Norman, you got what I was trying convey, exactly. And I totally agree with you. ERN is a fly rod number.At least to me it is.

And Geoff, I agree with you as well concerning how non fly rod power numbers should be listed. As far as assigning certain IPs to certain named powers, that could be a bit sticky as the medium heavy power from NFC could be a lot different than the medium heavy power from Rainshadow. And they are quite different in my limited experience. I have a rod built on an Immortal IMMC72MH. My CCS tests show it has an IP of 1079 grams. It's named medium heavy, but it does not fish like any medium heavy I have ever fished with. It's heavy power all day every day. It's a stick. (that I absolutely love lol )

I have a rod built on an NFC MB709 IM blank. It's named power is mag heavy. My CCS testing shows it has an IP 1045 grams. Less powerful than the Immortal blank, with a heavier named power. These examples show the problem with named powers. And since I have started building rods, I have seen in more differences in named powers, than I have in factory rods.

It's going to be tough to get general consensus as to what constitutes a named power, because opinion comes into play. because actual rod power doesn't necessarily equate to how a rod fishes. One things for sure .... we non fly rod people definitely need something better than what we have now when it comes to named powers, and ERN.


No offense to Dr Hanneman.

"assigning certain IPs to certain named powers, that could be a bit sticky as the medium heavy power from NFC could be a lot different than the medium heavy power from Rainshadow. "

But the descriptors of different companies will have to comply with the objective standards. What you describe is the problem, but the solution is going to a set of objective standards for those now subjective descriptors. The more we move toward objectives the simpler and more accurate it becomes.

I still believe that a setup cou;ld be made to drop a standardized weight, say 5 grams, from a standardized height, and the resultant vibration transmittedwith a transducer to convert to an electrical pulse at the rod handle. The amplitude would show the amount of sensitivity of the rod, and take into account the line, guide placement, and any differences caused by added weight. Since the weight, and drop height of the weight are the known constants, the rest is determined by testing. All rods, no matter what type, could be accurately tested for best case sensitivity in this manner.

I would think that a balanced rod is going to allow you to feel more snesitivity in the rod, as tip heavy, or butt heavy rods will add weight in one direction, or the other.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF

Could be made. . . Do it.

Michael, here is the thing about getting companies to comply with the objective standards, and it ties to what Geoff said earlier. Anglers have developed a framework for what constitutes a certain named power rating. And if they are like me, it is feel related. You can't take feel out of the equation. You just can't. Using the IP range that Geoff suggested for a medium heavy power rod as an example. There is a 250 gram difference between the IPs that would define medium heavy. I have rods that are within 10 grams of having a 250 gram difference in IP, and those rods feel completely different. IMO, the majority of anglers go by how a rod feels when they're fishing it, not by how much weight it takes to load the blank to 1/3 its' length when they think about rod power.

I've mentioned in other threads, how I feel a rod doesn't fish to it's named power, or even to it's specs. It is based on the framework that I've developed, that Geoff spoke of earlier. My framework is based on how the rod handles baits in the weight range it is listed to support. I go by how it casts those baits, as well as how it fishes those baits. It's based on feel. And I am not the only one that judges a rod's power in that way. I see it all the time on other fishing related message boards that I belong to. As Geoff said, that frame of reference is not going away.

I completely agree that there needs to be standardization, but if the categories are defined to broadly, it won't be well accepted. I think Geoff touched on something when he said that we shouldn't shy away from relating IP to subjective named powers. Instead there should be an industry based introduction to it. Blank and rod manufacturers could start posting CCS IP numbers with product information. Get anglers used to seeing the numbers, then make information available on their web sites that educate those that aren't familiar with what the numbers mean.

Not all anglers are going to be interested in the numbers, and there is nothing wrong with that, but the more discerning anglers will investigate. If they buy a rod or blank with a posted IP and AA, because action counts too, and they really like that rod, they will know that if the purchase a rod or blank with the same or similar numbers, that they are going to be buying a rod that will feel like the rod they really like. Once they get familiar with the numbers they will be able to use them to choose rods or blanks that may be better suited for different baits, and specific techniques.

