What articles are "must read" to understand how the CCS system of rating rods works?

Try these.
[www.common-cents.info]
Norm

Thanks I just found the simplified version... the one my brain can handle. lol
The first article made my eyes gloss over. Not only that I found it difficult to use for non-fly rod applications.

Basically, the Intrinsic power (IP) of a blank is the weight required to bend the blank 1/3 of it’s total length from the horizontal when supported at a point equal to 10% of the blank’s length. The Action angle is the angle of the blank tip when the blank is deflected 1/3 if it’s length. ERN is a conversion of the IP that takes into account the weight in grains of various fly line weights, and the ERN numbers are not linearly related early on, but are useful for choosing an appropriate fly line. For casting and spinning rods IP and AA are all you need for describing power and action of a blank. Although higher ERN numbers do mean greater power. It’s not that difficult, but I do agree reading about these measurements can make your eyes glaze over.
Norm.

ERN was used for the power rating because it uses simple numbers. Same difference with IP however - it's just a relative means of comparing power between one blank and the other. ERN works equally well for spinning and casting rods.

The first article contains the reasoning and development of the system, but just like the computer you're using now - you really don't have to understand how it works in order to use it. Most people don't know what the basis for the inch or pound is, but they know that 10 inches is longer than 5 inches and 1 pound weighs less than 8 pounds. Same system.

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

Where in the CCS does it say that rod is to be supported at 10% of its length? I must be blind because I've read the 1st article numerous times including just before making this post, and I can not find it. The CCS IP tests that I have done on rods have been done with the rod supported just behind the reel seat, which means that I have been supporting the rod more than 10% of its length. That's going to make my numbers off.

Norman? HELP !! lol

David, it is in the Simplified Common Cents System. Here is the quote from that article in the helpful hints section.
“In order to provide relative results for your own work and to help ensure that your measurements will be relative to those of others, it is recommended that your forward support be no further along the blank than about 10% of its total length. For a 9 foot fly rod this would equate to a point about 11 or so inches from the butt. On a 7 foot bass rod it would equate to about 8-1/2 inches.”
Hope this helps,
Norm

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David, it is in the Simplified Common Cents
> System. Here is the quote from that article in the
> helpful hints section.
> “In order to provide relative results for your
> own work and to help ensure that your measurements
> will be relative to those of others, it is
> recommended that your forward support be no
> further along the blank than about 10% of its
> total length. For a 9 foot fly rod this would
> equate to a point about 11 or so inches from the
> butt. On a 7 foot bass rod it would equate to
> about 8-1/2 inches.”
> Hope this helps,
> Norm

This is correct. Only way to provide relative results.

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

Norman, thank you for directing me to the Common Cents Tips. Yep there it is, plain as day. Personally I'm wondering why that information isn't mentioned in part 1 of the Common Cents System. After all, it is the section that outlines the procedure. Ah well .... looks like I have some new texting to do. It will be interesting to see how much difference there will be in my numbers.

Thanks again for the heads up. Much appreciated.

The 10%, like the flex to 33% of blank length, is simply a convention so that all measurements are made the same so that as Tom says, they relate to each other. If done properly all CCS data are relateable. Anyone's measurements are usable by anyone else. It could have been 12% and 38%, or any other reasonable numbers. There is a rig design that doesn't take up all the space of the 4 x 8 sheet of pegboard, also. It's a little harder to use, but works well.

since there is a good deal of work done by hand to make a blank, i wonder how much variation there is in CC numbers of any one rod model..i hope it,s better than tip diameters..lol.

From my experience I'd say the variation is reasonable. Some brands are better than others, with the premium blanks I've measured being very consistent. I measure all my blanks so it's easy for me to see what "holes" I have in my arsenal, and easy to meet the needs of my avid son. When dealing with some brands, like Point Blank, AnglersResource publishes CCS in their detailed specs, and I correlate very well to their numbers.

It would be nice to have the CCS data BEFORE you buy the blank!

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be nice to have the CCS data BEFORE you
> buy the blank!

If enough rod builders asked for this information from the manufacturers and/or only bought blanks with the information, you'd see things change in a hurry.

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

For those of you looking to buy a premium non-fly blank, Anglers Resource, Point Blank, provides it. Pac Bay provided it on Quickline blanks, not sure if they even sell them now. Having the data on all your blanks and rods from all makers gives you the insight to interpret just which Point Blank will fit your needs. It would be nice if all makers immediately provided the numbers , but most wouldn't know what the numbers meant. First step, start measuring all your blanks and rods. See how it increases your knowledge.

For me personally, unless there is a conversion chart that I am not aware of, the numbers that Point Blank provides are meaningless. Their CCS numbers are given as an ERN. I get the whole, a number is a number thing, but if you don't know what the number equates to, what good is the number? Is there a chart that lists how much weight an ERN is?

My question is ....... Point Blank lists their RDA in grams, why don't they list their CCS numbers in grams as well?

Things that make you go hmmmm?

David,

ERN is not grams (and RDA is just a knock-off of the CCS Big Picture article - it's not relative unless your handle is built to the same length as the rod that was measured). The number equates to the other numbers. Higher ERN numbers mean more power. Lower numbers mean less.

What does the length of an inch equate to? It doesn't matter. It's relative and people quickly get the idea about how long an inch is. The CCS is the exact same system that we base our length, weight, temperature systems on. Use it and you'll quickly get the idea. So try this - measure a few rods that you have now and record the ERN for each. Then you'll know what a unit of ERN equates to because you'll have a rod with that power right there in your shop. In no time you'll get the idea of about how much power is identified by a unit of ERN just as you once learned about how long an inch is or a pound weighs.

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

David, unhide your email or email me. I have the conversion charts that you might be interested in having. There use to an NFC IP to ERN conversion chart in the library but it’s no longer there. NFC at one time published the CCS numbers for all their blanks but they no longer have it available, although this data has been archived it is hard to find.
Norm
PS - I agree ERN is a useless number unless you have a conversion chart or conversion program.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2020 07:08PM by Norman Miller.

Why is ERN useless? I must be missing something. Which is more powerful - a rod with an ERN of 5 or one with an ERN of 10?

Knowing how many grams or ounces it takes to deflect to the required measurement tells you zero - that is NOT the amount of weight the blank will cast or handle.

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

You cannot explain to somebody how much a pound weighs and there is no reason to anyway. You know that a higher number weighs more and a lower number weighs less. If you want to know just how much a pound weighs you feel it. Same with the ERN of a blank. Remember ERN came first and was easier and somebody, Hanneman?, translated it to IP for what purpose I have no idea.