So there are no data available? I'm told what the capability of CCF is based on what? There has to be some data available if it is known that the process can distinguish between components of different weight.. Someone who is arguing that CCF can tell the difference has to have data to demonstrate it. Data on some typical bass blank. Additional questions: Is it just the running guides that matter? Or do all the guides have to be lighter to get an advantage? Or just the tiptop? Will the answer be the same for a slow action as an extra fast action? There are no data already available from a process that has been around for many years?

As I understand CCF the amount of weight to be added to the blank depends on the power of the blank/rod. The amount of weight was determined to be that which best accomplished the task of moving the natural frequeny of the blank/rod into a range that could be measured by simple tools like eyesight and a stopwatch. And given the quality of all the work that Dr. Hanneman did, I have no argument with it for what it was designed to accomplish. . But the weight to be added does not depend on the action (or length). Is that the optimum solution? Or is it the just the best considering the tools available many years ago to the average fisherman/builder? Add the same weight to a slow action blank as to an extra fast action blank (of any length) and expect the test to accurately describe the effect of different component weights located near the tip?


But in order to get the data one has to attach weights to be determined by the power of the rod, different for every rod/blank of different power, get it to stick on the rod, adequately secure (not a trivial task) the blank/rod, then stroke it. Pretty cumbersome. Maybe that is why there doesn't seem to be any data?

To repeat a point made before, we are now talking about speed/response and not action which is what the original post asked about

>So there are no data available? I'm told what the capability of CCF is based on what? There has to be some data available if it is known that the process can distinguish between components of different weight.. Someone who is arguing that CCF can tell the difference has to have data to demonstrate it. Data on some typical bass blank. Additional questions: Is it just the running guides that matter? Or do all the guides have to be lighter to get an advantage? Or just the tiptop? Will the answer be the same for a slow action as an extra fast action? There are no data already available from a process that has been around for many years?
It is a comparative test. Until you run the test the data does not exist. The format for which you obtain the data is CCF. You can run it without added weight and count the oscillations the same way. Do the same test standardized across the three platforms and find the percentage of variance across each test. The weight of which you add, if any, only needs to be a constant across your tests for the purpose of comparing the different components. To answer your additional questions, test and compare, test and compare, test and compare. Physics logic would lead to a hypothesis that the closer to the end of your moment arm (tip of rod) the greater the impact of mass.

>But in order to get the data one has to attach weights to be determined by the power of the rod, different for every rod/blank of different power, get it to stick on the rod, adequately secure (not a trivial task) the blank/rod, then stroke it. Pretty cumbersome. Maybe that is why there doesn't seem to be any data?
If you have the tools to accurately count the oscillations with no weight added that would be the preferred weight constant IMO. The only reason there isn't data is because you have not ran the tests. You also need to specify which tip tops or guides exactly. Material alone is not enough. The mass is what is what makes the impact. So it would need to be far more specific. IE: Fuji LG #5.5 5.0mm tube sic, titanium / Fuji LG #5.5 5.0mm tube sic, polished stainless etc.

>To repeat a point made before, we are now talking about speed/response and not action which is what the original post asked about.
Yes we are talking about that. The original post has become a catalyst to some critical thinking. While it may be off topic it is at least progressive and not about marketing semantics.

I have my data, (Some, not as much as is necessary to be completely confident, but it will come) but am looking for data from the process (CCF) that has been accepted for many years. To demonstrate that it can in fact do what is being claimed of it. Has no one else that is tuned in here ever run a CCF comparison of titanium vs SS guides on a typical bass rod?

"If you have the tools to accurately count the oscillations with no weight added that would be the preferred weight constant IMO." Bingo!

There are [way] more than enough subjective descriptions of rod blanks, and advertising copywriters continue to use and invent new subjective terms to describe rod blanks with ad claims such as "medium-fast" or "lightning fast" or "powerful" or "sensitive" or "lite" or "smooth" or "responsive" or "soulful" - each of which description means absolutely nothing. I personally am holding out for a "sexy" rod blank.

