I need a little clarification please and I realize this might not even be a rod building question but given how many use it here I thought I should ask. I had to dive into the CCS/ERN stuff to try and learn more about what lines work with certain ERN's etc. I just feel I'm overpowering my rods when I try to carry more line for distance and just for background I've been throwing liquid crystal tarpon 41ft head weighing 330gr for 30ft-pretty standard AFTMA?.I measured a 10 wt and an 11wt I built recently. Anyway the 10wt ERN was 9.27 and the 11wt was 9.83. So am I correct that a decent "starting point" for a good match assuming 30ft of line out of the tip would be a 9 and 10 wt line(AFTMA standard)? But I would obviously like to carry more line and be able to cast farther distances when necessary so technically I should even drop down to maybe an 8 and 9wt maybe? Is this interpretation on the right track? Does this support my feeling that I've been overpowering the crap out of these rods?

Thanks for the help



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2022 03:57PM by Al Jones.

I'm not a fly fisherman, but IMO your logic is sound. If the weight you're throwing over powers the rod, you need to use a lighter weight, or a higher powered rod. In that respect it's no different than casting too heavy of a weight with a conventional casting or spinning rod.

Where the difference comes in is that you' carrying line that has a lot to do with how far you're going to cast, so you need to ask yourself, is that lighter line going to allow you to cast the distance you want, and overcome any environmental conditions you may encounter on a given day. The heavier line may deal with the wind better than a lighter line, Giving you more distance and I would guess some degree of better accuracy.

David, thanks for your help. And good point on the conditions and line weight. I throw some huge streamers so maybe the answer is a bigger rod ha ha

I question the testing since every fly rod I've tested has had an ERN higher, not lower than it's nominal "weight."

But what is important is that the line you use for your rod cast well at the distance you want to cast. To keep from wasting a lot of money, try to get a shop to allow you to test cast some of their lines.. Then buy from them.

My guess is that the huge streamers are exacerbating the problem some what. I would imagine that they at least triple in weight when they get wet.

Like I said, I am not a fly fisherman, but I am certain that other members that are, will reply and maybe have a way of getting past your predicament.

From my bass fishing point of view, you need a more powerful rod lol

Good luck !!!

I was surprised also that it was lower than expected since I always hear reports of them ending up higher. But gosh that seems like a pretty simple test. The 10 was a CTS and the 11 was a Northfork.

ERN is unlikely to match any manufacturer's line weight rating. The former is objective, the later is subjective. But neither does this mean that you should use a line that has the same number as the ERN figure.

If you have two rods from different manufacturers, let's say one is a 6 weight and one is a 7 weight, but they have identical ERN numbers, then they possess the same power. If you have two rods from different manufacturers that have the same line number, let's say an 8, but they have different ERN figures, that means they possess different powers.

The line that will work best for you will be the one that fully loads the rod with the amount of line that you intend to carry on the cast. It is very typical that manufacturers under-label their heavier rods because they expect the angler to be fishing at longer distances. It would not be unusual to have something like a 7-weight rod that has an ERN of 8 or 9. And if you are fishing longer distances and carrying more line in the air, a 7-weight line might indeed by the ideal line for that rod.

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

Well talk about embarrassing! I guess I did screw up the "simple test" maybe I should try to edit my previous posts ha ha.I just repeated and got numbers in the 11 ERN range. I guess I flipped my measurements on the easy math.
Definitely learned something... watch the simple math and I have a 10 and 11 blank that are pretty much the same ha ha
Thanks for the help

Al, don't be too embarrassed about coming up with numbers different from your first attempts. I had the same thing happen to me when I first started doing CCS measurements. I had a couple of brain malfunctions with the simple math as well. It was then that I decided to forego the penny counting, and just buy a scale to measure the weight I used to deflect the blank. It definitely simplified the process, but as I compared my numbers for various rods I've built, to the numbers other members posted for rods built on the same blanks, I was coming up with different numbers. Sometimes vastly different.

Figuring that it was my numbers that were off, I revisited my process and found that I had several problems. My first discovery was that I was supporting the blank at a point that was greater than the proper 10% of the blanks length. Then I found that I wasn't making sure the butt of the rod was secure enough in my rod wrapper. It was allowing the butt to lift, which skewed my measurements. After rectifying that, I found that I wasn't starting with a blank that was accurately level. Each time I addressed an improper set up issue, my numbers changed.

Then I had a problem I wasn't expecting at all. And that was receiving a blank that wasn't the blank that I ordered. In that case I attributed dimensional differences in the published numbers for the blank I ordered, to the blank I received, to a typo on the manufacturers web site. It wasn't until I saw the numbers posted by a trusted member of this site for the blank that I ordered, that I figured out I had gotten the wrong blanks. Then if you're comparing your numbers to the numbers others have gotten for the same blank, there's that whole differences in individual blanks themselves thing to deal with.


