David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What if AA wasn't expressed as an angle? What if
> it was expressed with a number that nobody knew
> what it was?

In my opinion, the better way to have versed the AA figure, would have been to simply call it "action" and leave the "angle" part off. The numbers could still be written as they are recorded, higher indicating faster actions and lower number indicating slower actions. The problem isn't the numbers - it's the term which includes "angle." To the consumer "what the heck does that mean?" It is easily possible to give the consumer too much information - more than they need or even want to know, and thus leave them scratching their head or discounting the numbers completely.

The CCS is so easy to explain - "The higher the ERN the more powerful the rod is. The higher the AA the faster the action is." That's absolutely all there is to it and nothing more needs to be stated in order for it to fulfill the function for which is was intended.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is that the old tackle shop salesman
> "Adam's Apple" test for sensitivity wasn't a good
> test after all. I'll save the story for an issue
> of RodMaker. I still laugh about it whenever this
> comes up.
>
> ..............
Awesome...I have a similar story (actually from the same era) about being able to feel a crack in the floor...

Another thank you to all the responders; with over 100 posts and almost 1500 views, it is obviously an interesting topic to many. I plead Urkle = did I do that? LOL I wonder if as much attention and debate has been given to “Rod Harmonics” since Dr. Hannerman gave us CCF? I am certainly unqualified to offer much in the way of the technical aspect of harmonics, vibration, tones and pitches, hence just satting in the bleachers and watching the game. From my perspective in the stands, there seems to be three teams; the veteran Dr. Hannerman with his CCF, novice Michael Danek with his TNF, and rookie Kent Griffin with his tone analysis (TA). The way I see it, taking the best player from each team will produce an unbeatable AllStar team.
Both TNF and TA measure a blank’s frequency BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES; TNF measures the, for lack of a better term, mechanical frequency (MF) whereas TA measures the tone frequency (TF). One is not better or worse than the other. But it only seems logical to utilize both to acquire the ultimate rewards.
TNF is a simple, accurate and repeatable method of measuring the natural MF of a blank or rod when the tip is put into motion. TNF can not only compare the MF of different blanks, but is sensitive enough to detect and measure minute changes such as guide frame material or that extra coat of wrap epoxy. I am very impressed with the promise of TNF and thank Michael Danek for his time, effort, devotion and unselfish willingness to share his findings.
TA will be a method to measure the TF of a blank or rod and is in the design stage orchestrated by Kent Griffin. I applaud Kent for taking on the project and am anxious to learn of his findings.
Apparently, there are quite a few (myself included) who think there is a correlation between TNF and sensitivity or TA and sensitivity. If that is the case, then it makes sense there may be a probable or at least possible correlation between TNF and TA, kinda like 2+2=4 or 3+1=4; different approaches yielding the same answer. We will have to wait and see after the completion of Kent’s project.
One way or the other, it is obvious that this site includes and enjoys a vast array of experience, expertise, talents and intellect from many different fields. I feel fortunate because I am here to learn.

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

Norman, I can see your point. And even though I could say that common sense should tell you that you aren't going to cast something that weighs 560 grams, or 19.75 oz. we all know that common sense isn't common in everyone.

And Tom, I agree with you on the comparative nature of CCS. That's what it's for and it does the job quite nicely. I just can't relate to ERN.

Right now I can look at the door of my computer / rod building room. Using an ERN type number, the door is 5 away from me, Looking down the hall I see the door to my master bedroom. That door is 17 away. The smaller the number the closer an object is. So using those numbers I know that the door to the room I am in now, is closer to me than the door to my master bedroom. So someone asks ........ 5 what? 17 what? My reply would be feet. What would be the reply when speaking of ERN?

David, I just don't see the problem. 5 and 17 in rod power isn't any different than 5 and 17 in feet.

If I have a rod that I like that is ERN 17, and I want to get another rod with similar power, I look for another 17, I don't look for a 5. It's all relative. One might take exception to the fact that it's not exactly linear, but it's close, and it's relative. The higher the number the higher the power. Like with feet. The higher the number the farther away it is.

