The point is that it doesn't matter. It's meant to be a relative scale for comparative purposes. It does that, just like the Fenwick, Lamiglas, Loomis, etc., power scales. But it does it across the board for all type of rods and with all blanks regardless of who made them.

Use whichever you like best.

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

I have to conclude that there is a reluctance to admit just what ERN is. And is not. Stating exactly what it is and how it was derived would help those who are struggling to understand CCS.

People don't struggle to understand simple things. So just keep it simple. ERN is a power number. The higher the number the greater the power. That's all there is to it. Going any further is unnecessary and only turns people off. There is a reason that all the major rod manufacturers over the years have used simple power numbers, and to date not a single one has ever divulged where or how they get those power numbers... and nobody asks. Their customers don't care - they just want a relative scale for rod power.

...........

I just read some more on the CCS Info page. I learn something every time I read it again!

In my understanding, ERN is primarily, though not exclusively, used to determine a matching fly line for a fly rod. ERN is expressed in whole AND fractional numbers - which is quite precise. However, fly lines are typically listed and sold in whole numbers only. When I think ERN, I think mostly about fly rods.

From the Rosetta Stone chart on the CCS info page, I copied these numbers (the first number is Cents and the second number is ERN): 55 / 7.03 and 62 / 7.90.

To me this says that a range of 55 Cents to 62 Cents yields a 7-weight to almost an 8-weight line. So, I might begin with a #7 or an #8 depending on the value of the fractional number. Do I have this right?

I see how both ERN and Cents/IP numbers express relative values of difference between one rod and another - fly or otherwise. Right now, for me, I can quickly get a mental picture of a rod's power when expressed as IP (in Cents or grams) because I can imagine bags of pennies hanging from the rod tip. I'm a simpleton! Either way, a number is infinitely more informative than a word like "medium."

You do and you don't. If you expect ERN to equal ELN you're going to be disappointed. That was only a suggestion if you wanted to try and match a line if you are only holding 30 feet in the air. Even then, your casting style might negate even that. The rods I use for smallmouth bass with a 5-weight line are best (for me) with at least a 6.5 power rod.

ERN is a power number. AA is an action number. Just look at the numbers - it's generally intuitive to assume that the higher the number the greater the power or faster the action. Not much to explain.

The average fishing consumer, or even average rod builder, isn't going to envision bags of anything hanging from a rod tip. They just want to know if one rod is more or less powerful, has a faster or slower action, than another. This has been proved over the past 100 years by all the power and action systems used by rod and blank manufacturers. The instant you start trying explain in more detail than necessary or making things more complicated than they have to be, you have relegated your system to the realm of less than 1/10th of 1% of the people you'd hoped would find it useful. And right now I'm afraid that the CCS will never be adopted by most, even the manufacturers, because it has gained a reputation of being confusing, difficult, etc. It doesn't have to be.

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

Thank you for the additional info, Tom!

Have you ever made a DBI chart? Is it useful to you if you did?

I list the DBI on every rod I build.

...........

If it were not for trying to correlate fly rod power to line rating there would be no need or value to ERN. IP would provide not only a relative value for power, it would provide an absolute value for power. Thanks Leslie, for bringing up the fly line issue. It exposed the reasoning behind the "fudge factor" in ERN.

"Either way, a number is infinitely more informative than a word like "medium." " Yes, because all mediums are not the same, but all numbers of the same value are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2022 03:34PM by Michael Danek.

They do the same thing so why complicate matters? Hand a guy two rods and tell him “This one’s a 7 power rod and this one’s a 9 power rod” and he’ll get it and usually without asking any questions. Now hand a guy two rods and tell him, “This one’s a 440 grain IP rod and this one’s 620 grain IP rod” and get ready for the questions (probably some head scratching too). The verbiage itself creates confusion.

You can keep pounding a square peg into a round hole and getting nowhere. Or you can recognize why most widely adopted systems gained widespread use through hidden background mechanics (that nobody is interested in) that produced simplicity for the end user. If you have to explain it - you’ve failed.

As always, use whichever you like the best.

