Mark B. - Read these articles to understand the Common Cents System for comparing blanks.
[www.common-cents.info]
Norm

Mark Brassett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does one determine, using the information
> provided by the test, which rod is best for which
> actual fishing situation?


That's where you, the rod builder, comes in. All measurements can do is provide data which an experienced person then uses to select the right tool for the job.

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

The CCF is a measurement of relative rod speed.

..........

110 grain .30 caliber bullets make a nice bag of 300 grams.

That ETES 610MXF has an ERN of only 11.8 or so, should never have been called a Med power, and at 74-75 degrees, calling it X fast is a stretch, too. I just encountered the same thing with a "medium power" drop shot blank that ended up with only an ERN of 12. The Point Blank701 MLF has an ERN of almost 20. I already have a rod with those specs. I saw in a manufacturer's CCS specs recently a blank called fast with an AA of only 65 while a rod marketed for cranks had an AA of about 80 and is called moderate.

Sooner or later, regardless of some not wanting us to correlate the old subjective ratings with the CCS numbers, we will be correlating, something like a range of IP's (not ERN's) being called one of the traditional descriptors, maybe 650 -750 grams being called M. 78 degrees and higher being called XF. It's only natural for people who have been using subjective descriptors forever, when exposed to objective numbers, to correlate. OK, shoot me.

There is no way to correlate CCF with TNF since CCF has arbitrary (maybe knowledgeably arbitrary if I may-Dr Hanneman was a pretty smart guy) assignments of test conditions based on the power of the blank. TNF is pure physics, what you see is what you get. OK , shoot me again.

Just as the length of an inch is arbitrary, it makes no difference - it works in relative fashion. The higher the CCF the greater the rod speed. You will never find a rod with a higher CCF that has a slower rod speed than a rod with a lower CCF. It is the relative nature of the numbers that matters. Everything about the CCS is relative, which was the point.

It's also important to remember that the CCS wasn't designed for rod builders. It was designed for rod manufacturers and fishermen, but for the latter only the relative numerical portions. Under no circumstances would or should a fishing consumer need to know how or where the numbers are obtained. Just as with the power ratings used by Loomis, Lamiglas, Fenwick, etc., nobody has ever questioned how they are arrived at - they just use them. The fisherman doesn't care where the numbers come from. He just wants to know if one blank is more or less powerful than another, or faster or slower than another. Give him too much information and you've lost him.

The main reason the CCS hasn't caught on to a greater degree is that all the underpinnings are available for reading, which only serves to confuse the intended market. Even the manufacturers have shied away from it due to all the background information. I should have never published that portion.

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

Leslie,
I isolated what I thought would be behind my hand while using the rod, so on the flyrods I started with, about 11 to 12 inches.

"nobody has ever questioned how they are arrived at - they just use them." This is not entirely true. I am questioning now because a Medium power blank has an ERN of 12. And a moderate action has an AA of 80. Others are questioning them , too.

"The fisherman doesn't care where the numbers come from" Some of us do. And we question their credibility. CCS and correlating CCS to the old descriptors will bring some reality and confidence to both CCS and the objective descriptors when we have acheived correlation. We are not all as incurious as you believe.

"It's also important to remember that the CCS wasn't designed for rod builders". Does anyone know a rodbuilder who is not a fisherman?

"Give him too much information and you've lost him. " No, we are not all a bunch of dummies. I describe this statement as condescending. Many of us do our own income taxes. Yes, there are many who are as you describe, but there are many others not willing to settle for that level of understanding. And the interest in CCS is growing, not diminishing as it would if the fishing/rodbuilding world was as you describe.

Like it or not, correlation between the subjective descriptors and CCS will come. And the rodbuilding and fishing world will be in a better place. No more M's with ERN's of 12.

Mark B .... the two CCS measurable s that I am concern with, are the IP (intrinsic power) of the rod or blank, and the AA (action angle) of the rod or blank. Intrinsic power and AA are measured by using enough weight to deflect the rod 1/3 of its' total length, which is the standard that CCS uses to define a fully loaded blank.

Example: In my case, I place the rod horizontally, making sure it's level, and measure from the tip to the floor. Lets say I'm measuring a 7' rod and its' tip is 48" from the floor. I divide the length of the rod by 3 and come up with 28". I add enough weight to bend the rod so its' tip is 20" from the floor. The amount of weight it takes to accomplish this is defined as the intrinsic power of the blank. I prefer to represent that number with the number of grams it took to achieve that standard, versus the ERN numbers that CCS uses. AA is the angle the tip of the rod takes when it is fully loaded.