David,
Don’t feel rained-on and alone! I have also wondered why ALL blank’s power ratings are not simply stated in grams, pennies, whatever. Apparently the fly guys have more clout than the other forms. But it has been like this for years and will never change. To me, it would be much more logical to measure ALL blanks by X amount of weight to deflect the tip 33.33% of its length; X would need to be universal, so pennies would be out, grams would be perfect. The fly guys would have their conversion chart to line weight and the rest would have their chart to lure weight. In fact, after getting comfortable with the method, many would not need to convert X to line or lure weight due to becoming comfortable with what X grams represents. Think about it; what’s the difference with that and what this entire topic is suggesting to do? For Blank Harmonics / sensitivity, we are suggesting a simple RELATIVE, COMPARABLE scale; higher frequency = higher sensitivity, simple as that. Why does line or lure weight have to be so complicated? Yes, I realize the excuse of dealing with the masses, but that was our fault at the beginning. And yes, I realize that attempting to change it now would be like trying to push sewage against the tide!!!

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

Michael ....... regarding your TNF data ...... why do you express your data in cpm? What is cpm? Cycles per millisecond? Cycles per minute? Cycles per millennium?

Going by your latest response, and the responses you've consistently given on CCS ERN numbers, you can't define it. And it doesn't matter what cpm is anyhow, because it just matters that one number is higher than the other, and that higher numbers are better.

Sorry, but without knowing what the letters cpm represent, the data you're collecting is useless. Even to you. If it's a measurement, whether strictly for comparative purposes, or otherwise. It has to be defined.

Mark ..... amen !!!

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael ....... regarding your TNF data ...... why
> do you express your data in cpm? What is cpm?
> Cycles per millisecond? Cycles per minute? Cycles
> per millennium?
>

I'm not Michael, but I still wanted to address this comment.

This subject was covered in the preceding pages.

Some want to use CPM or cycles per minute rather than the standard or common way of measuring frequency which is done in cycles per second. You can look at any audio equipment going back to 1950's whether consumer or professional equipment and see that 99.99999% of the time frequencies are always measured in cycles per second or hertz, not cycles per minute.

I raised the alarm on this issue because the use of cycles per minute is actually a way of hiding the fact that the results of tip twanging measures in infrasonic results which is distinctly different than the actual tone or pitch of a rod blank that we can all hear when tapping on a rod. So this so called TNF value is really something different than a rod blank's actual dominant resonant pitch tone. The CPM results cannot be heard by human ear but tapping a rod can be. Use of cpm is hiding this fact.

Another issue is by way of using CPM instead of CPS is a way of fluffing up the numbers to create an illusion of difference with some space in between by use of numbers only.

I showed that when the CPM results were converted to the industry standard of hertz that every single rod TNF results measured all fall within a super small window of frequencies of around 7 to 10 hertz. All of them. So the actual perceptible difference is so small at that scale it is almost imperceptible. So the results as measured in hertz are done away with to create numerical results that appear to be higher in value than they really are, and are hiding the fact they are indeed infrasonic and beyond human hearing, and gives a way of creating an illusion that there is actually a greater difference in rods. Now if one were to convert their tip twanging results into CPH those rods would really "look" far more different than they really are.

By way of scale a magic trick is being played.

Frequency should always be measured in cps and hertz so they can be more easily understood, but doing so exposes the fact those results are infrasonic in nature and puts all rods into so close of a comparison as to render this "view" of judging rods based on such measurements as barely usable.

I brought up a couple of analogies to try and show why on previous pages. This cpm or 7 hertz to 10 hertz results across most rods is a super small window to view what rods can do. Think about it- only 4 hertz to work with. 4 !!! And right next to zero! Sort of like trying to look at the whole world through a peep hole, or trying to judge how well planes can fly by how slow they roll on the tarmac, or trying to judge a full range sound system by only the bass frequencies.

The method can give you an idea, but it is a rather vague incomplete view in my opinion. Myself and other members have been discussing this in private and we have all basically come to the conclusion that tip twanging does nothing for us so why bother with it? The information about our rods that some of us seek goes far beyond the limited range of 7 to 10 hertz where all of the rods are crammed into. If they got any closer to zero you would see no difference. Gotta move away from zero further to really begin to see and get a far better point of view on rods like into the actual range of frequencies humans can hear and maybe even go off the scale in the other direction away from zero.

They claim adding weight lowers these already incredibly super low 7 to 10 hertz values even more or, closer to zero below 7 hertz. Closer to zero is not much data to work with or from.

