Whatever one wishes to call it, All CCS values are derived from a specific amount of weight attached to the tip of a blank or rod to deflect it by 33% of its length. That specific amount of weight (be it pennies minted after 1996, lead, meadow muffins or whatever) is the IP of the blank / rod. With weight being used, what else to call it other than weighing the defection of the blank?
Who dictates that CCS be implemented “as is”? It is well accepted that Dr. Hannerman’s brilliance produced a method to measure IP and AA. That is where well (precise) enough should have been left alone. The Dr. devised a formula and chart to convert IP to ERN to satisfy the fly industry. But the fishing world does NOT revolve around, but rather simply includes, fly fishing. What about spin and cast fishing? So, another formula and chart was developed to convert ERN to lure weight. As if the purity and precision of IP was not diluted enough in ERN calculations, by the time it is converted into lure weight, the precision has been diluted even further. Additionally, all those conversions and charts are confusing and require time to compute. That is where the greatest confusion exists, not simplifying things by using IP rather than ERN. By leaving the current labeling intact and including IP and AA labeling, everyone has what they need! NO CONFUSION, ONLY COMPROMISE.
I see absolutely nothing “silly” about this movement and apparently neither do the handful of blank manufacturers who have started including CCS values on their products. It comes as no surprise to learn that most use IP rather than ERN. Again, I applaud their efforts and will certainly inspect and consider their products before those who refrain.
And so the pathetic saga will apparently continue, although it doesn’t really surprise me, as unfortunate as it may be. Too many people unwilling to compromise for the good of all. Too many people who cannot see the forest through the trees. Happy rod building (guessing).

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

So now you have the CCS, a modified CCS, the RDA and the PPR. Not confusing at all. Can't miss. Good luck.

Mark,

The CCS cannot and does not distinguish between fly rods and casting and spinning rods. They're all the same thing. ERN has never been converted to lure casting weights. It's just a relative power number for any and all rod blanks. Fly rod blanks are made the same way that casting and spinning rod blanks are. They are not in any way different. All the articles were done about the same time. Because of their total length, I ran the fly rod portion first. Had I run the stuff on other rod types first maybe this confusion wouldn't exist. The system is the same for all rod types. The process, the measurement constants and terminology are the same for all rod types. A rod is a rod is a rod.

I developed the lure weight casting range for the CCS. I did not take it from ERN or IP which would be impossible. I started with the process outlined in the CCS Big Picture in order to measure tip power over a specific section or length, not the entire rod blank. From there I devised a formula to do it. It works OK, but only in the lower casting lure weight ranges.

Dr. Hanneman did NOT devise a chart to "satisfy the fly industry." The fly industry never had any interest in the CCS and even the very first Rosetta Stone chart goes far higher than any fly line weight. The basis of the CCS system was the use of US cents, something everybody had on hand which you counted and matched to the chart for the ERN figure. No converting. No weighing anything. Although you can certainly do that if you prefer. In the authentic CCS, AA represents action and ERN represents power.

I knew Dr. Hanneman very, very well. We spoke weekly for nearly two decades. He gave live seminars on the CCS at the Expo two years running. I helped him develop certain aspects of the CCS. Much of what you are stating in these threads is simply not true.

As far as not being able to "see the forest for the trees" my accomplishments in the rod building industry over these past 25+ years strongly indicate otherwise.

.........



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2022 03:04AM by Tom Kirkman.

Micheal, the reason I'm in it, is because I am a craftsman! I knew I could do it better than a commercial product. I really enjoy learning and applying new skills, however it is not an economic pursuit! I have built rods for client all over the world, but not for a living. I don't work cheap, and I build quality fly rods, that I think out perform what one can get of the shelf.

And, do you really believe that the manufactures "mostly already know the CCS values"/ I think that is a strech..

I don't want to have a debate with you about this issue. I admire your initiative, but, also clearly see the hurdles that it faces, and only tried to expose them to the forum.

Also, keep in mind the the USA is not the only market for rods and blanks, how big do you believe the off shore market is for rod builders?

Regarding: "So now you have the CCS, a modified CCS, the RDA and the PPR. Not confusing at all. Can't miss. Good luck."

The proposal only requires that the subjective descriptors be within a certain range of ERN's/IP's, not that anything more than is on the label today has to be put on the label. The only thing that will really change is that you will never get a medium-light with more power than a medium again. You will never get a blank labeled "Extra fast" with an AA of 55 again.

Phil, I have asked manufacturers for CCS data and in some cases they had it. One time they had to run it but did, and expressed no surprise that I wanted it and the discussion indicated they were very familiar with CCS. CCS is not a stranger to them. I have a data sheet from a big manufacturer that has dozens of blanks on it, all with CCS data. I don't think NFC would have developed that wonderful "CCS-Universal Rod Rating System" chart if they didn't use CCS.

