Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

Exactly. That's the key. You might prefer a 9-weight line on that ERN 8 rod and I might prefer a 7 on that same ERN 8 rod, but that's personal preference for the respective distances we're casting and fishing. But both of us can use that power information when we go looking for a similar rod for the same line used at the same respective distances.

Now Herb wasn't talking about "true" rod power, but rather "true" rod number weight. The AFTMA standards were for lines, not rods so it is impossible to define exactly what a "true" 5-weight rod is. Is it a rod that casts best with a "true" (AFTMA Standard) 5-weight line? Well that is still subjective as we don't all have the same casting style nor cast and fish at the same distances. But if you know that a rod with an ERN power of 5 works best for you with a 6 weight line, then any rod with an ERN power of 5 should also work best for you with that same 6 weight line, provided you are casting and fishing it at roughly the same distances.

Measurement systems can only provide objective information. It is up to the user to interpret and apply that information.

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

Kent Griffith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


The CCS is entirely objective. It does not tell you what line to use, only how much relative power a rod possesses and it does that via a consistent and standard measurement process that has no bias nor opinion.

A tape measure can only tell you the relative length of an item. It cannot tell you how long something needs to be to fulfill what you're trying to do. If you measure something that is 84 inches in length, it's up to you to decide is that represents something short, long or whatever.

...........

Yes, the golf shaft frequency measurement is static (oscillations per second with slight weight on tip), done with electronic frequency machine. But by taking measurements at various points on the shaft, rather than just one point, one can determine how it bends from butt to tip and, from that, what force it will take for that bend. Yes, I think it is static data extrapolated into performance data pretty reliably.

I am not sure how you measure a rod blank, Michael, but my point is that I don't know how one frequency or harmonic -- if that is what you arrive at -- will determine for the prospective buyer how and where the blank will flex and under what force. Of course a deflection board could provide insight into that. But I am not very clear on your methodology.

As to golf shafts, you may want to email Tom Wishon, as it is likely he will reply. He has been studiying and pioneer this stuff for decades. Golf shafts are now very much made with varying types and densities of carbon fiber or steel, and specific tapers, just like fly rods. Top of the line golf shafts for drivers are not up to $400 each! Flex point differences of an inch or less, and tip stiff or butt stiff shafts make a huge difference to some players. While a fly angler can adapt a fishing tempo or cadense and his or her adjust arm energy to fit a particular rod, to try and alter a golf swing to match a shaft specification would be much more difficult for virtually all golfers.

In golf, as in fly fishing, that maddening thing is that golf and golf shaft companies only publish the weight of their shaft and whether "they" consider it to be a slow, regular, stiff or extra stiff shaft. One company's shaft rated stiff might be another company's regular. No standards.

As to the above comments on line weight, that is another area where one time standards have been bastardized. For some fun, I have purchased or test driven a bunch of fly lines in the past 18 months. One best look at the taper and weight of the head of the line are purchasing. Again, while AFTMA standards were once clear and followed, they no longer are really followed by line companies. Most WF lines now are at last 1/2 over AFTMA standards, sometimes 1 or 2 of the grain weight categories above AFTMA standards.

CCS is great in that it provides the rod maker with an objective and not overly difficult way to measure a rod and, from those measurements, infer some key performance characteristics. If are taking that to a higher level with a different approach, that would be outstanding. Thanks for posting, keep up the work!

david taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the golf shaft frequency measurement is
> static (oscillations per second with slight weight
> on tip), done with electronic frequency machine.
> But by taking measurements at various points on
> the shaft, rather than just one point, one can
> determine how it bends from butt to tip and, from
> that, what force it will take for that bend. Yes,
> I think it is static data extrapolated into
> performance data pretty reliably.
>

This is the CCS "Big Picture" article in a nutshell.

...........

First to Kent: If you understand CCS you will know it is, as Tom says, entirely objective.

REgarding: "I am not sure how you measure a rod blank, Michael, but my point is that I don't know how one frequency or harmonic -- if that is what you arrive at -- will determine for the prospective buyer how and where the blank will flex and under what force. Of course a deflection board could provide insight into that. But I am not very clear on your methodology."

It will not determine how and where the blank will flex. CCS will. What I have been measuring with TNF is a dynamic measurement of the natural frequency of the rod blank or complete rod. Since so many experts for many years have concluded that sensitivity, the ability to feel a bite, is proportional to natural frequency, I tried and did find an easy method to measure it. I'm sure Dr. Hanneman would have done it if cell phones had existed for him. He mentioned that his CCF was a method for determining relative frequencies without using expensive, sophisticated equipment. He got frequency down to the range where it could be measured against a stop watch by adding weight to the tip. It accomplished his goal, but was cumbersome, difficult, and most people simply won't do it. With modern mobile devices we can measure the true natural frequency of a blank, and as we add guides, see how it changes. We can see what the advantage of lighter more expensive guides are. Or are not. We can see whether our dollars invested in premium blanks are really getting us what most likely is a sensitivity advantage. TNF is a dynamic measurement of the blank/rod, not a static measurement. If you want details on how to measure it email me.

