The ERN tells you how much power it has, not how it's going to "feel."

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

Bill,
ERN and AA won't tell you anything really useful about "Feel." Those are static properties, while "Feel" is a dynamic property.
That is why the concept of CCF was developed and is included by Pacific Bay in their data bank. They are ahead of the game for most users. It would behoove all serious custom fly rod builders to catch up.

While knowing the CCF is useful in "getting in the right ballpark," the secret of matching a rod to an angler lies in the builder matching the CCF of the rod with the PPF (Personal Preferred Frequency) of his client.
All this requires the understanding that the purpose of the fly line (other than connecting the rod to the fly) is to match the frequency of the angler's fishing outfit (rod + line + fly) to the PPF of the client. The line is the variable.

Bill starting off with 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?"

What is the inherent difference between his question and this one?

"I have a customer looking for 8 ft 20# classlive bait blank. The only thing that I could come up with is a xxxxx (Mfg., Model) in the right length but it is a 15#. ... . Any of you folks know of a manufacturer out there that may have this in their line up of blanks?"

If there is no real difference than why is it so hard to suggest a fly rod blank but fairly easy to suggest a live bait blank?

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Because the line class rating on live bait blanks is at least relative, most of the time anyway. The 15# is probably going to be less powerful than the 20#. It doesn't work this way in many fly rod companies line ups. One company's 5-weight is another company's 7-weight. I even have two "5-weight" blanks from the same maker, one in an 8 footer and one in a 9 footer, that possess vastly different amounts of power.

And, of course, the CCS would be a better way to rate the power on those live bait blanks as well.

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

And of course the companies are going to CCS all of there blanks And not just a few out of a batch

I am now buying fair priced fly lines At least i can use them to get a good idea of - how the blank acts and loads with a certain line

This stuff is getting to be Too Much Like Rocket science

Bill - willierods.com

If you can use a ruler or read a thermometer, then you can use the CCS. They're all based on the same concept.

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

At the time of this writing, there are now 925 views and 26 posts. That's approaching twice as many views as the next closest post on the front page of this forum. CCS is gaining acceptance in the industry and interest continues to grow. It is not rocket science, far from it. It is three measurements that are easy to obtain and once they are put into practice for a period of time will make life easier for the entire industry, from the rod building hobbyist to the largest manufacturer.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

Great comment Geoff. When will Pac Bay provide CCS numbers for all your blanks?

Great question rick. Unfortunately I don't have the spare resources to gather data for all of our previous series like T2 and Rainforest. Currently CCS is a key component of our R & D process so all new blanks do have CCS data. This includes Quickline Fly, Quickline MagBass, two additional Quicklilne series yet to be released, and single additions like the new T2FSM907 (musky flipin stick) or the T2SH1563-2 (13' med-heavy steelhead float rod) that get added to existing series by popular demand. After using CCS in the development process I can say that I would never go back to previous methods, there was just too much guess work.

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2012 04:30PM by Geoff Staples.

So

No one has to test cast any guide spacing any more

We go buy the numbers that are given and that is it

No more Tweaking No more Static testing

And we have the best performance on that rod ????

Bill - willierods.com

Meanwhile the CCS data site stagnates. I am as guilty as anyone who hasn't helped by taking the time to submit data, maybe worse. I do measure for ERN and AA of most blanks but I write it on the blank where the grip will be. I must say, whenever I measure a fly rod that doesn't seem to match up with the manufacturers "line rating", the system spells it out clearly what the discrepancy is. I built a 7'9" "3wt" with a ERN=4.85 and a 9' "4wt" with ERN=4.15 same manufacturer and product line. It would have been nice to know before buying those blanks.

Yes it would be nice

But like I have said before if every blank is not measured All the numbers in the world will not help

You will still have to measure them -- or go out and - test cast - with different lines

Bill - willierods.com

Yes it would be nice

But like I have said before if every blank is not measured All the numbers in the world will not help

You will still have to measure them -- or go out and - test cast - with different lines

I have always found that say a 5 weight the numbers should be in the High 4's or the Low 5's
Over 5.50 think of a 6 wt line

Also AA 65 plus

Bill - willierods.com

Bill,

All my best "5-weight" rods for smallmouth bass river fishing have ERNs of at least 6.2.

