Here is why CCS, an Objective Measurement System, is still a valuable tool to me for dialing in on Feel, one of the most subjective aspects of rod building:

First, CCS helps me generate a set of data that I can use in a myriad of OBJECTIVE ways:

The Three R's:
R1.) Ranking in terms of IP and AA (highest to lowest, graphite vs glass, high modulus vs low, brand vs brand, on and on). I can play with the numbers and discover my preferences and tendencies.
R2.) Replication of these numbers as closely as I can (or tweak up/down). If I want to build a Replacement or fill an order, I am in the ballpark.
R3.) Recommendations when others are at the beginning of their journey to Rod Nirvana.
More Useful Information:
4.) Classify and Group rods I already have that I find most effective for specific fishing situations (fish species, lure type, technique, line, salt/fresh, cover/open water, etc.) from my own experiences.
5.) Avoid duplication of a rod I may already have and thus save resources to invest elsewhere.
*6.) Rod length is a factor mixed in here, too, though indirectly recorded in terms of IP, AA, or ERN. This aspect may however, factor into the Feeling category: Rods must also be 'felt' while hiking along stream-side trails, put in a rod locker, fished in a kayak, etc.

That's a magnificent amount of usefulness to me right there! Sold on these merits alone!

Ahhh, but there's more for me, too!

How CCS helps ME on the SUBJECTIVE Feeling side:
1.) Rods of a certain IP or AA are easier for me to use: Cast, balance, and manipulate the rod, lure, and line. My data shows shows what I prefer. I pick these rods up because they 'feel good' in my hand.
2.) Rods of a certain IP or AA that are easier for me to use, when combined with lighter weight blanks, guides, etc., reduce my hand, arm, shoulder, and back fatigue. (This aspect of fishing 'feel' is often overlooked, IMO.)
3.) The CONFIDENCE FACTOR, plays a huge role for me. Confidence is a feeling and feelings aren't facts. Feelings are not right or wrong, either. Confidence is attached to CCS in my mind because I have had success with certain IP's and AA's and ERN's over the years. When I pick 'that rod' up for 'that situation', I see it as a foxhole buddy. Knowing that new rod I built (that is in the IP and AA range I like)....makes me think, "Yeah, I'm gonna get 'em today." Doing my CCS work boosts my confidence which boosts my attention which boosts my focus which boosts my perceptions. That's how it works for me. Maybe not anyone else. It ALSO shows me my blind spots, where I may need to explore new options.
4.) I can't prove it with a scientific test, and never will, yet I know I can 'feel' a bite better with certain rods than others, and my CCS data helps me zero that into view. Anecdotal: Swinging jigs in a stiff current below a tailwater for saugeye in February....I have rods that can "tell me" when I hit a rock, and when I got a hit. All that matters to me is that I can know the difference, and which rod has my back. CCS helps me dial in the IP and AA that "speaks my fishing language" the best. (In this anecdotal case, a MLXF higher modulus blank spinning rig, 7'6" length.)

So, that's my flawed thinking about how CCS helps ME with FEEL. I like what a poster on a related topic said, "(Paraphraded) There is a CORRELATION between subjective and objective information."

A correlation. NOT A DUAL SET OF HARD AND IMMUTABLE FACTS...a correlation. That's where CCS helps me navigate an ocean of information.That's the current seam between performance and preference; where the action happens in the fishing I like best.

Thank you to:

Michael Danek
Norman Miller
Mark Talmo
David Baylor
Tom Kirkman

You guys bring it everytime!

Les

Thank for the nice words, Leslie. And I think your post is right on target.

To the best of my knowledge all makers and retailers of rod blanks, every single one - along with their distributors, advertisers and retailers - have COMPLETELY ignored the CCS rating system. Why? Have they concluded the average rod-builder is too dim-witted to care about physical facts? That would explain advertisers' flood of vague claims of "power" or "sensitivity" or "smoothness" or "feel" or any other ad-speak bushwa which dominate - in the absence of numbers - descriptions of the physical characteristics of rod blanks.

