CCS does exactly what it was designed to do. Perfectly. The "working length" is the entire blank. The entire blank has to be measured - the idea that any blank length behind the rod hand or reel seat doesn't come into play is terribly incorrect.

In what application is the CCS not perfect? Can you give me an example where a higher ERN is less powerful than a lower ERN? Or where a higher AA is a slower action than a lower AA? The CCS works perfectly, we know that. It has never been shown to fail in it's objective or relative nature of measurement.

The larger question is, what difference does it make? The object is to have an objective, relative system of measurement, which is exactly what the CCS is. Why keep reinventing the wheel? In most cases, it's simply so that one company's blanks can't be measured against another.

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

The working length or the amount of blank that comes into play is its total length. If the part behind the seat or fighting hand don't count, then just cut the rod off behind the reel seat and try using it that way. A couple people here have already pointed that out. You use the rod length all the way to the butt cap not just a portion of it. Besides the CCS measures the whole blank and has a constant for the forward support point --- 10%. It's consistent and works fine as is. You just need numbers to compare one blank to another. Why ignore a proven system and cook up a new one that no other company uses? Plus no company is going to use a system developed by a competitor. The CCS is outside the blank making companies. The inventor isn't benefitting. It's fair play and fair comparison all the way.

Steve, the CCS already has what you're looking for. It measures the whole blank but has a constant of 10% of the overall blank length for the forward measuring support point. Very clever work by Dr. Hannenman. So there you go. You have what you want already in place.

Tom,

Don't want to argue with you. This is your forum, your rules. However, to insist that CCS is perfect ignores the obvious. For many rods, the blank length behind the foregrip/reel seat is significantly affected and should be considered in a proper manner. With a fly rod, that impact is minimized. It makes a bigger difference with freshwater/bass rods and is something that should not be ignored with saltwater/inshore rods.

There is no point showing errors in ERN or AA when the basic premise that you are working from is flawed. Now, if you want to ban me and wipe my posts from your forum, you are free to do so.

James,

Familiar with the 10% rule. Been quite awhile since I saw a 8 1/2 inch handle on a bass or inshore rod.

Steve,

No one has ever been banned here because they disagreed with me.

But you're missing the point of relative systems. In the CCS, a higher ERN number always indicates a blank with greater power than one with a lower ERN. Same for AA and CCF. Can you specify a single instance where this is not the case? I've heard arguments similar to yours for 12 years now but not once has anyone been able to provide a single instance where a higher ERN, AA or CCF turned out to be lower than a blank with a lower respective number. The CCS is every bit as accurate as our system of weights, lengths, temperature, etc. If the CCS is flawed, then so are these other systems - they're all based on the exact same thing.

The forward support point for CCS measurements is not about handle length - it is the across the board constant required if you're going to have a system that is relative in nature.

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

The 10% iisn't the handle length, it is the forward support point which makes the system relative. If you are going to use different handle lengths for different blanks as your support point then you will not have a system with relative results. It would be useless for comparing one balnk to another. There has to be a similar percentage constant from blank to blank.

Gentlemen,

At this point, I believe it is best to agree to disagree. I have done enough of my own testing to have formed a definitive opinion. I have no desire to convert anyone.

I understand the 10% rule. I understand it is not handle length. It is a standardized support point. However, work backwards for a moment. Typical fly rods are 108 inches, 10% is approximately 11 inches. 7 inches of cork and 4 inches for a reel seat. I don't believe this was a coincidence. As a result, it is the fundamental flaw in the system and does not do well with rods other than fly. Yes, it measures rod blank characteristics consistently, just as other measurement systems. Just as an incorrect formula will generate the same answer over and over, it is the wrong answer. In this case, the system is measuring something consistently but what is it measuring? My simple answer is, it is not measuring what I want to know.

A fundamental flaw would be using different support points based on supposed handle lengths, different for each rod or rod type. That type system won't provide relative results. Because the CCS has the same measuring parameters in place for all blanks, it is able to provide relative results which allow direct comparisons between blanks.