CPM is to me an unacceptable scale to use because right from the get go it is deceptive and hiding an obvious truth. It can't be heard while tapping a rod can be. They are not even close. They are NOT the same thing. And, they tell us the TNF is changeable due to added weight while a rod blank's dominant natural resonant frequency that can be heard is not changeable by the addition of weight. Only a physical structural change of the object can change that frequency, so this is another reason to discount something called "true natural frequency" because if weight can change it, then it is no longer true nor natural, it is now an untrue unnatural frequency changed by the addition of weight. It goes from a perceived TNF based on uncalibrated random tip twanging to UTUNF. Even doctor Hanneman said as much.

Now if they chose to use cycles per millennium it would really make the results look like there was some space or difference between rod blanks!

There are other ways of measuring what a rod blank can do. And as such for my own purposes I have no use for any random tip twanging method with infrasonic results that are not even close to anything that our ears can tell us. In my opinion custom rod builders should work in the same scale that everyone else in the world works in which is cps or hertz.


> And it doesn't matter what cpm is
> anyhow, because it just matters that one number is
> higher than the other, and that higher numbers are
> better.
>

Please keep in mind in scientific testing to prove something it must be precisely repeatable. Tell me how you can calibrate one tip twang to the next?

So if the rod blank stimulation cannot be calibrated so that every tip twang is PRECISELY the same, how can the results be trusted?

Calibration is required or the results can be all over the place.

And so what do tip twangers claim?

That random tip twanging creates the precise same frequency but at different amplitudes and so therefor the results are consistent and usable.

I have argued some against this belief that tip twanging keeps a consistent speed throughout the process from twanged to motionless. And I plan on using digital measuring devices to record the tip twanging process to determine more precisely what is going on so this theory can be proven or disproven. Right now I am of the opinion that due to air resistance and decreasing power to swing the tip and shorter tip swings progressively to zero does change more than amplitude, but until I can prove it is useless to debate it.

Tip twanging is a rather vague way of judging a rod blank in my view and I reject it at this time.


> Sorry, but without knowing what the letters cpm
> represent, the data you're collecting is useless.
> Even to you. If it's a measurement, whether
> strictly for comparative purposes, or otherwise.
> It has to be defined.
>

They have tried to define it and hide its resulting values in cpm to cover obvious truths while at the same time basing the whole process on random tip twangs which to all should present a scientific problem right from the start.

I'll say it again, tip twanging can give one an idea about their rod or rods, but it is a very vague and rather narrow view without calibration and outside of standard normal range scale.

And I stand by the opinion that if one is going to measure frequency then it should ALWAYS be measured in common terminology and correct scaling so it is easier for all to understand. CPM should be done away with and replaced with CPS measured in hertz only. Reveal the truth and stop hiding it behind an illusion scaling.

----------------------------------ADDED

This has to be said... as I have my suspicions but will wait until confirmation, but it needs to be said.

How accurate do you think tip twanging is? Is every single twang of every rod tip precisely the same? The answer is no, that would be impossible to do. And, is it measured at the precise appropriate time to get an accurate reading? One second off can completely throw off the results so not only must tip twangs be identical and precise, but the timing of measuring must also be identical and precise and it is simply not possible for this type of "method." Another issue is in allowing a twanged tip to hit an object like cell phone used to measure the rod's behavior. The very fact the tip has to physically hit an object is changing the results. hitting an object has what effect on tip twanging? It is slowing it down and even preventing accurate tip swings from occurring period. And these facts of the method should not be so easily ignored and overlooked because...

I would venture my suspicion to say that this method is NOT 100% accurate- or even close- and now what needs to be determined is the extent of the percentage of toleration this method is off. Is it 1%? 3%? 5%? 10%? More?

Do you believe the results are 100% accurate for a method that cannot even be calibrated? And herein lay the problem combined with the next to zero resulting numbers for this method.

And when dealing with frequencies so close together within a 4 hertz range only- and so close to zero (7 to 11Hz) any deviation from 100% accurate will result in rods being misread and given a place on a list of sensitivity from high to low that may not be correct and you could wind up purchasing a rod that this method tells you is more sensitive than another rod when the opposite may be the truth due to the inaccuracy of this method.

One rod measures 7.233333Hz while another rod measures 7.2666666Hz, and now calculate into these values various percentages of toleration inaccuracies (plus and minus) and what can happen to where these rods are placed or stacked on a list that is declaring one rod to be more sensitive to another when in fact the reverse could be the truth due to the inaccuracies of this method itself?