Leslie, happy to hear you have become a real fan of CCS. It really does help in zeroing in on what you like and/or want in particular rod. I have found it to be a very useful tool for picking a rod for myself or recommending one to someone else. Hopefully, more manufacturers will start publishing CCS data on their blanks. I think it will help then sell more rods.
Norm

Phil, you are wrong. As has been stated many times, Point Blank publishes CCS on all their blanks, Rainshadow publishes CCS on their RX10 blanks, Pac Bay for years has published CCS on their Quikline blanks, and NFC publishes CCS on many of their blanks. Get off your soap box and join reality.

Phil,
By the way, you know and I expect that the manufacturers also know that a person who is willing to fork over $500- $2000 for a fishing rod is neither dim witted nor slow of thought, nor have a lack of intelligence to understand vague theories, as well as profound truths.

Simply put, a thoughtless, or dim witted person will not have the coinage to purchase a very high quality, expensive, well laid out rod. Thus, the manufacturers will not be pursuing those individuals.

Give the manufacturers the credit that they deserve when they deal with their customers, including yourself.

Best wishes.

Unless a $500 - $2,000 rod blank can be proved - with NUMBERS - to cast MORE ACCURATELY or CAST FARTHER than a say, $69.95 blank, I submit the person who buys the $500 - $2,000 rod blank seeks to buy recognition and respect, not a rod to catch fish. I have encountered a surprising number of fly-fishers who have gladly spent thousands of dollars on fly rods and fly rod blanks but scoff at the idea of learning to double-haul cast. I support their right to refuse to learn how to cast further with less effort and less stress on their shoulder [double haul] - but I reject contention that a double-haul sacrifices accuracy or delicate presentation. How can one who can't double-haul make judgements about what's wrong with double-hauls?

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless a $500 - $2,000 rod blank can be proved -
> with NUMBERS - to cast MORE ACCURATELY or CAST
> FARTHER than a say, $69.95 blank, I submit the
> person who buys the $500 - $2,000 rod blank seeks
> to buy recognition and respect, not a rod to catch
> fish. I have encountered a surprising number of
> fly-fishers who have gladly spent thousands of
> dollars on fly rods and fly rod blanks but scoff
> at the idea of learning to double-haul cast. I
> support their right to refuse to learn how to cast
> further with less effort and less stress on their
> shoulder [double haul] - but I reject contention
> that a double-haul sacrifices accuracy or delicate
> presentation. How can one who can't double-haul
> make judgements about what's wrong with
> double-hauls?

I totally agree and will add that I don't by high end blanks for anything 5wt or less because of this. If it is not going to be used in saltwater or a larger river, then what is the point. There are plenty of very good sub $100 blanks that will work as good as the most expensive with good components on them at near the same CCS. Fly fishermen are not by majority wealthy, but they have a tendency to purchase very high end equipment. I guess they believe the advertising and respect the reputations that some of these brands have or least the people they look up to that use them.

Leslie,
Thanks for the recognition; I try to help when feeling qualified to do so to repay the many who have, and continue to, help me. Tom K. orchestrated a great, informative forum.
I am also pleased to learn that you have found CCS so useful. Since you mention “feel”, have you explored Dr. Hannerman’s extension of CCS = CCF? CCF was designed / intended to put a numeric value of “feel” to any given rod or blank for comparison or identification purposes. Although developed quite a while ago, it still works today even if I believe that Michael Danek’s TNF is more precise due to the use of modern APPs. I know Michael does not like to associate TNF with CCF (probably out of respect to the Dr.) but the two really do accomplish virtually the same thing; TNF simply utilizes a modern approach which is more accurate, if not easier and quicker. I was surprised to learn that quite a few proponents of CCS do not bother with CCF; I wonder if they apply TNF?

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

A fishing rod is a tool, and tools are judged by their performance and ease of use. Is there ANY source of information available which reveals, and better yet compares the ease of use and actual performance, in feet and inches, of various fishing rods?

