 ERN, than there is a serious consistency problem. If you are using the same pattern, same mandrel, same prepreg, oven settings, etc.., there shouldn't be such drastic variation from blank to blank or batch to batch.
I would imagine that part of supplying a customer with a custom fly rod would be assisting them in some test casting to identify the best line for their casting style and intended use, but I also think CCS would be the best place to start that process.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

Bill,

There is no such thing as a "5-weight" rod. A rod that may perform well for you at your desired range with a #5 line may require a #4 or a #6 for me and the places I fish.

Bottom line, until you know how much power a rod actually has, you can't begin to even guess at what line you need for your particular fishing situation.

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

That is what I am saying So even with the numbers ya still don't know how it will Feel
But having them some ware so you can at least have a starting point Is a good thing

Bill - willierods.com