This method delegitimizes itself and renders itself virtually valueless for any attempt at using it for rod sensitivity measuring. I am merely pointing out and exposing its flaws and bringing an end to the confusion over combining the differences between infrasonic frequency results to that of audible frequency response. Before I brought this distinction out, this forum was trying to discuss two different things same as one and the same- until now. Not only confusing, but deceptive and misleading. And it has to be said. It needs to be known. And now it is.

Dr. Hanneman said tip twanging was for one purpose and one purpose only to determine how fast a rod settles down. Nothing more and certainly NOT rod sensitivity data to judge from. This is an unfortunate assumption arising from this type of data being misapplied- even if it were 100% accurate which it cannot be.

Do you want to be deceived into purchasing a rod or rods based on false misleading information? I surely do not.

Those who propagate this method are insistent their results are 100% true and accurate- and allow for no inaccuracies in the method or its results- and will not even allow discussion challenging the accuracy or relevancy of the method or its results. And for all of us to believe this claim of flawless 100% accuracy and play along with it is in my estimation a mistake to do. It must be challenged so we can all learn to know better.

Maybe one day the custom rod community will thank me for helping to do away with junk science! This forum has quite a bit constantly being pushed as the latest and greatest.



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2022 12:38PM by Kent Griffith.

David, From my original post on natural frequency: "Time/Div: I set it to 20 ms/div. “Div” is the bolder lines on the screen. Between “Div” lines are 4 time sections. So if the period is measured as 4 Div lines and 3 smaller ones, the period is 4 x 30, or 120 ms + 3 x 5, or a total period of 135 ms. 1 / 135 x 60,000 yields a frequency of 444.4 cycles per minute, (444 cpm)." Dr. Hanneman used cycles per minute when initially discussing natural frequency. It's just a choice-it could be anything you want. Just convert.

Regarding ERN and CCS, David, I suggest you read the info available in the left margin of this site. I can't go into all of the basis for it in this string. If I can help with specific questions, please email me and I'll do my best.

Kent: I mentioned a long time ago that I have an app that effectively measures the frequency of the ringing of the blank. You don't need a bunch of expensive equipment to measure it. I already have data on a few blanks. Do you?

There is nothing random about the TNF process.

TNF is the natrual frequency of the blank. When you add guides or other weight you are changing the blank to a rod, another object. And the natural frerquency of that object, or system, is not the same as the natural frequency of the blank. It is lower because weight has been added. We fish with rods, not blanks, so the natural frequency of the system (rod) that we fish with is of interest. It is a direct indication of the revovery rate of the system (rod) , which is slower than that of the original blank. We are not changing the blank; we adding to the blank, thus we are creating a new system and the natural frequency of that system (rod) is different from that of the blank. This is the last time I'm going to try to explain this to you.

If you don't like the process don't use it.

Why are you so hostile? You've rejected it, so why don't you just leave it alone until you have some solid data to back your assumptions? You have presented an idea that likely has merit. But you've spent more time and effort trying to delegitimize TNF than you have in developing your idea. I already have more data on your idea than you do.

Count per minutes is what we get, so that’s how it’s expressed. We are not measuring the ring tone of a blank or its ability to transmit vibrations. We are measuring the natural frequency/oscillation of the blank. As stated many times before, nothing more nothing less. This is in the context what Dr Hanneman wanted to quantify in a relative manner in his article concerning CCF. Mick’s method quantifies the natural frequency in an absolute manner, and this measurement method is inexpensive, easy to do, and extremely reproducible. Because of the reproducibility of the data it’s obvious that this is not a random process. It is also obvious that the method is sensitive enough to measure frequency changes when additional weight is added. It is also obvious that some are unwilling to accept or understand the natural frequency data for what it is. As Mick states, if you don’t believe that natural frequency is important than just ignore it, and develop methods to quantify various blank attributes you think are important. Kent I suggest you read Dr. Hanneman’s CCF article again.
Norm

Kent, you're not even close to what I am speaking about. Direct your posts to the members that you have a problem with their testing. I am speaking strictly as to it would be nice to know what an ERN number represents as far as the amount of weight an ERN number represents.

Michael, you are missing my point all together, and I don't mean to sound as if your numbers are useless.