Again, the 10% forward support is not handle length, it's a constant just as is the deflection distance being equal to 1/3rd of the blank's length. And if these constants are not adhered to for all blanks, you will not have relative results. The 10% forward support point was implemented to create a constant, it had nothing to do with fly rod handle length. Handle length is not a consideration in the CCS, as no manufacturer has any idea what length handle will be built on the rod. You can use the CCS Big Picture if you want to measure only a portion of the rod blank.

It is important to remember that the CCS does not measure fly rods, or casting rods or spinning rods. It measures action, power and speed and puts a relative number on them for comparative purposes. That's why a blank with a higher ERN will possess greater power than one with a lower ERN, and so on and so forth. I'm still waiting after 12 years to have someone provide me with a single instance where the ERN/AA/CCF umbers it provides aren't relative to one another.

If the CCS is not measuring what you want to know (I have no idea what it is that you want to know) then you'll have to cook up something that does.

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

Tom,

You will be waiting another 12 years looking for your unicorn.

We agree that CCS intends to measure action, power and speed. It tells me a great deal about a specific weight fly rod blank and how it will handle that weight line or a particular taper of that line or others. It is valuable to determine rod blank characteristics that are desirable for casting tools. Where we part is that it does not do a good job with casting or spinning rod blanks that are to be fishing/fish fighting tools.

I do know what I need to know and have already cooked it up. Good luck.

I think you're attempting to use if for something it wasn't designed for. It is only providing relative numbers for action, power and speed. It was designed to allow comparisons between blanks or rods. That's all any system of relative numbers can do - provide a relative comparison. And that's all Jim's system will do, within his company's own blank line.

So I still don't know what you're wanting to do. Are you saying that the CCS is unable to provide a means of showing if one casting blank is more powerful, or less so than another? Or that one spinning blank has a faster action than another blank? I can assure you that it'll do that perfectly, and that's what the system is all about.

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

Tom,

Assurances are lost on me when I am on the other side of the fence. Again, we will need to agree to disagree.

Rather than take my word for it - try it! Use two casting or spinning blanks where you can easily tell by hand which possesses more power, and/or a faster or slower action. Even quicker or slower response. Run the CCS measurements and see for yourself. The blank with more power will have a higher ERN, the one with a faster action will have a higher AA and the one with a quicker reaction and recovery time will have the higher CCF number, guaranteed. Do this as many times as you want and I can absolutely assure you that it will never fail.

The CCS simply provides an across the board relative system of measurement for action, power and speed and uses numbers to do so. It neither knows nor cares what type rod or blank you are measuring. It is then up to the rod builder to determine from the power/action/speed measurements, including length and physical weight, if the blank will be suitable for what he or she intends to do with the rod. No system will do that last part for you - all any such system can do is provide data, hopefully relative in nature, otherwise comparisons are impossible. The rest is up to the rod builder.

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

Tom,

You must know that I have done this, many times. If I wanted to know which spinning/casting rod was best to cast a 9 weight fly line, I would have the relative measurements. Sorry, not what I need. I simply know better. You can have the last word.

Steve, you don't happen to have any Bushido MB68/10-17 AND Bushido MB68/12-20 comparative data, do you? If CCS, all I need is the MB68/10-17. :-)

Michael,

Sorry, I have never handled those blanks.

Steve,

The CCS won't tell you which rod is best for casting a 9-weight line. All it does it provide a power measurement from which you have to determine if the rod is going to cast a 9-weight line well for you, or if it will have enough power to fight the fish you intend, or if the action is fast or slow enough to do what you want to do. For me, to cast a 9-weight line well I need a rod with an ERN of about 10 to 10.5. You might require one with an ERN of an 8, or an 11. The CCS doesn't dictate things like line weights. It only measures action, power and speed.

I think you've misinterpreted how to use the CCS.

If you can tell me the specifics you want to know, I might be able to show you how to arrive at it/them from the data. That's the best I can offer.

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

There was a good article in the magazine a couple or three years ago about using the CCS to make these comparisons. It was not written by Dr. Hanneman and was not about fly rods or fly lines. It might be helpful. If I can find it I will post up the volume and issue #. Might be a good article to put in the library here when these type discussions come up in the future.