Ok guys, so i did my test.. The rig was about 1/8 inch off the floor.. So i have to find a better spot apparently..
I deflected the rod with the Guides up.. The jig i made has the fulcrum at 6 3/4" from the butt.. the rod was as level as i could get it with a 10" torpedo level, leveled the rod directly in front of the foregrip... I ran out of pennies so ended up having to use a bunch of nickels, they are 5 grams, so for the cents count i just took the total weight i got in grams and divided by 2.5 to get a penny #...

The rod: Fenwick EliteTech Smallmouth 6'9" model # ESMS692M-XF Medium 6-12lb 1/8-3/4oz (if i did all my math right, you guys were very correct on fenwick just slappin numbers on the blank)

AA 72°
152 cents... 14.55 ERN (although i dont think ERN applies to a spinning rod)

So.. (Correct me if im wrong please)
Thats, 380 grams ...
High lure weight: 208 grains... .475oz (1/2oz)
Low lure weight: 146.4 grains... .334oz (3/8oz)
(Obviously i rounded the fractions to the closest whole number)

So the rod should read; extra fast, medium light 6-10lb 1/4-1/2oz (if im not mistaken..)

With that info, does anyone have a blank suggestion to mimic what this beautiful rod can do now? Lol

If those numbers are correct, im amazed at how inaccurate the labeling really is..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 03:21AM by Anthony Unger.

ERN applies to any and all rods. It's a power rating.

You cannot use the CCS numbers to apply ratings such as "extra fast, medium light." Those are the type terms it was designed to completely replace. You might as well take the length of 6'9" and convert that to "medium length." It doesn't work. No two manufacturers use the exact same terms for the exact same power or action. The labeling on such rods isn't inaccurate - it's just what it is and largely subjective.

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

I understand that.. But it does say right in the ccs..

Action Angle degree

below 59. slow
59-63. moderate
63-66. moderate/fast
Above 66. Fast

And based on the cents used, grain weight converted into maximum lure weight, and minimum lure weight into oz. That places the monofiliment lb test rating of 6-10lb.. And 6-10lb test is best utilized on a medium light rod... I understand that puting a labeling of power on a rod is subjective, in my opinion, based on the curvature the rod while under load i would call the power light as it was applying a bend fairly uniform all the way down to the foregrip..

So i can agree with you that placing a power rating on a rod is subjective... But the AA and lure weight wouldnt be concidered subjective as the AA degree formed by the tip top has the above numerical relationship to rod action.. Does it not?

I said extra fast, which was wrong, if you ate basing rating off of a specific number system, and theres a numerical value with a set range, i shouldnt have added extra, just fast.. In other words i basically continued the pattern (1,3,5,7,?... The next number would be 9 in this example, just as extra fast would have been the next option based on the progressive numerical pattern)

To clerify, im not arguing that any power/action ia concidered subjective, just trying to better understand how to use the CCS.. The author argues that everything is subjective (my light is your medium, what is a 6wt. Anyway.. Etc). But then relates rod action as we know it to a action degree based on his number system.. doesnt that contradict his own system? Although using a numerical system is more accurate then "does this feel fast to you?" Approach, his relating AA to rod action is subjective in itself correct?

I know im probably looking waaaay to deep into this....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 09:02AM by Anthony Unger.

No, that it just means for readers to get a feel for what the numbers represent against what most builders were already used to. In retrospect I wish I had not included it in the article as it has caused much confusion. The idea is to completely move away from subjective terms and replace them with relative and quantifiable numbers as we have done with length, weight, etc.

Here is how to use the CCS - compare your numbers with CCS numbers from another blank. If your AA figure is higher than that from the other blank, then your blank is faster in action. If your ERN number is higher than that of the other blank then your blank is more powerful. Obviously the converse is true as well. None of this is subjective.

Trying to take CCS figures and convert them back to subjective terms and use those terms to compare against other blanks won't work as there no standard for such terms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 09:15AM by Tom Kirkman.

Im sure it has.. And to be honest i completly knew that was put in the article for a reference point..

And im glad you did put it in the article.. A reader needs a start point to understand how things translate.. Like with the ERN... Since most manufacturers dont use the CCS and dont give a ERN number i have no idea where to begin selecting a power rating that coinsides with 14.55... The only relationship to power i can see is matching the ERN to fly line wt, then multiplying by 2 to get a about monofiliment lb rating (going off the (X)wt x 2 =(Y)lb formula witch isnt really very accurate.. Then finding a lb test oz casting rating, and finally matching line rating to suggested power rating for a rod.. (2lb test wouldnt work well on a deep sea rod as an example)

I really am just trying to get a full grasp on the CCS.. It is a better system in my own opinion, but im still left with the question of what blank would closly match that rod..

And the reason i said the just threw numbers on the rod.. What i ment was more the line to lure rating.. It is seriously the only rod, other then the one pac bay blank ive seen with a lure rating of 1/8-3/4oz.. And the pac bay is acually 1/8-15/16oz... With a line rating of 4-8lb.. Where the fenwick is 6-12lb..

Btw, someone on another thread wanted me to look up that pac bay rod on a diffrent site, assuming it was a typo.. I did, and across 3 sites it has the same ratings..