If you run a CCF measurement on a bass rod, fitted first with SS guides and then with lighter titanium models, the result will be that the latter has a higher rod speed. There is no other possible outcome.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you run a CCF measurement on a bass rod, fitted
> first with SS guides and then with lighter
> titanium models, the result will be that the
> latter has a higher rod speed. There is no other
> possible outcome.
>
> ..............

100% agreed. It is simple physics. How much the difference is for each specific rod will only become evident in testing. CCF is a base scientific test not a universal data catalogue.

If you run a CCF measurement on a bass rod, fitted first with SS guides and then with lighter titanium models, the result will be that the latter has a higher rod speed. There is no other possible outcome.

No argument. I am surprised that no one seems to be able to show any data that indicate that CCF has the resolution to handle this issue. I had a boss one time who told the engineers "No one is allowed to show up without data except Jesus Christ."

Can CCF give an indication that we are getting our money's worth when paying for premium blanks that are supposed to be more sensitive? Since different weights are added for different powers, it would seem like it could only compare blanks with the exact same power. Then there is the action difference that isn't taken into account with CCF.

No disrespect to anyone, especially Dr. Hanneman, but my opinion is that the statement "CCF is a base scientific test" is a bit of a stretch. The weight added based on power was not scientifically determined.

Mark, did your original question get answered? I was thinking about the ceiling test and it occurred to me that while it is valuable for a single person to evaluate his rods, its value in communicating an action description from one person to another is limited. AA allows accurate, consistent, communication. While rods of the same AA can have different powers, their bending characteristics will be all very close to the same and easily understood by everyone who understands CCS.

The difference in cost between different guides and different handles does not explain a six or eight hundred dollar price difference between graphite rods. 30" X 50" sheets of graphite cloth sell for $30 to $50 on line. Rolled rod blanks require very small amounts of adhesive. What is the cause of the 200% - 500% price increase for, say, high-end fly rods? Certainly not a provable increase in distance, accuracy, or durability - or advertisers would mention this.

We can beat against a wall instead of a door and I guarantee there will be no answer. A door is opened for you to do your CCF and collect your own data since you are not satisfied.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference in cost between different guides
> and different handles does not explain a six or
> eight hundred dollar price difference between
> graphite rods. 30" X 50" sheets of graphite cloth
> sell for $30 to $50 on line. Rolled rod blanks
> require very small amounts of adhesive. What is
> the cause of the 200% - 500% price increase for,
> say, high-end fly rods? Certainly not a provable
> increase in distance, accuracy, or durability - or
> advertisers would mention this.

The physical cost of materials to build a fishing rod is the least aspect in terms pf production costs. Somebody has to assemble the rods. Somebody has to package the rods Somebody has to maintain the facility - heat it, cool it, insure it, buy and maintain machinery. And yes, even market the rods sometimes with flowery terms intended to seduce the buyer.

Fishing rod manufacturers are in business to make money. So are the dealers who sell the rods. They charge what the market will bear and evidently there is a market willing to pay many hundreds of dollars for fly rods. And I suspect that most customers who buy these rods are happy with their purchase.

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

CCF was designed to measure the difference in return rate / speed / frequency, take your pick, (for fly powers/actions primarily) between blanks under specific weighted conditions. The measurement process performs as advertised, and does so repeatedly, producing objective results. That sounds scientific to me, and I know it works because I've done it TONS of times. Now, if it doesn't produce the type of results one wants for their desired comparison, a new scientific-based system of measurement is required. There's definitely been some good ideas thrown around in this post. Bravo!