You have to remember, the weight of a fly line changes as you move or less of it beyond the tip of the rod.

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

You are probably casting well over 30 feet past the tip

makes sense

Bill - willierods.com

I, admittingly, am intimidated by the CCS system but I am going to learn it. I want to be able to tell a customer the best suited blank for throwing a 7wt streamer line 200-250 grains with a streamer weighinig about 80-100 grains when wet. They think they want 7wt fast action 2 piece blank when it may require a 6wt from one manufucturer and an 8 or 9 from another. The CCS will take a lot of the guess work out and should make for a more satisfied customer. If you look at the CCS on the Mudhole fly blanks its easy to determine that the more sections the rod has the higher the IP is for the same blank weight/length than blanks with fewer sections. So if they insist on a 7wt you may determine you can do it but will require a four piece rod because two piece lacks the IP. If they insist on a two piece then you can advise them that the required IP would require an 8wt in two piece. It also works in reverse as far as to what line weight goes best with the IP of a blank. I may be using the wrong definition of IP in my example but I think you can see what I'm getting at. I think Dr Bill is right, it would behoove all serious custom fly rod builders to catch up and I am going to put in the effort.

Not only that, but you can make yourself look like a genius to your customer by providing him with a rod that easily loads and casts with this line he intends to fish. All too often, a rod builder confronted by a fisherman that requests a "5-weight" rod feels that he must buy and build on a blank labeled as a "5-weight." This may or may not work well for the customer and his/her intended use. Conversely, once you know what the customer intends to do with the rod, you simply buy the correct blank. It may end up being somebody's "4-weight" model, but you can label it any way you desire (as the manufacturers do). All the custom knows is that the "5-weight" rod you built him loads and casts better than any "5-weight" rod he's ever owned. In other words - in his mind you're the best rod builder on the planet.

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

Nothing new or news worthy.
In at least 7 years,What's the probability that none of the major players have picked up the ball ???
If the system really brought something new and extra to the table, all the rod manufacturing community would have wanted to play.
Instead you have an amusing list of acronyms attached to an objective scale that only replaces existing already known attributes.
If Cabela's or BPS or Wal-Mart had adopted the standard and began educating the public, something may have been accomplished.
Instead I'm supposed to ask a fisherman if he knows his PPF. Might get slugged if I did.
Most of the world's fisherman neither know or care what an ERN is. Instead they want to buy a rod that does it's intended purpose and "feels good" to fish with
If the system had spent more time describing dynamic properties it may have brought more to the table. Maybe that's why it keeps growing and adding acronyms. Makes you sick.
Any rod can have any PPF with enough weight attached to the tip.
Doesn't make it feel good to cast and fish with.
Give me a tool to tell me what rod will wear me out or make my elbow hurt after a full day of fishing. It wasn't intended for that.
The CCS provides a wealth of entertainment for the DR and may help a small segment achieve more sales. Other than that it's worthless and the lack of maintenance make it out-dated before it's time. Most rods on this enormous list are discontinued or no longer available.

Okay , say a guy comes in and says he wants a new rod like his good old Sage RPL 9' #5 line that he just dropped off his canoe to the bottom of the lake. I have no idea what a Sage RPL is like, he could say it is moderate power but sort of fast or whatever terms from an ad in a magazine he uses to describe it, but I can go to the current site and find two blanks that have very similar numbers. I think that is better than taking a stab in the dark. Or the guy comes in with some discontinued rod, 8'6" 10-17 lb test, what does that mean? I can measure that rod and find a blank similar as long as there are numbers asigned to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2012 07:02PM by Greg Foy.

Eugene,

I'm guessing that you'd be in favor of dropping the expression of rod length in feet and inches and instead simply using "short, medium and long" to describe rod length? That seems to be your argument - objective terms are better than relative numbers. Your tape measure won't tell you how the rod feels - so is that measurement worthless as well?

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks would never think of arguing against the use of objective and relative measurements for length and weight, but will argue against using the same systems for power and action measurements. Such a system is either all good, or no good. Which is it?

By the way, many of the major blank players have picked it up. More will follow.

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