Michael. it's pretty clear from a currently running thread, and my posted opinions in other threads, that I will never be a fan of ERN numbers. But that is just my personal feelings

Be that as it may .... and this just may be my thinking, but action has a lot to do with how a rod feels and fishes, power wise. The rods that I've built that I would consider heavy power, have IPs close to, or over 1,000 grams. They have much stiffer tips than the SJ 736, which is why I feel the SJ 736 fishes lighter than its' named power, of heavy. It may be able to cast a 1 oz bait, but I certainly wouldn't use that heavy of a weight with it. IMO it just doesn't have the tip power for that kind of weight.

Awesome blank though.

David, I was just thinking that you have a real aversion to ERN, not sure why. It's just a number. But I think you understand it, you are rebelling against it. It seems to me. But the fact that you're using IP grams indicates your acceptance of objective power numbers. There seems to be a growing displeasure with ERN in favor of IP grams. This is not going to go over well with some folks on this forum. But I think they will just have to live with it. I think progress is being made.

Yes, action has a lot to do with how a rod feels. No doubt about it. And many fishermen don't get it, that XFast action rods of the same power as moderate action rods will have softer tips. At some power levels, Xfast action rods can feel a little sloppy.

It's pretty complex.

Michael, scv series 7’0” medium fast, blue. St croix casting blank.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2022 05:47PM by Thomas Kaufmann.

Aleks,
I just weighed my sj725. It came in at 3.69 with longer carbon real seat grips and rear grips along with double nut MVT seat and using size 4 titanium sic’s as runners.

Skeletonize an ECSM and cut down its barrel, drop the RV6 in favor of a single foot 6, and use 3mm over the 4’s (titanium of course) as well as use a shorter 2.5 “ real seat rear grip and this will easily get VERY close to the 3.0 mark you are looking for while maintaining all day comfort.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2022 05:56PM by Thomas Kaufmann.

Michael, I have the aversion to ERN for the reason you stated. It's just a number.

I definitely understand CCS and what ERN is. CCS is a set of measurements to compare one blank to another. ERN and AA are comparative numbers. Period. It does it's job quite well. My saying it could be modified is not a slight toward CCS nor is it disrespectful to those who developed it. I certainly understand reluctance to change, because not all change is good. But it isn't all bad either. And IMO if we are looking for a wider acceptance of CCS to the point where blank manufacturers and rod makers actually start using it. it needs to express its] data in more relatable forms.

Again. It's no disrespect to the system. It's pretty darned ingenious, and does exactly what it was designed to do.

Thanks, Thomas. Thanks, David.

567= about 19.7

Thank you Michael.

Many moons ago when I was building for bass fisherman who were all about weight savings, I did hit the 2.9oz mark on 7' MH action sticks from the early MHX High Mod line and the Phenix UMBX line. At that time I was weighing everything, all components. I found that the lightest comfortable seat I could get was an ECSM that I split and re-shaped. I was using Fuji BLAG4's for the entire guidetraine spiral wrapped and cork grips, probably 1.5" on the butt and 2.5" behind the seat. It was comfortable to fish if you palmed the seat. Most other blanks in that same category 7' MH would come in closer to 3.2oz to 3.4 oz on the same components. When I read Thomas post, it really sounded a lot like I was building.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would help if you would define MH with CCS ERN
> value. Spin or baitcast. ERN > ?? 25?
>
> I believe the answer will be a spiral wrapped
> baitcast rod with a skeleton seat, titanium
> guides, minimal split carbon fiber grips. X-fast
> action (AA ~ 80), minimal wraps with Permagloss or
> equivalent wrap finish.
>
> Since the blank has to be close to 2 oz, I would
> think about 3 would be as light as it could get.
> But you have to be specific with the ERN to make
> sure we are all talking the same power.
>
> If I had to design one I would start with one of
> the Point Blank 731's and cut the butt 3 inches.
>
> I have the feeling that Mr. Maslov has a new
> blank/rod/ or kit to propose for us.


Rod building kits from nfc would be awesome!

