Fellows,

I have been inundated with questions and assertions regarding the Common Cents System definition that a rod deflected a distance equal to one third of its total length is fully loaded. (That's okay - I expected it, but it's really got things tied up here and I hate for anyone to think that I don't care enough about their question to answer it. I do, but can't get around to them all. Sorry.)

This definition is correct, for any and all rods, within the context of why were are doing this within the system. What you are looking at is not intended to be the blank's upper limit for loading before it breaks. Nor is it intended to be the way it will be flexed when fighting a maximum load. It's not even the position it make take on when being cast. But, it is part of the equation for arriving at the correct lure or line weight rating. It is one of many parts that must go together to equal the whole.

If you use a different deflection distance and then try to correlate the weight needed to get that deflection to the listed ERN chart, you will not arrive at the correct line or lure casting weight. The system has been designed so that everything works together. In order to arrive at the correct line or lure casting weight, it was discovered that the correct ERN would correlate by means of a conversion factor to an amount of weight that created a deflected distance equal to one third of a rod's total length.

You cannot read these indiviual parts of the system by themselves and read anything into them or gain anything from them. The amount of weight needed to gain the stated deflection is NOT the correct line or lure casting weight. By itself, it tells you nothing. The amount of deflection is NOT the amount of deflection the rod may take on when casting the proper weight. By itself it tells you nothing. But taken together and with all the other parts of the system, you will arrive at a final number that tells you what the correct line weight or lure casting weight will be for any rod.

Just as baking a cake entails throwing all sorts of stuff into a bowl that look nothing like a cake, by themselves you have nothing that will wind up as being a cake. But used together and once out of the oven, you will have a cake. How the particular ingredients were arrived at, or how much of each to use, is something the person who created that particular cake had to figure out. Whether or not he or she figured correctly, can only be measured by what comes out of the oven. If it's a cake, and it looks and tastes like it's supposed to, then we have to assume that the ingredients and the amount of each that went into it, were correct.

This is about the best way I can describe it. The past two days have seen my phone tied up and email box deluged with over a couple hundred questions on the system (along with and in additional to all the usual correspondence on the magazine and similar). If I had more time I could give more thoughtful answers, but I really haven't had time to run these particular questions through my mind and answer them in the most logical manner, yet.

Dr. Hanneman is on a fishing trip and when he returns next week I'll see if he is open to answering questions from individuals. He has written articles that we will be running in the next few issues that will go into further detail and which, I think, will answer your questions in a more detailed manner. As more people use the system and become acquainted with it, I believe there will be more people here that can help out with the questions posted here.

In the meantime, the amount of interest in the system either way tells me its a subject that rod builders feel strongly about, whether they agree with it or not. By the time we're done (if we ever are) I believe we'll have something of great value to us all. And perhaps it will give us something to argue over for a few more years. (Maybe the spine will get a rest!)

If you save the best questions, and Dr. Hanneman's answers to them, you ought to have plenty of material for future articles, maybe even a regular feature in Rodbuilder. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for my copy!

Tom- at some point it might make sense to have a separate section for Common Cents- sort of the way the Q&A section is separated from the main page. It would be nice to have a central place where a person could discuss and learn about the rating system outside of all the nuts and bolts of actual rodmaking. I can see a new rodbuilder reading all these technical posts and getting scared away...

As many of us haven't even received the issue yet, we'll probably be asking many of the same questions when we get a chance to look it over. Already, there are too many Common Cents questions to make searching useful.

Splitting a site can cause problems, but it sure seems that in this case it might be justified.

In the next issue I've taken most of the more common questions and answered them. Also, if I can find room, I may present a photo-article that shows, in photographs and captions, a complete run down of the system and how to use and interpret it. Sort of a "quick-start" guide to using it.

.........

Tom;
I haven't read the article yet, myself. But..............It sounds like a nomenclature problem to me. Instead of using the term "fully loaded" use another label, such as, "rating deflection" or "ERN deflection.

The term "fully" can easily be related to "ultimate," "maximum," or "breaking."

Under the system, the rod is fully loaded when it has been deflected a distance equal to one third of its total length. And the amount of weight that it takes to do that (in cents) is then correlated to the appropriate ERN number.

Whether or not it's fully loaded for fish fighting, or anything else at that distance, I have no idea. But in order to obtain the correct ERN, it will be considered fully loaded when it has reached a deflection distance equal to one third of its total length.

Another term could be used, but I don't think it would solve the problem. Guys are trying to take the system apart and use each piece by itself and you can't do that.

Just a little while ago, one guy called to tell me that when he deflected the rod to the required distance it took a number of pennies that ended up weighing about 5.7 ounces and he knew full well that such a light rod would not cast 5.7 ounces. He was a bit angry.

Of course he did not bother to read the entire article - the weight hanging from the tip is not there to mimic the correct casting weight, it's there to provide a means to measure the rod's intrinsic power which we can then use to determine the correct casting weight. It has to be correlated to the chart which provides the correct ERN which will give the correct casting weight.

In his instance, his rod is rated to throw about 3/8ths of an ounce, not 5.7 ounces, even though that's what it took to deflect the rod the required distance. And he agreed that 1/4 to 3/8ths of an ounce is what he gets his best distance with on that rod.

