Ok, so i have a understanding.. Sorta.. The first question is about the process setup..

I understand the ccs is primarly based on fly rods, which explains why you would place your rod in the holder with the guides facing up.. In fly fishing you load your line primarily on the back cast.. Over your head.. And behind you.. The system can be used for spin fishing rods too, but i primarily cast from the side, not overhead.. So to be mlre accurate in getting you AA and IP wouldnt ypu want to load the rod along the casting angle? I ran 2 tests on the fenwick fron another post just out of curiosity.. One was with the guides facing up, the other with guides down.. Although close, i did get diffrent readings.. Following the effective spine rule, the flex should take more weight when being on the inside of the bend.. I got an AA of 72° with 380 grams while the guides were oriented up, while orienting down, i got an AA of 73° with 391 grams.. Again both are close.. And its very possible there was some human error involved, but for discussions sake, why load the rod against the effective spine? If its because of line load for casting sake, would you test a baitcaster with guides down?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2018 03:26AM by Anthony Unger.

The CCS isn't "based" on fly rods any more than a measuring tape is based on lumber. It measure action, power and speed, which are inherent properties of all rod blanks. But yes, a rod blank is going to have a varying amount of power based on how you orient it. She will show more difference than others. Some builders utilize the spine, others do not. If you want to orient the rod for your measurements per the way you intend to orient it for building, then go right ahead. That's entirely up to you.

...........

Ok, thank you for clearing that up

When leveling the rod blank, placing the level right in front of the foregrip, does it really matter to take rod taper into effect? I cant see it fluctuating the final centerline by more then 1/8" on a very long rod.. I know im kind of nuts about getting things perfect, but would it effect the outcome that significantly? Im talking about bass popping rods, or lighter stream rods.. Not surf rods with a huge butt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2018 11:37AM by Anthony Unger.

There isn't much taper that far back on most rod blanks. Just be consistent in whatever you do so your results are truly relative.

...........

I figured, thanks again tom.. Your knowledge of the system is awesome

Anthony, I'm curious if you checked where the spine is on that Fenwick rod? And if so, are the guides oriented with the spine in mind? The reason I ask is, if they aren't, then your difference in power you just posted, may come from other reasons.

The subject of the spine of a blank is an interesting one. If you do a search on this site using the word spine, you will find hundreds of posts talking about it. There have been some pretty lively discussions about spine and whether or not it's worth taking the time to find it and then place your components with the spine in mind.

If you do the search you'll see that there are a number of members that are more concerned with building on the straightest axis, rather than building on the spine. Personally, after reading many threads and posts on the subject, and in one case, my own personal experience, I choose to build on the straightest axis. I don't even try to find the spine. The case of personal experience I am referring to came about on my first build. I had read books and articles saying if you're not building on the spine, you're not building it right. So .... I found the spine on the first blank I built on. It was pretty pronounced. I marked it, not even thinking about the straightness of the blank, dry fitted my grips and reel seat, placed the guides, using static load to place them all but the butt guide (it was a casting rod) I held up the rod and sighted down it to align the guides, and the blank had a curve in it. A curve that I could see.

I don't care what anyone says, but I am not going to have a rod that I hold out and see it curving to the right or left. You want someone to tell you your rod's not built right, let them hold it out and see a curve in the blank. lol

So now I look for the straightest axis of the blank and place the guides so that the weight of the guides and gravity straighten it out. If it's a casting rod I put the guides on the concave surface of the blank. If it's a spinning rod, I put the guides on the convex surface of the blank.

I acually did spine the fenwick.. And to my surprise, it was spined at the factory..

I did the same thing on my first build.. It has a curve to the left.. The second is along the spine but straight as an arrow..

I completly hear ya there... Im at a crossroads of weather its wortg finding or not..