When I said in my prior post,about cpm, that "you can't define it" what I meant was, that you are not allowed to define it. That you simply have to present it as a number. And if I ask you what it represents, you can tell me cpm, but you can't tell me how many cpm. You can only tell me the number, and tell me that a blank with a TNF of let's say, 11? .. (in homage to the movie "This Is Spinal Tap" .... Spinal Tap's amplifiers went up to 11) is better than a blank with a TNF of 8. Now other than for comparative purposes, what do those numbers tell me?

Absolutely nothing. Just like ERN.

Anyhow ...... that's all I got.

David, what TNF tells you is a direct indication of how fast the blank or rod recovers from a deflection. If you also believe, as I do , that sensitivity to a bite is proportional to TNF, then it also tells you how sensitive the blank/rod is. But there is no direct, objective test for sensitivity, at least not that I know of.

If your blank has a natural frequency of say 500 cpm, and you tape on SS guides and get a natural frequency of 425, you know you have lost significantly in recovery speed. And maybe sensitivity. If you then tape on titaniums and get 475 then you know you have sacrificed less in recovery speed and maybe less in sensitivity. Is it worth the money? Only you can make that decision, but at least you have something objective on which to base your decision.

I have tested blanks of similar power and action that tested in the range of 400 cpm. And others in the range of 550 cpm. If you are looking for a fast responding, highly sensitive blank to build into a rod, which are you going to choose? Because they don't have the same price, it's not a clear cut decision, but you have some objective data to help you.

I hope this helps, if not, keep coming with the questions.

Excuse me, but I really do not understand what all the fuss is over CPM, whether it be Minutes, Milliseconds or Millenniums. Whatever scale is utilized, it will be a constant. It just so happens the scale of the programs used for measuring TNF is recorded in Cycles Per Minute. Mr. Danek’s findings of blanks typically exhibit a TNF of 400 - 600 Cycles Per Minute which seems to be a perfect resolution to detect minimal weight changes to the blank; and it does that. I see no requirement or advantage in expressing TNF in Cycles Per Second as with measuring tone frequencies; THEY ARE DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES. For those who do, simply multiply TNF by 60. Actually, because the ARE different, it may be ultimately better to distinguish the two blank frequencies with different cycle durations.
Michael’s TNF was designed to measure / count the number of Cycles / Oscillations (which is a frequency) Per Minute of a blank which has had its tip set into motion; it does that and does it precisely and repeatedly. The fact that I cannot humanaly hear such a low frequency is of no importance for this measurement. However, Kent’s suggested approach to measuring the “tone / ring” frequency (in Cycles Per Second) is very interesting and possibly as valuable as well. I am anxious to learn of his discoveries.
Apparently, it is not understood BY ALL that we are concerning ourselves with 2 DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES!!!!!!!!!! Michael’s TNF deals with and is only associated with measuring the “mechanical” frequency of a blank tip which has been set into motion. Kent’s approach is to measure the harmonic “tone” of the blank. While THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT, I suspect that they are interrelated. That is why I am so anxious to learn of Kent’s findings. I am here (or is that hear) to learn.

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

lol ..... Guys .....you still aren't getting what I mean.in my last few posts. When I brought up TNF in my last couple of posts. it was to compare it to ERN. They were to put TNF in the place of ERN

When you express TNF you express it in a value of cpm. What value is ERN expressed in?

Get it?

I am not slamming CCS and ERN as comparative tools. I'm not slamming TNF as a comparative tool. All I am saying is that to me, identifying rod power in a value of weight, I personally would prefer grams, would be more useful than an ERN number.

That's all I am saying lol

ERN is just a number which is related only to blank/rod power. It is a derived/manufactured number and has no units. It is meant only to relatively compare one blank/rod to another for power. I tried to explain how/why it was derived earlier. But TNF (true natural frequency) and ERN (Effecive Rod Number) are totally unrelated. One does not in any way depend on the other. If you want a number that that is DIRECTLY related to blank/rod power then use IP (Intrinsic power) which is the grams it takes to deflect the blank/rod to 1/3 its length when held properly under the CCS protocols.

I agree that for what we are trying to do now, not what Dr. Hanneman was trying to do many years ago when his focus was on fly rods, we would be better off using IP.


Finally, to repeat, you cannot compare or relate ERN to TNF or vice versa. They are apples and oranges. Or maybe better, apples and pumpkins.