Yes, this initiative has hurdles and the chance of success is as I admitted before, slim. But some good will come of it. There just might be a rod or blank maker that sees the marketing potential and tries it. And since this string is getting some pretty high numbers, almost 600 views in 3 days, I believe that many builders will increase their blank knowledge. I also expect those who have been getting surprises, like a medium power blank with an ERN of 12.6 to get more assertive towards the misleading descriptions that are pretty common now.

600 views, not 600 people. Big big difference.

Even if its big big big, it could have some influence. But I hope you got the major point of my post, that if the proposal were to be implemented it would not be too complicated and would do some good. Even if one didn't understand it. They would be getting what they intended to get. That would be big big, too.

Who have you submitted this proposal to?

I have only shown it here. I was hoping to get comments on the numbers proposed. Since no one has objected, it must mean my selections were pretty good.

Either that or it could be that few have read it and those that have do not have any pull in the industry. I guess you will know shortly.

Of all the people here, I am probably the least educated to make a direct opinion on this, but based on the industry I work in that provides my living income. I believe what is being suggested would be extremely beneficial for everybody across the board, but the cost and perhaps increase in price could have some significant impact.

My industry is all about calculations and precision with regards to measurement. Rather that be pressure, weight, volume, flow, and so and so forth. Having a set ISO standard can be very beneficial, but can also be very expensive. Because it is more than just coming up with the standard, but making sure that standard is followed. For the every day person, saying for instance I have a calibrated tape measure may seem absurd, but it is a very large part of measuring standards. It have it as part of my job for comparison to insure accuracy. There are rulers and measuring devices made in many different ways and from many different materials. Over time, based on use of those tools and even the material they are made from, they can experience what we call drift. For instance a ruler used to wrap around somebody to measure say there waist line. The material this type of ruler is made of can experience stretch or even shrinkage if exposed to the right conditions or in hows its used. Overtime, you might be measuring 2 inches, but it is actually 2.2 inches or 1.96 inches depending on which side the drift has occurred. The point being, that overtime, I bring it what is call a standard to compare it against to make sure the device providing the measurement is measuring correctly.

Having such a standard could be very beneficial to rod blank identification, but in order to remove objectivity and maintain accuracy. The standard would have to be established and then made sure it is being followed and maintained. Now because there are so many different types of measure, we don't use the same standard an all items, but the process of have standard and then being compared to that standard is.

If CCS is good for Spinning and Casting Rods, then use it for that and only that. Then come up with a different standard for Fly Rods or Offshore Rods. But regardless of any standard, if it is not checked and maintained. The purpose of having the standard is pointless. For all intensive purposed, is objective as one saying this blank is more sensitive that this blank.

Now this might be a bridge to far. Admittedly, 90% of my industry and the reason for it's precision is for the health and wellness of our society. Because an improper measure can mean the different of life and death. I don't believe Rod Blanks is to the caliber of importance, but anytime you can remove objectivity for the purpose of proven accuracy is a good thing.

Tony, fly rods already have an objective standard for rating power. Fly rods are all set. There is no change for fly rods in the proposal. CCS is the basis for the current objective standards for fly rods. ERN/ELN, etc. Read the material here if you want: [www.common-cents.info]

As I've stated, manufacturers do CCS testing now. Not on all blanks, but on many. It's not reinventing the wheel. And it is not about sensitivity. It's only about power and action.

All this does is propose a set of numbers that set the range of CCS values for the now commonly used subjective standards. So that no more would medium light powerd blanks be more powerful than medium powered blanks. Which happens all the time now.

It would not be expensive to implement on a limited line of blanks to see if the value exceeds the minimal cost.

You have your terms backwards. It is not removing objectivity; it is providing objectivity.

Tony,

The CCS makes no distinction between fly, spinning or casting rods. They are all tubular shafts. Saying that they have to be measured differently for action and power is like saying that you can use a tape measure to get the length of a fly rod, but you have to use some other instrument of measure for casting and spinning rods. The same measurement constants, figures and terms work for all rod types. Remember, the CCS doesn't measure rods - it measures relative action and power. These are inherent characteristics of all tapered tubular shafts - i.e. fishing rods.

.........