You may wish to consider this: [www.rodbuilding.org]

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

Ive seen that experiment before.. Im curious to see how much of a diffrence it acually makes.. Spine orientation is supposed to help with load on the back swing of a fly rod, or orient opposite to give improved accuracy on casting aim.. Is it even really noticeable?.. I think from spineing my spin rods it improves sensitivity slightly.. But its here nor there since i dont have identical rods.. Every one is different.. I can honestly say that with my fishing situations, i would never get my rods anywhere near there breaking point.. I almost always go with the middle to low end of the suggested line weight.. Ah.. Theres a question relevent to this thread.. How do you use the IP to figure safe line weight? I know how to get oz. For lure weight..

I just got home from work, and just for fun checked the spine again.. I know i did it when i first found out about rod spines, and yeah.. Without a doubt lol its one of the most domanant spines ive ever felt.. I had to put the bend with the guides on the outside of the spine in order to roll the blank.. So.. Obviously, they are oriented on the inside of the bend to answer your question.. Seriously though.. You can barely roll the blank.. (Just so theres no concern, i only applied about 30° bend.. I know some guys you see take the blank all the way to 90, thats way to ecessive in my own opinion)

Anthony,
Actually, you want to do a favor to yourself and any clients for which you may ever build a rod.

Do flex every blank that you ever build on to 90 degrees. Every rod out there should take a 90 degree bend without hurting the blank. If the blank explodes when you do the bend, you have just saved yourself a lot of work on a defective blank. Obviously, when you are doing the bend test you want to be flexing the blank as if the blank were catching the fish of a lifetime. i.e. the bend should be spread through the blank as though it was fully built and the bend was being caused by a fish pulling on the end of the tip and then the line was creating the bend under line tension.

If that happens, return it to the seller and ask for a replacement.

Better you find a defective blank before you spend 30 seconds working on it rather than spending a bunch of time and money on the blank and then have the rod break on the first fish that is caught on the finished rod.

Good luck

Oh, i do give new blanks a proper test.. But the fenwick? Shes a bit abused.. It would be fine with a full flex, it held up fine on the CCS test.. But i was just getting at there was no need to bend the heavily used rod that far to find its spine..

Wow.. Thats interesting.. Atleast to me.. I just did tested the mhx rod i built.. Man what a diffrence in numbers... The fenwick, advertized as a medium, took 380grams.. The mhx also advertized as a medium took 498grams.. AA is 89° too by the way.. It was advertized as extra fast.. The fenwick was 72° advertized as fast..

So, really? 380 and 498 are both classed as medium.. Subjectively...

And not that this matters what so ever but total weight of the rods... The fenwick clocks in at 112grams ans the mhx clocks in at 126grams..

I find that fascinating the strength of material.. 498grams to bend a 126gram stick...

Anthony, I can understand you basing your thoughts of how powerful a rod should be based on the nomenclature assigned to it by the factory. After all, we all ( I would think) started fishing with factory rods before we started building. When you picked up a rod labeled "medium" you expected a certain feel of power from that rod. And for the most part, you can still get an idea of the characteristics of a rod would display based on the words that a factory applies to it. But at the advice of the very learned members of this site, and Tom Kirkman in particular, you need to let loose of that idea. There is no guarantee of commonality of the terms.One factories medium may be another factories medium light, and so on. And that's not only true in the finished rod industry, it's true in the blank industry as well. There isn't even consistency between the various types of rods or blanks offered by the same manufacturer.

I know.. And i am.. I was just stating for reference.. Im acually really enjoying doing ccs tests on every rod i find lol ive been keeping a log, soon enough i should be able to glance at the numbers and have a decent idea of what the rod is capable of.. Its not as hard as learning a second language.

My halibut rods needed a full 16 oz. Snapple bottle of pennies to CC, so that's how many I now keep around.

LOL Dang Spencer, and I thought I using about a 1/3 of a gallon of water to CC my flipping rod was a lot of weight lol

Ok.. So i have a fairly decent setup for doing ccs now.. 3 different jigs later... But im still having a hard time getting the AA accurate.. The tip has to be in the half circle of the protractor, level correct? Not the tip top.. But the blank itself?