Regarding: "Yes, the golf shaft frequency measurement is
> static (oscillations per second with slight weight
> on tip), done with electronic frequency machine." Respectfully, no, it is not static. When you are measuring frequency it is a dynamic process. The system is moving and you are measuring its response to an input. IE is static. Simply measuring the dimensions and calculating a result. BUT, here is the key to what they are doing with golf shafts, the experts are using the static data (and dynamic data) to predict what shaft characteristics will yield the dynamic performance that the golfer needs based on his swing characteristics. As I see it, ironically, the fishing rod is a much more complex instrument that does a simple job. The golf shaft is complex, but simpler than a fishing rod, and has to do a much more complex job.

CCS measurements themselves, are completely objective, The IP, or ERN of a blank is simply a measurement of how much weight it takes to deflect the tip of a rod or blank, 1/3 of its' total length.

IMO where the thought that they are somehow subjective, comes in because of the use of the word "effective". The use of the word effective, implies ability. Take out the word effective, and the thought of any subjectivity goes away.

At least that's how I see it.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CCS measurements themselves, are completely
> objective, The IP, or ERN of a blank is simply a
> measurement of how much weight it takes to deflect
> the tip of a rod or blank, 1/3 of its' total
> length.
>
> IMO where the thought that they are somehow
> subjective, comes in because of the use of the
> word "effective". The use of the word effective,
> implies ability. Take out the word effective, and
> the thought of any subjectivity goes away.
>
> At least that's how I see it.

I'd agree with that. If you look at the simple power systems used by the likes of Fenwick, Lamiglas, Loomis, etc., they all just use a single word followed by a number. But the reason Dr. Hanneman added the word "Effective" was to differentiate his system for measuring rod power from the others. Same with the use of Action Angle instead of just Action.

...........

Michael and Tom:

Thank you for your responses. Great stuff. As a fly fishing and golf addict, who makes his own fly rods and clubs, and as a lay person, I find such information most fascinating and worthy. Since we cannot test drive most rod blanks, the more data we can have the better.

Nice to hear from a curious, interested, person, David. I agree that the more data we have the better. We will never get all we want from the manufacturers, but with their data, data we can share, and our own experience backed by data, we can get increasingly confident of our purchases as time goes on.

Indeed.

In autos we can get numbers on horse power, torque, gear rations, 0 to 60 acceleration, g-force on the figure 8, car weight, drag coeficient, etc. The more we can get on rod blanks the better.

Try as I might I have been unable to discover any power in my fly rod. I only encounter power in the rod when I provide the power, and I have yet to find a rod which produces more power than I put into it.

You need to understand fishing rod terminology. Words have different meanings depending upon their specific use. In the fishing world, rod power is best understood as stiffness or dead lift capability. Take your pick.

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

It can also be measured like a spring for power. Deadlift is misleading to me. I can have an ultralight rod and a MH both lift a similar load, but one rod has more "power" in the return of a spring loaded effect released and the rods will have different results in that type of power test. So power can also be measured by how much "pull" a rod returning to rest can exert. This measurement is not tied to a deadlift test because the rod stays loaded for those results. What some of us want to look for is not deadlift ability, but rod return power ability. hope this makes sense... stiffness as Tom said, its more than that. And like Phil says a rod will never produce power on its own. Power is the result of an action on the rod and its response to that action. deadlifting cuts that action measurement in half since it stays loaded. I want to know more about return ability measurement than any static load deadlift measurement which is meaningless to me since I would never load a rod to its maximum so why bother with deadlift? I can deadlift with a rubber band and it means nothing. I want to know how that rod is going to fight a fish so i need other measurements that give me value for that search. So far after nearly 60 years of fishing only feel gives me the results I need. I want a rod's power measured with each degree of bend and what the rod is telling it can do for the return power it has to give to me. I'm not good at explaining things it seems...

The force available for a rod, any rod, any power, any action, to return from a dead lift condition is exactly the dead lift pounds/grams/graiins/tons; etc. If it were not so the weight would move. The rod is resisting the dead lift weight with a force equal to the dead lift weight.

