Yes Phil, it may cost less to measure and publish that data, but it will not eliminate or reduce the marketing and advertising costs, it will be "in addition too !'

Your pursuit of hard data is admirable, but to many of us, the current "adspeak" seems to enable us to build and sell custom rods to our customers satisfaction. This ability does mean we should be called names!

To try and clarify my point, I am going to approach this from a different angle

In Phil's opening post, he uses the words "desired ideal" How is this desired ideal arrived upon? Logic would dictate it is arrived upon through a general consensus. A general consensus of who? Experts? What qualifies these persons to be experts? And what is a consensus? A consensus is a majority of opinion. Opinions are about as subjective as you can get. And what if I don't agree with the opinions of the experts?

Everything about building and using a fishing rod, is subjective.

Besides, I am of the opinion that the minute any scientific data is used in the description or sale of a product, it becomes ad speak. The refractive nature of fluorocarbon fishing line is scientific data that has been measured. Mentioning it makes it ad speak. So in reality the problem seems to be not with ad speak itself, but with the vernacular used in ad speak.

Hmm ........ Brand X rod casts like a dream vs Brand X rod casts like a rod with an (insert sine and cosine functions) oscillation frequency.

Rods are listed by length in actual feet and inches. Is this "ad speak." They could, of course, state something like "This rod has been designed with great care by experts to provide the perfect length for those long distance hook sets required in order to enjoy success in this type of fishing." No doubt it might sell more rods but I'd rather just know how long the rod is, in feet and inches.

It is important to remember that custom rod builders are much more tuned into the actual characteristics of rods than the average fisherman is, or even wants to be. The marketers know the best way to reach the fishermen, but perhaps not the best way to reach the rod builders. Given the numbers of fishermen against the numbers of rod builders, this shouldn't be surprising.

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

Tom: What "naked blank's specs" do you refer to other than length and weight?

If I have power, action, length and weight, in actual relative and objective numbers, you can hand me a set of components and I can pretty much know what I'm going to end up with - how much and what is going to be affected.

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

Tom: I am trying to find the best way to find the right tool for the task, whether it be deep jigging for grouper or nymphing for brookies. I have NO idea what the parameters of a "medium action" blank are in numbers or any other standard measurement. Undoubtedly the choice of components will play a big part in determining the performance characteristics of a completed rod but I am certain that measured physical characters of the blank - beyond length and weight - would be welcomed by a large number of rod builders and rod buyers. Anglers don't buy "medium" or "large" lines or flies?

Do you know what is considered a "cold day" so that you know when to wear a coat? Doubtful, but if the weatherman says it's going to be 25F, you'll probably wear a coat. Same thing with a "long" rod. Exactly how long is long? Depends on who you ask. So having relative numbers is the key. Rod builders would certainly welcome as much information as they can get, but the larger market is among general fishermen so marketers do what they know how to do.


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

It seems to me when I build a rod after selecting the components based on past experience and it performs to my or customers expectations then some parameters such as natural frequency is what it is. Even if I knew what the natural frequency was before the build I would not let it influence me I would select the same blank build it the same way and achieve the same results, a good performing rod.

Natural frequency is another piece of data, to some it is very important to others just another piece of data.

As I said above if the finished rod performs and meets expectations then natural frequency is what it is.

I have a customer who wants to know the difference between a medium-power 6' blank and a heavy power blank 6' blank and whether the difference is measured in ounces grams, or grains, and where this info is available. I fear the next question will be the difference between a medium-fast blank and a fast blank and how this speed is measured. I realize nobody knows the answers to these questions and I don't like to mislead people. Should I just build on everything "medium" - rod blank, guide size, guide weight, thread diameter, grip size? That would be a "medium" rod, not a custom rod - except for price.

Action is generally listed by "where the blank initially flexes." If this is in the upper 1/3rd of the blank, then it is a fast action rod. The upper 1/2, then it is a medium action rod. The lower half, then it is a slow action rod. The trouble with this system is that it lacks good resolution. Even by adding additional points such as medium-fast and extra-fast, you're still only at 5 points and haven't upped the resolution to any real degree. You could have two "fast action" blanks that meet the criteria for that rating, but one is faster than the other even though they are both fast action blanks. With the CCS AA ratings, if you see that one has an AA of 78 and one has an AA of 79, the one at 79 will be faster and you'll know this simply by looking at the numbers from the outset.

.........

Thanks, Tom. Once the physical properties of rod blanks are quantified, understood and accepted by rod builders their customers will deserve to know what these numbers mean. The downside is buyers won't buy as many rods before they find the action and power they are looking for.