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

One more suggestion for a stressed out moderator....

how about a page that lists make and model of rods, and numbers for the system (I haven't gotten my issue yet... so don't know the nomenclature that everyone is talking about). It could be something that user's can enter in the values they got with a particular model.

Then users could sort by make, model or other parameters to extract blanks that match their criteria. For example... I want a fast action 5 wt that's 9' long.: I could sort for these parameters, adn get a series of rods.

Instead of entrusting one person to rate all rods, we all could contribute with the rods we own, and are building, building a very valuable database.

From what I've read some retailers may already have this in the works, but they'd be limited to the products they sell. And in the past few days, there's been requests for rod ratings for specific models and makes of rods.

Again... another suggestion that would require a ton of work for little monetary gain... sounds like a rodbuilders dream.

Tom & others,

I just got out of a long hospital stay and I've had lots of time to read. I've read and reread the common cents article and man is this great stuff! I think I completely understand with one exception. Is the ERN scale linear? For example, my understanding is the perfect 5 weight would have an ERN of 5.5 (but 5.0-5.9) would also be a 5 weight just less or more powerful.

But the scale only goes to a 7wt (if memory serves me well). I want to test my 8wts and my 9wt. Would the ERN of an 8 wt be a range of 8.0-8.9 with 8.5 being ideal and would a 9wt be 9.0-9.9 with 9.5 being ideal? Finally, I don't have the article on hand but if I remember right there was a cents to "something" conversion chart. To check higher weight rods this chart needed to go further. Will this chart be expanded or will the formula used to make the calculations for this chart be provided.

Great, great article. Hopefully someday all rods will be discussed so everyone uderstands their action and power.

I think Tom put the conversion equation up on this site earlier. I'll see if I can find it. It is said to work on 8 weights and heavier and gives you the amount of weight in grains which can be converted directly to the proper line weight or to ounces for spin and casting rods.

3.48 times the number of cents minus 20 equals the number of grains.

Multiply the number of grains by .0022857 to get ounces.


The one thing I would add about the system is that it seems so very 'sensitive' that you have be careful that you set it up accurately and perform it accurately or you won't get accurate results.

I understand that all rod blanks will sag a bit under their own weight and that this is okay as that is weight the blank is carrying all the time so it is factored in. But if you have one of the crooked rod blanks that are so common today and that factors into the deflection then the reading won't be accurate. And I've got some that curve off by a half inch to an inch! I know that will throw off the readings.

So what I'm doing is turning any natural crook or curve off to the side and having the straightest axis so that it is 90 degrees to the plane of deflection. That way the crook won't enter into the readings.

Any thoughts on this?

I dont have the article infront of me right now but i seem to remember it saying to have the last foot of the rod level. If you have a rod that does have a bend or natural sag in it, how does that effect the final numbers?

All rods will sag under their own weight. And that's weight that the blank is carrying during the cast so it should be part of the equation. In other words, if you need 30 inches of deflection, and the rod tip is already sagging by 2 inches, then you need enough weight to deflect it by 28 more inches. Same thing with a finished rod that has guides on it - the sag created by the weight of the guides has to be factored into the deflection as that's weight the blank now has to carry.

But, any natural curve or bend needs to be taken out of the equation if possible. Sight down the blank and align it for the straightest axis. In this position, you'll probably find a long natural bend. I would align that to 90 degrees so the deflection is pulling neither with or against it. This is the position I hope the manufacturers will use when rating their blanks with the system. It takes the natural bend or warp out of the picture.

After doing that, however, you may wish to rotate the blank around and deflect against the natural bend and then again with the spine. This gives you an idea of the range of possible casting weights your blank can handle.

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

Tim,

If I remember correctly, the article says to get the first foot of the rod level. But it did not say whether the "first foot" is at the tip end or the butt end of the rod. I've been wondering about that myself.

The butt end. The blank's inherent weight is part of the weight it must carry and thus must be included in the deflection.

Notice in figure 7, the height of the blank is measured at the butt end and the total deflection is measured at the tip end. Thus, the section that has to be level is the butt end.

The answers to these questions are in the article, but you do have to look for them. It's a lot of info and I'm not the first person to have to read it more than once to find everything.

I'll probably work up a "quick-start" guide to help people understand how to use the system. No explanations really, just the basic "how-to."

In the meantime, if you want to convince yourself of the system's accuracy, take a handful of your favorite fly rods out and try them with different lines. The one constant is that you want to have exactly 30 feet of line past the tip, not necessarily how much you normally hold past the tip for your type fishing, but the AFTMA standard of 30 feet (remember, any rod that doesn't properly load with 30 feet of the rated line past the tip is not correctly labeled). Pick the line up and make one back cast and then shoot on the forward cast. Try different lines in the same manner and note the line weight that works the best. Note that particular line. Then, go inside and rate those blanks on the Common Cents System. Like most of us, you'll probably find that the system rates each rod for the exact line that you already found was the best one.

The Common Cents System isn't a guess, and it's not a theory. It was formulated to work correctly.

...........

butt end level, got it. time to recheck a few rods.

I have not gotten my latest issue of Rod Maker, but this "Common Cents" method sounds very similar to a method of measuring golf club shaft stiffness called deflection.
As golf club shafts and fishing rod blanks are very similar in nature, some of you may be interested in this quite technical information on golf club shaft measuring and compiling the measurements into an index.

[www.dynacraftgolf.com]