I've never done a CCS test on a rod. I think I understand the concept fairly well and am sold on its value to comparing one rod blank to another in terms of IP and AA..

I want to sit at the feet of my rod board gurus and learn how you do it accurately so I can shorten my learning curve. (Insert grasshopper emoji here)

Is there a simple way to get consistent results? And what if two of the same blank give me different results? What is the tolerance % in your opinion?

Instead of using pennies (dated 2000 or later), can I use another consistent measuring weight and convert it into pennies? (I have some ideas, but want to learn from those who have gone before me. Seems grams would be a universal measure, but I know, I know....metrics!)

I have five blanks ready to measure. And more questions than blanks to test...

Les

Les,
You are overthinking it, just read and follow the info in the in the post. My first ones were done by placing the blank in my bookcase and piling books on the butt till it was wedged tight. KISS applies here.

Thanks, Spencer!

It seems a very simple test with a minimum of fuss, you are right.

Might I ask, How much of the butt was under the books? Three inches? a foot? I understand that the butt portion of the blank may have little to do with the flex of the front 1/3rd where the readings are measured.
Does it matter to you how much of the blank is 'fixed' and how much is 'free'?

Les

You can use any weights you want, just convert to pennies or grams. IP is recorded in grams, and with the universal chart provided by NFC you can get ERN . If you need it. IP is actually the "holy grail" for power, IMHO.

You don't need the big board, although if you can find room for it , it is the most acurate way to work. You can just record the deflection relative to the floor, but for limber rods you have to accomadate the droop in your testing. But for most bass rods that is negligible and just measure the tiip height before adding the weight, then the height after flexing to 1/3 the length.

AA is best measured with a level app on a cell phone or an electronic level device.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Just bolt a pvc pipe to a board that is clamped to the wall.

You can use the board for markings of degrees etc.

Good luck

Leslie,
While Spencer’s advice of “KISS” certainly has merit, you mentioned “Is there a simple way to get consistent results?” Consistent results rely upon consistent procedures. Make certain your “butt holding fixture” has the capability to hold either a bare blank or completed rod with grips BY 10% OF THE TOTAL LENGTH of the blank / rod. This includes adjustability to set a test subject for perfect level which involves compensating for the taper of the blank / rod. The end of many rod wrappers with adjustable roller uprights can be employed for this although it may be a bit awkward (iffy) to achieve perfect level. In the grand scheme of things, being a bit off from perfect level may not be of a major concern unless H-bent on consistent results. Another consideration, even overlooked by Dr. Hannerman, is how the butt of the rod is actually held. Restricting the flex of the blank BETWEEN the “leveling device / fixture” will restrict the flex of the blank forward of the fixture. A very fast action blank which flexes minimally in the lower portion may not be as affected as a medium or slow action blank which flexes all the way to the butt. Again, it depends on how consistent and accurate your measurements need to be.
The fixture I fabricated secures the blank / rod at the butt and then at 10% of its length with freedom to flex in between so as to not affect the upper portion while testing. It is adjustable in length, height and level. I use the same digital level to level the blank in the butt holding fixture and also to measure the AA as well which eliminates any variables. The result is the most consistent and accurate method for achieving CCS, AA and Dr. Hannerman’s CCF as well. Allow me to say that Michael Danek’s TNF is a much more precise method in measuring the natural frequency of any given blank / rod.
Splitting hairs? Possibly = it depends on one’s perspective. I realize that not everyone has the means or ability to fabricate their own parts, pieces or procedures. As long as test procedures such as CCS, AA, CCF (better yet TNF) are CONSISTENT AND IDENTICAL, the results should be acceptable to all those but the most critical / demanding (= KISS).
[www.rodbuilding.org]
[www.rodbuilding.org]

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

Do the 10% of length support as the test is designed. While one can argue that it makes little difference on the faster actions, design your rig to get it right from the beginning and your results will be right regardless of the action of the blank/rod.

Thank you everyone!

Your suggestions sound doable. The 10% part seems important to consistency and answered one of my main questions.

Michael - Thanks for the NFC chart link!

