This past month, I have been testing blanks and built rods using the CCS method described from the Library. I read about CCS years ago and bought in to it, but just now set up my own tests. Thanks to all who helped me with their wisdom and responses in a pervious post! You all rock it with rod building! Some of the best are right here!

It has been an amazing and revealing journey to put all my favorite and most-used rods in comparison to each other. I did not discover anything that blew my mind for the most part. Rather, it confirmed my own fishing experiences. That MH rod I thought was more powerful than that Mag Heavy rod really proved to be more powerful in terms of IP. My Bait Finesse rod (ultra light) was really ultra light.....at least relative to my other blanks and rods.

I found my preferences grouping around certain numbers for power (IP) and action (AA) for the types of fishing lures, techniques, and situations I engage in most.

I get it now more than ever: This is the very reason (for me) for the CCS system!

My mind is opening to the truth I have learned from CCS: There is no "better than" nor "worse than" blank or rod out there - only what fits what I want to achieve for my purpose, style, needs, or whatever criteria I encounter and want to challenge.

Like I shared with a rod building friend recently, I fished some baits on a rod that, "Wasn't Thought of As A Rod for That Kind of Bait", and really found it effective and fun. When I did the CCS testing, I realized why this rod worked beautifully for me.

It may be different for you. And the beauty is that it is all good. CCS can help dial it in.

How would I know any of this without you all?!

Grateful,

Les

Leslie,
While I did not contribute much to your investigative CCS inquiries, I am glad you found it to be so valuable. Dr. Hannerman certainly blessed all of us with an easy-to-use method to actually measure properties of a blank or rod rather than relying on subjective terms and hype; it truly was a game-changer, and the root of it all is IP and AA. Although the method was developed quite a few years ago (I do not know precisely), it is still viable today. Combined with Michael Danek’s recent revelation of TNF, we may know more about the blanks than the designers lol.

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

Leslie, I;m not sure how you are measuring AA, but that to me is the harder of the measurements. I found that electronic levels and level apps on cell phones were much easier to use than the original chart. New technology offers new opportunities!

I agree with all you say about CCS. All my rods have the CCS specs written on them. Some blank manufacturers, maybe all for all I know, have different power and action describers depending on what they say the primary use of the rod is designed for. So a medium power extra fast action drop shot blank may have an ERN of 12 and an AA of 78, while a medium power moderate action crankbait blank from the same manufacturer may have an ERN of 20 and an AA of 82. These are actual numbers from two recent builds. CCS brings the blanks out of the fog.

Anglers and advertisers are renowned for their avoidance of objective facts in general, and numbers in particular.

Speak for yourself, Phil. NFC isn't working on an initiative to publish the CCS numbers on all their blanks for nothing. I avoid purchasing blanks that I cannot get the numbers on. The two blanks I mentioned earlier were purchased "blind" just to experience a vendor I had not yet built. And sure enough, I was surprised by the numbers when I ran them myself.

Thank you Mark and Michael!

Mark - On the contrary, you helped me dial in the "10% of the rod length as being the standard" for how much the butt end is supported for testing. That answered a question that I forgot to ask in that earlier post. Big help! You got my back!

Michael - I am measuring AA without a large amount of precision, I am sure; just using a protractor and a 9-inch torpedo level to get within a degree or two. I wish to become more up-to-date with the help of the easy-to-use and accurate technologies you mentioned. Good call and thanks for the encouragement! You keep pushing forward and sharing your experiences like the leader and pro you are!

One of the biggest specific surprises for me was discovering the NFC APFG 745 had an AA around the low 80's; and this is a GLASS rod. The AA was greater than all my SC 4's, 5's and even a 6 ST. Croix XF action rods which I have always believed to be the most XF actions out there. I have a different view now. This glass blank is the rod I tried out as a jig rod, and later a frog rod, and found it performed superbly well...even though this rod is "supposed to be" a softer glass blank for crankbaits, spinnerbaits, swimbaits, etc. Found the same thing with the NFC SJ 706 Delta blank for jigs. Love fishing it even though it is a "lower" modulus blank and "should not be" as good as it is for me with jigs (3/16 to 3/8 oz.). Maybe the softer materials work better by giving the fish another split-second to eat and swim with the bait as I tend to get into hookset mode as quickly as possible - so the rod actually accommodates a flaw on my behalf! I'll take all the help I can get!

