@MICHAEL I think using the same weight for a large number of blanks and taking pictures would be much less resource draining than adding and subtracting grams and measuring deflection distance repeatedly to get an accurate CCS report. Again, I doubt any rod manufacturer actually wants more informed consumers- most anglers buy multiple iterations of the spec rod searching for the 7ft MhF that suits them best and then a number of differenttechnique specific spec rods looking for goldilocks, companies that eliminate the guess work eliminate the opportunity for guess and check purchases.

Its certainly been a pleasure my man, I'm grateful for your time and input and your willingness to support this little community. Merry Christmas to you as well, hope you have a blessed Christmas and new year!

Ratings and measurements are only target specs for a particular model. The actual product will vary. We have all gotten rod blanks that list the blank as having a 5/64's tip and end up having to use 4.5 or a 5.5 and if quality control is lacking you may have to go further than that. No blank manufacturer is worried about some custom rod builder measuring a rod blank via the CCS and not getting the same numbers as the manufacturer lists. How many fishermen ever bother to measure their rods? And custom rod builders make up what??? 1% of their total market? A dozen guys arguing over ratings systems for rods and blanks on a custom rod building forum is not even on their radar. They don't care.

Norman, I always appreciate your balanced, expert, tactful, comments. But regarding correlation between the buyers' CCS measurements and those of the manufacturer, it's not an issue with the proposal since the buyer will only see the traditional subjective descriptors, "medium/fast" etc, and WILL NOT SEE ANY CCS DATA. And will not need to understand it or even know that CCS exists. CCS would be used by the manufacturers to better calibrate their subjective descriptors. The only result of this to a consumer would be that he would no longer receive surprises like when his "Medium/Fast" blank has less power than his "MediumLight/Fast" that he bought last year.

Regarding the reluctance to publish CCS because we builders will complain when we don't get the same number as the manufacturer specified, yes, that may be an issue. BUT NOT RELATING TO THIS PROPOSAL. I seem to remember a rep from the industry commenting exactly that point as to why they were reluctant to publish CCS. But he didn't profess that he didn't have the data, only that he was reluctant to share it. The data is there. And Rainshadow and Point Blank are seemingly OK with publishing it and dealing with whatever "side effects" the publication has. As did Pac Bay with Quickline. It may be a concern, but it doesn't seem to be a controlling one.

Mike, I doubt if I can convince you about blank power and action, but blanks do not vary much. Certainly not to put one significantly outside the numbers I've proposed. Right now I have a St Croix SCV 70MF that measures 16.9 ERN and is called medium power. I also have a Point Blank 701MF that's called medium light and measures 19.9 ERN. I also have an NFC DS6100 that is called medium power and measures 12.6 ERN. What I am proposing would bring some sense to these ratings and have the St Croix called ML, the Point Blank at the high end of ML, and the NFC called Light. If I had known the "medium power" DS 6100 would be that weak, I wouldn't have bought it. I already had two rods almost with the same power. We are not talking about tiptop diameters. If you think they vary that much in power, I will welcome your data to prove it. I have many blanks where I have measured them and corelated well with the data from the maker. Have I mentioned that the makers already have a lot of CCS data in hand?

Mike, whether one measures his rod or not, or whether the custom rod builders make up 2% or 20% or whatever % doesn't matter. Measurement by the consumer is NOT REQUIRED AND IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. The aim of the proposal and the only result of it, with no measurement by anyone in the consumer field is that they no longer will be surprised by the inaccurate subjective rating of their purchase.

A subjective rating cannot be inaccurate. Give it some thought...

Yes it can. If the subjective "medium" power has less power than the subjective "light" power, it is inaccurate.

You'll know it when the rod cannot cast the same weight as the "light" can cast, when it has less capability to pull a fish out of the weeds.

Just because a descriptor is "subjective" does not mean it is meaningless in its potential value to describe something. Give it some thought.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

First let me apologize for the really bad writing in my first post. Writing when I am under the weather is a really bad idea. I feel like most who read it got my meaning, but as I re-read it now. Wow is it bad.

My knowledge of CCS is very limited, so I will not try to presume a position on that subject. The point I was trying to make and I believe some got that was standards in general. Replacing opinion based objectivity with math and measurable data. Based on the responses, it appears that is partly what the CCS is designed to do. I wasn't aware that it is and can be used across all rod bank types, but with regards to any measurement. It does have to be an agreed upon standard and even how the measuring is performed will need to be taken into account to insure repeatability. I know this may seem arbitrary, but human interaction and even procedure can have a significant impact on measurement.

Now again, my knowledge of CCS is limited and I haven't had time to read up on it, so please permit me a little ignorance here while still trying to prove the point of the standard.
There are going to be several variables that will effect the measuring of the blank and then assigning it it's designated CCS value.