Mark - Thanks for the photos. Someone has some tool and die skills! I like what appears to be the adjustable knobs for making little changes.

My buddy just got into building and we were talking the other day about what rods we liked for what techniques. After a few builds of his own, he quickly noticed that one company's MH is another's M, and vise versa. He had ordered a blank for one purpose and found it better suited for another. Not uncommon, and can be a welcome surprise.
I shared with him what I knew about the CCS and how it worked. He was intrigued. So, I thought it was about time that I did some tests of my own. I can test my rods as well as his.

Les

I use a braced metal shelf bracket mounted 5’ above the floor as my rod support, making sure it’s level.
[www.acehardware.com]
I then securely strap 10% of the blank to the the bracket using releasable tie wraps, and shim the blank to make sure it’s level. With a tip top mounted in place attach a small plastic bag to the tip top via a piece of bent wire. Add weight to bag until you bend the blank 1/3 it’s total length, then weigh the bag and bent wire, this weight is your IP. If you have a scale you can use any type of weight you want. If you don’t have a scale then pennies work well. With the rod bent to the 1/3 mark I measure the AA using a digital angle finder. It is much easier to use than a protractor.
[www.amazon.com]
Very simple setup, easy to do and the results are quite reproducible. There may be some variability from blank to blank but usually less than +/- 5%.
Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2022 09:31AM by Norman Miller.

When I first started building, I built a hand wrapper modeled after the hand wrapper that Flex Coat makes. I know longer use it for wrapping, but I do use it for static load guide placement as well as doing CCS IP, and AA measurements.

I have dowels through the stand that the butt of the rod rests on that are there so I can secure the butt of the rod. Height wise, they're about at the mid way point of the stand. I use a strip of 1" wide Velcro to wrap around the butt of the rod, and the dowels. The other stand is adjustable so that I can slide it as close to the other stand as I want, so that I can position it at the 10% of the rod length that Mark mentioned. I use a 6" Torpedo level for leveling the blank. Since blanks are tapered, the center line of the rod isn't exactly level, but it's close enough for my purposes.

When I first started doing CCS tests, I used pennies. And while the purpose of using pennies is completely understood, I found them to be a real pain. I still use pennies as the actual weight, but instead of counting them. I just weigh the the final amount on a scale that will read in grams. Added cost for sure, but oh so much easier.

When I first started doing CCS tests I got results that weren't consistent with the results that other members of this site posted for the same blanks. Some of it was probably due to variations from blank to blank, but I attributed the majority of the difference in my procedure. I was securing the butt down tight enough to the rod stand. The butt would lift slightly, which caused false readings when it came to measuring the vertical deflection of the blank. That was a result of using a padded rod strap to secure the butt to the rod stand. Since going to using the 1" Velcro strip, I haven't had that problem. To make sure the rod is level in the stands, I just shim up one of the stands to get the rod level.

As far as determining the AA of the blank goes. I just printed out the AA angle diagram provided in the CCS information, and hold it level behind the rod tip. I just eye ball it for level, so my observations may not be dead on accurate. But I have been in the building trades for the majority of my life, so I have a pretty good eye for that kind of thing. Definitely not a dead on accurate way to do it, but I'm more interested in the power a blank or rod has, than the exact AA angle. But I can certainly understand those that are.

Right now, at least to my knowledge, there are less than a handful of blank manufacturers that supply CCS data for their blanks. The only ones I know that do, are Point Blank, and Batso / Rainshadow. And I have only seen CCS numbers for Rainshadow's RX 10 Eternity blanks. It would be awesome if other manufacturers like North Fork Composites, American Tackle, MHX and the rest of the Batson offerings would supply CCS numbers for their blanks.

I understand why they don't though. They don't see it as a selling point for their blanks. Time is money, so why invest in taking the measurements if it's not going to help you sell enough blanks to justify the additional cost? NFC has pictures of blank deflection using various amounts of weight for a lot of their blanks. And I find that helpful to a certain extent. Personally, I question why they do it the way they do.