I for one am glad I took the time to learn CCS. and see how great of a tool it is for selecting a rod, or in my case, a rod blank. I was majorly excited when Rainshadow introduced the new line of RX 10 Eternity blanks. I got even more excited when I learned Batson was going to be supplying CCS numbers for each of the blanks in the line up.

I won't say that I wouldn't have gotten one of the blanks without them supplying the CCS information, but having the CCS numbers for the RX 10 blanks allowed me to pick a blank that I knew I would be happy with. Actually happy is an understatement. I am ecstatic with the blank I chose.

Anyhow .... CCS numbers are a great tool. Manufacturers just need to get anglers and rod builders used to seeing the numbers, because I truly believe that anglers will take it from there. I know a lot of rod builders will.

Yes, feel cannot be taken out of the equation. But the more objective we become in our specs the better we will be able to duplicate the feel we like.

No system will be perfect, but when you have a single blank that one manufacturer calls M power, another calls it MH, and a third calls it H, then it's easy to see the problem we are living with today. Builders talk about the wieghts of their rods without knowing how the power compares to the rods of other builders. I guarantee it's easier to build a 3 oz 19 ERN rod than it is a 25 ERN.

I can envision the NFC chart ("CCS Universal Rod Rating System" [www.rodbuilding.org] ) with colored bands along the gram scale, one color for Light, one for Med Light, etc etc.

I agree that feel is very important. I also submit that feel means different things to different people. A person throwing Rapalas, spoons, and crank baits wants to feel the action of the lure as it travels through the water. Feeling a rod load is less important in the casting stroke. A long distance surd caster wants to feel how far the cast has gone, as well as the fish strike. A fly rod angler fishing nymphs, and streamers wants sensitivity over the other feelings provided by the rod, so as to feel the bait bump bottom, or a fish gently sip it in. One casting dry flies needs to feel the line straighten out and load the rod on the back cast, and feel the fish gently sipping in dry flies that weight almost nothing. So there is no one size fits all, as there are too many different feeling requirements.

To me, the important criteria are as follows: is the rod strong enough to handle the target fish species; will it get the bait/lure/fly where the fish are; are the guides the correct size, and placed properly, are the rod and reel matched properly?

Years ago, I bought an Ugly Stick ultra-light rig, believing .the hype printed on the little attached card, and the brand's reputation for being tough. And for $20, they were pretty durable rods. Even so, I was uninformed about the limitation of the rod.

Wello, on a particular day, I was fishing with a buddy from a canoe, and the fish just weren't biting. So to amuse ourselves, we had a little contest to see who could cast the furthest. I attached a Little Cleon in a size that i thought would cast a mile, and snapped off a cast. The Cleo was too heavy, and the cast accelerated too quickly. I snapped the end right off of that rod, on the forward cast. Knowing the action of the rod would not have helped. Knowing the overall tensile strength of the rod would not have helped. I'm not sure that knowing any criteria given by a manufacturer's numbers would have helped. Sometimes, only experience can give us the knowledge we need. Some tings just need to be learned the hard way.

It's true that a standardized set of measurements in the industry would help us choose the right rod, or rod blank for a given purpose. After that though, knowing how to use that rod properly comes into play. Just as importaantly, as rod builders,, knowing how much bling the customer desires is important. Doe the customer want jewelry quality agate stripping guides, or prefers a bare-bones no frills rode that offers superior performance, and is feather light? Is the blank color important, or transparent thread wraps? are they particular to a specific brand, etc. There are so many variable to consider. You would need a super computer, with an awful lot of algorithmic models to make rod building nearly foolproof. So, do we have any master computer program witerd among us? I can write a program to control a light tracking device, (did that in my senior project at the university I attended), or a fly-by-wire- aircraft control. I would hate to have to tackle the job of making a master program to design a fishing rod. But I ca build what a customer wants with knowledge learned by experience, research into best components, best practices, and reading remarks fro others who build rods.