The speed at which it returns depends on a lot of factors/characteristics of the rod.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The force available for a rod, any rod, any power,
> any action, to return from a dead lift condition
> is exactly the dead lift
> pounds/grams/graiins/tons; etc. If it were not so
> the weight would move. The rod is resisting the
> dead lift weight with a force equal to the dead
> lift weight.

Exactly. And this is why the measurement is of no value to me. I do not need a deadlift number. Never reach it. Never use it. have no need of it. I want the midrange bend measurements where I fish at.

What exactly is a deadlift number going to provide me with? Is this something mail order people do or need? I never mail order rod blanks so I am not sure where this deadlift resulting number is of value unless someone wants to know the snapping point of a rod or something which to me is abuse of the equipment as I would never do a deadlift on any of my rods. A junk rod maybe but even then why? What value is knowing the point where a rod is ready to snap to find out its deadlift ability? It provides me with nothing useful really. And, not all rods are the same. You can buy 5 identical rods and they or may not deadlift to the same weight. One might snap sooner than another. So what's the point of a deadlift? I'm not seeing it.

valuable measurements would be in the range of my needs while fishing. Nothing else matters really. Deadlift does not exist while fishing. Speed of return is not an issue while fishing. Having a rod balanced to my load is important to me. All of that is in the midrange not the extreme which seems to be the end result of some of the so called "tests" some want to do to fishing rods.

At the end of the day it is just a fishing rod. A tool. I choose based on the fish I seek. It is the balancing act of the rod power of return against the fish that brings the joy of it.


>
> The speed at which it returns depends on a lot of
> factors/characteristics of the rod.

Not interested in return speed. I'm interested in return power which is where I fight a fish at. Speed is not important at all as I see it. That is a feel preference if you want more or less speed or stiffness or less of it. I want to know the midrange mid bend ability of a rod where I fish them measured in weight scaling. i guess I am not good at explaining myself.

Kent Griffith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It can also be measured like a spring for power.
> Deadlift is misleading to me. I can have an
> ultralight rod and a MH both lift a similar load,
> but one rod has more "power" in the return of a
> spring loaded effect released and the rods will
> have different results in that type of power test.
> So power can also be measured by how much "pull" a
> rod returning to rest can exert. This measurement
> is not tied to a deadlift test because the rod
> stays loaded for those results. What some of us
> want to look for is not deadlift ability, but rod
> return power ability. hope this makes sense...
> stiffness as Tom said, its more than that. And
> like Phil says a rod will never produce power on
> its own. Power is the result of an action on the
> rod and its response to that action. deadlifting
> cuts that action measurement in half since it
> stays loaded. I want to know more about return
> ability measurement than any static load deadlift
> measurement which is meaningless to me since I
> would never load a rod to its maximum so why
> bother with deadlift? I can deadlift with a rubber
> band and it means nothing. I want to know how that
> rod is going to fight a fish so i need other
> measurements that give me value for that search.
> So far after nearly 60 years of fishing only feel
> gives me the results I need. I want a rod's power
> measured with each degree of bend and what the rod
> is telling it can do for the return power it has
> to give to me. I'm not good at explaining things
> it seems...

That's covered in the CCS Big Picture article. For most people it's more information than they would ever want to know, but you can measure it if you want.

..........

"The rod is resisting the dead lift weight with a force equal to the dead lift weight." Or any other force one applies to the rod at any point on the rod at any degree of deflection of the rod. Whatever the force or whereever it is applied, the resisting force of the rod is equal to the force applied to it. If it were not so the weight or force source would move.

One may never approach the pressure of the rod's deadlift force, but it is advantageous to know what that is, and how the rod will bend when pushed to that limit. How many rods have been broken by anglers trying to yank a snagged fly from a tree or rock.

One could say it is useless to know a car's horsepower or torque ratings, and their relationship to rpm, as all cars can achieve the speed limit.

If you cast efficiently you release your fly line at the moment your rod achieves its greatest bend - BACKWARD. Any other interpretations would involve pushing on a rope, or its equivalent.

Does "backward" mean at its farthest point behind the caster? Please elaborate, because at its farthest point behing the caster it has no bend at least at some time. . Then the hand comes forward putting bend into the rod, the lower part of the rod starts forward and the tip trails because it is held back by the rearward momentum of the line. Its greatest bend in a rearward direction comes at this time or just after this, after the rod has significantly loaded. Seems like releasing the line right then would just release the bend in the rod (and thus release without use all the energy the caster has put into the rod's bending) and the line would fall without having taken advantage of the forward force caused by the bend in the rod.

What is the equivalent of pushing on a rope?

What does this have to do with whether CCS is a game changer?

Just trying to understand. I'm a little slow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2022 11:52AM by Michael Danek.