Before I die I'll post a few things that other guys should try so they're not lost in the noise. Static is defined as "at rest." When I'm pulling hard on something, everything is dynamic not resting, so much for the misplaced semantics and why I prefer the word "dynamic," and not "static" for pulling on rods.

Pulling on the tip of a rod doesn't load the rod; it loads the tip. It mimics a rod at critical bend poorly, but not really. A fish never pulls on the tip of a rod. The fisherman lifts with the center section and that's what I like to test.

Try this because it works. Tie off a piece of paracord to the butt section of a blank with lengthwise hitch, like a timber hitch, magnus hitch, or steeplejack hitch (see Ashley, all easy knots) and then cast half hitches on the rod blank where you want to put guides. Add a few wraps of masking tape to the butt if you can't hand clamp the cord for better traction. Anchor the other end of the paracord to a spring scale or a static weight and lean in. The method loads the entire rod. The weight of full pull on even 80 or 100# tuna sticks is spread out along the full length of the rod, is easily adjusted if the guide (the half hitches) needs to be moved, and puts no stress on the tip of the rod (which, by the way, is usually straight in a fight and bears no weight at all). I use the paracord trick to test all kinds of heavy rods and jig sticks without any installations, tips, or guide taping.

It you want more, use an unglued roller heavy duty guide like an Aftco on the tip and tie off the paracord to it. Cast half hitches at the guide locations and again tie it off at the butt. String a second line through the half hitches, next to the rod and pull on that one. Your simulated guides are the half hitches and again, are easily adjusted, and more or less half hitches are easily added or subtracted without any tip glue or guide wrapping. The half hitches act just like guides. It takes one person to do it all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2022 12:50PM by Gary Clevenger.

Gary,
I do exactly that - vs the CCS meathod.
But I use neoprene "O" rings to simulate guides.
I slide them forward and back as needed.
Herb

Regarding: "When I'm pulling hard on something, everything is dynamic not resting, . . ." Everything is dynamic if it's moving. If you are "pulling hard" on something and nothing is moving, it's static. Same as the power (ERN) test in CCS. If I am "pulling hard" up on a rod that has it's line attached to the bumper of my truck, and I'm unable to move the truck, it's static.

The instant you being loading a rod, even with a mere fraction of an ounce, you are pulling on the entire length of the rod. The tip will deflect first because action is progressive. Even fast action rods will bend into the butt area if you put enough load on them. The idea that if you are only pulling from the tip and then you are not putting any load on the rest of the blank or rod is 100% incorrect.

Beyond that, this point of this post escapes me.

........

Neither rod blank makers nor rod blank retailers provide rod blank deflection information to buyers. It's not clear why manufacturers and retailers do not provide any rod deflection information. Maybe rod blank makers consider rod blank deflection to be unimportant? At any rate, if you wish to know a particular rod blank's deflection information you will first have to buy or borrow that blank and test it for yourself to see if it satisfies your requirements. This could get expensive - and wasteful. But it sure sells a lot of rod blanks!

What do you mean by "rod blank deflection" information? Just what exactly does that entail?

.........

Tom--- rod blank deflection is in the column next to rod blank volume and next to that is rod blank movement. Seriously, Phil is just making up stuff now. Stuff for which there is no answer because there is no way to define or measure such silly terms. He's been cornered and is unable to define any of the dynamic measurements he talks about.

I personally never had to deal with rod performance disappointment , when I was younger I bought rods I could afford at the time and they performed admirably and got the job done but they were far from being able to perform on the level I wanted them to perform at . I couldn't afford the much lighter weight more responsive rods at that time . When I finally did purchase a much more advanced model I was thrilled to death it was literally a night and day difference to me. It changed the entire game overnight for me.


I never had to run any scientific tests to prove to myself or anybody else how much better it was either because It was as obvious as obvious gets. I rarely if ever see posts of severely disappointed anglers on this forum complaining about their rods lack of performance so I don't think it's an issue . I know Phil really really wants performance facts on individual blanks but that will never happen because it depends on so many other critical factors that I won't even get into because it would take forever .

What's odd to me is that Phil has stated in the past that he's perfectly happy with his personal rods performance and even named some of the blanks his builds are based on .

I want to wish Phil E an early happy birthday although it's still about two weeks away , love that guy despite the fact he could drive one over the edge lol.

"Rod blank deflection" usually refers to the distance which a specific weight, attached to the tip of a rod held in a horizontal position, deflects this tip from the horizontal. This is NOT a "performance fact", it's a physical fact - like length and weight - and just as important for comparative purposes. The amount of this deflection as a fraction of a rod's length reveals even more about the rod's physical behavior. If seeing this measurement upsets you try to ignore it. It won't add a cent to the cost of the blank.

Phil,

What you call "rod deflection" is one of those static measurement that you claim is of no use. It's also worthless. Cortland tried this years ago to rate rod power and ran into the issue of not being able to use the same weight for all rod types - the amount of weight required to deflect a surf rod in the least would blow up an ultra-light rod. So they had to use different weights for each type rod. So relative comparisons weren't possible.

The genius behind the CCS is measuring to a prescribed distance and then calculating the weight required to do it. Thus, relative comparisons between all rod types are possible.

..........