Diameter at the base and at the tip, thickness of the blank itself, length of the blank, and then the protocol of how the blank will be tested.
Do you place the blank inside a holder at the very back of the blank held at lets say 4 inches or do you measure the blank from what is considered to be the most likely place for the reel seat.
In addition, what size weight are you holding from the end of the blank that provides your calculated measured value. Believe it or not, the distribution of the weighted suspended from the blank has a lot to do based on where you are holding the blank and believe it or not. Even the reel seat and handle.
One you have added grips and reel seats. Depending on the type and how you have attached these components. You've changed the distribution of the weight upon the blank. Which could show a difference in power and action. Now for a rod that is designated as say a heavy rod. Because of the size and diameter of the blank. It may not cause much of an impact, but with an ultra light rod that has a very smaller diameter. The bend/bow of the blank may very significantly just based simply on were you are holding the blank and again. Adding grips and real seats will help improve the integrity of the blank and could show a different rating simply based on far up or down the reel seat and handles are mounted.

This is why a consistent standard of measurement has to be used, applied, and then confirmed that the established standard is followed. If 3 manufactures have a different standard as to what they define as say and ultra light rod and then to measure the action or power of the rod with 3 different weights. Aka a 30 lb, 35 lb, and 25 lb. Then you are not going to establish a consistent standard. Instead you have what you have now. Several different manufactures who call a particular blank as being say, a medium heavy with a fast action, but once you unbox it and perform your own test on the rod blank using what is your consistent form of measurement. You might describe the rod as say a medium power with moderate action or perhaps its a medium light to you with an extra fast action.

I think an agreed upon standard, rather that be CCS or some other standard would be a very beneficial system for the industry as a whole. I know it may seem like it speaks more to the custom rod builder than it does for say high production rod manufactures, but I can almost guarantee these companies get blanks from several sources to make sure they have the blanks they need to manufacture and sell. If a standard improves customer perception and reduces rod failures that leads to bad customer reviews. I'm sure they will jump right on it. Bad reviews of ones product can spread like a virus and can sink a companies product before it even gets off the ground.

Tony,

The CCS has very clear measurement constants. This includes the forward support (10% of total blank length) and the distance to deflect (a distance equal to 1/3rd of the blank's overall length).

The CCS is not at all haphazard and any discrepancy in measurements can only be due to the person taking the measurements. This would be true whether we're talking about the CCS or a tape measure.

Having said all this, there will never be an agreed upon industry standard. I know just about everybody in the industry. I talk to them on a regular basis and have for over two and half decades. They don't want such a thing.

........

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes it can. If the subjective "medium" power has
> less power than the subjective "light" power, it
> is inaccurate.
>
> You'll know it when the rod cannot cast the same
> weight as the "light" can cast, when it has less
> capability to pull a fish out of the weeds.
>
> Just because a descriptor is "subjective" does not
> mean it is meaningless in its potential value to
> describe something. Give it some thought.


Incorrect. No company offers a "medium" power with less power than it's "light" power. You only find that if you go across the aisle and compare one company to another. Each company has its own rating system so their respective subjective ratings are correct. "Medium" is not an across the board rating from one company to another. A Lami 4 power will always be less powerful than its 5 power. A St. Croix ML will always have less power than their MH. There is no subjective across the board rating system.

So I call a mile a "long" distance. You call it a "short" distance. Which one of us is wrong???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2022 07:55PM by Mike Ballard.

At this point I need all blank makers to think as I think! Problem solved! Merry Christmas!

There are some differences with power ratings within the same brand. In many cases a medium power labeled casting rod will almost always be more powerful than a medium power labeled spinning rod. In addition, a medium power inshore rod may be more powerful than a medium power freshwater rod. It would be nice to know what these differences are for comparative purposes.
Norm

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Danek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes it can. If the subjective "medium" power
> has
> > less power than the subjective "light" power,
> it
> > is inaccurate.
> >
> > You'll know it when the rod cannot cast the
> same
> > weight as the "light" can cast, when it has
> less
> > capability to pull a fish out of the weeds.
> >
> > Just because a descriptor is "subjective" does
> not
> > mean it is meaningless in its potential value
> to
> > describe something. Give it some thought.
>
>
> Incorrect. No company offers a "medium" power with
> less power than it's "light" power. You only find
> that if you go across the aisle and compare one
> company to another. Each company has its own
> rating system so their respective subjective
> ratings are correct. "Medium" is not an across the
> board rating from one company to another. A Lami 4
> power will always be less powerful than its 5
> power. A St. Croix ML will always have less power
> than their MH. There is no subjective across the
> board rating system.
>
> So I call a mile a "long" distance. You call it a
> "short" distance. Which one of us is wrong???
NFC sure seems to have these inconsistencies i.e. xray SJ703 ML and the SJ732 L. From some reading on here it sounds like theres a few other examples of this throughout their lineup too.

and just so no one thinks im picking on anyone Ill also mention the eternity rx10 where ya have 2 different MXF blanks with less power than both their MLF blanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2022 09:49PM by Matt Ruggie.

