Unless you're taking the measurements you don't have to bend anything or add up any weight. Just look at the AA and ERN numbers for relative action and power ratings. The goal has always been for the manufacturers to take the measurements and publish the numbers in their catalog or web listings. Then you use these CCS number just like you do the Loomis numbers, but they will apply across the board, rod type to rod type and from one manufacturer to another.

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

If you look at the first post in this thread a guy asked what the numbers meant. 3 or 4 posts under that another guy starting telling him that the numbers were about bending the rod back 1/3rd and using weight. Too much trouble for me and most others I think.

Norm was explaining how the numbers are obtained but you don't need to know any of that in order to use the system. Just look at the numbers like you do the numbers from Loomis or anybody else.

And for the record, the terms AA and ERN are proprietary terms of the Common Cents System. They do not apply and should not be used by the "RDA" or any other system that does not use the same constants to obtain them.

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

Bob Daiels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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

This is what Bob, the original poster, stated. So to answer his question I briefly defined the meaning of the various abbreviations and how the numbers shown were derived. I also stated that these numbers are used for comparison purposes and really don’t mean much of you don’t have something to compare them to. I should have stated that Point Blank, to their credit, is one of the few companies to publish such CCS data. From what I understand NFC will also begin publishing CCS data for their blanks. If my reply was confusing to some, I’m sure it made sense to others. The reply I gave did answer Bob’s question.
Norm

"I think you're taking the statement as indicating that a single number represents all three characteristics. . ." No I was not.

I'll repeat this statement to emphasize that Dr. Hanneman thought more of the true natural frequency than he is now being given credit for: " 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)

Mike,

Action is not speed nor is speed action. I have never confused the two even in articles going back 25 years now. The Glossary on this website, which I wrote 20 years ago, says the same thing.

Dr. Hanneman would not have used "true natural frequency" as part of the CCS because he knew that most do not understand the significance of that number. He wanted his system to focus on relative numbers for simplicity purposes. He felt that was enough and thus the CCF was his choice for speed comparisons.

..........

I should add, and I'm sure most don't know - the Common Cents System wasn't created for custom rod builders. There's some unknown history there that I'll go into when I have time later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2022 11:55AM by Tom Kirkman.

Rod blank frequency discussions have nothing to do with the original post, so I apologize to the original poster. However, I do agree with Micheal. I also think Dr Hanneman would have used natural frequencies, if, at that time, there was an easy and reliable method for measuring it without the need for expensive equipment. In today’s world Micheal has come up with a very easy, simple, and reliable way to measure natural frequency using FREE internet frequency apps. Since almost every one now has a cell phone, tablet or computer, there is no need for additional expensive equipment. It only takes a few minutes to generate very reproducible results and these results are certainly relative for comparing one blank to another. Using Micheal’s method, I measured the natural frequency of over a dozen blanks in a very short period of time. It sure beats the original CCF analyses described by Dr Hanneman, wherein a blank is loaded from the tip with its IP weight, then set into motion with the oscillations counted per unit time. That CCF method has always seemed extreme and not very relevant to me, so I never used it after trying it a couple of times. It’s a shame that Dr Hanneman is no longer around to give us his opinion. Maybe this discussion should be moved to a new thread, so it’s not lost.
Norm

Dr. Hanneman told me many times he would not use natural frequency for his purposes of relative speed. He might now measure it that way, but he would have assigned a relative scale like he did for AA and ERN. What I’m saying is, he would not have recorded it as “natural frequency” because that would lead to most consumers asking “what the heck is that?” He would have assigned a simple whole number scale, maybe 1 to 10 or 1 to 20, or whatever resolution he felt was required, and just stated that the higher the number the faster the speed.

Those of us who knew Dr. Hanneman personally for many years found his genius lay in his ability to make things extremely workable and yet simple enough that very little in the way of explanations were required.

Funny thing is that under his intentions neither rod builders nor fishermen would have ever been taking any of these measurements. It wasn't intended for them.

..........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2022 12:59PM by Tom Kirkman.

Thank you Norman for your always helpful and rationale comments.

". . . assigned a simple whole number. . ." and thus take the result from true experimental observation into the realm of subjectives. He was a very smart man, and I would trust his "assignment" more than any other I can think of, but it still would cost credibility since it was assigned based on human judgment and not actual data.

I think most of us are smart enough to know the difference between 400 cycles per minute and 500 and don't need them reduced to an arbitrary number like 14 and 16. In fact, the actual true natural frequency is very easy to understand and evaluate. Makes more sense than 14 and 16. When you add stainless guides to a blank and see the natural frequency drop 100 cps, then try titaniums and see it lost only 50, you know you're getting something for your money with titaniums. That's easier to understand than observing an assigned number change of "it started at 17, now it's 16.5."

The assignment of ERN numbers which roughly correlate to fly rod weights and line weights makes logical sense since we all are pretty familiar with the basis of them. More so than the actual data numbers of grams or pennies. So I can see that. I don't see the same argument being valid for true natural frequency.