I am in total agreement in presenting all the data available to produce the best possible rod.

Even if all the data is understood by the builder or the customer they may not appreciate the phenomenon unless they experience it.

Try describing acceleration to some one and they will nod in agreement, but put them in a high performance "muscle car" and put the the pedal to the metal then the true effect of acceleration is realized.

The point is that merely describing properties is not enough, demonstration is a better means of representing a rods properties.

I have about a dozen different styles of fresh water rods and blanks that the customers can handle and "feel" the differences in power and action. This makes it easier for the builder or customer to finalize the build.

Phil, are you measuring CCS numbers? If not you are missing a tool that will answer many of your issues. The more you use CCS the more valuable it becomes, and the more questions it answers.

Michael: Unfortunately the CCS numbers for rod blanks have not been kept up over time: many blanks with CCS numbers are no longer made/sold, while many new blanks have no posted numbers. This severely limits the usefulness of available CCS data. I wish we could shame rod-blank marketers into providing customer with actually useful information about their products, whether CCS or some other objective measurement. I have had enough of "fast, lively, soulful, powerful, delicate, responsive, quick, sensitive, elegant, thrilling" rod blanks, thank you.

Same with cork - there exists a cork grading scale with a percent clarity and photographic chart. But most stick to terms like "flor" "super" and "AA" and not a single one of those has any sort of clarity measurement behind it. Flor can be anything from perfect to rotten. The truth is, manufacturers don't want you to be able to make relative comparisons. Sadly that's just the way it is.

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

Phil's original question referred to oscillation, which became a discussion about recovery, which became a general discussion about quantifying characteristics of a blank.

It seems to me this subject has become more important with the evolution of higher and higher modulus blanks. We have a HUGE range of oscillation (recovery) these days ranging from glass to E-galss to high-strain carbon fiber but, as Phil mentions, no one has quantified the differences in the "feel" of these blanks. Tom often mentions the "stiffness-to-weight" ratio but I have not seen a number attached to it in the form of a stock number on a blank. Heavy glass "wags" substantially. Stiff, light carbon "wags" very little. Does anyone have the resources to assign numbers to these two extremes and develop a rating system?

zero = no wag
10 = Ugly Stick

Seems it could at least be as good as the "power numbers" many blank makers use now. The numbers might be inherantly subjective but they could provide a relative comparison. Food for thought.

PB701MF-4 would be slightly heavier and recover slower than a PB701MF-2. The single number would address (in a quick reference way), the weight, modulus, sensitivity and recovery of blanks that today appear identical on the label.

CCF does, and has a chart to approximate the figures so rod builders have some idea of how to relate the numbers to objects they are already knowledgable about.

...........

Phil E, CCS is easy to measure and one does not need the big 4 x 8 sheet of pegboard to do a good job on measuring. You appear to be ignoring a very powerful tool which would achieve at least some of your objective objectives (please forgive the pun, couldn't resist) while at the same time complaining that you have no objective data.

If you had a log of the CCS data for the blanks you've built, and a customer came in with a request, you could ask if he has a rod close to what he wants. Get it and test it, and you can come very close to what he wants.

I check the CCS values for all the blanks that I receive and while there are some variations between manufacturers, for each manufacturer their descriptions of power and action are correct in that their fast actions are faster than their moderate actions and slower than their Xfast actions. Their medium powers are more powerful than their ML powers and less powerful than their MH powers. I am familiar with most of the major manufacturers and what I describe is true of the ones I've tested. Recommended casting weight is objective and a pretty good tool complementing the others we have.

I have had only one blank that was not accurately described. It had a very stiff butt section and a very fast tip and was called a ML power but it tested more like a M or MH power. I think the tip to butt contrast confused the company. It is a great rod which is very versatile with regard to casting weight. It can cast light lures well and has very good power for handling big fish.

Add CCS to your arsenal of tools and knowledge that you've accumulated with many builds and you will be have much more than "adspeak." You know which materials will have the fastest recovery and highest frequency, at least as trends. For example, if someone asks for fast recovery and crisp feel, you won't be looking to glass to get it.

I am not enthused to find or buy new blanks and THEN determine their CCS values, and the anglers who prefer vague judgments such as "medium" to describe the performance of their blanks deserve what they don't get. It's up to rod makers/importers/retailers to provide something besides hogwash to describe their rod blanks.

The CCS is, perhaps, the very best blank measurement tool ever devised (although it simply works on the same principle as a tape measure or bathroom scale). But Phil is correct that until the manufacturers begin listing CCS values for their blanks its usefulness is held in check to a great deal.

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