For one ,,,, having the blank at an angle and then handing weight from the tip IMO gives a false visual. If they are trying to show that the blank can be over flexed and still hold up.... which based on the amount of weight they picture hanging from some of the blanks, is evidently more important than seeing the actual power in the blank? That's one thing. But if you want to see the power of the blank, the blank either has to be horizontal, or the load needs to be applied 90 degrees to the blank. Otherwise, I just don't see the point.

Board sponsor Rodhouse France has a feature they call a "comparator" that shows line drawings of various blanks under defined loads. It has a drop down list of different blanks from a multitude of manufacturers. You can display the renderings for up to 4 blanks and compare them in a layered form. It's not perfect, but I find it more representative of a blanks power, than how NFC displays their blanks at an angle. I've used the "comparator" for several of the blanks I have built on, comparing them to each other, and I find it to be pretty darn accurate. It's not actual CCS numbers, but it gives you a good idea how the blanks handle various loads.

I always pull it up to see if they list a blank I am interested in. And they definitely add blanks to the list. There are a lot more blanks listed than when I first looked at it.

Why is this important?

Mark, why is what important? I don't know which aspect of the CCS testing you are referring to.

There is no need to count individual pennies more than once. Get some small zip lock bags and set up a few. Some with 50 pennies, some with 25, some with 10. Add the bags as needed to get close and then use a few individual pennies to get exact. Counting the total is then a matter of maybe 5 seconds.

The reason Dr. Hanneman chose pennies as the weight constant was two-fold - 1. A penny is a penny (post 1986) so the weight is constant. 2. Having to weigh anything was counter to his purpose of making things simple.

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

Mark, if you don't mind paying for a blank that, based on its' published specs, you thought would have a certain power, only to find out that upon receiving the blank, that it is nothing close to what you expected it to be .... then it's not important at all.

But when you order and receive close to $300 in blank and components, only to find out that the blank you chose is going to be worthless for its intended purpose, then it becomes very important.

If interested, I have a really nice pan fish rod I'd be willing to part with. It's built on an Eternity2 ETES610MFX blank. It has a full length CFX grip. Forecast skeleton reel seat with the woven graphite insert, and a KR concept 20H, 10H, 5.5m reduction train with a 5.5 KB and 4.5 KT runners. Guide wraps are black with titanium gray metallic trim bands. It used to have Fuji T2 guides on it, but they're on a different rod now. I have Fuji BC grey guides on it now. It's an awesome perch / crappie rod. Which is about all the good it is to me now.

But it looks real pretty sitting in the rod rack in my rod room.

Thanks, David. So this test is to determine if the blank is xfast, fast, mod fast....etc.

David,
If you don't want that great rod, send it over to me. You have just described the ultimate perfect Walleye rod for upper mid western fishing for those light biting eyes.

Be safe

No, those are subjective terms. The CCS intended to do away with them and replace them with objective and relative numbers. Just as you wouldn't measure a blank's length and deem it, long, medium or short, you don't measure AA and then deem a blank fast, medium or slow.

If you want to use “fast, moderate, slow”, etc., you don’t need the CCS. Just flex it and you’ll see what it is. Remember, action is where the rod initially flexes. Upper third is fast, upper half is moderate (medium) and all throughout is slow.


...........

How does one determine, using the information provided by the test, which rod is best for which actual fishing situation?

I just use "soulful" or newer phrases like "Lit" & "Fire". You have to change with the times.

If using pennies for the weight, I do as Tom suggested by using thin strips of cellophane tape to hold 10 pennies together. I also cut a few 1.5 X 1.5 X .5in blocks of aluminum and then drilled a progressively larger hole in the middle until they weighed exactly 50g (20 pennies). This way, one never has to count more than 9 individual pennies. It works for me.
Mark B.,
It’s magic! Actually, CCS, IP, AA serve as a comparison of different blanks. The more experience one obtains through measuring more and more blanks, the closer he or she will be able to determine which numbers will produce what they are looking for. To take it a step further, Dr. Hannerman developed CCF to narrow-down (dare I say define) the “feel” of a blank. Although Michael Danek hesitates to correlate CCF with his own TNF, they really are similar but TNF is more real-world accurate and easier to perform.

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