Because you are an "extremely competent" caster you can handle a line that light.

Still not willing to comment on the derivation of/reason for ERN as opposed to just leaving it with IP?

I stand corrected, I've been cleaning and dressing and packing lines (off and on between cups of coffee) since 6 am, it's one of those days. Teeny, SA, Cortland, Royal Wulffe, and Rio Skagit and Mid Spey. SA has had good bonefish tapers for a good long time, this to me just seems like an improvement and it isn't a bit fussy about which of my 8 wt. rods I put it on. Only have just enough Zipcast left for 2-3 lines, what is everyone using now?

Weight is a poor way of expressing power to the consumer. Dr. Hanneman knew this and we talked about it many times. He did not feel that fishermen were stupid but did understand that it would require additional information instead of being more intuitive. Dr. Bill got a lot of flack for making things more simple, but this was in fact his real genius.

Out of respect for Dr. Hanneman and the system as he designed it I will continue to use the terms as he specified. Others can use whatever terms they wish. It would be nice if they would coin a different name for their system but no one has control over that sort of thing. The authentic CCS uses AA for action and ERN for power. Otherwise, the argument is just plain silly. Do or use whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you.

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

Tom, with all due respect, we have not been asking to change the terms of CCS. We have only been asking for your comments on the derivation of ERN , why it was done , and how Dr. Hanneman came up with the correction he did. It would help us understand and respect the system. You are probably the only person who knows.

I don't know what the reluctance is all about.

I have proposed my conclusion, and without further comment from you, I'll just assume I'm correct.

Your comment of the "authentic CCS uses AA for action and ERN for power. . ." ignores the fact that Dr. Hanneman used both ERN and IP when talking about rod power. An example:

"In order to objectively recommend the proper line for any
rod you build, you must know the intrinsic power (IP) of
that rod, the type of line (floating or sinking), and the
length of line to be aerialized. "

He did not say ". . . you must know the ERN of that rod. . . "



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2022 04:59PM by Michael Danek.

Dr. Hanneman said that IP would be expressed in the CCS as ERN. Why he used the terms he did is beyond me. I never liked them, but those were his terms and they have been published and in print for nearly 20 years. ERN is just a relative power figure. The higher the number the greater the power. That's all there is to it. Not hard to understand, which was his point in using it that way.

..........

I must have been right.