Phil, nothing will satisfy you. No matter what we offer you, it's not enough. If you want more, then do it. Generate the data that you demand. You have rods in your possession, right? Measure them for "ease of use and actual performance in feet and inches."

To Mark, thank you, but TNF and CCF are not the same thing. As you know, CCF utilizes an "assigned" mass to the blank to get its frequency into a range that can be measured with a stopwatch. The mass is assigned based on ERN, which itself is not a pure number, itself being altered from the pure power number IP. Based on the judgment of Dr. Hanneman. I have much respect for him and his work, but he was hampered by his time and its technology. He accomplished so much more than I will ever accomplish. Those who want to know more about him should research his gemnology accomplishments as well as his fishing rod accomplishments.

TNF is the pure, unadulterated, natural frequency of the blank/rod. It has the capability of showing the difference between SS guides and titanium guides and how they affect the finished rod. If CCF can do that, I have yet to find any information that contends that it can. Many experts for years have asserted that sensitivity is proportional to natural frequency. Can CCF tell the difference between RX6 and RX 7 and RX 8? I have not seen any information contending that it can. But TNF can.

I argue that the two are not that similar, and that probably Dr. Hanneman would not have bothered with CCF if modern mobile devices had been available to him.

Leslie, I too would like to thank you for the kind words. Just sharing my feelings and trying to present things that not everyone may think about.

Thanks again.

Easy, Michael! I have been on your side all along!!! CCF and TNF measure the same thing; the number of oscillations when a blank is excited over a given period of time = cycles per minute (CPM). The Dr’s approach (at the time) was to add an (I hate to say “arbitrary”) weight to the tip of the blank to slow down the oscillations enough to be counted by the naked eye. While this certainly enabled the “masses” to easily measure (count) the CPM, the method was flawed simply by the need to add additional weight to the tip of the blank. TNF affords the same CPM (probably even CPS, Cycles Per Second) but in the PUREST FORM = without the additional “arbitrary” weight / in its natural, naked state.
Please excuse me if all my previous posts attempting to praise all of your work and dedication to TNF have been misinterpreted. TNF is truly a milestone in rod building history.

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

Sorry if I came on too strongly, but I think it's important to understand the differences between the two processes and what they can accomplish. Regarding "arbitrary," I agree that it's not totally arbitrary, but it was the Dr's judgment and not a scientific process that determined the weight, which was assigned based on ERN. Which itself is a step away from the pure power number IP.

To be entirely accurate, TNF measures the period (time) of oscillation and the natural frequency is calculated from that. That calculation has no assigned "constants" or artificial elements; it is a pure arithmetic calculation/conversion. And yes, it can be expressed in any units one prefers. CPM, CPS, Hz, etc.

A really significant advantage of TNF is that it is quick and easy. I can set up a blank/rod to be measured in seconds and have the measurement in just a couple minutes. It is low energy so holding the blank can be done with a wrapping machine stand. Energy levels are very low, so there is no chance of a blank recoiling if a weight comes off-there is no weight and no safety concerns.

I do appreciate your support.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2022 07:44AM by Michael Danek.

Thank you for the technical support with TNF, Michael!

I think TNF will add even more useful information, and focus, to my rod building.

It would be a major under-taking to create a Master List of Rod Data. I can envision an Excel-type spreadsheet; with columns for all measurable rod/blank characteristics. I bet some patterns would emerge. (I asked in another topic about correlations between CCS, TNF, etc. and got some intriguing feedback.) Ahhhh, dreams. I know there are several different pieces floating around out there, as Norman pointed to one already.


The only unknown data column would be some of the proprietary materials and building practices used by the manufacturer...however, I don't think I would need that info to know which blank works best for me.

Anyway, I can dream.

I have little interest in how a bare rod blank behaves in a laboratory. I'm interested in the behavior of a rod while it it is in use - casting. Physical science predicts all rods will be equally accurate: given the same input they will continue to cast to the same spot. I have never seen any proof that one make/model rod blank is more accurate than another - or casts longer, regardless of the caster.

The laboratory can be predictive of how a product will behave when it is in use.