I put certain words in quotes to highlight my own pre-biases and ignorance, not any kind of absolute knowledge. Ha! I'm not saying because rod X has a higher IP or AA than rod Y that it is superior. My first goal with CCS was to take rods that I have fished frequently and enjoy - then test them to see if I could determine what characteristics made them my favorites.

As Phil alluded to, I wondered about the challenge the CCS presents to the manufacturers. Like with my own biases in "quotes", I could see myself picking the "most XF" rated blank and missing something else that might make a lower IP or AA a better rod for me. There seemed to be a craze about "light weight' raging for a moment or two, and I could see some people picking a blank by its low-weight- measurement rather than considering other factors in the mix.

Anyway, that's all I got for now!

Thank you again!

Les

All fishing rods are equally accurate - with the possible exception of a rod with a loose grip or ferrule. The angler, not the rod, is responsible for the distance of the cast. Quantifying the static characteristics of a rod does not reveal much helpful information. Casting a line is a dynamic activity. Rod tracking and damping numbers would be more informative but might discourage advertisers from rhapsodizing over "soulful" fishing rods and similar malarkey.

What is "rod tracking?" How is it measured?

I find CCS interesting and a user friendly way to measure. Michael, as to your measuring of blank harmonic, I wonder about measuring fly or other rod blanks the way Tom Wishon and some others measure golf shafts, by taking the frequency at various points in the shaft, and thus knowing the true measurements of the bend profile. Golf shaft frequency machines use a small weight and measure the shaft oscillation. [www.youtube.com] and [www.golfshaftreviews.info]

I've done little on measureing various points on the blank. The more one anchors the blank towards the tip, the more of the blank butt one has outside the anchors, the higher the frequencies one gets. . What the relevance of this is, I don't know. But since we don't fish with just parts of blanks, I'm not sure of the value.

I have measured quite a few fly rods and blanks, and like other blanks, the "premium" blanks have higher frequencies, generally.

I guess I'm not smart enough to know what the "true measurements of the bend profile" even means.

I just know that most blank/rod experts for many years have maintained that sensitivity is proportional to the natural frequency of the blank/rod. And I can measure it. As anyone can with an Android device and a free app. Adding weight brings us back to CCF, which adds an arbitrary element into the testing, and does not yield the true natural frequency. It yields a frequency which is of some value for some uses, but not for determining the true native characteristics of the blank.

I think it is in order to note that CCS is a static measurement and TNF is a dynamic measurement. They both are of significant value, but not even close to being dependent on each other. They are truly independent of each other. CCS is to me the most valuable in determining the most significant "fishing" characteristics of a blank/rod. TNF is a next step. Once one has the power and action that is right for the technique, TNF can tell one which blank/rod has the fastest recovery speed and most likely the highest sensitivity. They both have value.

"All fishing rods are equally accurate"

Not necessarily so. I built a spinning rod out of a fly blank, an 8 1/2 foot six weight blank. While I could accurately cast overhead accurately for long distances, I found that it was so slow in responding that I had trouble making short casts accurately. The response speed of rods can and do affect the ability to make accurate casts at some distances. Maybe with more experience with the rod I could get better, but I didn't for a number of years. What solved my short cast accuracy problem was a 7 foot faster action "spin" blank.

david taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find CCS interesting and a user friendly way to
> measure. Michael, as to your measuring of blank
> harmonic, I wonder about measuring fly or other
> rod blanks the way Tom Wishon and some others
> measure golf shafts, by taking the frequency at
> various points in the shaft, and thus knowing the
> true measurements of the bend profile. Golf shaft
> frequency machines use a small weight and measure
> the shaft oscillation.
> [www.youtube.com]
> and [www.golfshaftreviews.info]

See RodMaker Volume 6 #2 - Common Cents - The Big Picture.