Mark Talmo did an excellent job of relating why CCS numbers can be so helpful, once you've established something to compare them to. Wanting to have a starting point, I measured pretty much all of the factory rods I used to own,. The big problem is that few manufacturers supply CCS numbers for their blanks. The first blanks I bought that had CCS numbers available for them was the Quickline series of blanks from Pac Bay. I bought two blanks from them based on the CCS numbers they supplied that were very close to being the same numbers as one of my factory rods. It was amazing how close the rods felt from a power standpoint. From then on I was pretty much hooked on the usefulness of CCS numbers.

I've done CCS testing on all but two of the rods I've built. I know how those rods fish, and what baits and techniques I find them to work well with, and that gives me a good idea how a blank I choose may perform. As I said in an earlier post, not many manufacturers provide CCS data. If they had, I wouldn't have built the rod I described earlier, nor would I have chosen the blank I built my most recent spinning rod on. I fell into the trap of basically judging a book by its' cover, when I tried to guess how a rod would fish based on the dimensions of the blank, as well as the lure weight and line it is rated for. Doing so may work for some, but it's let me down more than once.

So basically, if it's not a blank I already have experience with, I am not going to buy a blank that I can't find CCS numbers for. Thankfully, there are a members of this site, in particular, Norman Miller, that post CCS numbers for various blanks they've built on. Even if I am looking at a blank for a build that I have no experience with, if I know the CCS IP and AA numbers for that blank, I am more than confident that I will be happy with the blank.

And Roger ..... you would definitely be able to feel those light walleye bites, I just don't know that you'd be able to set the hook into them. The blank is the RX9 Eternity 2 version of the ETES610MXF blank. The IP I came up with is 279 grams, with an AA of 79 - 80. It will cast a Bobby Garland Baby Shad Swimmer on a 1/32 oz jig and 4# mono, an easy 50'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2022 05:16PM by David Baylor.

Some people call it “a measurement of relative rod speed” and Dr. Hannerman called his CCF a measurement of “feel”. Actually, I think the best description is a measurement of the “frequency” since that IS what is being measured; the number of oscillations per a given amount of time = frequency. CCF added weight to the tip of the blank to slow the oscillations down enough to be counted with the naked eye. TNF counts the oscillations of the NAKED blank which should obviously be ultimately more precise and even easier to perform. Don’t shoot me Michael!

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

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "nobody has ever questioned how they are arrived
> at - they just use them." This is not entirely
> true. I am questioning now because a Medium power
> blank has an ERN of 12. And a moderate action has
> an AA of 80. Others are questioning them , too.
>
> "The fisherman doesn't care where the numbers come
> from" Some of us do. And we question their
> credibility. CCS and correlating CCS to the old
> descriptors will bring some reality and confidence
> to both CCS and the objective descriptors when we
> have acheived correlation. We are not all as
> incurious as you believe.
>
> "It's also important to remember that the CCS
> wasn't designed for rod builders". Does anyone
> know a rodbuilder who is not a fisherman?
>
> "Give him too much information and you've lost
> him. " No, we are not all a bunch of dummies. I
> describe this statement as condescending. Many
> of us do our own income taxes. Yes, there are
> many who are as you describe, but there are many
> others not willing to settle for that level of
> understanding. And the interest in CCS is
> growing, not diminishing as it would if the
> fishing/rodbuilding world was as you describe.
>
> Like it or not, correlation between the subjective
> descriptors and CCS will come. And the
> rodbuilding and fishing world will be in a better
> place. No more M's with ERN's of 12.

Trying to match subjective terms to objective, relative numbers is always a waste of time. Subjective terms are always correct by those that use them based on their own feelings. If a manufacturer says its so and so rod is a fast action, medium power, then that's what it is. It's an opinion and opinions can't be wrong. You cannot disprove a subjective rating with a system like the CCS.

How many times did you call Loomis, Lamiglas or Fenwick and ask them where they got their numbers from? I'd bet never. Sure, some like yourself (I'm the say way) want more information, not less, but out of hundreds of millions of fishermen worldwide, what percentage of the market do people like us make up? I'd say far less than 1%. It's not condescending - it's reality.

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

Mark Talmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people call it “a measurement of relative
> rod speed” and Dr. Hannerman called his CCF a
> measurement of “feel”. Actually, I think the
> best description is a measurement of the
> “frequency” since that IS what is being
> measured; the number of oscillations per a given
> amount of time = frequency. CCF added weight to
> the tip of the blank to slow the oscillations down
> enough to be counted with the naked eye. TNF
> counts the oscillations of the NAKED blank which
> should obviously be ultimately more precise and
> even easier to perform. Don’t shoot me Michael!