Regarding: "Incorrect. No company offers a "medium" power with less power than it's "light" power. You only find that if you go across the aisle and compare one company to another"

If the inconsistencies only occur between different brands, then explain these data to me, all from one manufacturer, their data, not mine: Description first, then ERN then AA

A Ultra-light, Moderate 13.88 80.3
B Ultra-light, Fast 5.46 29.8
C Mag-light, ExFast 25.92 60.8
D Medium-moderate 19.47 82
E Medium-fast 16.6 68
F Medium-moderate 15.93 73.3

Moderate actions from 73.3 to 80.3, fast actions from 29.8 to 68, with an ExFast at 60.8
Ultra-light powers from 5.46 to 13.88, medium powers from 15.93 to 19.47. I can add a medium power from my data, 12.6. So my medium power has less power than the Ultra-light.

Matte, I am aware of the inconsistency with the RX10's, but that is not a problem with the CCS values; it is a problem with the subjective descriptions. Exactly the problem that the proposal is intended to solve. But at least Rainshadow provides the objective data.

Lynn's point is that we have gone about as far as we can go, and I agree. I'll drop out unless more obviously untrue statements need correcting. Interesting that no one has taken exception to my original number recommendations. Thanks to those who have provided open-minded constructive comments.

In closing, wouldn't it be nice if we knew when we order the blank what the approximate power and action will be? Like with Point Blank and RX10.

Mike and Norman- You went cross category. Most every fisherman knows that almost every company uses a different scale for power in something like bass rods and something like inshore rods or other saltwater. Yes a heavy power bass rod will be less powerful than a light power saltwater rod. But in any particular category from the same company you will not find a medium power rod than has less power than a light power rod. And I would bet that 90% of all fishing rods are sold off the shelf not by order. Most fishermen do not even read the product ratings they just pick it up, shake it and bend it until they find the one that they like. They make up 99% of the buying public for rods. I said earlier than custom rod builders make up maybe 1% of the total market. I think I was probably wrong there. It would be more like 1/10th of 1%. If you expect major rod and blank makers to adopt some sort of new system to satisfy a small handful of custom rod builders who are already in the smallest portion of the market then you really do not see the bigger picture. Nice try and good to hope for but I doubt they are going to fix what they do not feel is broken.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2022 08:26AM by Mike Ballard.

4 examples from Rainshadow. All from the RX 10 line up of blanks.The numbers were provided by Batson Enterprise. Rainshadow designates the RX10 line up as being "bass/ freshwater" blanks. The ETES designates these blanks as spinning rod blanks. Were they casting blanks it would read ETEC.

ETES68ML-SS 6'8" 1 6-12lb 1/8-3/8oz. 0.480 4.5 Fast ML 1.400 312

ETES68MXF-SS 6'8" 1 6-14lb. 3/6-1/2oz. 0.466 4.5 Xtra-Fast M 1.450 245

ETES610MXF-S 6'10" 1 6-14lb. 3/6-1/2oz. 0.466 4.5 Xtra-Fast M 1.280 272

ETES72ML-SS 7'2" 1 6-12lb 1/8-3/8oz. 0.487 4.5 Fast ML 1.770 343

Per the power and action designations they appear fine and in acceptable range to me. But I do not understand what those numbers at the end of the lines are.

Mick D,
Im agreeing with ya on that. yes its a subjective description problem not a ccs value issue. And what your suggesting makes absolute sense cause i think we all do this in our heads already anyway. I know i always do. I see a blank at XXX IP and that number clicks in my brain as a ML, L, or whatever. same with action. i see that number and say to myself ok that blanks on the slow side of fast or man thats a slow action blank with that low of an AA. Unfortunately i agree with those that have said it will never be implemented cause at the end of the day manufacturers just dont care, its not gonna make the higher profits, and could open them up to more complaints.

MikeB
there sure are at least a few examples of blanks from same manufacturer, in the same category (within the SJ category, also within the MB category, and also within the Spinning category)where you see blanks labeled L being more powerful than blanks labeled ML and blanks labled M being less powerful than the blanks labled ML. Its not the norm but it does happen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2022 11:58AM by Matt Ruggie.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Per the power and action designations they appear
> fine and in acceptable range to me. But I do not
> understand what those numbers at the end of the
> lines are.

its the IP and its one of the examples i touched on up top. thx david for posting.

double post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2022 10:59AM by Matt Ruggie.

". . . action designations they appear fine"

You have a moderate action with an AA of 80.3 and a fast at less than 30 and you think everything is fine? You have an extra light with more power than a medium (which you said could not happen within one maker's inventory) and you think everything is fine? Unbelievable.

Thanks, Matte.

Matt Ruggie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> MikeB
> there sure are at least a few examples of
> blanks from same manufacturer, in the same
> category(SJ,MB,Spinning) where you see blanks
> labeled L being more powerful than blanks labeled
> ML and blanks labled M being less powerful than
> the blanks labled ML. Its not the norm but it does
> happen.

You have three different categories there, SJ, MB and Spinning. That is my point. You can't go cross category.

I am not familiar with numbers like that from the CCS. Are those blank weights? Butt and tip diameters? in any event the system Batson uses may figure power at a different point than the CCS does. That does not make his numbers wrong.