David, I've reviewed the CCS info, and in my opinion, Dr Hanneman did not give much info on how he assigned ERN values. But it was done to correlate rod power to fly line weights for fly rods. And it is not linear, IP vs ERN. . But it is what it is, a number to allow us to compare the power of blanks/rods. An ERN blank of 15 is more powerful than a 14. An ERN blank of 20 is much more powerful than a 14.

David - I think I know what you are talking about. Since ERN is a relative scale for power and it is not expressed in any type of measurement unit. It was initially based on the weight of fly lines. If you are just buying a commercially made rod, it may work just fine; the higher the number the more powerful the rod. This is very similar to the relative power ratings for fly rods, a 5 wgt is more powerful than a 4 wgt, but less powerful than a 6 wgt, again no measurable units involved. However, for a rod builder ERN is quite unsatisfying, we want to know the actual weight it takes to bend a rod 1/3 it’s total length. ERN does not do that, and since it is not linear or proportional, one needs a conversion chart or program to get an IP number. If you don’t have the conversion chart or program you are out of luck. I much prefer the use of IP vs ERN. I think reporting direct measurements with units is the way to go, since it’s simple and logical. For example, IP = grams, AA = angle degrees, and frequency = CPM. This allows one to actual measure these blank attributes and to directly compare then to other blanks. As Dr Hanneman believed, Frequency is related to ‘feel’, which includes recovery, and possibly sensitivity. The higher the frequency the faster the recovery and maybe the higher sensitivity. Blanks with a similar IPs and AAs, but different frequencies will have a different feel. So all three of these blank attributes are important for comparing blanks and identifying a blank that has similar attributes to your favorite rod, or the type of rod you want.
Norm

Most of us have experience dealing with numbers that have no units. While not ideal, we can do it. Examples are Mach number. Credit scores. That pretty girl one had a crush on in high school. She was a 10 , most likely. From Mickey Gilley: "If I could rate them on a scale from one to ten
I'm looking for a nine but eight could work right in
Few more drinks and I might slip to five or even four
But when tomorrow morning comes and I wake up with a number one
I swear I'll never do it anymore"

The scores given in gymnastic competitions.

Relative density

How about fishing rod sensitivity? We all have opinions on that and have discussed it exhaustively, but we don't even have a scale let alone a unit.

For what we are doing now with the CCS being applied to rods other than fly rods, yes, it would make the most sense to talk IP (Intrinsic Power as measured) with grams units rather than dimensionless ERN. But I submit we can handle it either way once we understand ERN.

Just a reminder, the wonderful chart published by NFC is in the Library, 3rd item down. [www.rodbuilding.org]

Regarding the IP vs. ERN debate, I'm a strong advocate of using IP and have never understood using ERN. Tom has made the case several times, but it just DOES NOT jive with my line of thought on this topic. I feel that the way two-handed fly rods are rated with a range of grains vs. a line number is a huge leap forward in rating fly rods. I also feel that CCS IP would be an even better way to rate power for fly and gear rods alike. The problem is that when it comes to power, anglers have built a frame of reference around lure weight, line class, line number, and plain old power ratings such as medium-heavy. That frame of reference isn't going away.
Here's a controversial statement: rod builders SHOULD NOT shy away from correlating IP with existing subjective methods of rating power such as medium-heavy or 30lb. class. It's the only way anglers will ever understand, accept, and benefit from the accuracy of CCS, which IS a vastly superior form of measuring power & action. For example, I hereby state that a medium-heavy bass blank IP should be between 750g and 1000g. Now, feel free to debate that and give examples of measured IP's from blanks or rods with MH factory power ratings. It won't matter who's "correct" in the court of popular angler opinion. People will merge CCS into their existing frames of reference, realize how specific and accurate CCS is, and then it might have a fighting chance at being accepted by the broader angling public, instead of only a handful of us tinkering rod nerds.

-Geoff

Geoff, Good points, I agree..

ERN made more sense when it was derveloped to correlate a rod's CCS-determined power to fly lilne weights. But we are way outside of that use today for most of our rods. I believe for its original intent and use it has worked very well, and I can see some argument for it outside of the fly rod/line use because it is easy to have a gut level feeling for what it indicates. It's easier to have a good feel for a 20 ERN than it is to have it for 440 grams, or whatever a 20 is. But in time, using just grams/IP, we would gain a good feeling for it.

If we get into discussions about stiffness to weight ratio, ERN just doesn't fit because it is not true power. IP is true power and would be more appropriate as a measure of stiffness.