..........

Tom, Do you know why the rod # systems or how the other companies came up with their power numbers? Just curious since nobody seems to know.

I agree that ERN is intuitively easier to understand that grams, but the more I use grams , the more I understand without a lot of thinking what the power is. It isn't that difficult. I would be strongly in favor of ERN if it were a pure, linear, indicator of power. Then it would have the advantages of being both intuitively better and precise.

I continue to disagree that we need to dumb everything down to the lowest intellect or least interested. If we can serve all constituencies, all the better. The fact that this string has gone 3 pages is an indication that there is a significant number of builders who are more curious than simply Light/Medium/Heavy.

I seem to be having a mental block, and cannot remember what DBI is. Help?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2022 04:11PM by Michael Danek.

Yes I do. Instead of a deflection distance constant they used a weight constant and measured how far the rod was deflected. This is why you can’t compare blanks across the board even within the same manufacturer’s product line. The amount of weight a bass rod can barely support without breaking will barely move a stout surf rod so no single weight constant works for all rod types. Each ended up using several weight constants based on the particular rod category. But they all caught on and many are still used to this day because of their simple whole power numbers. Nothing to explain - it’s obvious at a glance.

Dr. Hanneman went one better with his deflection distance constant which allows across the board comparisons from one maker to another, and from one category to another. But I erred by publishing the nuts and bolts behind it. Hindsight is always 20/20.

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

Defined Bending Index which is ERN/AA. Dr. Hanneman used to say that he wanted to see the DBI listed on every rod and he could go to his grave happy.

Imagine if computers hadn't been "dumbed down" and people had to understand how they worked in order to use one.

..........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2022 04:50PM by Tom Kirkman.

Thanks, Tom. Got it, now trying to get a gut feel for what it tells me. I'll work on it. I'm one of the 1/10 of one percent curious people.

Re" Imagine if computers hadn't been "dumbed down" and people had to understand how they worked in order to use one."

That is not the only option. There are options in between dumbing down and understanding everything of how they work. Same for fishing rods.

Imagine if Dr. Hanneman had not had the curiosity and intellect to develop CCS. We would all be stuck with Light/Medium/Heavy forever.

The DBI was really just what he felt should be on labels instead of things like "medium-heavy fast" or whatever.

The genius behind what Dr. Hanneman developed, was a system that you didn't have to understand in order to use it. Keep in mind that he didn't develop it for rod builders. It was intended for manufacturers as a means of having a single, across the board system for relative action and power ratings (speed too if you want to consider CCF). Relative numbers in the catalogs was all he was aiming for, albeit with much greater resolution than the old subjective terms provided.

...........

I have been doing that also, on all my rod builds. I just didn't know it was DBI.

I suggest it be expressed as ERN-AA to prevent dummies like I am from thinking it is a ratio.

That's a good idea. Dr. Hanneman wrote it as ERN/AA but a hyphen would be better.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's a good idea. Dr. Hanneman wrote it as
> ERN/AA but a hyphen would be better.
>
> ............

I think Dr. Hanneman is implying that DBI is ERN divided by AA....thus the "ERN/AA".
ERN-AA could be construed as ERN minus AA.

I asked him about it at the time and he said he simply would like to see the ERN and AA inscribed on every rod made. Nothing about division. I just inscribe the ERN, leave a space, and then inscribe the AA.

His quote to that effect is at the end of one of his articles.

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

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I asked him about it at the time and he said he
> simply would like to see the ERN and AA inscribed
> on every rod made. Nothing about division. I just
> inscribe the ERN, leave a space, and then inscribe
> the AA.
>
> His quote to that effect is at the end of one of
> his articles.
>
> ............
Oh...gotcha. I was reading it like an algebra formula.
Thanks for clearing that up...because I was having some real issues with it...as I was coming up with the same numbers for different ERN/AA... over and over. In more than one place in the article its written. DBI = ERN / AA. Typically, you would separate two numbers with a comma. But since each number represents different things: weight, angle...it would almost certainly be clearer to use a notation also.
i.e. 201.5 g, 55°