Here are a few blanks that have similar IP and AA numbers to your rod.
Rainshadow ETE S68M - IP 380 gm AA ~70+
Rod Geeks B470F - IP 380 gm AA ~70+
St Croix SCV 70MF - IP 400 gm AA ~70+
NFC SM MB662 - IP 380 gm AA 71
NFC HM MB662 - IP 386 gm AA 72
PacBay QLSJ 781 - IP 403 gm AA 73
Point Blank PB66LF. - IP410 gm. AA 74
Looks like the Rainshadow ETE S68M is your closest match to your rod. It is 6’8” from the limited number I have available.

Hopefully some others will chime in on some measurement they have. Hope this helps.
Norm

More then you know... Thanks very much..

Don't worry about line ratings - those are perhaps the most subjective and don't really mean much of anything. The line should never have a higher break strength than the rod, but few manufacturers include a deadlift maximum for their blanks.

.........

That is true, i have a ultralight tica (the tip top shattered, i dont know how.. Broke my heart.. Put a new tip top on, had to remove 2" rod is ruined.. Doesnt cast or feel right what so ever anymore) lone rating is 2-6lb.. I was on a lake and hooked into the biggest largemouth of my life.. It came to 4.3 pounds.. For PA, thats a really big bass... I was afraid my rod was going to snap, being at the max line weight.. But it preformed flawlessly... That was the day i realized if anything the line weights are on there so you dont exceed the rods breaking point..

My one buddy is a little nuts if you ask me, im not sure what his tackle is rated for, but hes using 80lb braid on a bass rod for catfish down at the delaware river.. I cant see the rod being within the load range being a bass rod.. But he successfully landed 4 cats the other week, the biggest being 43"... I was not there, just saw pictures.. And am kicking myself for not going... He wants a rod with rollers, heavy heavy heavy as he says.. Little overkill for a river.. But maybe not if they are pulling monsters like that out...

What formula do you use to get IP? And where do you find while looking into blanks, the IP and AA? Or are these numbers you guys have come up with through builds?

There is no formula for IP, it is defined as the weight required to deflect a given blank 1/3 it's total length. It can be given in any weight unit you want, cents ( your 152), grams (your 380), grains ,oz, etc.
Have a MHX EPS 81MXF in the shop that I thought might be OK, but had a higher IP than I thought, about 172¢ or 430gm. Nice blank though. Their EPS81MLXF might be right in your ball park.

Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2018 12:48PM by Norman Miller.

Very few if any manufacturer now give IP and AA numbers. NFC. Quickline, and Point Blanks use to give these number, but I don't think they are available on their websites anymore. MHX has CCS numbers for their flyrods, but not their other blanks. I guess I should do CCS numbers on all the blanks I build but I do not. A few years ago I was curious about the CCS numbers on a number of medium power high end blanks so I bought a bunch and and measured their IPs. All I can say is that varied quite a bit from brand to brand. I think there are a few guys on this site that do measure every blank they build.
Norm

[www.rodcents.org]

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

Wow.. Now thats a really useful site.. Ive been to that site a few times.. Apparently i never clicked on that section... Thank you very much..

Low lure weight 101.6 grains, .232 oz are the numbers I came up with.

152 x .8 = 121.6 - 20 = 101.6 x .0022857 = .2322271

As has been explained, the IP would be 380 grams

With an IP of 380 that's a definitely a light powered rod in my book. And when I say light, I base it only on the one factory rod that I did CCS numbers for. It had an IP of 522. That kind of power is pretty much as low as I go with the rods I fish. The one exception being a drop shot rod I just built. I haven't done a CCS test on it, but my guess is that it's in the neighborhood of the 380 that you're Fenwick measures. I think I actually mentioned that blank in one of your earlier threads. If not, it is an NFC DS6107 from the IM series. It's an 6' 10" extra fast action blank, rated for 1/8 - 3/8 oz baits and 4 - 8# line.

It is a blast to fish! You hook a 2 or 3 lb smallmouth on it and you'd think you hooked onto a tank. It definitely has the type of bend that will protect the light line it is rated for. Definitely not a blank that you could even think of horsing a fish with.

Anyhow, I like seeing how you're getting into the testing portion of rod building. That kind of stuff gets you thinking about other things in rod building and in my opinion, turns you into a rod builder, not a rod assembler. Good job!

That really means alot to me... Thanks.. Im pretty sure You did mention that blank before.. Now all i need is cash... It seems im gonna have to wait aboit a month before the next build..

I love the science behind how things in fishing work.. I spend more time figuring, learning, and messing around with everything fishing i end up not acually fishing lol

My 3S70MLF has the same exact power, but a faster tip, 75 degrees.

Gib Portwood, a member of rodboard, put to together a CCS work sheet about a year and a half ago. Mostly gives the Manufacturers’ number. Anyone can add data to this work sheet. I think it can be very helpful if more data gets added. [onedrive.live.com]
Norm

I would not consider 72 degrees as extra fast. Yes, it's subjective, but for the rods I've tested that are labeled as extra fast the AA was always over 75, even as high as 80. I would consider 72 to be fast.

Point Blanks CCS and RDA data are shown when you select a model then click "hard specs."

72 degrees is just that - 72 degrees. Making it faster than a blank with an AA of 70 but slower than a blank with an AA of 80.

Sort of like asking someone if 75F temperature degrees is hot. That's subjective, but 75F isn't. It's just warmer than 70F and cooler than 80F.

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