Hello! Need some info on rod Blanks please. I need to know what • 68-degrees (RDA) • 77-degrees (CCS) and 380gr (RDA) • ERN 18.2 (CCS) means. This is a point blank rod blank. I have built a couple rods but I need to learn more about the blanks.
Bob




Length: 6 ft 9 inches
Action Angle: XF • 68-degrees (RDA) • 77-degrees (CCS)
Power: Med Light / 380gr (RDA) • ERN 18.2 (CCS)
Weight: 1.58oz.
Butt Dia: 13.97 mm
Tip Size: 1.7mm (5.0)
Lure Wt: 1/16 to 3/8oz
Sugg Line Wt: 6-12 mono
10-15lb braid
CLOSE

Hello Bob.

The numbers you are referring to are part of the CCS system, to learn more about it, under the Sponsors list to the left<- read Common Cents Info.


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

Ok thank you Bob.
Bob.

The Common Cents System (CCS) involves determining both the power and action of a rod blank for comparison purposes. Basically it measures the amount of weight it takes to bend a horizontally placed rod blank 1/3 its total length. This weight is defined as the blank’s Intrinsic Power (IP). The CCS Action Angle (AA) is the angle of the blank’s tip section when deflected 1/3 its total length by the IP weight. Effective Rod Number (ERN) is an artificial number derived from the IP. So The higher the IP or ERN the more powerful the rod, the higher the AA the faster action. Rod Deflection Analysis (RDA) is a derivation of CCS. It basically measures the power of the rod by the weight it takes to bend the rod 1/3 its Effective length, which is defined as the length of the rod in front of the handle. The RDA AA is the angle of the rod’s tip section when the blank is bent 1/3 its effective length. Since the effective length of a rod is alway shorter than its total length, the RDA numbers will always be less than the CCS numbers for the same blank. These numbers are useful for comparing different blanks to each other in regards to power and action. Not very useful if you have nothing to compare them to.
Most people here use the CCS numbers, but there are some people who like RDA numbers. So to please both camps Point Blank decided to use both.
The PB691MLXF is an excellent blank it’s one of my favorites. It has more power (IP=512 gm) than almost all of the other ML blanks on the market, and it’s AA of 77 degrees indicates it has what most people would call an extra fast action.
Norm

The Common Cents System uses these terms - AA is action. ERN is power. CCF is Speed. The numbers are relative to each other. Lower numbers indicate slower action, less power and less speed. Higher numbers indicate faster action, more power and greater speed. That's really all you need to know to use the figures.

RDA is a knock off system of the CCS "Big Picture for measuring only a portion of a blank. I'd ignore it.

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

AA is action angle. The higher the number the faster the action. ERN is rod power. The higher the number the greater the power. These are from the Common Cents System although other systems have ripped them off. So make sure you are getting the CCS measurements.

Point Blanks have the highest true natural frequency of any other blanks I've measured. I and a few other builders are measuring true natural frequency, and we all agree that we have not found higher true natural frequencies in any other series of blanks. Not CCF, but true natural frequency which means no added weight was added to the blank; it's just the frequency at which the bare blank vibrates when tweaked. Most who have gotten into fishing rod blanks in depth consider true natural frequency to be a good indication of sensitivity. The higher the true natural frequency, the more sensitive. Before anyone carps about the correlation, no, I admit there is no objective test for sensitivity. I have also found that Point Blanks are very tough blanks, not fragile at all as some high modulus blanks are reputed to be. If you want to have a finished rod which is probably as sensitive and fast responding as it can get, build the Point Blank with titanium guides, as small as you can get away with considering any knots that have to go through the guides.

When Tom speaks of "speed," he is referring to the action description, not the recovery speed of the blanks. The power and action speed ratings of CCS and RDA are static tests which have no correlation to true natural frequency or recovery speed of the blank.

When I mention "Speed" I am indeed talking about relative reaction and recovery speed. The higher the number, the faster the reaction and recovery. The lower the number the slower the reaction and recovery.

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

I belong to a fishing related web site on which, you are able to post emoji's in your responses. They have this funny action emoji of a cartoon character munching on popcorn as they watch the goings on.

This would be a perfect time for such an emoji lol

One thing is for sure, other than popcorn, if you want to turn people away from something - tell them more than they need to know. Make things difficult. They'll move along in a hurry. I shudder to think that anyone would have to know how their car's speedometer works in order to simply use it.

...........

Tom...... so you're saying a head swimming emoji rather than a popcorn munching one? I like it ..... it's a better fit lol

I missed the "CCF is speed" part of your comment. Yes, with CCF, the higher the number the higher the reaction speed (RELATIVE, not absolute). But the other CCS and RDA references to speed are really about action, where the rod initially bends, static measurements.

And CCF adds weight to the rod by an arbitrary (yet somewhat knowledgeable formula) which doesn't really yield the true natural frequency of the blanks. If one wants to know exactly how fast the recovery rate of the blank is , regardless of its power or the CCF added weight formula, or anything else, he has to measure the true natural frequency. And I and a number of other builders have done that.

If William Hanneman had had at his disposal the cheap technology that we have today he never would have proposed CCF. He did it only to get the frequency into the range that it could be measured by a stopwatch.

Do builders not need to know what they are asking for? The meaning of the numbers that they are exposed to and are showing interest in? They are showing interest in expanding their understanding of the parameters that describe their blanks/rods. And you are assuming it's too difficult for them? Sounds condescending to me.

I'm not aware of any other CCS references to speed other than the CCF measurement.

