if a fiberglass rod has a modulus similar to a graphite rod, a weight of a graphite rod and a response time of a graphite rod, is it still a fiberglass rod or a carbon copy..lol..

Is there an equation that solves for ERN when the pennies/grams/grains/ounces are the variable? Tom?

I don't know what you mean. ERN is just a relative power measurement, like the old Fenwick "1-power" "2-power" "3-power" etc. rating.Same as most use today, although they unique to each company.

All systems of objective, relative measurement are based on that relative comparison. Beyond that I don't know what you mean.


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

What I mean is ERN = some term x grams. But it's obviously not linear, so it might be ERN = log grams x a constant or ERN = grams to some power times a constant. An equation that solves for ERN when grams are the given. I suspect there is no equation I suspect that William Hanneman just assigned values that he thought best fit the conditions he was trying to describe.

If you read the original article he states where a unit of ERN comes from. But even that doesn't matter. Just as the "inch" is arbitrary, it's just a matter of relativity. 10 inches is longer than 8 inches. 5 pounds is heavier than 3 pounds. An ERN of 7 indicates greater power than an ERN of 5. It's the relativity that matters.

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

I cannot find where he specifically states where a unit of ERN comes from. It doesn't make sense that it's completely arbitrary. It seems logical that his designations would have been based primarily on matching his new term "ERN" with the then-standard fly line weights so that one could determine a rod's power and accurately match a line to it.

You will note that he never says, for instance, that a rod with an ERN of 5 must be matched with a 5-weight line. It could be and would be a decent place to start but different people fishing at different distances with different casts might like a different line on a rod with an ERN of 5. I'd use a 4-weight line, at most on such a rod. Remember the equations he gave as suggestions - ERN=ELN but also ERN=ELN+1 and so on.

ERN is just a relative power figure. It's the same sort of expressed power figure that just about every company has used throughout the latter part of the 20th century and many still use today. People intuitively understand that the higher the number the greater the power. Only difference is that the CCS is across the board while a Fenwick 4-power is not necessarily the same power as a G.Loomis 4-power. That's the real issue - not where a number comes from (all these relative power ratings work) but the fact that each company has their own proprietary means of determining what power number to put on their rods.

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

Thanks for the insight.

Fenwick, Loomis, etc., got it right when they never bothered to divulge their "systems" for assigning rod power. They understood that the public doesn’t need to know any of that and providing such information only complicates and confuses.

If the CCS has any shortcomings it is due to Dr. Hanneman explaining it in such detail. The idea that you have to understand the underpinnings or where the numbers come from is confusing to the fishing public. It complicates matters that don’t need to be complicated. When someone asks me what the numbers mean I just tell them that ERN is rod power and the higher the number the greater the power. Likewise, the higher the AA number the faster the action. That’s all they need or want to know. Presented that way, I suspect a lot more blank manufacturers would have accepted and begun using it. But all the information on where it came from and why this and why that has scared of lot of them away from it. Sometimes too much information is a bad thing.

...........

" The idea that you have to understand the underpinnings or where the numbers come from is confusing to the fishing public." You may be right, but I find this comment condescending and sort of insulting. It says that most of us in the fishing public are too stupid to accept and understand complex facts. To me knowing the derivation of a concept, or argument, lends credibility to it. While I accept that some would "choke" with more information, it's unfortunate that we are moving toward a society of the "lowest common denominator" rather than a society of excellence by as many as can do it. Sorry to have taken this thread off target, but I think it has been of some value.

It's not condescending at all, just a fact that most people don't care where or how something was derived from or arrived at. They just want to use it. If people had to understand computers in order to use them, they wouldn't. Few drivers could care what makes the internal combustion engine tick. They just want to get somewhere. Obviously, there are some with more inquiring minds, such as yourself, that enjoy knowing where things came from or why certain things are done. But that's not the majority of the population. They're not at all stupid or incapable of understanding, they just have no interest in such things. These are the people that most products and systems are built for. Understand your clientele and you stand a good chance at success.

To this day I've never heard a single fisherman or rod builder ask where Fenwick, Loomis, etc. derived their rod power numbers from. Dr. Hanneman's system is the only one that's ever been questioned - he simply gave them too much information.

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

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Aleks, one of the plusses of e-glass is it,s durability (ding proofness)..does s2 glass retain this durability or at least as much as a low modulus carbon rod..i,m sure not sanding helps with this..Thanks.