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

The golf shaft links provided show a machine and discussion regarding EI, a static measurement. TNF is dynamic. The dynamics of the golf shaft design and fitting comes with the expertise of the fitters in "extrapolating" from the static measurements to provide the dynamic characteristics of the shaft to best fit the specific swing techniques of the individual golfers. At least, that is how I see it. But they are starting with the static measurements of the shaft. I'm not familiar with any dynamic golf shaft measurements, but there surely could be some.

Very interesting. Thanks for introducing me to it.

A fishing rod blank, like a golf shaft, is badically a beam of varying diameter and wall thickness, and in the case of the blank, even varying materials along its length. I think the rod blank is probably a more complex system than the golf shaft. But I think its job is simpler. I think for what we fishermen need to know about the blank/rod, weight, length, and CCS + TNF provide most of the info needed to select the right blanks/rods for the job.

Leslie, like you, what CCS did for me was to show me the actual power of the rods I like for specific baits. and fishing situations. Unless you're lucky enough to live close to a blank supplier where you can actually handle a blank before purchasing it, you're relegated to going by the manufacturers weight and action ratings. And as I have experienced for myself, those can be very misleading. Manufacturer supplied CCS numbers add a degree of comfort when it comes to selecting a blank.

Personally, I will no longer buy a blank that I don't have prior experience with, can't actually hold in my hand prior to purchase, or that a manufacturer or a member of this site has not supplied CCS numbers for.

I am happy to read Michael's comment about NFC working on an initiative to supply CCS numbers for all of their blanks. I know it was a question I offered be posed to Gary on the Facebook live thing they did not long ago, but I don't know if was addressed in that session. I haven't been able to get through watching the whole thing without it locking up. Anyhow ........... considering the number of blanks they offer, it is definitely a monumental task, but one that I truly believe will be of benefit to them as a company, and most definitely us, as rod builders.

I will throw out a contrarian's viwpoint on the CCS system regarding fly rods.
Fly lines today are so diverse with different head-lengths and head-profiles that CCS information is useless.
I have one #10 fly rod that is sevely overlined with a #10 Cortland Compact - yet underlined with a Wulff bermuda Triangle #10.
Idon't see the logic of spending the time to do a CCS study on a blank to find out that it's a "true" 10wt when it cant tell me what line to use.
Herb

Just because it seems to be of no value on fly rods does not negate its value on everything else.

Herb Ladenheim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will throw out a contrarian's viwpoint on the
> CCS system regarding fly rods.
> Fly lines today are so diverse with different
> head-lengths and head-profiles that CCS
> information is useless.
> I have one #10 fly rod that is sevely overlined
> with a #10 Cortland Compact - yet underlined with
> a Wulff bermuda Triangle #10.
> Idon't see the logic of spending the time to do a
> CCS study on a blank to find out that it's a
> "true" 10wt when it cant tell me what line to
> use.
> Herb

The CCS does not attempt to define what "true" rod weight is. You have misinterpreted something. Remember what Dr. Hanneman said in many of his articles - "Any rod will cast any line at some distance."

The CCS provides a relative power measurement for all rods including fly rods. I will guarantee you that a fly rod with and ERN of 8 is more powerful than one with an ERN of 6.

...........

Line selection isn't the only reason to want to know the power of a fly rod.

There are the matters of casting distance and fighting the fish to consider.

I would argue that CCS does determine what the "true" power of a rod is, in units of grams for IP. Relativity comes in when comparing one rod to another. But if I measure a rod today and it's a 500 gram IP rod, it will be a 500 gram IP rod forever.

Regarding line selection, if I have an ERN 8 rod that casts a certain line well for its intended use, then another ERN 8 rod will cast it well for the same use also.

Herb Ladenheim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Idon't see the logic of spending the time to do a
> CCS study on a blank to find out that it's a
> "true" 10wt when it cant tell me what line to
> use.
> Herb


Thanks Herb! It is very subjective though claimed to be objective.