Like Mark Talmo, I am here to learn, and to improve my craft. The man inspires me. However, there is only so much I can learn by reading numbers. Better knowledge come fro reading about what has worked to resolve issues by others, so I don't have to make the smae mistakes they may have initially made, or I have made. Our combined knowledge is far greater than anything a product manufacturer can provide. And remember, their job is to sell their merchandise, and at the highest reasonable profit. They will tell us what they think we want to hear. Some, are bette than others tough, and that info again can be learned by reading evals from members of this board.

Keep learnikng; keep building; and make your rods the very beast you can.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF

The more objective we can get our specs the more "feel" and "experience" will correlate with the specs. The more predictive it will become. It won't come immediately.

Again, thank you to all who have contributed to this topic of “Blank Harmonics”. Although I still have not received a definite answer to the original question of HOW to “ring a rod” or “bounce a blank”, WHAT to listen for , and WHAT the emitted tone signifies, the wealth of information, ideas, suggestions, and opinions regarding blank harmonics (vibrations / tones / oscillations = FREQUENCIES) has produced an outstanding base of knowledge from which all of us can benefit.
Dr. Hannerman started it all and blessed us with his revolutionary CCS (IP, AA, ERN) = POWER and CCF = FEEL. They were unprecedented and worked very well back then and are still a viable method for comparing blanks and rods today, albeit more so (as intended) with fly rods. While they can be used for casting and spinning blanks and rods as well, it is a bit awkward.
Although sincerely seeking information concerning rod -ringing or blank-bouncing, to be honest my posting of “Blank Harmonics” was also a disguise to discover support for Michael Danek’s TNF, another form of blank harmonics. Michael has insisted on distancing TNF from CCF to avoid seeming to “one-up” the Dr.’s contribution. But the two are obviously very similar, only Michael’s is better = easier and more precise = measuring the oscillations of an unaltered blank / rod tip set into motion (frequency).
But TNF is a DIFFERENT frequency than the tone emitted from “ringing” the blank. If you will, one is VISUAL and the other is AUDIBLE. But, simply due to the fact that BOTH frequencies come from the same source (the blank itself) my pea brain suspects they may be interrelated. I am very interested in learning the results of Kent Griffin’s audible frequency tests and applaud him for offering to conduct such. How to compute the possible interrelationship is beyond my capacity.
Many amongst us consider that there may be a relationship between frequency and sensitivity. Dr. Hannerman’s CCF concerned itself with “feel” where Mr. Danek’s TNF concerns itself with “sensitivity”. Therefore, since the measuring methods employed by CCF and TNF are so similar, again in my pea brain, it seems reasonable that “feel” and “sensitivity” may be related.
With all being said and done, and in the end, all the analytical measuring in the world will never replace the actual in-hand feel of a blank or rod. But BEFORE all is said and done, and BEFORE the end, precise measurements of a blank or rod can be invaluable in identifying or comparing them to enhance the builder, or even the angler, in the selection process. I envy some of the veterans with their vast experience and old-school methods, like rod-ringing, to pick-out and decide upon the perfect blank to build; it wouldn’t surprise me if some of them can “smell” the perfect blank. While they may still benefit from the “measurements”, my adolescence in rod building requires such. I want to be just like you guys when I grow up!!!
In the meantime, I need to rely upon the unselfish contributions afforded this craft by gracious people such as Dr. Hannerman and Michael Danek (in this instance). And there are many others who have contributed as well in other aspects from which I and many others have benefitted. A heart-felt THANK YOU to all who contribute positively!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

A few more words on feel. I maintain that if two blanks have the same length, the same wieght, the same AA, the same IP, and the same TNF it will be possible to build them into rods that feel very close to the same. All are objective measurements, but by using them it will be POSSIBLE to duplicate feel. Of course if one adds weight differently to the blanks, the rods will not feel the same.

A very popular request on building forums is advice on duplicating an old rod or blank that is no longer available. Using the normal subjective descriiptors is an exercise in futility. Using the objective measurements above makes it possible and pretty likely that it can be successfully done.