The entire CCS is based on objective and relative measurements. The CCF component is no different. The values don't matter - their relation to each other do.

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

Mark, TNF measures the true natural frequency of the blank, then as you add components to it, you get to see the effect of the components on the recovery speed of what is becoming the rod. Are titanium guides worth the money in increased rod recovery speed and sensitivity? . Only you can judge, but you can have objective numbers to use to make your decision. Do titanium tiptops give a faster recovery speed? You can find out. Do XF action blanks respond the same as slower actions? There may be some surprises in store here. Do premium blanks generally have higher natural frequencies than less expensive blanks? Or are they just more expensive but the same stuff? You can find out. My results show that they do in fact generally have higher natural frequencies, and thus, most likely higher sensitivity and surely faster recovery time. But which premium blank is the highest? Yes , there is one that so far has had the highest natural frequencies. I have not tested all brands, but I have tested quite a few.

TNF is in fact much easier and quicker to determine than CCF, no problems holding the artificially determined weight to the tiptop, much lower stresses, no out of control blank if the weight comes off, no need for eye protection. I see no advantage whatsoever of CCF vs TNF. I doubt if Dr. Hanneman would have bothered with CCF if he had had an Android cell phone and the app.

In my opinion, the Common Cents Frequency measurement is the weak link in the Common Cents System. By slowing the natural frequency of a blank by adding an inordinate amount of weight so oscillations can be counted by eye seems quite artificial and also precludes the ability to address other pertinent questions to which Michael mentions above. TNF measurements are objective, relative and can certainly be used for comparative purposes.
Norm

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my opinion, the Common Cents Frequency
> measurement is the weak link in the Common Cents
> System. By slowing the natural frequency of a
> blank by adding an inordinate amount of weight so
> oscillations can be counted by eye seems quite
> artificial and also precludes the ability to
> address other pertinent questions to which Michael
> mentions above. TNF measurements are objective,
> relative and can certainly be used for comparative
> purposes.
> Norm

The CCS CCF results remain relative, which is all that matters. I defy anyone to find a rod with a higher CCF value that possesses a lower rod speed than a rod with a lower CCF value.

..........

Michael and Norman,
How badly did I misstate or misrepresent my belief (and fact) that TNF is superior to CCF??? I totally agree with both of you!!! Again, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU!!! Dr. Hannerman’s approach to “blank frequency” / “speed”/ “oscillations'', whatever anyone wants to call it, involved adding artificial weight to the blank tip to simply slow down the oscillations enough to enable the human eye to count them. In no way, shape, or form would that be as accurate or precise as Mr. Danek’s TNF approach of measuring the ACTUAL oscillations of the NAKED, UNWEIGHTED blank!!! TNF is FAR SUPERIOR BY BEING MORE PRECISE AND REPEATABLE!!!!! Please enlighten me as to what I am missing or misrepresenting here. Don’t throw a proponent under the bus!!!!

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

Adding "artificial" weight to take the CCF measurement does not change the relativity of the results, which is the objective.

..........

Mark - I was agreeing with you, if you took otherwise I apologize.
Norm

While CCF is "relative," that is only part of what can be learned with a better process. Also, I challenge anyone to set up and do a CCF in the same time that it takes to do the same with TNF. Cannot be done. Not even close. AND, it was designed for low-powered fly rods. With an ERN of 15 one is instructed to add over an ounce. Using the test for many bass rods which have ERN's well into the 20's is frankly impractical. And most likely dangerous.

It would probably be good to simply consider CCF for what Dr. Hanneman intended, to characterize relatively low powered fly rods; it certainly is not practical for the power of the rods most of us use for spinning and baitcasting.

TNF can be done in minutes, can show the differences between components added, is "relative," and more, it is "native," with no arbitrary adjustments needed.

I have to admit that I have not tried CCF to see if it can determine the "relative" difference between an ERN 25 blank built with titanium guides vs. one built with stainless guides. Has anyone actually done it and demonstrated the "relative" difference?

Mark, I too was not disagreeing, just trying to clarify for those less familiar with the two processes.

"I have to admit that I have not tried CCF to see if it can determine the "relative" difference between an ERN 25 blank built with titanium guides vs. one built with stainless guides. Has anyone actually done it and demonstrated the "relative" difference?"

Yes, the numbers between the two rods will be different.

Of course, people are free to do this any way they want, find easiest, least expensive, etc. The main thing to remember is that it is the relativity between the numbers that count.

..........

If you have already done it you would most likely say ";Yes, numbers between the two rods were different." Forgive me, yes I'm skeptical. Also curious, how much different by percentage: ?