If Dr. Hanneman didn't think builders could get real value out of taking, understanding, and using CCS measurements, that was probably his only real misjudgment.

But I'll bow out. If anyone wants to know the process let me know by email. It's open.

If you put "400 cycles per minute" in a rod or blank catalog next to "natural frequency" you'd confuse and confound 95+% of those reading it. And manufacturers aren't going to spend a ton of money on trying to educate people about something most have no interest in. It's not a matter of being "smart enough" it's a matter of how much effort or trouble the average consumer in your market is going to go to in order to understand certain things related to that market. You have to see the big picture and know the market and who comprises most of it. A scale of simple whole numbers derived from natural frequency would be infinitely more acceptable and useful to the average fishing consumer than the natural frequency figures themselves. Absolutely, positively no doubt about it whatsoever.

Dr. Hanneman intended the CCS as a tool for rod and blank manufacturers, not rod builders. I was the one that suggested we take it to the rod builders and perhaps if enough picked up on it, the thing would migrate to the manufacturers from there.

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

K.I.S.S. And I would bet money that most fishermen would agree. Probably most rod builders too. We're not stupid but we would rather build rods and go fishing than have to study the science behind somebody's informational gobbledygook.

Some people want all the information they can get and some don’t. Different stokes for different folks; that what makes the world go around. If you want information you can get it, if you don’t then just ignore it.
Norm

You know what just looking at the manufacturers power ratings and lure weight ratings can get you? It can get you buying a rod blank that isn't anywhere near what the manufacturer's numbers would lead you to believe it would be.

Some years ago Emory Harry wrote some very good scientific articles for the magazine which regarded issues such as "sensitivity." Each time he was very disappointed that those articles failed to generate any sizable number of comments or questions, particularly when compared to the amount that pour in for articles about flocking a grip or painting a rod blank. But as I told him, few rod builders and fewer fishermen yet, are interested in that level of information. The research and work I've done regarding fishing rod grip and handle ergonomics is what I regard as the most important work the magazine has ever published. And yet, those articles also failed to generate a great deal of interest. But I publish these type articles so that the people who are interested on that level at least have the information available, even though they may be in the great minority.

All this goes back to understanding your intended market. Any rod rating system that requires more than a bit of intuition to understand at a glance won't ever be accepted or used much by the general fishing population. This is why the ratings systems that are used by the manufacturers are so simple, right down to just a short scale of whole numbers - these companies know their market and they know the people who buy their rods and blanks. The bulk of their customers are not at all "stupid" but neither are they interested in going very deep into the science or mechanics of rod ratings. Rod builders, I hope, would like and appreciate a bit more information as to the "how" and the "why." And yet, across 25+ years of being in the rod building information business I have learned that the vast majority of them are not interested in diving in as deep as you'd think... at least not where the science of matters resides.

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

Hello Tom.

This is the only one I found with a quick search:

Vol/Issue -------------------------------- Article ---------------------------------------------------Author ------------Page.
10/1 Sensitivity (What is it? What makes one rod more sensitive than another?). By Emory Harry. 28
6/6 Blanks: Characteristics, Properties and Terms, Part 1. By Emory Harry, And Jack Hurt. 28
7/1 Blanks: Characteristics, Properties and Terms, Part 2. By Emory Harry, And Jack Hurt. 16
8/3 Guide Weight And Rod Performance. By Emory Harry. 22

P.S. I got a little time and found 3 more.

Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2022 04:02PM by Robert A. Guist.

That was the article specifically on Sensitivity.

........

I learned only a couple months ago that Dr. Hanneman was a gemologist (or whatever the proper term for that is). One of his big contributions to this field was developing an accessible and affordable system and instruments for evaluating gems. He opened a door for so many people who were interested in this field, but could not afford the expensive equipment, etc. I thought this tied exactly to his same genius in the CCS. What a great human being, IMO! Dr. Hanneman had a mind and heart for the common man. The CCS is an easy to grasp and accessible system for me if I want to compare rod blanks...and do it myself.

Personally, the more reliable and repeatable data the better! I'm a curious and geeky type. Whether others need or value that sort of thing is up to them. What, where, and how that data is used in marketing, I don't know.

I enjoyed the discussion!

Leslie,

The "data" would only be the action and power ratings, and possibly the speed for rod and blank models. Nothing really to do with marketing. Nothing about how the measurements are taken or what they are based on would need to be mentioned. The systems out there now are used by millions of anglers and none of them have ever bothered to ask how Loomis, Fenwick, Talon, etc., etc, come up their respective ratings. They just look at the numbers and intuitively know that the higher the number, the greater the power.Some catalogs had and some may still have an action illustration with references to the Fast, Medium and Slow terms. That's it.

Rod builders who want to take their measurements would need that information on taking the measurements, of course, but the system was devised for the manufacturers who would simply be supplying the ratings to their customers.

..........

Thanks everyone for the reply's. I now know a little about the numbers which is 100 percent more then I new before lol. Thank.
Bob.

The "science" pertaining to fishing rods that Tom Kirkman speaks of is based upon measurements and numbers, not superlatives and feelings. Different strokes . . .