Tackletour some years ago had a post where people were listing rod weights, they were virtually all published weights it appeared to me, and some of the glass crankbait rods were listed in the low 3's. Guess my 4.5 oz Seeker BS706 and similar S glass Lami SMB 841 needed some secret sauce, or someone was on it.

Thank you Thomas, will give it a shot :-)


Thomas Kaufmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aleks,
> I just weighed my sj725. It came in at 3.69 with
> longer carbon real seat grips and rear grips along
> with double nut MVT seat and using size 4 titanium
> sic’s as runners.
>
> Skeletonize an ECSM and cut down its barrel, drop
> the RV6 in favor of a single foot 6, and use 3mm
> over the 4’s (titanium of course) as well as use
> a shorter 2.5 “ real seat rear grip and this
> will easily get VERY close to the 3.0 mark you are
> looking for while maintaining all day comfort.

The only "objection" that I have to the ERN is the following:

Probably one of the most sold bass rods all over the world is the GLX Loomis 843c, a "medium heavy" it is about a 20 on the ERN scale, and 1/2 of the US will agree that it is the "original" action medium heavy, and the other half will say that it is "too light"... It is one of the reasons why I gave a range of 19-21...

I'm ready for the fan mail of how our lure/line ratings are all messed up :D

I DO think its important to list the ERN for the blanks, and let the rodbuilder/angler make their own decision if they agree or disagree with our assessment.

Aleks

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David, I was just thinking that you have a real
> aversion to ERN, not sure why. It's just a
> number. But I think you understand it, you are
> rebelling against it. It seems to me. But the
> fact that you're using IP grams indicates your
> acceptance of objective power numbers. There
> seems to be a growing displeasure with ERN in
> favor of IP grams. This is not going to go over
> well with some folks on this forum. But I think
> they will just have to live with it. I think
> progress is being made.
>
> Yes, action has a lot to do with how a rod feels.
> No doubt about it. And many fishermen don't get
> it, that XFast action rods of the same power as
> moderate action rods will have softer tips. At
> some power levels, Xfast action rods can feel a
> little sloppy.
>
> It's pretty complex.

Alex, with no disrespect intended, NFC lists a blank with an AA of 82 degrees as having Moderate action while at the same time listing one with an AA of 62 as having a Fast action. If this apparent discrepancy is justified, then ERN of 19-21 could be described as being just about anything. I don't know how this is justified, but I'm listening.

I expect that this represents old info from some who don't really understand the definition of action, but I don't really know.

I agree with Aleks' that it's good to list an objective power measurement. I just don't agree that ERN should be that measurement. Is ERN not based directly on the IP measurement? To my knowledge, there are no other variables/measurements added into the ERN conversion that make it a more descriptive representation of power. The weight (in grams) used to deflect a blank's tip section a distance equal to 1/3 of the blank's total length is the purest (and most simple) form of power described by the CCS. ERN is just an arbitrary representation of IP that's only useful if you're trying to decide between a #19 or #20 fly line for your new med-heavy Texas rig rod;) IP is the more useful and simple option (even for actual fly blanks/rods in my opinion.) Pretty sure I'm going to die on this hill...

-Geoff

Geoff, I also believe that rod power should be reported as IP vs ERN. I have stated this opinion many times in the past. In my opinion, ERN is an artificial non-proportional construct. As a rod builder I would rather know the IP so I can directly measure and compare blanks without the need for any type of conversion chart or program. I believe that most rod builders also prefer the use of IP over ERN. As for non-rod builders, I don’t think it matters at all as to which one is used, I think they would rather have the subjective ratings of UL through XH and lure weight range, since they have become accustomed to these ratings.
Norm

You have company on that hill Geoff lol

I'm with you all advocating for IP. But let's not disrupt what ERN was intended to do. It was intended to allow the match of a rod power to an already defined line weight designation. Works fine for that, as far as I know.

For "non-fly rods" IP is the way to go. Geoff, we will all go together.

ERN is not directly proportional to IP. Dr Hanneman modified it to better match rod numbers to line numbers. At least that is how I interpret it.