There has been a lot of discussion regarding the value of objective blank descriptions, specifically CCS, with some arguing they are of no interest and no value. A recent trip to Lake St. Clair with a catch of about 20 smallmouth bass ranging from about a pound to 4.4 pounds showed me the value of CCS power numbers. I took an extra fast action (80 degrees AA) drop shot rod subjectively described as “medium power” with a CCS ERN of 12, another very similar fast action spin jig (AA 75) rod described as “medium light” power with a CCS ERN of 11 which I used for Ned rigs. I also had an old favorite rod I love for tubes, a 75 degree AA, 16.9 ERN described as “medium power.” The final rod was an extra fast 80 degree rod described as “medium light” power with an ERN of 19.9.

The day clarified for me that for smallies in the range of 3-4.4 pounds the rods with less than 16.9 ERN were quite inadequate for handling the fish efficiently even though keeping the fish out of cover was not an issue-the water fished was open. The “medium-light” and “medium” rods with ERN's of 11 and 12 were clearly well under-powered, showing inadequate power to move the fish to the net even late in the fight. The “medium” and “medium-light” rods with ERN's of 16.9 and 19.9 were clearly superior.

With the different makers' different subjective power interpretations, described recently as a “crap shoot,” it is obvious to me that the CCS objective descriptions are superior and allow me to better fit the rod to the job.

Michael,

I value and learn from your detailed information both on the side of raw data AND fishing experiences you have had. This is the type of synthesis I crave in my own rod building and fishing! Thank you!

I have known about CCS for some time, however, only recently began doing the actual tests myself. I am still stumbling along to get it accurate, consistent, and useful to me. And I want to emphasize that part, too, for a moment - TO ME, and the kind of fishing I do. I want to take advantage of CCS as a tool to improve my fishing. (Fishing, like baseball and softball, is a type of "failure sport", IMO, in that I will try much much more than succeed. It is the PURSUIT of SUCCESS that is the real sport in my mind. So, why ignore data that can improve my swing?)

Having a GOAL for my testing emerged as a very important part of the testing itself - both in terms of motivation to do it, and in the data I recorded. Knowing my WHY was linked to knowing my WHAT! For starters, it came down to focusing in on the existing rods I have used and why I use them. When I thought about it, I started to notice a "clustering" of rod actions, lengths, and powers that I reach for in certain situations.

This is where the CCS testing really got intriguing to me. When I reflected on this data, patterns appeared.

What I found out:

1.) A ranked order of IP showed my rods lined-up a little differently than I first imagined. What I thought was "more powerful" was actually less and vise versa. Same with AA. (How the rod was labeled by the manufacturer was sometimes accurate in how I think of it, and sometimes not. There is much nuance in listed power and action....which is the reason for CCS.)

2.) I discovered that I might be limiting myself to a certain sub-set of rods, namely IP 400's to 650's for bass, and 300 to 350's for panfish. AA's were mostly in the 70+ range.

3.) Trying out a couple new blanks I liked and fished successfully, I was surprised by both how they DID and DID NOT fit my preconceived ideas.

So, the work goes on with both testing and fishing. Along with the CCS methodology itself being a game changer for me in terms of a comparative tool of one rod/blank to another, it has opened my mind to see more objectively my own tendencies, preferences, and biases...and challenge them!

The mental part may be the bigger game changer for me!

Still swinging for the fences...

Les

Is there an available collection or list of CCS data for various specific rod blanks - I am thinking of fly-rod blanks in particular? Me testing blanks I have already purchased for their CCS numbers seems a waste of time.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> CCS numbers seems a waste of time."



Interesting.

Why is a power rating a waste of time?

.........

I might seek CCS data on a blank I own and really like so if I broke it I could buy another blank with similar CCS numbers. problem. As far as I know there are no blank makers, advertisers, or dealers who make available the CCS data on their blanks, and I avoid relying upon the statements or opinions of strangers to make purchases much over $50. After I have purchased a blank I don't need or seek anyone else's CCS measurements of that blank. An easy solution: Rod manufacturers sell blanks with accurate CCS measurements provided. Accountability trumps hearsay. And bag the "soulful actions"!!

Not having a power rating before I built that quite expensive "medium" power drop shot blank with an ERN of 12 was a waste of money since it almost exactly duplicated a rod I already had. But having power ratings for the 11 and 12 even though already built verified my subjective evaluations that I essentially had two rods that were very similar. If I had known that "medium" power to that blank maker meant ERN 12 I would have gone for a "medium heavy."

The more I work with blanks, whether it be CCS or TNF, the more I feel I understand the complexities of rod performance and the relationships of rod specs (objective) to performance and fishing techniques. I really don't see it as a waste of time.

Phil, as I have mentioned before, Point Blank provides CCS data on all their blanks, Rainshadow published CCS data on their new RX 10 blanks, Pac Bay has in the past published data on some of their products (I remember specifically the Quiklin rods, including their Quikline fly rod blanks) , NFC has published CCS data on many of their blanks. Often by asking on forums like this you can get data from other builders. I have a number of builder friends who sometimes have data that I need. You have to open your mind and take some initiative rather than waiting for all the subjective data you want to be simply handed to you. Have you noticed the "CCS Data Base" in the left margin? Take a look, click on the "CCS Data Base" button.

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

> though already built verified my subjective
> evaluations


>
> The more I work with blanks, whether it be CCS or
> TNF, the more I feel I understand the complexities
> of rod

Feel? Subjective?

Yes, it is of value to have a correlation between subjective and objective. When you have that correlation the objective becomes very predictable vs using subjective, which "is a crap shoot". Then you base your purchasing decisions on the objective and don't waste money again, as I recently did. Yes it requires objective numbers before purchase, and we are not there yet. But we are gaining.