Anyhow ..... once you become familiar with setting them up, CCS tests are easy to set up, And if you apply the numbers in a useful way, are definitely valuable in selecting the right blank for the job.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2022 07:00AM by David Baylor.

Throwing 300 g sink tips on 8 wt rods is something done all the time where I live, have even thrown 400 grain on occsaions where I needed to get deep, but they cast terribly. If you have a good double haul you should be fine at distance i would think.

When I started using it I did not want to have to buy a scale and weigh stuff. Now this is not my idea but I followed it the first time somebody here mentioned it. You only have to count pennies ONCE. Bag them in groups of 5, 10, 20, and write the numbers on the outside of the little bags. Easy to keep track of what you hang on the tip. Then you only have to count less than 5 pennies on any measurement.

You don't even have to use pennies. Weight is weight. For my rods with higher powers I use bags of 110 grain bullets and bags of 40, 20, 10 pennies. . One can use anything they have that they think is handy.

Scales with good accuracy in this range are available for less than $15.

Pennies are fairly common. Most people have them and hardly ever use them. And you won't have to weigh anything. But to each his own.

A lot of good info, thank you for the help. I love the idea of being able to compare power to other blanks down the road. I ended up finding CTS's power measurements in their knowledge base and my measurement was very close. Also this tells me the overpowering is due to poor technique which I assumed was the more likely problem!

Make sure you use the right pennies. Post 1982 Lincoln penny, not Union Shield penny or pre-1982. The right pennies weigh 2.5 grams.

Al Jones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of good info, thank you for the help. I love
> the idea of being able to compare power to other
> blanks down the road. I ended up finding CTS's
> power measurements in their knowledge base and my
> measurement was very close. Also this tells me
> the overpowering is due to poor technique which I
> assumed was the more likely problem!


Al,

it is very common that most fishermen, fly, casting or spinning, when casting for distance, will overpower their rod. They attempt to use muscle to do what the rod, if it is properly matched with the right line, lure, etc., will do for you. I have a casting lane next to the shop here and have had guys try their best to hit the end of it. I watch them use maximum effort and note the rod over-flexing. When I have them ease up just a little they get better distance. It's not about muscle - it's technique and timing.

Working from memory (which means I could be wrong) I think Dr. Hanneman specified 1986 and later pennies. Weight is 2.56 grams. I have no idea if they have undergone any weight change since that time.

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

From CoinTrackers.com:

2.5 grams (0.088 ounces) or 3.11 grams (0.109)
All U.S. pennies (1-cent pieces) minted since 1982 weigh either 2.5 grams (0.088 ounces) or 3.11 grams (0.109). The 2.5 grams Lincoln Penny is composed of brass (95% copper, 5% zinc), while the 3.11 grams Union Shield is composed of copper-plated zinc (97.5% zinc, 2.5% copper). All current U.S. pennies have a diameter of 19.05 mm, a thickness of 1.52 mm, and are composed primarily of zinc (97.5%) with a copper plating (2.5%).


I use all post 1986 Lincoln pennies (based on my Hanneman spec memory, too) and weigh every bag. With all the confusion and different stories I think weighing is a good idea. But to each his own.

Note that the Lincoln penny is the 2.5 grams, the Union Shield 3.11.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From CoinTrackers.com:
>
> 2.5 grams (0.088 ounces) or 3.11 grams (0.109)
> All U.S. pennies (1-cent pieces) minted since 1982
> weigh either 2.5 grams (0.088 ounces) or 3.11
> grams (0.109). The 2.5 grams Lincoln Penny is
> composed of brass (95% copper, 5% zinc), while the
> 3.11 grams Union Shield is composed of
> copper-plated zinc (97.5% zinc, 2.5% copper). All
> current U.S. pennies have a diameter of 19.05 mm,
> a thickness of 1.52 mm, and are composed primarily
> of zinc (97.5%) with a copper plating (2.5%).
>
>
> I use all post 1986 Lincoln pennies (based on my
> Hanneman spec memory, too) and weigh every bag.
> With all the confusion and different stories I
> think weighing is a good idea. But to each his
> own.
>
> Note that the Lincoln penny is the 2.5 grams, the
> Union Shield 3.11.

Mick...something is totally wrong there...Union shield pennies weigh 2.5 grams.

Pennies before 1982 weigh 3.11 grams....pennies after 1982 weigh 2.5 grams.
1982 pennies can weigh both as they transitioned mid year in 1982.

The US Mint agrees with you, Chris.

I guess since I use all 1986 and later, I'm ok.

But I know I'm ok when I weigh the bags.

thanks,

That's why you buy an inexpensive scale. Then it doesn't matter what you use for weight. I sill use pennies because I have a 2 lb coffee can full of them. I just don't have to count them. Pop them in a bag handing from a bent out paper clip ... deflect the rod the proper amount,..... unhook the paper clip from the rod tip and pop it on the scale.

Can't get any easier than that.