-Geoff

Many angers care less about the cost of a blank or rod than they care about the physical facts/performance of the blank or rod. The physical facts/performance of rod blanks and rods are either unknown, or ignored, or shunned by advertisers and purveyors of blanks or rods. Instead they label products "medium fast" or "powerful" which mean whatever you want them to mean. Quantifying - with numbers - the recovery rate of a blank or a rod isn't rocket science. Many anglers know observed and published facts about the recovery rates of rod blanks are more useful than vague generalizations like "medium" or "powerful" or "soulful" - which mean absolutely NOTHING.

Phil,

You need to contact the manufacturers and the buyers of these rods and talk to them. I suggest any of the many fly fishing forums.Continually whining and moaning about it on this forum isn't going to get you any results.

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

Michael,
Thank you for caring and asking. The answer is yes. Roger Wilson’s “ceiling test” is the first physical, visual representation of a blank’s ACTION I have seen, which firmly established that my previous ASSUMPTIONS of my old Conolons action was INCORRECT. I assumed they were medium to slow action but my CCS measurements showed them to be fast; the ceiling test visually verified they were, indeed, fast. My cause of consternation has been eliminated. The fact the topic has changed course from “action” to “speed” is more than fine with me; I am enjoying and learning = keep it coming!
To all,
While Roger’s ceiling test is a great, quick, visual indication of a blank’s action, it cannot be expected to be very precise and / or repeatable. Dr. Hannerman graciously afforded the industry with CCS and CCF which was (how many years ago?) more precise. CCF was designed to allow just about anyone to measure the frequency of a blank by adding different specified amounts of weight to different blanks to slow the oscillations down to a point in which the human eye could count them over a specified amount of time (20 seconds). For that era and many years since, it proved to be an accurate method which could be employed by the masses. It was, rightfully so, a game-changer and thus widely accepted across the board.
With the advancement of technology, apparently there are new sophisticated methods / programs / apps to measure the frequency / oscillations of a blank which are uncountable with the human eye. It seems obvious to me that employing such advancements can only enhance the precision of determining the frequency of a blank by eliminating any variables of varying added weight.
Michael has devoted a considerable (and honorable) amount of time attempting to employ this new technology from which all of us can gain. I think he is close working-out the final bugs. I am anxious to witness the fruits of his labor.
Most all use and have accepted terms such as “action”, “speed”, “power”, “fast, medium, slow” ect when speaking of blanks and rods in general terms. When higher definition is desired or required, numbers derived from formulas such as CCS, AA, CCF are employed. It seems silly to me for the old, accepted terms to be chastised = like beating a dead horse.

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

The CCS does not label blanks as "fast, medium or slow." It only provides a comparison between blanks showing which is faster or slower than another. So be careful - there is no such thing as a "fast action" blank in the CCS. In fact the CCS was developed to do away with such terms.

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

I think Tom's last comment is very important. The more we deal with AA and ERN the more we get into a position of intuitively understanding what characteristics we want for different techniques. Without using confusing, often overlapping, low resolution, subjective descriptions.

If one rod blank were significantly superior in physical performance to others its builders and marketers would not hide this fact from the angling public, you betcha. I wonder why rod blank makers Never reveal any measured, significant physical difference between their blank and blanks made by anyone else. Maybe there is no significant physical difference?

Phil,

Imagine you make a blank and by all actual measures it is the best. No marketing jargon at all. If you released the technical specs and CCS numbers for that I could copy it and undercut you. Companies not releasing technical information is nothing new. It is called trade secret and it is 1,000 times more powerful than patents when executed. Just ask Coca-Cola.

Phil, there is significant difference in performance..for example, a spinner bait rod withe a soft ttip is going to hook more bass than one with a stiff tip..if the wateris cold the stiff tip is not going to hook any..you will feel the bass pecking at the spinner but your not going to hook him till you go to the softer tip rod..marketers don,t know this, besides there are few rods marketed that have a soft enough tip anyway..

ben: Thanks for supporting my point. Savvy anglers actually do want to know some measurable, physical qualities of rod blanks - not just vague generalities such as powerful or medium.