The true natural frequency of a blank does not need to known for relative purposes. Dr. Hannman and I spoke about this many times - he was very much against bothering with true natural frequency. He did not feel that was important in terms of the relative nature of what he was doing.

I am speaking of fishermen, who are the ones that eventually decide if something is going to be adopted or not. In fifty years of simple power numbers as used by Fenwick, Lamiglas and Loomis, no one ever asked them where they came up with the numbers or how they did it. They just wanted to know if one blank was more powerful than another. The numbers sufficed. The success of those simple systems is why they were in, and remain in, many manufacturers' rod and blank catalogs to this day.

.........

X 2 on Norm's comments on the 6-9 MLXF.

The recent article in RM on action and speed, the differences between them and what creates either was about as good as it gets.

The Loomis system seems good enough for me. It has been in use for 40+ years now. The first two numbers are inches in length and the third number is the rod power. So 784 is 78 inches length and the power is a 4. I have no idea where they get the power number or how they figure it and do not care. As long as a 4 is stiffer than a 3 and less stiff than a 5 I’m good. And apparently so are millions of other fishermen. Good luck with the CCS thing. As long as it is that complicated it will never be used by most fishermen or the companies they buy from.

Wayne Hart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Loomis system seems good enough for me. It has
> been in use for 40+ years now. The first two
> numbers are inches in length and the third number
> is the rod power. So 784 is 78 inches length and
> the power is a 4. I have no idea where they get
> the power number or how they figure it and do not
> care. As long as a 4 is stiffer than a 3 and less
> stiff than a 5 I’m good. And apparently so are
> millions of other fishermen. Good luck with the
> CCS thing. As long as it is that complicated it
> will never be used by most fishermen or the
> companies they buy from.



You're mostly correct. The Loomis system is indeed fine, except that they use one power range for bass rods, another for popping rods and another for surf rods, etc. And their numbers don't match the numbers from Lamiglas, Talon, Fenwick, etc. So think of the CCS as being the exact same system but with a single range for all rod types and for all blank and rod manufacturers. So now you can compare any type blank, from any type manufacturer, to another blank or rod on an even basis.

The CCS isn't any more complicated than the Loomis system. The only people that need to understand the underpinnings of the CCS are the people that take the measurements and trying to explain the "how-to" and the "why" to fishing consumers only ensures that it will never be widely adopted. Fishermen don't need to know where it came from or how it works in order to use it. Just use it the same way you do the Loomis system - higher numbers indicate greater power and faster action than lower numbers do. That's all there is to it.

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

"Lower numbers indicate slower action, less power and less speed. Higher numbers indicate faster action, more power and greater speed." This statement uses "speed" terms in speaking about action, where the rod initially bends and also referring to the actual speed of the blank response, right? . Usibng CCS numbers.

Here are some interesting quotes from Dynamic Characterization of Fly Rods Frequency and More (CCS Information, part 5)


Emory Harry, “In my judgment resonant frequency is
the single most important characteristic of a rod. All of the
other characteristics of a rod will show up in resonant frequency, stiffness, modulus of elasticity, action, power,
weight, etc. ...”

Knowing the frequency of a finished rod would
indeed be useful for those who understand the significance of that number. Unfortunately, there is no
easy way to make this determination without
employing some rather sophisticated instrumentation. Consequently this value would have to be
supplied by the rod manufacturers, and presently,
they have little incentive to do so. (Quote from the article, written by Dr Willam Hanneman)

I think you're taking the statement as indicating that a single number represents all three characteristics when 3 numbers would be involved for all. Action is not speed and speed is not action. So a lower AA number indicates a slower action. A lower ERN number indicates less power. A lower CCF number indicates a slower speed.

Dr. Hanneman was only interested in providing a system of relative measurements. We discussed this many times. He left the resonant frequency stuff to "those who understand the significance of that number." And that's not the general fishing public.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wayne Hart Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Loomis system seems good enough for me. It
> has
> > been in use for 40+ years now. The first two
> > numbers are inches in length and the third
> number
> > is the rod power. So 784 is 78 inches length
> and
> > the power is a 4. I have no idea where they get
> > the power number or how they figure it and do
> not
> > care. As long as a 4 is stiffer than a 3 and
> less
> > stiff than a 5 I’m good. And apparently so
> are
> > millions of other fishermen. Good luck with the
> > CCS thing. As long as it is that complicated it
> > will never be used by most fishermen or the
> > companies they buy from.
>
>
>
> You're mostly correct. The Loomis system is indeed
> fine, except that they use one power range for
> bass rods, another for popping rods and another
> for surf rods, etc. And their numbers don't match
> the numbers from Lamiglas, Talon, Fenwick, etc. So
> think of the CCS as being the exact same system
> but with a single range for all rod types and for
> all blank and rod manufacturers. So now you can
> compare any type blank, from any type
> manufacturer, to another blank or rod on an even
> basis.
>
> The CCS isn't any more complicated than the Loomis
> system. The only people that need to understand
> the underpinnings of the CCS are the people that
> take the measurements and trying to explain the
> "how-to" and the "why" to fishing consumers only
> ensures that it will never be widely adopted.
> Fishermen don't need to know where it came from or
> how it works in order to use it. Just use it the
> same way you do the Loomis system - higher numbers
> indicate greater power and faster action than
> lower numbers do. That's all there is to it.
>
> ..............


Well everything I read says you have to weight the rod and bend it back by 1/3rd and then add up the weight needed to do that. Too much trouble when I can just look at a power under in the mfg's catalog.