So I did what I said I'd do. It became apparent very early on how useless this information will be for everybody else. Please show me the hands of those who own a Mitchell DigiFlex meter, just as I thought. These are the results. Rainshadow RevCB70H. 4" clamp,50g tip weight w/1" depth. Beam length first, CPM next. 70"=103, 60"=109, 50"=118, 40"=133, 30"=161, 19"=219. I'll continue to test every blank I receive and compare notes. If any world shattering results occur, you'll be the first to know. Thanks for letting me be me!!!

What is your ultimate goal by taking the measurements? Is it a more sophisticated form of CCS?

Jeffery,
First of all, congratulations on acknowledging the status quo but not necessarily following it. Broadly/generally speaking, attempting to measure any aspect of a fishing rod’s characteristics really boils down to consistency of the measurements. Dr. Hannerman graciously and intellectually afforded the entire fishing industry with a relatively simple formula to calculate such with ERN, AA, CCS and CCF derived from both static and dynamic measurements in the hopes of universally standardizing any particular rod’s action and feel. Unfortunately for the entire industry, such has been basically ignored = what a shame and it is a loss to all.
I am unfamiliar with your mentioned “Mitchell Digiflex Meter”. While I can only assume it does not include a dynamic measurement of a rod’s “feel”, it could very possibly afford a consistent enough base in which to PRELIMINARELY COMPARE one blank to another. None the less, consider adopting Dr. Hannerman’s gracious gift of CCS and CCF, as should be the across-the-board industry standard.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

I like the spirit and the commitment.
Now figures can be used raw just as a means of comparison but it's always better to attach some kind of interpretation to them. What would you say is to be learned from them ? How quick cpm go higher when the beam shortens?
Can't wait to read some commented comparison between similar blanks.

_______________________________________________
If I'm not going to catch anything, then I'd rather not catch anything on flies.

Prostaff Rodhouse
[www.rodhouse.fr]

I commend your methodology. build golf clubs as a hobby as well as fly rods. Frequency testing of golf shafts has been done for some time. While one can get a standard, one measured location of frequency and try and match your iron shafts via frequency, it is not really an indicator of overall shaft characteristics, flex or bend point -- tip stiff, butt stiff, etc. If you look up and read some of the Tom Wishon golf shaft frequency measurement tests, he takes the measurement at various lengths along the shaft, as you have with the rod blank, thus producing an overall frequency or shaft/bend profile. That is much more useful to builders and golfers. But golf, like fishing rods, has no OEM standards or true measurements in this area. It is only done by club builders or rod makers. Wishon and others had developed a pretty good data base of shaft profiles. It would be great to have something like that in rods. But it takes a @#$%& of a lot of work.

A well - designed guide train can reduce line friction but the difference in casting distance and accuracy are apparently impossible to substantiate so far as I know. I have never seen a credible study - one which stated experimental method used and distances observed in feet and inches. Regardless, a rod, any rod, can only pull a line, not push it.

Lures pull lines. Sounds like a good business opportunity is open here.