Good point. My wife is a very bright lady. Very intelligent. But when we bought our last car she never asked the salesman or anybody else about how the engine or transmission worked. She just wants to step on the gas and drive to her destination. Her biggest concern was the color of the thing, not much else LOL!

Ben,

Yes it does - S2 is more durable than standard carbon and according to the manufacturer (AGY) slightly more durable than e-glass.

Best Regards,
Alex

ben belote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aleks, one of the plusses of e-glass is it,s
> durability (ding proofness)..does s2 glass retain
> this durability or at least as much as a low
> modulus carbon rod..i,m sure not sanding helps
> with this..Thanks.

Norm, All,

I took the liberty of downloading the database and file created by Gib - the sheets were protected from editing and the file was encrypted. No problem.

I recreated the file almost exactly. I say almost because I took out the MSRP from the database (there have been too many changes to the MSRP, and will continue to be over time, and I am not sure how relevant the MSRP is to what the file is trying to accomplish)

Instead of the MSRP field, I substituted it with "ERN" so now, there is IP and ERN data on the database page.

I reset the calculator page to an ERN of 1 (for all of the boxes)

I changed the link colors to blue, to match the rest of the database

I also made sure to give credit to Gib for the original calculator on the first page (since I used its format almost in its entirety)

Now, in case the one drive link gets de-activated, there is an "editable" version available.

I locked the file in the very same format as it was before - if you need to unlock it / add to it / just email me for the password.

NFC can also maintain it - if there is ERN values to add - email info@northforkcomposites.com

Finally, I am not an engineer, so please spot check my calculations - I did spend a half of my lifetime working within Microsoft Finance, and working with complex formulas and excel is second nature. (I sometimes joke that my "real" MBA is in the use of excel) I also spent some time tutoring math at the University of Washington, and can concur that the ERN formula and calculation is not intuitive.

[northforkcomposites.com]

and for the next however many years we will host it here:

[northforkcomposites.com]

Best Regards,
Alex

Thanks Alex, sounds good..

Aleks, I’m extremely happy that you found the data base and calculator to be helpful and that you are willing to maintain it on the NFC website. I thought Gib did a great job with the calculator, it is quite easy to use. Your effort will certainly insure that if the ‘one drive’ link ever becomes inactivated, the calculator and data base will not be lost. Maybe rod builders will finally get their wish and have the start of a CCS data base for comparing rod blanks in a more objective manner. Your effort is applauded and greatly appreciated. Hopefully, rod builders will add new information to the database. I’m certainly not an excel expert, I know just enough to be dangerous. I assume if I want to use/edit the calculator/database at NFC, I need to get a password from you? Once everything is in place, it maybe nice to start a new topic here on rodboard concerning the database and calculator, so the info you posted above is not buried within this particular thread. Thanks again.
Norm

Thanks Norm - agreed on starting a separate thread in the hopes of getting other builders and others to contribute. Thank you also for your kind words.

Yes, please email me at alex@northforkcomposites.com and I will gladly share the PW.


Best Regards,
Alex



Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aleks, I’m extremely happy that you found the
> data base and calculator to be helpful and that
> you are willing to maintain it on the NFC website.
> I thought Gib did a great job with the calculator,
> it is quite easy to use. Your effort will
> certainly insure that if the ‘one drive’ link
> ever becomes inactivated, the calculator and data
> base will not be lost. Maybe rod builders will
> finally get their wish and have the start of a CCS
> data base for comparing rod blanks in a more
> objective manner. Your effort is applauded and
> greatly appreciated. Hopefully, rod builders will
> add new information to the database. I’m
> certainly not an excel expert, I know just enough
> to be dangerous. I assume if I want to use/edit
> the calculator/database at NFC, I need to get a
> password from you? Once everything is in place, it
> maybe nice to start a new topic here on rodboard
> concerning the database and calculator, so the
> info you posted above is not buried within this
> particular thread. Thanks again.
> Norm

There are three elements which interact to enable effective fly-casting: the fly rod, the fly line, and the fly caster. The ideal line weight depends upon the rod AND the caster, the ideal rod depends upon the line weight AND the caster - but ignoring these facts sells a whole lot of blanks, lines, and rods. The tip-flipper, roll caster, and the double-hauler need different advice, lines, and rods.