I wonder if the Rod manufacturers are concerned about repeatability of the CCS numbers, or how close will the variations be? You start with the roll of fabric that you depend on its maker to keep it within a standard, you lay down the pattern(s) and cut the fabric then you take multiple pieces of cut fabric all in different sizes and shapes and using a hot iron (at least that what they used to use) and tack these different pieces to a mandrel in correct places on this mandrel and in relation to each other out onto an extremely thin diameter tip end. Then you take these mandrels over to what looks similar to an old laundry steam press and actuate it for each mandrel where it rolls the fabric onto the mandrel. Then each newly rolled mandrel is taken to another machine that rolls a narrow band of cellophane tape up over each to hold it all together. Then each is hung in very tall oven and is baked at a prescribed temp for a prescribed length of time then left to cool before the newly formed tapered tube is now removed. Now at this point epoxy has oozed out and form ridges on the surface of the blank. Now you remove the tape and some sand the ridges down and some leave the ridges which spiral up the blank at a spacing that follows how the tape was wound on the blank. Then you have the final step where they are trimmed to length. During all this, there are slight variations. Remember the past post that was very heated where it was about the curvature of a blank. Not all come out of the oven with the curvature or equal curvature which tells me that they are not all IDENTICAL, so now the manufacturer sends out the blank with the data from the test run and the follow on blanks might deviate from that because of slight variations and people start complaining or being concerned thinking their blank isn't as good as another of the same model and we have the "curved blank" discussion all over again. Maybe the manufacturers don't want to deal with that?

Kerry, this aspect of the proposal could be an issue, but we've seen very few cases on this forum of people who didn't know how to nicely work out problems. According to the administrators, banning from the forum has been rare. But it's a valid concern that blank builders will consider.

As far as the blank building process goes, I think it is a lot more precise in repeatability than you apparently do. The cutting process is precise, the materials used are highly controlled, the temperatures and pressures I presume are tightly controlled, and the mandrels from blank to blank don't change. My experience with power and action measurements correlate quite well with the blank makers who publish, even back to the days of the Quicklines by Pac Bay. Blank weights don't vary much , indicating that the amount of materials used and the density of the materials are pretty constant.

And finally, with a pretty broad range of objective numbers for each subjective descriptor, there is quite a bit of room.

I've seen industry leaders claim that a significant number of blanks are sent out as finished with a range of acceptable bends and crooks in them and that most aren't straight -I imagine that alone would impact the CCS data (measuring against the bend or with the bend or perfectly spined or not) enough for companies to struggle with consistency in testing results and as Kerry said likely lead to more customer complaints.

Even something as simple as an image of their line of medium fast rods/blanks all with 12 oz on them and all their medium heavy fast rods/blanks with 20 oz on them (or whatever weight is determined) would be helpful. Im sure it could be dialed in even more to eliminate variables and increase understanding and perspective, but if there's resistance to CCS even just having accurate consistent scientific images would be beneficial when buying a blank/rod.

El, The bends you are talking about will not affect the CCS data. I think that string of posts significantly mis-represented how straight blanks usually are. I have never returned a blank due to its being not straight enough, and I'm pretty critical about that.

I think the images you are talking about are about what NFC does. In my opinion they are nowhere near as good at describing a blank as CCS is.

Resistance to CCS by the consumer is not an issue with the proposal since the blank/rod makers would use it to describe their blanks with one of the traditional descriiptors, like Medium Power/Fast Action, but would not need to use CCS numbers at all in their sales material. The proposal is only about getting better accuracy in the current subjective descriptors.

I wasn't referring to those images, because they are very little help because they don't offer any way to actually compare the blanks. Random weights, awkward angle, even within models with same specs just different material they used different weights - what I suggested was a company use something like the scientific method for helping people see the difference between rods or blanks.

Similar to the helpful info CCS could bring, maybe more so more quickly, us if lews or any other company had pics across all lines with the same weight on similarly spec'ed rods to give a reference of power but more so action. We could see 20 in on a CB rod called MHMF and a jig rod called MHMF and see the difference in action and somewhat power - not with data like CCS but I could immediately and readily make purchases based on images that make sense. I cannot do that shopping for blanks right now, or rods. If MHX or Rainshadow had those sort of images it would very likely lead to many more return customers who could try new blanks with at least a foundational framework to compare them with.

People who build a lot seem to have go to blanks for certain builds, they'd be more likely to try the "other guy's blanks" if they could trust a reference for the specs by data or images.

I'm with you Michael, we need more accurate and meaningful ways to describe power and action - I was just saying the quick and easy and still very helpful way is pics that actually eliminate variable ls no matter who does it.

Might work, El. But it seems like a much bigger step than my original proposal. And many are having a lot of trouble with it. The advantage of the original proposal to me is that it doesn't have to introduce anything new to the customer; it just improves the accuracy of what he is used to seeing. Have a great Christmas, El. It's been nice "getting to know you."

I agree with Kerry about the variability in CCS measurements between blanks due to their production method. Although this variability may be small it’s still there. In addition to production variability there is also measuring variability dependent on who’s doing the measuring. Thus, there will always be some variability in obtaining CCS numbers. In my opinion, this variability may be another reason why some blank manufacturers don’t use CCS data to describe their blanks. It is quite possible that some people will complain when they don’t get the exact same manufacturer’s CCS numbers when they do the measurements themselves. Just opens up a can of worms for the manufacturers, so they just stick to the traditional power and action descriptions. I can’t blame them, it works and they sell a lot of rods. For the most part the only people who are interested in CCS data are rod builders, and most of them couldn’t care less.
Norm