"If you find the CCS useful, use it. If not, don't use it." Dr. William Hanneman.

........

Here is a CCS data base for fly rods. It’s near the top of the sponsors list here on rod board and has been there for years.
[www.rodcents.org]
Norm

My first experience with performing CCS tests was testing some of my favorite factory rods. Since I was only aware of one manufacturer that supplied CCS numbers for their blanks at the time (Pac Bay for their Quickline blank series) I used the numbers I came up with for one of my factory rods, to choose a Quickline blank with close to the same power numbers. I was amazed at how similar the rods I built fished compared to the factory rods I was trying to mimic. I was pretty much sold on the usefulness of CCS numbers from that point on.

Like Leslie and Michael have mentioned, doing CCS testing on my rods has allowed me to relate and group actual rod powers to the baits and fishing situations I use them for. It is for that reason that I think calling CCS a way of comparing one blank to another blank is selling the system short.. As I see it, and for the way I've use it from the very beginning, it's a way of selecting a rod blank.

I like fishing fishing tube jigs for smallmouth bass on spinning rods that I have that have an IP in the neighborhood of 550 grams. If I want to build another tube jig rod, I just pick a blank with an IP in my preferred range. There may be some that are thinking, it can't be that easy. But honestly, at least in my experience .... it really is. One of the first spinning rods I built was a rod that through my CCS testing, had an IP of 561 grams. It was a nice enough rod, but while I really loved the power it had, I wanted more sensitivity. I ended up selling that rod to a buddy of mine. Knowing the IP of that rod allowed me to choose a blank for that rod's replacement, that was exactly what I was looking for as far as power goes. This past winter that same buddy approached me about building him another rod. He wanted one with the same power as the one I had sold him. The blank I had built that rod on was unavailable due to Covid, but knowing the IP of the rod I sold him allowed me to select another blank, and IMO a better blank, that I knew he would be happy with, simply because the IP and AA were virtually the same as the rod I sold him.

Anyhow ......if you group and classify your rods by relating their CCS numbers to various baits and fishing situations, it can make CCS a very powerful blank selection tool.

I know it is for me.

Michael,
Thank you for the CCS / actual experience post. Numbers by themselves do not always paint the entire picture and conversely wonder why one rod may fish better than another isn’t very colorful either. While Hannerman’s CCS and your TNF are great tools for the interested builder or angler in narrowing-down or even pinpointing the best blank for a specific application, the “numbers by themselves” mean diddly-squat without knowing exactly how the blank / rod fishes or feels in-hand. Again, thanks for the post = very informative.
In the end, to truly reap the benefits of CCS and TNF, one needs to create a simple database including the obtained, measured values as well as how those values actually (dare I say) feel. If all one was trying to accomplish was simply comparing one blank / rod to another, this would not be necessary = the numbers would speak for themselves. IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THAT THE MORE ONE USES CCS OR TNF = THE MORE USEFUL THE NUMBERS BECOME!!! Unfortunately, there are those who complain the most about the “lack” of hard data yet are the same ones who fail to even look for the available information (thanks Norman), let alone conduct the tests themselves, let alone share their findings with the rest of us.
I commend Leslie Cline who has (apparently) been building rods for quite a while yet is open-minded enough to recently start exploring the benefits of CCS, possibly TNF as well.
Hey, Kent, wasn’t it you who started dabbling in measuring the “tone frequency” of blanks? You spent a lot of time researching the required devices and posting here on RB.O. It seemed as though you had it all figured-out and were extremely close to a working prototype. What is the project status? I was, and still am, very interested in your concept and certain others are still interested as well.

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

Paraphrasing some of the gems I picked up so far from this post: (Please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Michael Danek - The correlation between subjective and objective is ENHANCED using CCS, and other methodologies like TNF.

David Baylor - CCS is more than a comparative tool, it is also a Selection and Classification System for your specific fishing wants and needs.

Both Michael and David - CCS is a Research and Replication engine for narrowing the focus; aim small, miss small. This makes customers happy when they get what they asked for, and saves duplication in one's own arsenal of rods.

Norman Miller - "Ummm, guys.....there is a giant list of CCS data right here. Check it out!"

Mark Talmo - CCS (and TNF) becomes more useful the more it is used.

Bam! You guys can drop the mic now!



This is the kind of stuff that has lead me to see the game changing aspects of CCS. It goes to something

Thanks, Leslie. If you want the TNF process, my email is open.

Thank you, Michael! I will take you up on that!

I think I may have picked another fight for you with an additional topic on why I believe CCS is relevant to the FEEL category as well as the OBJECTIVE one.

I want to hear your take on it!

Les

I think your post is right on target. There will aways be naysayers, and those simply not interested, but that's to be expected. As Tom K says, if you want to use it , use it. If you don't, don't.

Manufacturers, advertisers, and retailers are obliged to deliver the product information their customers demand. But precious few rod blank manufacturers or advertisers reveal - up front - the physical facts about their products. "Soulful" and "smooth" and similar nonsense adjectives (NOT numbers) dominate advertisements and discussions of rod building components. How about providing some physical facts, including numbers, about the performance of rod-building components - or are they all pretty much the same?

Phil, if you want to find out for yourself what the attributes of blanks are, then email me for the instrucitions for the TNF process, go to the CCS links on the left column, and start working instead of just complaining.

All rods are equally accurate, as long as the rod's tip-top, ferrules, and handles don't slip and rotate. Same input = same result. However, the cause of casting distances of rods vary with the type of rod. Conventional rod and spinning rod casting distances are determined by the speed of the rod's tip-top, but a fly rod's casting distance is determined by the speed of the fly line, not the rod. Does the TNF process take this fact into account?